Quoting rulebreaking posts

[The Professor]

I was on another forum and saw in their rules that it is against the rules to quote a post that breaks the rules (eg. avoiding the filter). I think this is a pretty good idea because when a mod removes a rulebreaking post they rarely have the time go though the thread and remove it from quotes too.

Maybe it should be written into the rules but not infractionable? It seems a bit of a petty thing to infraction for. And maybe only for really obvious rulebreaking (avoiding the filter, obvious insults, posting porn etc).

Alex

[Lee]

Good idea, but usually there isn't lots of quotes of the post, but I guess its worth a shot :) Also some times members quote the post sometimes not realising its a rule breaker, also having a rule thats not infractionable... People could take it for granted.

[buttons]

I was on another forum and saw in their rules that it is against the rules to quote a post that breaks the rules (eg. avoiding the filter). I think this is a pretty good idea because when a mod removes a rulebreaking post they rarely have the time go though the thread and remove it from quotes too.

Maybe it should be written into the rules but not infractionable? It seems a bit of a petty thing to infraction for. And maybe only for really obvious rulebreaking (avoiding the filter, obvious insults, posting porn etc).

Alex
What is the point on putting it into rules if you're not going to get infracted? It's the person that breaks the rules that should be punished not the others unless of course they reply with "you're breaking the rules..." because them themselves are doing so by saying it. I don't see how it would be a rule if you're not going to get punished for it and even if it was a rule it would seem pretty pointless, good idea though. If someone quoted it on purpose aswell i.e porn then I think it's alright if they get infracted for it as they're encouraging rule breaking. Otherwise not really as I just don't see a point to it.

[dirrty]

I don't think that should be made a rule as the moderator should go through the posts and remove all quotes which contain words that avoid the filter anyway.

[The Professor]

What is the point on putting it into rules if you're not going to get infracted? It's the person that breaks the rules that should be punished not the others unless of course they reply with "you're breaking the rules..." because them themselves are doing so by saying it. I don't see how it would be a rule if you're not going to get punished for it and even if it was a rule it would seem pretty pointless, good idea though. If someone quoted it on purpose aswell i.e porn then I think it's alright if they get infracted for it as they're encouraging rule breaking. Otherwise not really as I just don't see a point to it.

I was thinking that moderators generally PM users before they're infracted; it can still be enforced it just wouldn't count towards getting banned. It seems a bit harsh to ban for that imo, but if the FM doesn't think so I'm sure he'll make an infraction for it.

[Catzsy]

I don't think that should be made a rule as the moderator should go through the posts and remove all quotes which contain words that avoid the filter anyway.

I agree - it would be harsh to penalise those who didn't make the original
post. I think most mods go through to make sure they have edited the quotes as it's part of the job.

[Nixt]

It is expected that Moderators look through a thread in which they have edited a rule breaking post for two reasons:

a) to check for any further rule breaking (they should not just edit one post and not bother to check if there is any other rule breaking posts in that thread);
b) To edit out any quotes that contain the rule breaking that they dealt with.

If we were to incorporate this rule, it would have what I would consider to be a dampening effect on discussions. For example, if I made a post that was very valid and made a positive contribution to a debate and I made a small filter avoidance within it then I would not be able to be quoted and my post, although valid, will for the most part probably be ignored. This is not a massive issue but it's something that I think we should bear in mind.
Additionally, I feel it would leave members feeling a bit awkward about what they can and cannot quote. It's essentially asking everyone to become Moderators and choose what posts break the rules and what does not break the rules. I understand this may work on some Forums, but in my opinion we have little reason to implement it here. Feel free to disagree and argue against my point if you wish, Matt and I are both more than open to suggestions :).

[leah]

Not all users will be aware of what post is a rule break and what isn't though. If mods have to PM the people quoting to inform them of their rulebreak it will defeat the object of saving time anyway and it would probably be quicker to make an edit to their post to remove the quote.

[The Professor]

It is expected that Moderators look through a thread in which they have edited a rule breaking post for two reasons:

a) to check for any further rule breaking (they should not just edit one post and not bother to check if there is any other rule breaking posts in that thread);
b) To edit out any quotes that contain the rule breaking that they dealt with.

If we were to incorporate this rule, it would have what I would consider to be a dampening effect on discussions. For example, if I made a post that was very valid and made a positive contribution to a debate and I made a small filter avoidance within it then I would not be able to be quoted and my post, although valid, will for the most part probably be ignored. This is not a massive issue but it's something that I think we should bear in mind.
Additionally, I feel it would leave members feeling a bit awkward about what they can and cannot quote. It's essentially asking everyone to become Moderators and choose what posts break the rules and what does not break the rules. I understand this may work on some Forums, but in my opinion we have little reason to implement it here. Feel free to disagree and argue against my point if you wish, Matt and I are both more than open to suggestions :).

I see your point, and in an ideal world a moderator would look through the rest of the thread to check for more rulebreaking, but in the case of extremely long threads (for example the "Post Your Desktop" sticky) it simply takes too long to go through 5000 pages of further posts to check for a quote. Of course, if all moderators do I apologise for underestimating them :P

For the subtle rulebreaking (borderline trolling, filter avoidances like the one you mentioned) I agree it would be a bit silly to expect users to moderate themselves. The suggestion was more aimed at posts which rather blatantly avoid the filter, post porn, sell viagra etc which users have no real reason to quote.

Thanks for the reply :)
Alex

[nvrspk4]

I would definitely agree, there could be varying levels of application, for example swearing its fairly easy for a user not to quote a post that swears...of course they'll get a usernote and a warning first. It makes it harder for the moderators tbh.

And when they're quoting things like pictures of other members that they are aware were posted without consent or bad images etc it could be applied and warned.

I would say that this should almost always have a PM warning before any action is taken, I hesitate to say always just because there might be a freak situation which we deal with as it comes :P