Danger of Ambiguity

Here is the place for your suggestions, comments, or questions regarding the Philosophy Forums.
Post Reply
Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Danger of Ambiguity

Post by Belinda » March 29th, 2014, 3:03 am

I quote a bit of a post which quotes me and then someone else. It can be read as all what I wrote, and this is due to the absence of boxed-in nested quotes, I guess. I particularly dislike the answer (below) from Didge and want to disassociate myself from it. This is not because I disagree with Didge's feelings but because Didge seems to not understand . I do agree with Hog Rider, but HR's response also deserves more clarity about who wrote what.


User avatar

Hog Rider

Posts: 312 ( View: All / In topic )


Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 5:33 pm



Re: Discuss: Are some cultures objectively better than other




Post Number:#39 PostThu Mar 27, 2014 3:15 pm



Didge wrote:

Belinda wrote:In Nazi German society cultures of belief and cultures of practice were largely in accord with each other so that the evil beliefs were practiced.

that´s no culture, that´s terrible sickness :evil:

And I'm sure they'd say that same thing about your favorite culture.
Socialist

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4198
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Danger of Ambiguity

Post by Scott » April 16th, 2014, 6:10 pm

Is the problem with the particular post in question or in the way quote boxes are formatted in general?
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Danger of Ambiguity

Post by Belinda » April 17th, 2014, 3:29 am

Scott, the post that I indicated was illustrate my main problem with absence of nested quotes. Unless there is a clear way to identify who said what I sometimes find it difficult to attach an utterance to its originator.

Although the old multiply-nested quote looked messy I seem to remember that it was easier to attach the name to the utterance. I have tried, mostly successfully I think , to use forms of words to indicate whose utterances I am talking about but I believe that formats in this regard should be standardised if possible.

I note that quotes of entire posts do allow nested quotes.
Socialist

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4198
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Danger of Ambiguity

Post by Scott » April 20th, 2014, 12:07 pm

You can make nested quotes without quoting the full post. Whether quoting the full post or part of it, one nested quote will be maintained. Anything deeper will be removed, replaced with "(nested quote removed)".

So the following code:

Code: Select all

[quote="John"][quote="Mary"]I'm Mary. What's your name?[/quote]
My name is John.[/quote]
... would display as:
John wrote:
Mary wrote:I'm Mary. What's your name?
My name is John.
***

However, any deeper nesting will get removed, so that the following code:

Code: Select all

[quote="John"][quote="Mary"][quote="Bob"]I'm Bob.[/quote]
I'm Mary. What's your name?[/quote]
My name is John.[/quote]
... would display as:
John wrote:
Mary wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

I'm Mary. What's your name?
My name is John.
****

However, you can maintain a longer series of conversation and probably make the code less confusing to do each quote individually, such that the following code:

Code: Select all

[quote="Bob"]I'm Bob.[/quote]
[quote="Mary"]I'm Mary. What's your name?[/quote]
[quote="John"]My name is John.[/quote]
... would display as:
Bob wrote:I'm Bob.
Mary wrote:I'm Mary. What's your name?
John wrote:My name is John.
This last way is what I would recommend.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

Belinda
Contributor
Posts: 13760
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Danger of Ambiguity

Post by Belinda » April 20th, 2014, 3:17 pm

Thanks Scott.I like the way you recommend for long dialogues which is effectively how dialogue is recorded for drama scripts.
Socialist

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1284
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Moderators integrity

Post by Present awareness » April 23rd, 2014, 5:53 pm

One thing I find interesting in this form, is how the moderator chooses what is off topic and what is not. Ami will probably agree with me here. I've read many threads here, which are clearly off topic, but allowed to stand, providing it doesn't clash with the moderators belief system. However, make an off topic statement that seems to go against the moderators understanding of things, and it will be deleted.

Just as in sports, there will always be bad calls, but that is the nature of things. Just like Ami, we can always choose not to play the game, if the ref seems too one sided.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4198
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Moderators integrity

Post by Scott » April 23rd, 2014, 8:48 pm

Present awareness wrote:One thing I find interesting in this form, is how the moderator chooses what is off topic and what is not. Ami will probably agree with me here. I've read many threads here, which are clearly off topic, but allowed to stand, providing it doesn't clash with the moderators belief system. However, make an off topic statement that seems to go against the moderators understanding of things, and it will be deleted.

Just as in sports, there will always be bad calls, but that is the nature of things. Just like Ami, we can always choose not to play the game, if the ref seems too one sided.
Frankly, I think this is ridiculous. I have allowed numerous pro-pedophile topics, pro-racist-topics, pro-Obama-is-not-a-citizen, pro-theism, pro-germs-don't-exist, pro-the-big-bang-is-a-conspiracy and pro-government topics. The claim that I only allow that with which I agree is thus offensively untrue.

You say you see many "threads" that are off-topic. Did you use the report button to report them?

