The Official Welcome Back Rasp/Trout and Hopper/Taint Thread

[moevillini]

...

Side note: Can't ANYONE else see how ridiculous this "requirement" of going back and editing prior posts when responding to subsequent question is? I asked you a question. You made a post refusing to answer, so I went on.

ONLY NOW, when going back over posts, do I find out that you have completely rewritten a post I thought we had passed. Does one, everytime he asks a question or makes comments, have to keep going back to page one of a thread and continously re-read every post made to see if any poster has responded to his comment by editing a post they made earlier?

Taken literally, this "rule" would lead to absolute chaos on the board. Every poster would just be allowed one post per thread, and would be required to edit (add to) that post if he said another word in the thread. Example, I ask: Does anyone know the date of the Jazz's first home game? Nobody can answer that in a new post, because that would be "repetitive posting?" Nobody can make a post sayin "Yeah, October 1st" (or whatever), at least not if they have made a prior post, they have to go back to page one, where they made their first post and answer the question there.

I assume the "rule" is not that literal, but that's the problem. Nobody knows what it really is. This is the SECOND time, in this thread alone, where I ask a moderator a question, and don't see a response to it because they go back and answer the question in a prior post which I have no reason to re-read.

Sorry. I am totally stumped. I have no idea what is being referred to here. What "requirement" are you talking about? What "rule"?

Other than apologies, which it appears you'll not get beyond what's already been posted, what do you want?

 

[colton]

For what it's worth, I believe these were the posts that prompted kicky's comment to hopper that "Some users have complained that this makes it difficult to determine which portions of your text are original material and which portions are quotes."
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1626-So-gay!!!?p=43306#post43306

And for what it's worth I agree with the premise... it's hard to tell without clicking on the link(s) hopper supplied which words are hopper's and which he is quoting from another source.

OK, I didn't really have time to look that up. Off to bed for me.

 

[colton]

Somehow, some way, Gawd only knows how, but somehow, I have managed to read hundreds of documents (both official and unofficial), novels, newspaper stories, magazine articles, and just about every other printed medium I can think of, except comic books, when, (*gasp*) the quotes are NOT PUT in cartoon balloons! How did I ever manage to cope with such illegibility, I wonder?

OK, if you're going to be like that, let me ask you: what fraction of those official documents quoted multiple paragraphs without using any form of indentation or without at least putting quotation marks at the start of each quoted paragraph?

 

[Hopper]

OK, fine. I've got time for one more post before I go to bed.

Marcus's sig: "“the basketball gods were thinking about me” ~ Al Jefferson on his coming to Utah"

One Brow's statement: "Marcus, you should be carful with that signature. Word from on high is that the use of quotation marks, as opposed to quote balloons, makes these threads more difficult to read. I would hate for you to get a warning for that."

The implication is that Marcus is running a risk of getting a warning for the sig. That's completely false, and One Brow knows it. Or should know it. Therefore One Brow had his facts wrong.

Why should be be required to draw this conclusion? It's ambiguous as to just what the threat is. After I read it, I sent a P.M. to Kicky asking if that was supposed to be a warning. This has a serious basis. In an earlier thread Kicky falsely claimed I had been "warned" on the old board to refrain from something. Again, the claim was completely false, so it's very hard to fathom what Kicky even means when he claims you have been "warned."

I got no response from Kicky, so after quoting the excerpt in question to Eric. I asked him, who as a former moderator might have reason to know, this question:

"Tell me, what the hell does that even mean, and what is the purpose behind it? Does he mean all quotes must be put in cartoon balloons, and, if not, I will be ruining the "readability" of the board, and hence subject to the assessment of an infraction?"

His considered response was:

"Yes, that's exactly what he means. from what I can tell."


He was sincere, and he certainly has a viable basis for reading it that way, if you ask me.

That's part of the problem around here. Just because the mods know what they have in mind when they write something ambiguous, they feel it's wholely warranted to insist that EVERYONE reading it knows exactly what they meant. They seem to have NO conception of how their "declaration" might be perceived by a reader without the gift of mind-reading powers. Perhaps they should express themselves more clearly, respond to questions, when asked, etc. rather than insist that everyone KNOWS what they mean when they don't even say it.

 

[moevillini]

For what it's worth, I believe these were the posts that prompted kicky's comment to hopper that "Some users have complained that this makes it difficult to determine which portions of your text are original material and which portions are quotes."
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1626-So-gay!!!?p=43306#post43306

And for what it's worth I agree with the premise... it's hard to tell without clicking on the link(s) hopper supplied which words are hopper's and which he is quoting from another source.

OK, I didn't really have time to look that up. Off to bed for me.

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1626-So-gay!!!?p=43483&viewfull=1#post43483

another example
probably plenty more, given that it's a 20+ page topic.

 

[Hopper]

OK, if you're going to be like that, let me ask you: what fraction of those official documents quoted multiple paragraphs without using any form of indentation or without at least putting quotation marks at the start of each quoted paragraph?

Well, Colton, how is that relevant? I don't see that occuring in the post you singled out. It starts and ends with quote marks, I make a brief comment, then give the cite, so that anyone who wants to read it for themselves can. What's the problem?

I personally have never seen every single paragraph set off separately by quotes in a multi-paragraph quote that I recall. Either way, I would know they were quoting, until I saw the "endquote" marks.

