Page 4 of 6

Re: [FORUM POLL] Image Quoting Rules

Posted: 06 Jan 2021 16:01
by Mohegan13
I linked to the page in the same post that shows who is what. You don't need to be able to see any colours at all. Rejoice.

Re: [FORUM POLL] Image Quoting Rules

Posted: 06 Jan 2021 19:51
by gaillard
To be clear: I was not discussing your message, but the forum in general.
The caption under the avatars and in the text of messages.
For instance, I don't know what color my username is and what it means...

PS: this is an example and I DON'T CARE.

Re: [FORUM POLL] Image Quoting Rules

Posted: 06 Jan 2021 20:04
by Madkine
Anyone who has a special role will have that role listed immediately under their user name.

Re: [FORUM POLL] Image Quoting Rules

Posted: 06 Jan 2021 21:05
by gaillard
You're right, I never noticed it, or better I never associated it with a specific color...
Probably because I usually don't take notice of colors. So why since it's redundant? I will check it from now.
Remains the mentions inside messages.

A question was asked, I replied. My end of life will not be influenced by what happens next. Bye.

Re: [FORUM POLL] Image Quoting Rules

Posted: 07 Jan 2021 05:28
by bobgrey1997
Some newbie driver wrote:
06 Jan 2021 13:59
Yes @harishw8r either in spoiler or in a quote the image will exist twice in the loaded page of the forum, regardless you could immediately see it or not. What I don't know is if to disable people firms just hide them or effectively doesn't load them (I would guess it's the second, but I'm not 100% sure). But whatever, it's one of the best ways to improve forum's looks and ease of read.

If for rules about quotes, the one that always bothered me (but well, I had to get used to it) is the one to strictly no quote previous message. I understand that in most cases it's absolutely unnecessary; but when answering a long message to quote specific small sentences is very helpful for the conversation even if it's just the previous message. Sometimes I've seen quotes of that kind to be strictly moderated and some other times to remain; but don't know if because greenies didn't see them or because they prefered to be flexible. If it would be the second case, then I would prefer that flexibility to be stated on the rules.

Regards
As far as I know, quoting a specific part of the previous post is an exception to that rule.
You are absolutely not allowed to quote the entire previous post, as that is simply utterly useless. However, I believe you are allowed to quote a specific part of the previous post if your message directly replies to that specific part.

Re: [FORUM POLL] Image Quoting Rules

Posted: 07 Jan 2021 17:06
by nautofon
^ Actually no, see rule 2.12.

(While perhaps a case could be made to change that rule in the way you described, I guess that discussion may be off-topic in this thread.)

Re: [FORUM POLL] Image Quoting Rules

Posted: 07 Jan 2021 17:10
by Etrusan
Actually yes.
Do not use excessive quoting. Only quote the part of the message you are replying to, and don't quote the message directly above yours. DO NOT MAKE PYRAMID QUOTES UNLESS IT IS NECESSARY.*
Source

Re: [FORUM POLL] Image Quoting Rules

Posted: 07 Jan 2021 17:12
by nautofon
Actually no. It says so, right there: "[D]on't quote the message directly above yours", full stop.

Re: [FORUM POLL] Image Quoting Rules

Posted: 07 Jan 2021 17:16
by xXCARL1992Xx
dont quote the full post, ofc you are allowed to quote a specific part of it when the rest of the post is irrelevant, you quote out the part that is relevant to your answer

Re: [FORUM POLL] Image Quoting Rules

Posted: 07 Jan 2021 17:21
by nautofon
[ ] You have read the first part of the sentence and understood how the second part relates to it.

I guess I'll withdraw from this thread at this point. I'm sure the mods will have noticed that rule 2.12 appears to be easily misunderstood, and I'm sure they will consider clarifying it, whether they meant what they actually wrote into the rule or not.


edited to add: Sorry for sounding so unfriendly in the first sentence here. I wasn't trying to get under your skin—it's just that rules by nature should be precisely written, and thus also precisely read. My point was that the second part would be completely superfluous if it meant what you said it means, because quoting the entire post is already disallowed by the first part. Therefore, the second part can only be understood to disallow quoting any part of the last post. And, again: I'm not saying this is necessarily the way I would write this rule (or indeed the way it was meant to be written), but I guess this restriction does seem to work kinda well in practice: I don't see very many violations of this particular aspect of rule 2.12 (and FWIW, I have no problem with the rule myself).