Uninsured Father Dies of Toothache

[Seth]

RAH RAHH RAHH RAH RAAAAAHHG!!!!

EVERYONE MUST ALWAYS DO THINGS MY WAY!!!!

See, that's exactly what I mean.

Well come on, Seth, think about what you're saying.

First of all people have been "fixing" quotes in forums ever since quotes were an option.

Secondly, your desire not to be misquoted isn't going to trump everyone else's freedom of speech.

It should, in a forum dedicated to "rationality."

Are you seriously saying I shouldn't be allowed to type:

Code: Select all

[quote="Seth"][/quote]

- in my post?

What about this?:

My name is also Seth, and I hate being misquoted so much that I'm going to go all authoritarian!

What if I don't type the quote tags correctly?

RAHH RAH RAAAAAHHG!!!!

Is that still a problem?

There's a significant distinction between an accidental quote tag mixup and a deliberate elision and retyping of what someone wrote in a manner that leaves the appearance that the original author wrote something that they did not in fact write.

If you go down that route, where do you draw the line?

At deliberately and maliciously fabricating a false quote and attributing it to another member without making it perfectly clear that the statement is not actually a direct quote but rather is a revision by the second author.

Am I not even allowed to interpret what you say in my own words? Discussions would never go anywhere.

So long as you make it clear that it's your interpretation, I have absolutely no problem at all with doing so. That's not the case here, where Schniebster took what I actually wrote, erased it and replaced it with something he wrote and falsely attributed what he wrote to me. That's simply wrong, and if it's allowed, I fucking guarantee that I will take advantage of that "loophole" to re-write and falsely attribute lots and lots of stuff just as a protest.

There is no excuse for making that sort of deliberate and blatantly false misrepresentation. "Interpreting" what someone writes and restating it in your own words is not at all the same thing, and it's perfectly legitimate, so long as it's clear that YOU wrote what you wrote, and that the other person wrote what they wrote.

If you're really worried about people believing misquotations then by all means point them out, but you can't just fucking ban them.

Why not? That was one of the rules at RatSkep that I thought was quite reasonable. You can say what you like about someone's argument, but you cannot rewrite what they wrote and leave the impression that they made a statement that they did not make. That's deliberate falsification and it's unethical. In science or journalism doing so will get you instantly fired from your position. I see no reason why this forum should not protect its integrity by at least making deliberate revision and false attribution against the rules. Be as sarcastic as you like, but attribute your sarcasm to yourself, not someone else.

Is it really so difficult to use the strikeout feature rather than simply eliding and recasting the text? That's all I'm asking; to make it unequivocally clear that an edit has been performed and that the new material is NOT being attributed as the work of the original author. What's so bad about that?

[PsychoSerenity]

He wrote a "FIFY", and anyone who was reading the thread would know it had been changed anyway. He's said then from now on he'll use the smiley. - How is that not enough for you?

[Schneibster]

[Ronja]

RAH RAHH RAHH RAH RAAAAAHHG!!!!

EVERYONE MUST ALWAYS DO THINGS MY WAY!!!!

See, that's exactly what I mean.

Well come on, Seth, think about what you're saying. ... If you're really worried about people believing misquotations then by all means point them out, but you can't just fucking ban them.

Why not? That was one of the rules at RatSkep that I thought was quite reasonable. You can say what you like about someone's argument, but you cannot rewrite what they wrote and leave the impression that they made a statement that they did not make. That's deliberate falsification and it's unethical. In science or journalism doing so will get you instantly fired from your position. I see no reason why this forum should not protect its integrity by at least making deliberate revision and false attribution against the rules. Be as sarcastic as you like, but attribute your sarcasm to yourself, not someone else.

Personal opinion, not an official staff statement, follows:

In the EU, we have the Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC), which gives specific exception from copyright law for the use of works by others, for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche (though the UK has not implemented this exception in national law yet).

