Poster quoting and responding to deleted message

[Chris Hillman]

Hi all,

I am a newbie to BAUT but have previously used VBulletin at Physics Forums.
I actually have two questions.

The easy one is this: am I correct in understading that BAUT has only very limited support for mathematical formulas? If so, that is regretable since for example in threads on cosmological models in order to fix ideas it would be useful to be able to write out a line element and state intended range of coordinates, to avoid misunderstanding. If not, can someone provide a link to a tutorial on including math? And while we are at it, what about uploading small figures (e.g. diagrams to illustrate a geometric scenario)?

The thornier one is this:

My BAUT debut got off to a rocky start: I reconsidered and deleted my initial post shortly after posting it, basically because I decided on further reflection that my speaking up would probably not help much. I agree it is much better to not post than to post and then delete, but that's not the point here.
The point is that JimJast, one of the participants in that thread (see Einstein's universe), who is himself a BAUT newbie (or so I understand), apparently signed up for email notification of replies to his own posts, and consequently he apparently received by email my entire post. By the time he came back to BAUT the next day, due to a misunderstanding someone else had already reposted my deleted post and Jim (the moderator, not to be confused with JimJast) had deleted the repost. But then JimJast apparently used his "email notification" to repost my entire self-deleted post a -second- time! (And he seems to be claiming he is entitled to do so.) When I came back myself I therefore several posts quoting snippets from my self-deleted post, which placed me in an awkward position.

(I chose to post a second time to try to restore the missing context and then withdrew from the thread, which was my attempt to make the most of a bad situation. Alas, things have gotten even -more- confusing since then--- arghgh!--- but that's not the point here. BTW, I hope I have described events accurately but can't be sure since I'm so new here. And thanks again to Jim (the moderator) for trying to fix the mess, but unfortunately this seems to have proven impossible.)

So my question is: for future reference: am I correct in concluding that users who opt into email notification receive the entire text of all replies to their posts, so that the same situation could arise again? Is there any BAUT rule against user V reposting a post self-deleted by user U?

I hope it is clear that the problem here is that snippets quoted from a self-deleted ill-advised post can perhaps lead to even more confusion and/or vituperation than leaving up the original ill-advised post. As I said, clearly the original cause of this particular mess was that I posted in the first place, which I now regret even more than I did when I deleted the thing!

[grant hutchison]

Yes, if your post is the next one made after a thread subscriber's last visit to the forum, (s)he'll get an e-mail containing the text of your original post. Subsequent edits and deletions won't be notified.
I've fallen foul of this myself, once: I posted, noticed I'd effectively duplicated someone else's post (which I should have read but hadn't) and so deleted within a few seconds of posting. Then another poster turned up, looking to reply to some specific wording I'd used, and couldn't find the post, so used the version they'd received in e-mail. They assumed the forum software had glitched, as seems to have happened on your thread. On that occasion there was no great harm done, other than my embarrassment at having to explain the deletion.
I've since been caught at the other end of the problem: receiving the e-mail and bouncing on to the forum to reply, only to discover that the poster has removed the post. Given my own experience, I then assume the removal was deliberate, and maintain a diplomatic silence. It seems to me that those who edit long replies off-line would be well-advised to at least connect to the forum to pick up the current version of the post they're replying to, since people often enough change a word or two or add an afterthought in the few minutes after the original post, even though outright deletions are rare.

I've since thought that what I should do on BAUT, if I ever really want to retract a post, is to edit out the original text but to write a formal retraction in its place.

Grant Hutchison

[grant hutchison]

By the way, for mathematical formulae, you can have the Greek letters and mathematical symbols that appear in the common font repertoire under "symbols", as well as superscripts and subscripts. But that's about it. For diagrams, I've usually posted a link to an image in my own webspace, but I see that some folks around here successfully embed images or thumbnails in their posts.

Grant Hutchison

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

My BAUT debut got off to a rocky start

You should have seen mine In fact... I'm still on that rocky start...

