CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Multi-quote rule

Multi-quote rule

Started by Maria Reyes4 · · 👁 4 views · 66 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Maria Reyes4rustymason92rustydrifter10Nicholas KingLinda Price5Carl Sanchez40shadowpilot8redmarlin3Nicholas MyersSophia Thomas7Jose Miller3Douglas Moore92melloworca6Jack Bishop94Sandra Gonzalez3granitefalcon10loneraven25Alex Cookstormybadger8Keith Rodriguez27steelskipper5Larry Walker24Sam Jackson29
Linda Price5 Linda Price5 Active Member
171 messages
joined May 2013
#61 ·
Multi-quote
loneraven25 said:Multi-quote

...and you still haven't actually laid out any real reasons why you're so against Multi-quote.
All I can really take away from this whole thing is that your post is nothing more than a pale, washed-out shadow of Nicholas King’s legendary trolling...
Maybe I'll finally stop being so skeptical if you can actually manage to pull up even a single example where that term is mentioned? Multi-quote with both of them
Multi-quote
I honestly can't help but wonder what's going through their head lately. It feels like we're constantly circling the same drain with this one, doesn't it? says:
Look, I get the rule itself—it’s perfectly clear what it says—but I can't help but wonder, what exactly is the point of it all? What's the underlying goal we're actually trying to achieve here?
...you clearly have no idea how to handle Quoting properly, do you?
You didn't even leave a hint in your post about where you actually pulled that quote from! Jack Bishop94 So, about that rule...
Multi-quote

I couldn't agree more on this point, because honestly, who does anyone think they are? No one should have the right to go back and mess with history or try to rewrite the timeline of posts that have already been laid down. Once it's written, it's set in stone.
I based my entire explanation on scanning through several consecutive posts—you know, those ones that certain forum members just can't seem to stop using all the time.
Multi-quote

...actually, like I was saying:
Multi-quote

…

I’m a fan of the Multi-quote feature, but I only pull the trigger when it actually makes sense for the conversation. It isn't some tool you need to deploy every single time you drop two posts in a row. If you're looking for my reasoning, feel free to take a look at this thread; I laid out my entire logic there.

You can't make Temu interesting if you aren't actually using your brain. It's a good thing I don't frequent the Cell Phone boards. 😢
Linda Price5 Linda Price5 Active Member
171 messages
joined May 2013
#62 ·
Respectfully, Jack Bishop94, I was unable to use Multiquoting because by the time I sat down to compose my response, the second post I intended to address had already vanished from the thread.

Furthermore, even if it were available, the content of my second post isn't a continuation of the first; they are two entirely distinct logical points. I wouldn't combine them myself. You haven't improved the readability of the thread; you've simply forced me to endure two unrelated thoughts crammed into a single block of text.

None of my posts qualify as one-liners. I have been active on this forum long enough to understand how to use the EDIT function when necessary—which I believe is essential—and the tool is working perfectly fine for me. I never requested that you merge my posts.

Could you please stop targeting my posts with these hysterical justifications for merging them? Standard netiquette dictates that typing in all caps is the digital equivalent of shouting, a concept a moderator should certainly be aware of.
Linda Price5 Linda Price5 Active Member
171 messages
joined May 2013
#63 ·
In the meantime, I’ve gone ahead and split this post into two separate threads. 🥳
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active Member
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#64 ·
Linda Price5 said:Jack Bishop94 wrote to me in a total state of hysteria: "last edit Jack Bishop94 : today at 7:07 PM. Reason: MQ is explained in the rules of this PDF -> READ THEM AND FOLLOW THEM!!"

(IS ALL THIS SHOUTING WITH EXCLAMATION POINTS REALLY NECESSARY!?!?!? 😁)

The thing is, I wasn't even able to perform a Multi-quote on the specific post I was replying to in that second half of the merged post, simply because it hadn't been published yet at the moment I hit send on my first one.

To me, editing a post that my interlocutor has already read just to tack on new details—especially a full response to their point—seems rather foolish and unfair. I operate under the assumption that people have more important things to do in their lives, and certainly more productive things to do on this forum, than playing detective to see what I might have tweaked in a previous entry.

It feels quite absurd to have my posts merged and to receive such hysterical warnings about subforum rules (or the implied threat of getting a strike). 😕

A few days ago, that same moderator merged two of my posts too—without even leaving a note, for that matter. Just completely unnecessary.
It’s not like there isn't plenty of actual moderation needed around here, and they weren't even one-liners—they were just posted one after the other in the same thread. And for good reason, too.

I wasn't trying to start a fight or anything, but honestly, seeing as this seems to be the permanent status quo...
Linda Price5 Linda Price5 Active Member
171 messages
joined May 2013
#65 ·
Dear Moderator Jack Bishop94, I’m asking you quite simply: while I am engaged in a constructive discussion, please refrain from merging my posts without any valid justification. As I have already pointed out, I am perfectly capable of using the EDIT function. However, when my comments aren't just continuations of a single thought but represent distinct, separate ideas, I see no reason to rely on an edit. I would truly appreciate it if you would stop meddling with my posts unnecessarily. If you wish to contribute to the conversation, perhaps consider composing your own thoughts instead of nitpicking mine just to make a pointless display of moderator authority.

With all due respect, thank you.
Larry Walker24 Larry Walker24 Veteran
1K messages
joined Jun 2022
#66 ·
I don't even bother with Multiquote because the posts are just way too damn long

The absolute worst people are the ones who intentionally break up their posts just to go off on someone! It's exhausting
Sam Jackson29 Sam Jackson29 Member
17 messages
joined May 2011
#67 ·
Jack Bishop94 merges posts at three in the morning😁

It happened to me once on a thread where I was quoting a post from three pages back along with a random reply—they had absolutely nothing to do with each other. (Just an example someone else already brought up earlier in this thread)
In my opinion, those should have remained two separate posts.

And NO, I can't just edit my posts whenever I want to add more text because the edit window doesn't include emojis, and I don't know how to "type out" emojis from memory.

I'm really tired of you people being so obsessed with following every tiny rule.

And look, I know this isn't strictly about the topic, but Jack Bishop94 is honestly the worst moderator I have ever encountered.
A total stickler with zero chill.

Here’s another thing: once, she and Sophia Thomas7 were making fun of someone in the middle of the night (don't ask me which thread, I can't remember), and I jumped in to tell them that wasn't the way to act, especially coming from moderators... the very next day, my post was gone, without even a warning. Is that what moderation looks like? I thought the procedure was for the post to stay, and then *I* get a strike if I actually deserved one. Am I wrong?

Do you even get a strike for stuff like that? Not that I actually care much anyway☕

Does anyone remember Crow Jane (she handled the USA and LUES)? Now *that* was actual moderation.😍

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads