Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Changing Other Poster's Replies (Read 3510 times)
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16711
Gender: male
Re: Changing Other Poster's Replies
Reply #45 - Feb 24th, 2018 at 11:07pm
 
I want the moderators' feedback on this.

Here is the relevant part of my post (irrelevant context in a long post has been deleted for the sake of brevity):

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 5:30pm:
[snip]
Your habit of selectively quote parts of posts and deleting questions you find inconvenient is proof enough that you refuse to discuss inconvenient topics:

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 8:24am:
Tell me again which is the only major party opposing a Federal anti-corruption commission?


What's the matter, Liberal fanboi, don't like having the Liberals' corruption exposed to scrutiny?
[snip]


Here is what was quoted in lee's response - again, irrelevant context deleted:

lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 6:09pm:
[snip]
Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 5:30pm:
Your habit of selectively quote parts of posts


If they are the only part of a post I disagree with; why  paste it all?

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 5:30pm:
What's the matter, Liberal fanboi, don't like having the Liberals' corruption exposed to scrutiny?

[snip]


As can be seen here, lee has chosen to delete parts of sentences and has altered substantially the meaning of the original text before responding. This is not an accident; he has done it before.

What are the moderators' views on this kind of posting conduct?
Back to top
 

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Peace \/ man

Posts: 15969
Northern NSW
Re: Changing Other Poster's Replies
Reply #46 - Mar 2nd, 2018 at 1:06am
 
Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 11:07pm:
I want the moderators' feedback on this.

Here is the relevant part of my post (irrelevant context in a long post has been deleted for the sake of brevity):

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 5:30pm:
[snip]
Your habit of selectively quote parts of posts and deleting questions you find inconvenient is proof enough that you refuse to discuss inconvenient topics:

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 8:24am:
Tell me again which is the only major party opposing a Federal anti-corruption commission?


What's the matter, Liberal fanboi, don't like having the Liberals' corruption exposed to scrutiny?
[snip]


Here is what was quoted in lee's response - again, irrelevant context deleted:

lee wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 6:09pm:
[snip]
Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 5:30pm:
Your habit of selectively quote parts of posts


If they are the only part of a post I disagree with; why  paste it all?

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 5:30pm:
What's the matter, Liberal fanboi, don't like having the Liberals' corruption exposed to scrutiny?

[snip]


As can be seen here, lee has chosen to delete parts of sentences and has altered substantially the meaning of the original text before responding. This is not an accident; he has done it before.

What are the moderators' views on this kind of posting conduct?


I think it's been made clear Bam. Don't change sentences, if that has been the case, post "this is what it was" and "this is what it is now" and send it to a mod with a link to the posts. I have no inclination to decipher your post above.

Back to top
 

nu ninda an ezzateni watar ma ekuteni
 
IP Logged
 
Panther
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In un mondo di ciechi
un orbo č re.

Posts: 6934
Gender: male
Re: Changing Other Poster's Replies
Reply #47 - Jul 7th, 2018 at 9:32pm
 
Setanta wrote on Feb 9th, 2018 at 10:07pm:
Black Orchid wrote on Feb 9th, 2018 at 3:33pm:
I have seen people disingenuously say they use the strike through form of censorship to just highlight what they wish to respond to yet they strike through whole posts and make no comment in response.   Just a quote of a post which is all struck through.    Which makes this a lie.

The only reason to use the strike through form of censorship is to try to negate, demean and diminish another poster's thoughts and words and I cannot see how this is a positive thing.

Nor can I see why it is condoned and/or encouraged.   It is not a form of discussion as all it serves to do is stop discussion dead in its tracks and sideline in to disruption and derailment of threads.

It's a totally ignorant and negative thing.


It's either that or they will be editing your posts to misrepresent.
The point of it being that the reader can see what was originally posted, they can make up their minds about the way/reason a person edits the post. Rather than complaining, people should be happy their words are still there to be read by other posters
and their words are not changed to misrepresent what they said. In an ideal world this would not be necessary but we have some posters that just love to misrepresent others they disagree with rather than have a rational discussion.



@
Setanta
    
I wholeheartedly agree.......
  Wink

(Would the above quoting technique be acceptable, making the part I am agreeing to stand out amongst the "other" text, while leaving the "other" text there to be readable & interpreted by subsequent readers?

Is that in the spirit of your posts)

PS.....I hope you concur, that this technique can also be used, because I cant get my head around using the strike-through, for IMHO it shows complete disdain for the original poster, & extremely disrespectful when used like GrPecca does. I know I'm not alone in that opinion.