The rest: I wouldn't worry about it much. Sometimes things don't go as smoothly as we like, but most folks around here are intelligent enough to figure out what happened.

You can't vouch for what other people do sometimes and Jim was on the ball too.

I don't think any part of it reflected back on you in any way.
Sometimes miscommunications and errors happen.

In the meantime, you seem to be quite knowledgeable and I'm looking forward to your future posts.

It helps to have the brains on BAUT to counter-act my bumbling.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

But then JimJast apparently used his "email notification" to repost my entire self-deleted post a -second- time! (And he seems to be claiming he is entitled to do so.)

This one at least is clear, if he got the quote from the email instead of from the board he's NOT entitled to quote it.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

This one at least is clear, if he got the quote from the email instead of from the board he's NOT entitled to quote it.

Then it seems that someone in Mr Hillman's position could ask a moderator to delete the re-posting.

[Chris Hillman]

Hi all,

Grant: edit rather than delete, good idea, thanks. For future reference: would someone using the email feature receive a warning that I have edited my original post?

Henrik: I thought as much. Even though I have let this particular incident go, could you drop an "official PM" to JimJast to tell him what you just told me? Because he explicitly stated that he was responding to the email notification many hours after my post and been self-deleted, reposted by someone who assumed the forum had eaten it, and properly re-deleted by Jim (the moderator), and in responding to public chiding he did state that he believes he was within his rights to ignore the self-deletion. Thanks!

Neverfly: thanks for the encouragement!

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

Grant: edit rather than delete, good idea, thanks. For future reference: would someone using the email feature receive a warning that I have edited my original post?

I've never seen such a thing, unless it's an option embedded in the user options somewhere. I get notification of new traffic on the thread, in the form of a single copy of the original version of the first new post since my last visit.

Grant Hutchison

[Disinfo Agent]

Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen

This one at least is clear, if he got the quote from the email instead of from the board he's NOT entitled to quote it.

Why not? How can you tell whether a quote comes from an e-mail notification, or simply from the poster's memory? Maybe he saw the post in the forum before it was deleted.

[Chris Hillman]

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

Why not? How can you tell whether a quote comes from an e-mail notification, or simply from the poster's memory? Maybe he saw the post in the forum before it was deleted.

As I already noted, in this particular incident, the reposter specifically stated that he had reposted material -from the email notification-.

[Disinfo Agent]

Alright, but what's wrong with that? There's nothing in the e-mail notification that wasn't already publicly displayed in the forum (at least for a while). Besides, I don't recall any BAUT rules forbidding us from posting material from e-mail notifications. It's distateful, I agree, but as far as I know it's not forbidden.

Please realise that I am not commenting on the specific case that happened to you, Chris. I did not see the thread. I'm just concerned that this event may create a precedent of punishing forum users for doing something which is not expressly against the rules.

[Jim]

5. Privacy Issues

Do not post private email you have received without the express permission of the sender. There are legal and copyright reasons for this, not to mention that doing so is very impolite. The same caveat applies to private messages, whether they're from this forum or anywhere else. If you receive rude or abusive private messages on this forum, please contact the administrators/moderators for assistance. Posting private information about forum users that is not available otherwise publicly will not be tolerated.

Perhaps a bit of a gray area...

If you receive a PM that contains a post, the fact that the post is public would seem to meet the "permission to quote" requirement; besides, you're really quoting the post. However, if the post has been deleted, that would indicate that the poster did not want it public, which indicates you do not have permission to quote it.

[Disinfo Agent]

Rule #5 talks about private e-mails and messages. I don't see how an e-mail notification can be regarded as private, when anybody can ask for it, and everything it contains is available in the public section of the forum.

[HenrikOlsen]

By deleting the post and expressing a wish that the posted should not be quoted the copyright holder has expressed removed permission to quote him.

This means the relevant rules of the board are Rule 4. Copyright and Rule 14. Disruptive Behavior.

