[Report] Malicious Editing

[Des-Bal]

Original post

Do you know what a source is

You're fighting strawmen, it's a common reactionary tactic that you see a lot in delusional men. Delusional men aren't prepared for substantive critique, they expect to be accepted without question or had sex with. The problem with delusional men is that it's about advancing their egos, not to the point of equality, not bringing them closer to women in terms of privileges- just advancing their egos full stop. That's a problem because it dismisses the problems that other mens' egos face.

1. You butchered that quote and used it in a context where it made no sense.

2. I do know what a source is, do you know what a source is for?

Edited post

1. You used my quote against me and my personal delusions are preventing me from responding.

2. Yes, but I never use them.

[Ascended Rome]

I'll just point out that, given the context, it seems that he was using edits to mock rather than to mislead. It could be considered flaming (maybe).

[Luna Amore]

Addressed.

Ascended Rome, I know you are trying to be helpful, but please don't spam moderation.

[The New World Oceania]

Malicious quote editing would be putting it in my sig or claiming it was actually said. At no point was it suggested that this was the content of the original post, either implicitly or explicitly and, given that the original post was directly above the accused post, it is easily and outstandingly identifiable that this was not the post's original content. I did not respond to the content I wrote in place of the quote, and in essence the action was equivalent to stating that it may as well have been said. Furthermore, to suggest that this qualifies as flamebaiting is effectively false given that almost precisely the same text has previously warranted no response in this same thread.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

No, malicious editing is taking someone's post, changing it, without any notifying marks (strikeout/bold/colors) to show that you edited it. It's all in the OSRS, One Stop Rule Shop, posted here in this forum. Stickied in fact. Feel free to peruse. Thanks.

[The New World Oceania]

No, malicious editing is taking someone's post, changing it, without any notifying marks (strikeout/bold/colors) to show that you edited it. It's all in the OSRS, One Stop Rule Shop, posted here in this forum. Stickied in fact. Feel free to peruse. Thanks.

Yet, not only is it contextually clear, with the quoted post directly above the edited, that such a quote was edited, but furthermore this is out of precedent, see here (first offense does not warrant official warning) and here (victimless edits do not warrant warnings). Furthermore, under the clear and deliberate text of the One Stop Rules Shop, in addition to the latter of the cited cases, malicious quote editing must inherently be in conjunction with flamebaiting, as the two are not separable offenses. As has been noted earlier in this thread, flamebaiting is absent under these circumstances.

[Luna Amore]

Here's your quote edit:

1. You used my quote against me and my personal delusions are preventing me from responding.

2. Yes, but I never use them.

Here's the relevant rule:

Flamebaiting: Posts that are made with the aim of angering someone indirectly. Not outright flame, but still liable to bring angry replies. Flame baiting is a far more subtle and covert action; it is an underhanded tactic that is designed to provoke a response from another player. It's in the same context of trolling but with flamebaiting it's just the one person. Also included under flamebaiting is malicious quote editing, changing the contents of a quoted post without showing the original text, either through color changes or strike-out.

Pretty clear-cut to me. There's no other purpose to your post but to try and bait Des-Bal.

[The New World Oceania]

Referring to people as delusional has been ruled "not remotely actionable," at that within the thread in question.

Had it been even nearly necessitated — had there been perhaps two or three posts between ours — the edits would have been made clear. That, however, was simply not the case, and, as the forum scrolls down, with posts in order from oldest to newest, it would be immediately evident that the post was edited, and immediately evident how it was edited, without additional clarification in text. The edit was never treated at any point as the original post, was never addressed, and in that regard was far from malicious.

If basic rephrasing and argumentation is liable for immediate official warning on the basis of an offense subordinate to another offense, even posts which deliberately indicate change to initial content warrant those same warnings, and furthermore an incredible number of posts will have merited warnings on the basis that they do, in part, aim to anger someone — that, however, that intentionality is present does not by any means effect the exemplification that this is the exclusive intention, and those grounds do we refrain from warning every post which has the potential — or more so the intention — to distraught, anger, or disappoint, because although they do possess that intention, a) that is not the only aim of that post and b) they do not in any way seek to deliberately provoke a response which will fall in line with the definition of flaming, that is, they do not provoke or even mean to provoke a much more severe response from the accusative user, but rather use this emotional appeal to anger in order to further the argument. On that note, though there is suggestibility that, in some regard, intentionality may both exist and be relevant to the concern at hand, it is absent from the entire, or even main and deliberate meaning, intention, and reasonable interpretation of the post.

With those grounds, I would consider — and this is from as objective a perspective as I can present — that an unofficial warning not only suffices, but is more appropriate to the situation, particularly given circumstance. In such contexts, we have by precedent seen that this is much more invoking a potential — at that, admittedly, a very likely one — that such flamebaiting or, even, flaming may occur, and that the situation may quickly escalate to a point at which official warnings are necessitated. On that basis, an unofficial warning would serve to prevent such provocations from coming into effect and, further, as an unofficial warning contains a stigmatization that carries to the entire setting, it would prevent actionable offense from occurring on behalf of any other involved or for that note and concern uninvolved players.

For this matter, therefore, I believe it appropriately held that an unofficial warning (or, as some references go, a warning of a warning) be issued, the warning revoked, and a future warning issued with this instance as outstanding reason for the issuance of that warning.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

No. Thank you.