magellan01 removed the name, and his post was more or less a parody. But he put it inside quote tags, therefore it does apply to parodies to which no name is attached.
It might be clearer if the line were changed to read
*This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached, providing you don’t use quote tags or single or double quotation marks.
Text inside quote tags, or inside single or double quotation marks, is sacrosanct.* Etc.
Or whatever the rule is.
The ambiguity lies in the bald statement that it is OK for parodies with no name attached, and simultaneously saying text in quote tags is sacrosanct. It appears that “parodies are OK” applies to the whole set of rules about quotes.
What format is appropriate for parodies? The qualification that no name be attached makes it sound like quote tags, but without the QUOTE=PosterName part of the tag, are OK, but that is not correct. Are single or double quotation marks OK? Or is there a moral equivalent of
I personally don’t think there’s any ambiguity at all. It’s quite clear that the rule is intended to avoid a situation where a poster makes it look like someone said something, when in actual fact they said something else. Magellan is well within both letter and spirit of the law.
So even though the rules has been established that you can change things in quote marks, and the other mods clearly agree with that - you’ve just made up your own rule to counter it?
I read that rule as an expansion of the earlier statement, and the statement “This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached.” is applicable to it.
Parody:
1: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2: a feeble or ridiculous imitation
I would ask what definitions you’re using for the words “This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached”, but that would be silly. Oh wait, we’re already doing silly. What definitions would you use for the words “This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached” in this context?
What I see is you using quote tags without actually quoting a previous statement, which has absolutely nothing to do with what magellan01 did. He changed the meaning of an easily found quote, apparently thinking that simply dropping the name of the person he was directly quoting allowed him to skirt the rules concerning quote tags. In my opinion, he broke both the letter and the spirit of the law.
First, where does it say that material quoted with quotation marks is handled differently than material in a quote box? Unattributed parodies are treated differently, but attributed quotes, however presented, should not be tampered with.
And second, the only “other mod” who has posted in this thread is Czarcasm, who is not currently a moderator.
The rule explicitly states that dropping the name of the person you’re quoting and making a parody is allowed. Magellan did both. His post made no attempt to even hint that he was actually quoting another poster.