Edited for accuracy

[Daniel]

I'm a Geordie who drives a Fiesta on summer tyres and I smell because I don't have winter tyres

Edited for accuracy.




Now what's wrong with the above post? It's clear that I have edited Mark's words (in fact I have stated so!) to make a (poor) joke. It's something that's extremely common on other forums and unless you're editing someone elses post to say something clearly offensive then it's always been allowed. Why must be live in the past and not allow things like this?

This all stems from this post I made where I left the link to the original post in place so that people could see the original post and I also stated that an edit was made. So what's the problem?

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=868919&postcount=321


I'm a Geordie who drives a Fiesta on summer tyres and I smell because I don't have winter tyres

Is this post any worse/better because it doesn't say that it's Mark that's posted it?

Now it would be nice for there to be a response and not the typical, it's not been allowed in the past so it's not allowed now one that we get. Think about it for a moment, if it's clearly stated that there's an edit and there's nothing clearly offensive in the edit like that mark eats babies or something then who is harmed? As it is now a legitimate and harmless way of having a joke is not being allowed for all the wrong reasons. If someone can point out to me who it harms then I'll gladly stop it but I don't think it harms anyone or anything.....

[Mark]

Erm, yes? No? I dunno...

[Retro Formula 1]

This all stems from this post:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=868919&postcount=321

You changed my words, left no link to the original quote and left it attributed to me.

If you had of said:





Originally Posted by skc but modified by Daniel http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=868915#post868915)
Like it or not, the facts are that Piquet cheated as well as being bloody slow and although there is no evidence Alonso was involved (originally read "other thann circumstantial) you do wonder.


Original post changed to make a point intended in humour.

Original post: http://www.motorsportforums.com/foru...&postcount=321 (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=868919&postcount=321)






Then at least you have made an attempt not to deliberatly edit someones post for your own ends.

[pino]

Can't allow that on F1 Forum...not even for fun, sorry :)

[donKey jote]

whinge whinge whingy whinge ;) :p
daniel to be honest I also thought some of your "edits" were inappropriate :)
On another occasion it took me a split second to realise they were your words and not, for example, a real post caught before being edited by the original poster (as obnoxious as he may have been, but that's a separate issue :p ).
Not good manners and very bad netiquette in my view :bandit:

[Daniel]

Skc. You do realise that when you quote any post on this forum then a link to the post automatically included?

[Daniel]

daniel to be honest I also thought some of your "edits" were inappropriate :)
On another occasion it took me a split second to realise they were your words and not, for example, a real post caught before being edited by the original poster (as obnoxious as he may have been, but that's a separate issue :p ).
Not good manners and very bad netiquette in my view :bandit:

I'll admit that was naughty ;)

[Daniel]

This all stems from this post:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=868919&postcount=321

You changed my words, left no link to the original quote and left it attributed to me.

If you had of said:





Then at least you have made an attempt not to deliberatly edit someones post for your own ends.


When someone says EDITED FOR ACCURACY that means that they are saying that they have edited a post originally posted by the person above. Just because you don't understand something that occurs on most if not all forums doesn't mean that I was trying to be malicious.

[Retro Formula 1]

Skc. You do realise that you quote any post on this forum then a link to the post automatically included?

So, everyone needs to read a post now and go back to the original post to ensure you haven't changed it :rolleyes:

Can you not appreciate that even after being asked not to do it, being told not to do it, other people claiming your posts are not clearly modified and it is bad etiquette, that perhaps you shouldn't do it?

Do you always need to be right and have the last word even when you have apologised over something?

You can have the last word. You can continue being rude until you receive a ban but please do not quote and modify any more of my posts.

End!

[Mark]

I think we're all getting a bit excited over a little joke, so lets just put it to one side and move on.

[Daniel]

I think we're all getting a bit excited over a little joke, so lets just put it to one side and move on.

Too right.

If there had been malice in my statement I could understand SKC getting hot under the collar but he seems to have a bee in his bonnet

Here's a perfect example of the usage of the phrase "edited for accuracy" on a forum and no one got worked up

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=24588941

Ditto here

http://www.fiatforum.com/grande-punto/210273-light-delay.html

It's clear that the edits were made as a joke and not a dig at anyone and no one got in a tizz about it.