As I see it, it's not a privacy issue, it's a copyright and bad behavior issue.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

The easy one is this: am I correct in understading that BAUT has only very limited support for mathematical formulas? If so, that is regretable since for example in threads on cosmological models in order to fix ideas it would be useful to be able to write out a line element and state intended range of coordinates, to avoid misunderstanding. If not, can someone provide a link to a tutorial on including math? And while we are at it, what about uploading small figures (e.g. diagrams to illustrate a geometric scenario)?

The support for maths is very limited, and while it would be nice to be able to eg. write:

The solutions to [math]ax^2+bx+c=0[/math] is [math]x=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^2-4ac}}{2a}[/math]

and see:

The solutions to is

it isn't implemented at the moment.

That formula in incidentally done with mimeTex, I think there may be a way to make vBulletin show the math tags I made using that, but that may require more server configuration that Fraser has time for at the moment.

I do agree that it would be really nice to be able to include in an explanation, but that's currently not easy. (Says he while doing it)

Uploading small images you've made (note the YOU here, copyright issues are relevant), is done by the Go Advanced button, and uploading it as an attachment.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

Rule #5 talks about private e-mails and messages. I don't see how an e-mail notification can be regarded as private, when anybody can ask for it, and everything it contains is available in the public section of the forum.

I agree with Disinfo. What happened appears to be within the rules, however inappropriate. If all are agreed that the behaivior should not be allowed, the solution is to amend the rules.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by geonuc

I agree with Disinfo. What happened appears to be within the rules, however inappropriate. If all are agreed that the behaivior should not be allowed, the solution is to amend the rules.

It was within the rules. The quoting poster was later informed about the 'misunderstanding.'
Rather than correct it- he chose to argue it. Personally, I think he has that right (prerogative)- whether many folks agree with him doing it or not.

From my own experience, I would say "give folks enough rope to hang themselves."
The quoting poster created an impression of himself, regardless as to whether or not he was in the rules. That can, at times, be more damaging than a rule infraction.

As I mentioned to Chris Hillman earlier, sometimes things don't as smoothly as we would like. That's unpredictability... these things happen.

But it's over and done with- impressions are made- and so far, Chris Hillman doesn't seem to have made any negative impressions at all. I'd suggest leaving it lie to fade into the background as more posts are made.
So far Chris Hillman's contributions have been well informed and interesting.
Sure, occasionally, any of us can get roughed up at times. Other times, someone reacts too quickly, misunderstands or takes exception... Well, these things happen in discussions. I know they happen with me a lot too.
So you blow the dust off your keyboard and have another go at it.


I was not aware of that email notification feature actually- I will have to watch out for that when I start thinking about deleting my awful, terrible, horrible, no good, very bad posts...

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

It was within the rules. The quoting poster was later informed about the 'misunderstanding.'

Not sure why you quoted me to make that statement - I didn't say it was outside the rules. Quite the opposite.

I do agree that it is usually best to let things lie. But if we've discovered a loophole in the rules, we should close it to make clear what is expected for the next occurrence. Ambiguity is not helpful.

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by geonuc

Not sure why you quoted me to make that statement - I didn't say it was outside the rules. Quite the opposite.

I do agree that it is usually best to let things lie. But if we've discovered a loophole in the rules, we should close it to make clear what is expected for the next occurrence. Ambiguity is not helpful.

I quoted you because:
1.) I was agreeing with you that it was within the rules..
and 2.) I was putting my thoughts on the table in response to amending the rules.

Pretty much it seems to me that the mods here have a fairly good grip on things. Once in a while things squirm between the rules- but is that really a bad thing?

It allows folks a bit of maturity or growing time. I know I need that time to time myself.

So I'm a bit quick to speak up and ask if amending or adding rules is really necessary.

[geonuc]

Fair enough.

[HenrikOlsen]

Just remember that Rule 14 (disruptive behavior) is very open for interpretation and can easily be applied for a case like this, so there's not really any need for new rules.
He broke the Be Nice rule.

