(r) political nicknaming in rush Limbaugh thread

[The Blaatschapen]

viewtopic.php?p=38351336#p38351336

Calling the nazis "not-sees"

[The Blaatschapen]

I hate having to bump this

[Fedel]

Just adding onto this a post I saw at the top of the most recent page:

"I like that Rush's claims that tobacco is harmless, earned him the rebuke of lung cancer."

viewtopic.php?p=38358944#p38358944

They blatantly assert their enjoyment of the fact that somebody went through a painful death.

[CoraSpia]

Actual quote in case of editing:

I like that Rush's claims that tobacco is harmless, earned him the rebuke of lung cancer. Though towards the end he only smoked cigars: mouth cancer would have been more apt.

[Fedel]

Actual quote in case of editing:

I like that Rush's claims that tobacco is harmless, earned him the rebuke of lung cancer. Though towards the end he only smoked cigars: mouth cancer would have been more apt.

But... You would know it if it was edited. Because the words are there for you to compare with the original statement to see if there's a difference...

Bruh moment.

[The Blaatschapen]

Bump

[Farnhamia]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=38351336#p38351336

Calling the nazis "not-sees"

I don't see "Nazis/Not-sees" as trolling. I did warn that guy for the post immediately after that one, where he wishes death on people.

[Farnhamia]

Just adding onto this a post I saw at the top of the most recent page:

"I like that Rush's claims that tobacco is harmless, earned him the rebuke of lung cancer."

viewtopic.php?p=38358944#p38358944

They blatantly assert their enjoyment of the fact that somebody went through a painful death.

viewtopic.php?p=38374231#p38374231

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Just adding onto this a post I saw at the top of the most recent page:

"I like that Rush's claims that tobacco is harmless, earned him the rebuke of lung cancer."

viewtopic.php?p=38358944#p38358944

They blatantly assert their enjoyment of the fact that somebody went through a painful death.

Dear Moderators: I put it to you that this is a clear case of the Power to Report (the only roles in which one can escape Spamming Moderation unless directly involved in the alleged offense, or BRINGING non-obvious evidence) being abused to Prosecute another poster. Ie, me. That is not just a report: the reporter presumes to lecture Moderation on how and why my supposedly "blatant" offense really means something different from what it says.

I understand that is not currently a moderation forum offense. But I say again that it should be.

There's another thing here, which I am actually reporting. I shouldn't have to, frankly. But my status with Moderation is so low, that other posters can commit offences against me IN THE MODERATION FORUM, and it passes without even reproach. Not one word, just a link to where Fedel's Report was upheld.

The charge is Malicious Quote Editing. (In Moderation, in a report, both aggravating factors). Conviction on this charge would for my mind prove the case the poster was Prosecuting me in Moderation, though again, I'm not claiming that is an offense, yet.

Anticipating the Prosecutor's defense (as I must since Moderation is obviously not going to wait for me to wake up before proceeding to judgement), yes it seems likely they couldn't copy-paste the post into this Moderation thread, since the thread was locked. But this does not excuse manually quoting only half of my rather short post. That the Reporter was being prosecutorial, ie themselves trying to prove me guilty in a "court" where I am not entitled to speak in my own defense, before judgement, AND that their quote editing was Malicious, is clearly established by them "not bothering" to pull their mouse or caret down one more line, yet adding quote marks, italics and two underlines. Leaving some of my post out could easily be excused as laziness or computer incompetence, but putting effort in to "help" moderators see what is so horribly offensive about my post, gives the lie to that. The only plausible intent of the way my post was edited, was to make it look worse at first sight, to whichever Moderator has the duty of dealing with the Report.

If a post edit, clearly made deliberately, also has the obvious motivation of getting the victim in trouble with Moderation, how can it NOT be Malicious Quote Editing?

[Sedgistan]

Fedel 's post is not malicious quote editing. It highlights the relevant parts that they believe are actionable.

You need to get over your increasing paranoia about moderators and other players being out to get you. The problem is with you and your unwillingness to follow the rules.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Fedel 's post is not malicious quote editing. It highlights the relevant parts that they believe are actionable.

You need to get over your increasing paranoia about moderators and other players being out to get you. The problem is with you and your unwillingness to follow the rules.

Leaving half of my post out, for no evident reason than to "highlight" the other half of it ... would be justifiable if my post was a page long. It was not. I repeat, the excuses of laziness or incompetence, are ruled out by the added emphasis Fedel put on parts of what they did quote. If this was NOT malicious, perhaps Fedel should be invited to explain why they left parts out to make my post look worse.

I would also appreciate if moderators not speculate about my mental health. Thanks.

Second opinion please.

[Lamoni]

Second opinion: Fedel's post is *NOT* Malicious Quote Editing. The relevant parts of your post that required highlighting were quoted, and highlighted as is proper under the rules.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Well that's predictably disappointing. Another mod ruling a report to be entirely in order, because no matter what they do, a reporting poster cannot ever bias a godlike moderator's opinion before said moderator has even read the post. Since there's no risk of that, reporters can blaze away with edits, italics, underlines and whatever prosecutorial "paraphrase" they want. All these things would be ruled as spamming moderation, flaming in moderation even, if they were not introduced under the guise of a law-abiding poster doing their duty and "reporting" a suspected offense.

I thought it was a perfect precedent case, to illustrate the ills of allowing one common poster to prosecute another, in Moderation, when there is obviously no right of the other poster to speak in their defense before judgement is passed. No, don't point out they have the right of appeal. We can also see what a flimsy and inadequate right that is. You let posters have the first word, but you do not allow other posters they are accusing, say even one word in their own defense. You rule. Then the convicted person has to defend, not just against one of their peers, but against a Moderator who has made their ruling.

Maybe it was the perfect precedent case. Even when a poster commits an enumerated offense in the process of prosecuting another poster Mods can't see any harm in it. You all try so hard to not be influenced by the tone or content of the report, that you're literally blind to it. You think that makes you immune to the attempts of reporters to influence your decision? On the absolute contrary: it makes you unaware of the great injustice which is prosecution without defense.

OK. Not expecting any reply to that. Injustice is blind.

[Balticonia]

If they had really been out to get you and biased against you, they would have taken action on that post. I don't see why you are complaining about how a post was shown to the moderators when they chose not to do anything about it.

[Crazy girl]

If they had really been out to get you and biased against you, they would have taken action on that post. I don't see why you are complaining about how a post was shown to the moderators when they chose not to do anything about it.

Please be aware of how to use Moderation: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=51022
I'll leave it at an unofficial warning for spamming Moderation for now, but be more mindful in the future. Thank you.