In the US, in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the Supreme Court held (unanimously: 8–0)

Parodies of public figures which could not reasonably be taken as true are protected against civil liability by the First Amendment, even if intended to cause emotional distress. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

To me, both the EU law and the US SC decision are easily comparable to the use of the fix fairy here, because
a) we are all public figures on RatZ in the sense that we are here voluntarily and make ourselves public (visible) in this community by posting
b) it should become clear to any member during their first days here that parody and teasing are one major theme in the culture of this forum - if one does not like to be laughed at from time to time, one is in a very wrong place on RatZ
c) the fixes usually are parodies and most of them could not reasonably be taken as true. For example, PS's "RAH RAH RAH" quote^^ was so over the top that one would have to be seriously demented to even begin to consider it a real quote

[borealis]

Wow, that was the best reasoned argument that I've read for some time

[Thinking Aloud]

This is not acceptable. If someone is going to "edit" a quote by adding to or changing the actual words and context, then they must leave the original words intact and ... <snip>

The original words and context remain in view on the forum in the post you made. No-one has edited what you originally wrote - that post is still there in its entirety, and can be viewed and referred to in the event of a misunderstanding. I would accept there was an issue if people could actually edit original posts, but they can't.

[Seth]

He wrote a "FIFY", and anyone who was reading the thread would know it had been changed anyway. He's said then from now on he'll use the smiley. - How is that not enough for you?

Because he removed the actual statement that I made which leaves only his statement to be passed off as mine, and he didn't add the FIFY, a Mod did.

He didn't "fix" anything, he mendaciously elided what I wrote and completely changed the meaning and context of what I wrote without any notification or acknowledgment that he did so. This should be a violation of the FUA.

[Seth]

This is not acceptable. If someone is going to "edit" a quote by adding to or changing the actual words and context, then they must leave the original words intact and ... <snip>

The original words and context remain in view on the forum in the post you made. No-one has edited what you originally wrote - that post is still there in its entirety, and can be viewed and referred to in the event of a misunderstanding. I would accept there was an issue if people could actually edit original posts, but they can't.

And why should such "editing" be permitted to create misunderstandings? Generally, the purpose of a FIFY is to make some sort of sarcastic commentary on what the original poster wrote. Removing the actual quote entirely and substituting something that is the polar opposite of what they actually said is not making a commentary on the original statement because the original statement is not included for reference. It's a cheap and unethical ploy that causes precisely the sort of long-winded debate we're having right now. Making a rule that says you must leave the original quote, use the strikeout function and THEN apply your sarcastic FIFY reduces the need for clarifications and I don't see why it's such a controversial thing to ask members to do.

[Ronja]

... [Schneibster] didn't add the FIFY, a Mod did...

Sorry, but about that detail you are mistaken. The "FIFY" acronym was posted by Schneibster, and a mod suggested changing it to the (on RatZ) more well known "fix fairy" smiley, which edit also was then done on Schneibster's original post. You can check this in your own first quoting of Schneibster's post or in this post, where Robert_S quoted your that post http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 90#p972621 - neither of those later, quoting posts were edited by staff.

[Seth]

RAH RAHH RAHH RAH RAAAAAHHG!!!!

EVERYONE MUST ALWAYS DO THINGS MY WAY!!!!

See, that's exactly what I mean.

Well come on, Seth, think about what you're saying. ... If you're really worried about people believing misquotations then by all means point them out, but you can't just fucking ban them.

Why not? That was one of the rules at RatSkep that I thought was quite reasonable. You can say what you like about someone's argument, but you cannot rewrite what they wrote and leave the impression that they made a statement that they did not make. That's deliberate falsification and it's unethical. In science or journalism doing so will get you instantly fired from your position. I see no reason why this forum should not protect its integrity by at least making deliberate revision and false attribution against the rules. Be as sarcastic as you like, but attribute your sarcasm to yourself, not someone else.

Personal opinion, not an official staff statement, follows:

In the EU, we have the Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC), which gives specific exception from copyright law for the use of works by others, for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche (though the UK has not implemented this exception in national law yet).