[hhEb09'1]

Sorry I missed this discussion earlier. It's a kinda sore spot with me--I replied to a post once, and while I was composing the response, the poster deleted it and sent me a PM with the info. It was not that sensitive an issue, but months later I was accused of posting private PMs.

Originally Posted by Jim

5. Privacy Issues

Do not post private email you have received without the express permission of the sender.

Back up.

You all apparently have forgotten Rule 11:

11. Editing & Revisionism

Edit your posts with care. There's no problem with editing a post later to change the tone or to correct spelling and the like. But changing content is not allowed! This is a slippery path that can be seen as revisionism. You may edit your post for up to 24 hours. Also, when quoting other posters, you may trim the text down to brief snippets to address something in particular, but do not misquote others or alter their content to suggest they've stated things which they haven't.

Once posters have said things, they've said them. It's on the wind from then on. Deleting it, especially when you try to make others look bad when they respond to it, is wrong.

Originally Posted by Jim

Perhaps a bit of a gray area...

If you receive a PM that contains a post, the fact that the post is public would seem to meet the "permission to quote" requirement; besides, you're really quoting the post. However, if the post has been deleted, that would indicate that the poster did not want it public, which indicates you do not have permission to quote it.

I don't see it as a gray area at all. The private email was sent by BAUT, the sender is BAUT, not the poster. It's a notification of a public posting. You really are quoting the post.

Of course, the poster may not have wanted it public--but then, they shouldn't have posted it in a public forum. They broke the forum rules by deleting it.

[Moose]

Grapes is right. While there is a responsibility to not post private emails, there's no expectation of privacy in a public post, no matter how quickly that post is withdrawn. There is no difference between quoting from the email notification of the public post than there is to quoting the public post prior to the post having been "revised" out.

Rule 14 aside, if rule 5 applies to email notifications of public posts, then for consistency's sake, rule 11 really should be considered in play as well when those posts are revoked.

[Musashi]

I agree with Grapes and Moose.

[Neverfly]

Grapes? Before my time

I had to stop a moment and think... Grapes? OH! Grapes of Wrath. I was just a wee one in diapers back then...

But Although I agree, I agree to a limit.

There is some discretion in deleting posts. I'm sure we all have deleted a ranting raving post time to time or deleted one that we thought better of.

The rule in question is designed, (I THINK!) more along the lines of preventing abuse of the feature, but occasionally, someone can think better of some trash they threw on the forum. I know I do time to time.

SO While I agree with hheb'GoW logic, I don't disagree with Jim's analysis. Both parties were guilty, like two kids that slugged eachother. Jim just seemed to aim for the guiltier of the two.

[HenrikOlsen]

We have a conflict between multiple rules and in such a case we fall back to "Be Nice".
Quoting from a post that has been removed, which the poster has explicitly requested not be quoted from, is not being nice.

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Grapes? Before my time

I had to stop a moment and think... Grapes? OH! Grapes of Wrath. I was just a wee one in diapers back then...

Grapes was gone before I got here. You *might* have been here for kilopi, but mostly likely he was milli360 a couple years ago.

On topic, I pretty much agree with what Grapes and Moose are saying.

[Kaptain K]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Grapes? Before my time

I had to stop a moment and think... Grapes? OH! Grapes of Wrath. I was just a wee one in diapers back then...

Ah, the good old days. We had a member back then named Hub' who called him "Grab o Raft".

[Neverfly]

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

Ah, the good old days. We had a member back then named Hub' who called him "Grab o Raft".

Hub' made a brief and cryptic appearance in another thread recently- But I can't remember which one.
Nor could I decipher a thing he said!

[Kaptain K]

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Hub' made a brief and cryptic appearance in another thread recently- But I can't remember which one.
Nor could I decipher a thing he said!

Yep! You needed a Hub'ese dictionary, although some got pretty good at reading what he was saying.