 

[Hopper]

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php/1626-So-gay!!!?p=43483&viewfull=1#post43483

another example
probably plenty more, given that it's a 20+ page topic.

Here again, Mo, I don't see the problem. Can you point out where I failed to indicate when I was quoting, and when I wasn't?

But suppose I start a quote and forget to close it sometime, then what? Will I get another P.M. from a mod? A warning? An infraction? Suppose I misspell a word. Will I eventually be banned from a basketball fan site for those errors, if they continue? Is this English class now, or what?

Why do the mods feel they have to comb my posts for some petty matter to complain about and then "advise" me of the problem I am creating "for the board" in an infraction notice, eh? Zup wit dat?

 

[Hopper]

This is a test:

This paragraph is indented, as I compose it.

This one aint.

That's what I thought I recalled. Colton, maybe you should develop software which allows you to indent before complaining to and about the posters in your domain because their paragraphs are not "indented," know what I'm sayin?

 

[moevillini]

Here again, Mo, I don't see the problem. Can you point out where I failed to indicate when I was quoting, and when I wasn't?

you don't see a problem but others do. that's the bottom line. as has been stated, it is subjective. and a number of people do feel it makes it difficult to identify those posrtions of a post that are quotes and those that are not. that's the bottom line.

same situation applies on other issues - such as pornography or other content deemed "inappropriate". doesn't much matter what the person who makes the post thinks, what matters is what the moderating staff thinks. that's just how it works - here and on just about every other message board that I know of.

contrary to the way you may think it seems, you are not being picked on here. Personally, I have not noticed others doing this to any degree such as yourself.

for instance:

This is interesting:

https://twitter.com/DesNewsEborn

Rumor is SDSU and UNLV would work to join BYU in WAC because it's more western. LaTech may go CUSA and TCU may also. MWC might die as result

The WAC would be pretty sick in basketball if that happened and BYU/ESPN could get a nasty football schedule put together as an Independent as well. I'm really liking this the more I read about the ESPN/BYU relationship that is burgeoning anew.

the quoted content is easily identified from the poster's own comments

 

[Hopper]

...you don't see a problem but others do. that's the bottom line.

Mo, my specific question was this: "Can you point out where I failed to indicate when I was quoting, and when I wasn't?" Apparently you didn't feel that question was worth answering, eh?

... doesn't much matter what the person who makes the post thinks, what matters is what the moderating staff thinks. that's just how it works - here and on just about every other message board that I know of.

Do you really means to say "thinks?" Or would "feels" be the more appropriate word?


As I have told you and others before, I shy away from using balloon quotes. If they happen to appear as the first post on a new page in a thread, I sometimes see them displayed in as little as one character per line (character, not word, i.e., a four letter word will be displayed in 4 lines). Others have told me they have the same sorts of problems, and some say they don't have any problem. I do think, however, that it has been explictly acknowledged by Jason or Colton that a software glich causes this.

So I try to cope with the imperfections of this board the best I can. But that's not good enough for petty dictators, who will tell you it doesn't matter how unreadable the board is to you. The only thing that matters is what they consider to be readable for THEM (and them alone). I really can't fathom even the most frustrated, pedantic, spinster school marm insisting that all quotes must be contained within cartoon balloons, but....

 

[Darkwing Duck]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Quotations_and_speech

I'm "helpful."

 

[sirkickyass]

Marcus's sig: "“the basketball gods were thinking about me” ~ Al Jefferson on his coming to Utah"

One Brow's statement: "Marcus, you should be carful with that signature. Word from on high is that the use of quotation marks, as opposed to quote balloons, makes these threads more difficult to read. I would hate for you to get a warning for that."

The implication is that Marcus is running a risk of getting a warning for the sig. That's completely false, and One Brow knows it. Or should know it. Therefore One Brow had his facts wrong.

FWIW, this is the response that I gave to One Brow privately when he gave me substantially the same quoted section cited by Hopper:

Well, as an intial matter I would say right off the bat that your "warning" to Marcus is not supported by the quote you were asked to interpret given that his small quote is neither large nor a block of text surrounded by other text.

As far as interpreting that statement, it should come as no surprise given that the paragraph starts with "In addition" that there was a significant block of text preceding that passage. In fact, that was the final paragraph. The rest of the PM was comprised of a description of his infraction, a handful of anecdotal examples of offending behavior in a single thread and then a discussion of the penalty structure for infractions on the board.

He was not given an infraction or warning for his non-use of the quote function. We determined that as long as we were writing him a message regarding readability concerns we would include all of those concerns that had been voiced to the moderating staff. On the reports we had received we hadn't voted to send him either a warning or an infraction for this particular posting behavior, but thought it might be a relevant item to mention with respect to the global concern. It was included at the end so as to structurally separate it from the "penalty" portion of the e-mail.

As far as whether or not a particular reading is unwarranted, I have long since learned that I can never predict how Hopper will read anything. I'm sure he's upset about it, but he's been given fair notice and ample opportunities. Griping about an advisory paragraph will probably only serve to enhance the perception that he's purposely "not getting it" that already exists.

Given how frequently One Brow takes Hopper specifically to task for his use of selective quotations and bending text to suit a limited purpose, he frankly should have known better. That he took a statement about large blocks quotes and applied it to a seven word passage that's clearly attributed and surrounded by nothing frankly makes him look foolish and that's the reason you've seen disdain from the moderating staff towards that post.