In the US, in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the Supreme Court held (unanimously: 8–0)

Parodies of public figures which could not reasonably be taken as true are protected against civil liability by the First Amendment, even if intended to cause emotional distress. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

To me, both the EU law and the US SC decision are easily comparable to the use of the fix fairy here, because
a) we are all public figures on RatZ in the sense that we are here voluntarily and make ourselves public (visible) in this community by posting
b) it should become clear to any member during their first days here that parody and teasing are one major theme in the culture of this forum - if one does not like to be laughed at from time to time, one is in a very wrong place on RatZ
c) the fixes usually are parodies and most of them could not reasonably be taken as true. For example, PS's "RAH RAH RAH" quote^^ was so over the top that one would have to be seriously demented to even begin to consider it a real quote

The issue is not whether someone is being laughed at or not, the issue is whether the forum is going to allow one member to impersonate another member and make statements that might be attributed to the first member without their permission.

If that's okay with the forum, I will most certainly hang you with your own rope as a demonstration of why doing so is a bad idea.

So, just let me know if impersonating a member by falsely attributing statements that they did not make to them by editing quotes without any indication that it's been done is acceptable practice and I'll get on with demonstrating why it's not. I doubt you'll like the results.

All I'm asking is that when someone engages in "parody" that there be a clear notification that it's happening. Nobody who picks up Hustler magazine and sees a parody of Jerry Fallwell is going to believe that Jerry Fallwell participated willingly with Hustler to create the work.

When someone creates statements out of whole cloth and attributes them as direct quotes to another member here without notice, it's not nearly as easy to discern that it's parody involved. All I'm asking for is a rule requiring "truth in labeling" so that things don't get out of hand.

But if that's not what the forum wants, so be it. But you can expect me to take full advantage of that loophole whenever I can. I suspect it won't be long before this comes to a head again.

[Seth]

... [Schneibster] didn't add the FIFY, a Mod did...

Sorry, but about that detail you are mistaken. The "FIFY" acronym was posted by Schneibster, and a mod suggested changing it to the (on RatZ) more well known "fix fairy" smiley, which edit also was then done on Schneibster's original post. You can check this in your own first quoting of Schneibster's post or in this post, where Robert_S quoted your that post http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 90#p972621 - neither of those later, quoting posts were edited by staff.

Fair enough, you are correct. My error.

My argument remains. You let me know whether a FIFY of some sort is a requirement or not. I'll take it from there.

Moving on...how about that toothache?

[mistermack]

Much as it pains me, I have to agree with Seth.

I've never seen FIFY before, and I've wasted plenty of my life on this site. Plenty of readers wouldn't get it.
The "fixed" smiley is ok, so long as the original text is there with a line through it. It should be absolutely clear what's been done.
If it can be misunderstood, it's not really on, I think. And plenty of people won't get FIFY, especially if the original words are removed.

[Ronja]

Schneibster, repeatedly accusing someone of gaming the system and implying that they are jackbooted thugs, is not playing nice (not to mention, gaming the system!). This is a reminder to please stay within the rules.

[Thinking Aloud]

My argument remains. You let me know whether a FIFY of some sort is a requirement or not. I'll take it from there.

There is no requirement upon anyone on this forum to truthfully quote another member, or indicate that they have "fixed" or altered the quote in any way. If, however, someone was repeatedly misquoting another member with intent to maliciously misrepresent, and not in a light-hearted fashion, it could be seen as harrassment and would fall under the usual rules. In this one particular instance, the only problem I can see is that the acronym "FIFY" was not well-known, so wasn't immediately spotted as being marked as "fixed".

It's a cheap and unethical ploy

Yes, and you're quite at liberty to treat it as such.

[Seth]

My argument remains. You let me know whether a FIFY of some sort is a requirement or not. I'll take it from there.

There is no requirement upon anyone on this forum to truthfully quote another member, or indicate that they have "fixed" or altered the quote in any way. If, however, someone was repeatedly misquoting another member with intent to maliciously misrepresent, and not in a light-hearted fashion, it could be seen as harrassment and would fall under the usual rules. In this one particular instance, the only problem I can see is that the acronym "FIFY" was not well-known, so wasn't immediately spotted as being marked as "fixed".

It's a cheap and unethical ploy

Yes, and you're quite at liberty to treat it as such.

Is that an official ruling or a personal opinion?