What I find interesting is how often people disagree with each other and then both accuse the moderator of bias when each has one or more posts deleted. Get over it; do you know how many posts we delete? The accusations of bias might not be so blatantly silly if they didn't regularly come from both sides of the aisle. These rule-breaking posters quicker jump to paranoia than simply read the forum rules and follow them. :roll:
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Moderators integrity

Post by Spiral Out » April 23rd, 2014, 9:16 pm

Present awareness,

I'm assuming you're referring to me in the following comments:
Present awareness wrote:I've read many threads here, which are clearly off topic, but allowed to stand, providing it doesn't clash with the moderators belief system. However, make an off topic statement that seems to go against the moderators understanding of things, and it will be deleted.
If that is indeed in reference to me then if you have any specific examples of your complaint you'd care to discuss I'd like to try to resolve it through PMs.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1284
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Moderators integrity

Post by Present awareness » April 23rd, 2014, 9:18 pm

Scott wrote:
Present awareness wrote:One thing I find interesting in this form, is how the moderator chooses what is off topic and what is not. Ami will probably agree with me here. I've read many threads here, which are clearly off topic, but allowed to stand, providing it doesn't clash with the moderators belief system. However, make an off topic statement that seems to go against the moderators understanding of things, and it will be deleted.

Just as in sports, there will always be bad calls, but that is the nature of things. Just like Ami, we can always choose not to play the game, if the ref seems too one sided.
Frankly, I think this is ridiculous. I have allowed numerous pro-pedophile topics, pro-racist-topics, pro-Obama-is-not-a-citizen, pro-theism, pro-germs-don't-exist, pro-the-big-bang-is-a-conspiracy and pro-government topics. The claim that I only allow that with which I agree is thus offensively untrue.

You say you see many "threads" that are off-topic. Did you use the report button to report them?

What I find interesting is how often people disagree with each other and then both accuse the moderator of bias when each has one or more posts deleted. Get over it; do you know how many posts we delete? The accusations of bias might not be so blatantly silly if they didn't regularly come from both sides of the aisle. These rule-breaking posters quicker jump to paranoia than simply read the forum rules and follow them. :roll:
I apologize if you were offended. I did not realize that I was supposed to report all these people whom stray off topic. How far off topic does a person have to stray, before they cross the line and I push the button. Who decides where to draw the line in the sand? Is there a penalty for someone who pushes the button every time the don't like a particular statement? We are all guilty of staying off topic from time to time and deserve time in the penalty box, but if the ref isn't consistent with the calls, the game gets out of hand.

I have no idea of how many post you delete. The reason I never use the report button is that I find those off topic comments interesting, even if I don't agree with them.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4198
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Danger of Ambiguity

Post by Scott » April 23rd, 2014, 9:45 pm

The question of what is off-topic is currently covered by rules A and A.2 and D through D.7.

Basically, any off-topic insult or personal attack at all is prohibited. Pleasant asides are allowed as long as most of the post--or in other words the overall gist of the post--is on topic, and the asides are not particularly derailing.

There is no allowance based on interestingness or enjoyability.

If the post hasn't been reported, then I think it is unfair to say the moderators let it stand. If a moderator closes a report without deleting the reported post, then an email notice of the closure will be sent to the reporter. It is then that if one disagrees with the decision that I would recommend we compare the post to the forum rules in a discussion in the feedback section like this or in PM. A decision cannot really be appealed or criticized if it hasn't been made. The same goes for deleted posts: If one disagrees with a post's deletion, then I am happy to scrutinize the specific post in relation the forum rules.

The claim that I agree with the claims or opinions being made in the posts I haven't deleted and have intentionally let stand is patently false, as shown by the list of types of posts I have allowed with which I clearly disagree.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1284
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Danger of Ambiguity

Post by Present awareness » April 24th, 2014, 12:13 am

Basically, any off-topic insult or personal attack at all is prohibited. Pleasant asides are allowed as long as most of the post--or in other words the overall gist of the post--is on topic, and the asides are not particularly derailing.

There is no allowance based on interestingness or enjoyability.
That sounds fair enough to me.
The claim that I agree with the claims or opinions being made in the posts I haven't deleted and have intentionally let stand is patently false, as shown by the list of types of posts I have allowed with which I clearly disagree.

Yes, my statement was wrongly worded and is incorrect. I'm sorry if it seems to imply what you are saying, because I know it's not true.

My complaint was actually direct towards Spiral Out, and he seems to have already sensed that. However, There is nothing further to discuss, as you have made the rules clear.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Danger of Ambiguity

Post by Spiral Out » April 24th, 2014, 6:12 am

Present awareness,

I await your message outlining the specifics of your complaint in order that we might resolve any misunderstanding.

Thank you.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1284
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: Danger of Ambiguity

Post by Present awareness » April 24th, 2014, 7:57 am

Spiral Out wrote:Present awareness,

I await your message outlining the specifics of your complaint in order that we might resolve any misunderstanding.

Thank you.
Although I misdirected my post, Scott has answered my question very well, and so the case is closed.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.

Post Reply