Quoting Rules Need To Be Changed!

No, it does fix the problem.  If I wanted to say:

ccatignani said "Your initial request to have the quote system fixed is valid to a point"

Notice that this is in the WHITE area, which means I specifically typed it, and if you did not say this, then I would be responsible and you could file for Libel or Slander.

But the Gray area implies that I am quoting you, and that you typed it!  See what I mean?  I am saying that what is in the Gray area should be FROZEN when you quote somebody.  So you should not have been allowed to quote the way you did.  In your case, it wasn't offensive, and so I'm not saying anything, but kindaspongey's were often offensive or misrepresenting what we are saying.

I can't stop you from saying "ThrillerFan said blah blah blah" in the White area, but if a user can ONLY add, delete, or modify what is in the White area OR if they got rid of the Quote function all together and instead had a "Reply" button, like LibraryThing, where if you want to "Reply" to say, post 12, clicking the Reply Button would get you something like this:

> 12

No, I don't think that is right.

Now you can't doctor up what I've said, and if you put "ThrillerFan Said blah blah blah" in there, it is proven that it has come from you, and if you say something like "ThrillerFan is calling out for all prostitutes that are looking for a pimp to please send him a message on chess.com", then I could file a lawsuit against you for libel and slander!

And I guarantee you kindaspongey would put "..." before ThrillerFan and after chess.com!

Often another reason for editing quoted text, is for succinctness. Had I quoted the whole thing, it would have had a wall of text and included multiple quotes.

Editing allows one to respond to a specific point, make it obvious what is being responded to, and make it easier to find the content.

I seriously doubt the site will move to a quoting mechanism that does not allow edits. The vast majority of quote edits are done responsibly.

@NubbyCheeseking

Good point...but I would like to think that if something is reported to a moderator...the mod would take the time and research it and not just go on second hand information.

I'm telling you...this is an old problem that goes back to the late '70's...there is no solution. Its like complaining about spam email...just delete em. The bast defense for a Troll is just to ignore them.

If you are looking to reply to only a small part of the message, you do what I just did!  Maybe allow for things like this, but Addition and Deletion needs to go.

I still say the solution is a Reply button instead of a Quote button, and you get the an Arrow and Message Number, like ">24 -" if you were to reply to this message.

@ThrillerFan

OK on the grey area quote box not being editable ...your spot on there and its fixable.

Martin responded to this

He's an admin?  I thought admins had green pawns beside them?

Deleted the post.

He's a moderator. Pretty much admins but less access and stuff.

It goes members then Mods then Admins

That is possible but you still edit the comment in that manner and for long quotes, snipping it is cleaner.  Also, in long strings of quotes, editing is better to get rid of extraneous text. Now, I certainly wouldn't mind the  quote function if it only quoted the text of a post and not any previously quoted content, which might help for shorter posts; but for longer ones, snipping out just the pertinent text is cleaner, in my opinion.

Just linking doesn't do much good when people can just delete their comment or get muted, completely losing the whole reference and making any replies potentially out of place.

Not even close to an admin; most moderators are volunteers and while they have the power to delete/edit posts, mute members, etc, that doesn't mean everything posted by them is site policy. I post a lot in a general capacity as a member; probably the majority of my posts are in that manner. Any posts about site policy will have supporting links or data, if available, and I try to include information on my posts when I'm referring to something I believe or know if is site policy.

This discussion is not one of those things; my thought on the ability to edit and my thought that the site won't change it, are just that, my thoughts. Informed thoughts, based on previous experience and reading a lot of topics here, but mine nonetheless.

Ah ok

You guys still have power though so

I think the ability to edit quotes is essential. Some posts go on for days. Most often, I just want to quote a section.

Secondly, if we are going to fix the quoting system, how about moving the link icon away from the quoting icon?. They seem to load separately.  I often end up hitting the link button because it loads after the quote button for some reason.

Last, how come posts from the apps don't go through the bad word filter? At least a dozen times, I have had posts rejected because a "bad word" is lodged in a quote.

Such rejections wipe out everything I have typed. 

YES. I have clicked that thing like 1000 times and it's super annoying.

The solution to that would be to program it dynamically, or change the delete function to do like LibraryThing does.

Dynamic Programming - It attaches itself to the message, so if you Replied to me at post 24, and post 20 was deleted, not only would my post become post 23, but your ">24 -" would now read ">23 -".

Static Deletion (Simpler - What Librarything does) - This is best explained by illustration:

Post 1:  I think the French Defense is the best defense in all of chess

Post 2:  >1 - Nah, the Sicilian is far better

Post 3:  >1 - Yeah, the French really does rock

Post 4:  >2 - You must be drunk - the Sicilian loses by force to 2.Nf3

Post 5:  >1 - You are nuts, the Advance refutes the French

Post 6:  >4 - You are crazy.

Ok, so now the author of post 1 and the author of post 4 delete their posts.  It would look like this rather than renumbering:

Post 1:  (Deleted Post)

Post 2:  >1 - Nah, the Sicilian is far better

Post 3:  >1 - Yeah, the French really does rock

Post 4:  (Deleted Post)

Post 5:  >1 - You are nuts, the Advance refutes the French

Post 6:  >4 - You are crazy.

And also, with that format illustrated in post 35, there would be minimal scrolling at all.

Every message would be just your text, or possibly the added one-liner of ">##"

Now when 5 replies to 2 and 9 replies to 5 and 24 replies to 9 and 33 replies to 24, each of those (except post 2) has just >## instead of pages of nested quotes!  So overall, not only does it prevent mis-representation and BS Quoting, it's cleaner too from a visual perspective!

The deletion thing is about if I happened to be replying to post 21 and post 21 is gone due to the member being muted/closed or the post being deleted in entirety.

I certainly get what you're saying. I just personally don't think there is a widespread issue

While I understand this is the feedback forum, if you haven't already, you may submit it as a more formal suggestion using Help > Make a Suggestion

My thought is something that won't be implemented but staff may decide that some changes might have merit.

Apparently what I reported on Thursday or Friday (possibly combined with what SoupTalk4 reported earlier in the week) was bad enough for this type of behavior to lead to a mute on Sunday - I know it was this item because it's the only thing I reported in a while and the other 2 items I've reported this year were executed back in February.  Makes you wonder if it was context, or carrying quotes across threads, or something else.

How'd he edit your post? What were the exact words? Was it merely an annoyance or really changed it and changing your words?

He was copy/pasting. thus changing the context of things people posted.  I have no issue with wanting to shorten a quote, as long as you are not changing the context. 

You can change the context without changing the words.  Notice we are in a thread under Site Feedback.  He could copy PART of it, not all, and throw it in Chess Openings.  Here's an example (I can't say the exact scenario as I post a lot and his posts are all deleted:

SoupTalk4 is 56 years old and ThrillerFan is a little more than 3 weeks shy of 45.  We are both probably past our chess prime as older people may not be able to calculate nearly as deep as your elite 23-year old player.

That said, it is the younger players, under 12 it seems that always want to force their own opening even though their opponent deviated.  For example, after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.f3, which I myself play, and from my experience over the board, it's the younger kids more often than not that get the dumb idea that 5...a6 is still good and are stupid enough to think they are still capable of winning with such an approach.

Now, what kindaspongey would do is copy and paste the portions in red, so yes, ThrillerFan did say all of those words, but read the context of the message when read in it's entirety, and then read the context if all you took were the 3 portions in red with "..." between each of them.

He could copy just the parts in red, and then make some snide comment about people over 40.

Now, of course, this is just an example, and age wasn't the topic of any of his inappropriate copy and paste posts, but this gives you the theme of what he did!