Whatever.......I will comply to whatever is acceptable to yourself & the powers that be, as I wish to remain in good standing.


..

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 7th, 2018 at 10:10pm by Panther »  

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
  .. G. Orwell
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Peace \/ man

Posts: 15969
Northern NSW
Re: Changing Other Poster's Replies
Reply #48 - Jul 8th, 2018 at 9:53pm
 
Panther wrote on Jul 7th, 2018 at 9:32pm:
Setanta wrote on Feb 9th, 2018 at 10:07pm:
Black Orchid wrote on Feb 9th, 2018 at 3:33pm:
I have seen people disingenuously say they use the strike through form of censorship to just highlight what they wish to respond to yet they strike through whole posts and make no comment in response.   Just a quote of a post which is all struck through.    Which makes this a lie.

The only reason to use the strike through form of censorship is to try to negate, demean and diminish another poster's thoughts and words and I cannot see how this is a positive thing.

Nor can I see why it is condoned and/or encouraged.   It is not a form of discussion as all it serves to do is stop discussion dead in its tracks and sideline in to disruption and derailment of threads.

It's a totally ignorant and negative thing.


It's either that or they will be editing your posts to misrepresent.
The point of it being that the reader can see what was originally posted, they can make up their minds about the way/reason a person edits the post. Rather than complaining, people should be happy their words are still there to be read by other posters
and their words are not changed to misrepresent what they said. In an ideal world this would not be necessary but we have some posters that just love to misrepresent others they disagree with rather than have a rational discussion.



@
Setanta
    
I wholeheartedly agree.......
  Wink

(Would the above quoting technique be acceptable, making the part I am agreeing to stand out amongst the "other" text, while leaving the "other" text there to be readable & interpreted by subsequent readers?

Is that in the spirit of your posts)

PS.....I hope you concur, that this technique can also be used, because I cant get my head around using the strike-through, for IMHO it shows complete disdain for the original poster, & extremely disrespectful when used like GrPecca does. I know I'm not alone in that opinion.

Whatever.......I will comply to whatever is acceptable to yourself & the powers that be, as I wish to remain in good standing.


..



Of course if no text was changed or words omitted from sentences.
Back to top
 

nu ninda an ezzateni watar ma ekuteni
 
IP Logged
 
juliar
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 15820
Re: Changing Other Poster's Replies
Reply #49 - Jul 17th, 2018 at 11:38am
 
It just encourages the well known trolls who because they think defacing and defiling another poster's post by crossing out is a "clever" rather small minded childish way of trying to put down and annoy the other poster.

It is blatantly illegal as it illegally misquotes the other poster as the illegal defaced defiled post clearly says the previous poster posted this which they did not.

Doing the same thing to the trolls just inflames them to repeat their recidivist deliberately disruptive illegal behavior as they see it as a way of becoming the center of attention.

A troll is really a child's mind in an adult body.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 17th, 2018 at 10:25pm by juliar »  
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16523
Gender: male
Re: Changing Other Poster's Replies
Reply #50 - Yesterday at 6:11pm
 
Re: 50%+ Aussies Want Republic
Reply #72 - Today at 4:06pm Quote
lee wrote Today at 4:05pm:
HMM.i think there is something about modifying people's posts. About it being forbidden. But I could be wrong.


Well, with Set gone, there's no one to enforce this rule, so I guess it's permissible then.

I did this to FD yesterday and nothing happened, so I'm going to interpret inaction as permissiveness.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 42191
Gender: male
Re: Changing Other Poster's Replies
Reply #51 - Yesterday at 6:20pm
 
lee wrote Yesterday at 6:11pm:
Re: 50%+ Aussies Want Republic
Reply #72 - Today at 4:06pm Quote
lee wrote Today at 4:05pm:
HMM.i think there is something about modifying people's posts. About it being forbidden. But I could be wrong.


Well, with Set gone, there's no one to enforce this rule, so I guess it's permissible then.

I did this to FD yesterday and nothing happened, so I'm going to interpret inaction as permissiveness.


Yes, that did breach the protocols as we knew them.....but FD has not replaced Setanta and Vic is very sporadic.  It does not help that he also uses the PM block facility so he cannot be made aware of issues.

Que sera sera.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs. ~ A Member
A Member ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
A Member ~ I know if he had touched my kid he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print