It's crap (sorry I should censor that according to skc! :rotflmao: ) like this which means that there is very little goodwill or lighthearted banter in the F1 forum hence it is what it is. You can't do this because person x doesn't like it, you can't do that because person y knows someone whose legs are a different length so even though most other forums on the internet allow it you can't do it in the F1 forum.

SKC, I apologised to you for any offence you may have taken and explained that it wasn't meant like that, what more do you want? For everyone else on the internet to stop clearly editing posts for a lighthearted joke?

P.S SKC, it appears that you seem to be wanting to see every post of mine as an attack on you, perhaps take a step back and just read the words on the screen rather than your perceived view of those words....

[donKey jote]

I think we're all getting a bit excited over a little joke, so lets just put it to one side and move on.
can't believe you said that... or did you? :p :bandit:

[Mark]

damn you, I'll kill you!

That's it; You're banned.

[Daniel]

Mark. Your obvious joke vill not be tolerated. You've misrepresented donkey jote's post!!!!

[donKey jote]

That's it; You're banned to the football thread.

err... which one? :p

[Mark]

I admit, I'm the one who deleted the football thread.

It all becomes clear :mark:

[Daniel]

I'd like to think that this is a perfect example of what I mean. Editing a post is not inherently evil or rude... People have been editing other posts on this forum for years anyway and not just me. I don't see why this sort of thing should be banned in a blanket manner on the f1 forum?

[markabilly]

Can't allow humor on F1 Forum...not even for fun, sorry :)

how about for money?? donKey's old lady does

[Daniel]

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140070&page=8

It's good to see some people get it and have even used it in exactly the same spirit it was meant to be used in :)

[Rollo]

Skc. You do realise that when you quote any post on this forum then a link to the post automatically included?

All posts link to Sébastien Chabal and his beard... including this quoted one.

[ioan]

I think that some people around here lack the most basic sense of humor.

skc we all understood that Daniel was just making a bit of fun and those were not your words, you seem the only one to be utterly unhappy with this.
I wonder if you were shaking your fist to the screen where you read Daniel's edit! :D :p

[airshifter]

Another post about Daniel thinking he makes his own rules. Most people would see it as a joke, but when SKC asked and was obviously offended by it, it was disregarded. In usual form Daniel chose to challenge the rule of the moderator and dispute what he is and isn't allowed to do.

Maybe some people see humor in being able to follow something as simple as forum policy. I would think after a number of bannings it would sink in, but obviously not.

[Daniel]

Or yet another thread Daniel decided to turn into the "its all about me rather than the proposed topic thread".. Personally I think if the conversation is light humoured between the two individuals then changing what they quoted is harmless if its consentual. In Skc's case in was during a heated debate and Daniel used it to degrade the opinion he was quoting. He might have seen it as a clever way to be sarcastic, but it backfired and the feelings of Skc were trampled over. Lets just grow up, and have abit more respect for each others opinions, and stop being smart Alec's. :)

Huh? Have you read the edited post? :confused: There was nothing degrading towards SKC in there. I said that Piquet had been slow pretty much all the way through his career and that although there was no firm evidence of Alonso's involvement you do wonder......

Nothing about SKC in there at all? Or am I wrong?


Like it or not, the facts are that Piquet cheated as well as being bloody slow and although there is no evidence Alonso was involved you do wonder.

This was what I said about SKC :) It's amazing how people will read into things when they want to have a certain opinion :laugh:

[Daniel]

Another post about Daniel thinking he makes his own rules. Most people would see it as a joke, but when SKC asked and was obviously offended by it, it was disregarded. In usual form Daniel chose to challenge the rule of the moderator and dispute what he is and isn't allowed to do.

Maybe some people see humor in being able to follow something as simple as forum policy. I would think after a number of bannings it would sink in, but obviously not.

You seem to forget the part where I apoligised multiple times to SKC for any offence he took :confused:

Your only issue with this thread is that I've posted it and not with the actual content which is quite funny. If anyone is not following the forum rules it is yourself by criticising the poster and not the post.

Now this thread will probably get closed soon enough buy is it possible to actually talk about editing posts and not about me? Your affection towards me is flattering but sadly unrequited.

[donKey jote]

If its abit of fun in the context of being in a fun debate then I see no problem
this :up:
edited for accuracy: "it's a bit" :p

[Daniel]

Anyway lets move on this will go nowhere. If someone dislikes you editing their posts and expresses this, then respect their wishes. If its abit of fun in the context of being in a fun debate then I see no problem, but I think this went abit far.. Lets just move on :)

No I'm not going to move on. You accused me of degrading skc's opinions. Proof or apology thanks :)

[ArrowsFA1]

Regardless of intent I do think that quoting someone's comments, but editing the quote so that it changes what was actually said, is not really on. Why not quote the comments and make your point below?

As someone who has had their comments quoted, edited and used out of context I can see why it can be an issue.

[odykas]

<race affi>
Peace! :s mokin:
</race afi>

[airshifter]

You seem to forget the part where I apoligised multiple times to SKC for any offence he took :confused:

After disregarding his requests, and after intervention from a moderator. Essentially you made a less than convincing apology after the fact to save face.




Your only issue with this thread is that I've posted it and not with the actual content which is quite funny. If anyone is not following the forum rules it is yourself by criticising the poster and not the post.

I can elaborate more, but I'll start with one of your quotes:

Don't tell me what I'm thinking dickhead.

Don't for a second think anyone here is stupid enough to not realize your intention in this post as another way to simply try to get your way and be allowed an exemption from forum rules. As much as you try to say you respect the opinions of others you are most often the first to engage in caustic responses that disregard the opinions of others, and as often as not violate forum rules.




Now this thread will probably get closed soon enough buy is it possible to actually talk about editing posts and not about me? Your affection towards me is flattering but sadly unrequited.

Still playing victim I see. Not that it's been the first time.

It's amazing that the vast majority here can discuss and debate without degrading the opinions of others, while others can't seem to respond without insults, cheating the word filters, and in general violating the forum rules. Once again I'll suggest engaging in said discussion and debate in the manner you would prefer people to address you, and you won't find the responses so caustic or insulting. A lot of people on that thread in the F1 section had strong opposing views, yet all but one managed to do so without insulting others. You'll find that poster in a mirror.

[GridGirl]

Today's Dilbert comic reminded me so much of this thread! :D

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-12-13

[Daniel]

After disregarding his requests, and after intervention from a moderator. Essentially you made a less than convincing apology after the fact to save face.




I can elaborate more, but I'll start with one of your quotes:


Don't for a second think anyone here is stupid enough to not realize your intention in this post as another way to simply try to get your way and be allowed an exemption from forum rules. As much as you try to say you respect the opinions of others you are most often the first to engage in caustic responses that disregard the opinions of others, and as often as not violate forum rules.




Still playing victim I see. Not that it's been the first time.

It's amazing that the vast majority here can discuss and debate without degrading the opinions of others, while others can't seem to respond without insults, cheating the word filters, and in general violating the forum rules. Once again I'll suggest engaging in said discussion and debate in the manner you would prefer people to address you, and you won't find the responses so caustic or insulting. A lot of people on that thread in the F1 section had strong opposing views, yet all but one managed to do so without insulting others. You'll find that poster in a mirror.

Seriously I still don't get this degrading thing......

This reminds me of when Steve Irwin dying and Knock On's massive overreaction to Germaine Greer calling him a "larrakin" which in knockie's eyes was a big insult yet was not intended in that fashion by Greer and would not have been taken that way by Irwin as it means something completely different to what Knockie thought it meant.....

Is it my fault that a certain someone didn't know that it's common on a lot of forums to edit someone's post to make a comedic point? I apologised repeatedly for any offence caused and explained this new and alien concept to our friend but still he chose to get his tights in a twist :mark:

Now you tell me I'm the one who's impossible when I'm the one who apologised for any offence caused when I needn't have done so? :laugh:

[Daniel]

Oops! Quoted the wrong post. Meant to say "Now Henners tells me......"

[Daniel]

Ah, let's see, you've been a member of this board for how long? Almost 10 years? And you don't understand what the custom is here as opposed to other places?

How pray tell doth one familiarise themselves with a rule which has never actually been stated on the forum? :confused:

Considering the fact that the head honcho seems to not have a problem with it I thought this thread was over?


That's it; You're banned.

[Daniel]

It is over, we all know you are never wrong and where we all stand.

*sigh*

So you 100% against anyone on the forum merely querying something on the forum I get it?

Mark, please ban anyone with the username henners88. Heck, ban anyone who asks why you've banned him when he's done nothing. It's the rules you know!