While I’m happy that some degree of clarification has been achieved, I now fear that I’ll be doing a lot of internal dithering about what constitutes “parody” in the future.
On the whole, I suspect my behavior wrt reporting posts will not change substantially.
Considering what she said in the other thread:
I would say that her posts in this thread have indeed added ambiguity to the mix.
I’d say the spirit of the law would be “If you wish to change the meaning of a quote, don’t use quote tags to do so. There are other avenues at your disposal”.
That’s the spirit of that rule according to you? Really? It’s there to prevent quote boxes being misused?
It’s to have one sure way of knowing that what is being quoted hasn’t been changed in any way.
Why do we want what is being quoted to not be changed in any way?
Did you mean to refer to my previous statements and ask “Why do we want what is being quoted using quote tags to not be changed in any way?” If so, I just answered that question. If not, then I do not want that at all.
I’m trying to understand if you think that the inviolability of quote tags serves another purpose, or is axiomatic. The latter seems to be the position that you’re staking out, much to my surprise. It seems so…pointless. It’s as though you were defending italics because… italics. To me, the purpose the rule serves is to prevent people from misrepresenting the views of others. And it is perfectly clear that magellan did not do that. Do you disagree with this?
I have stated the point behind my opinion concerning quote tags several times now-that fact that you do not consider it to be valid does not make my clear distinction between using quote tags and other forms of quotation pointless. An analogy would be if I objected to people riding motorcycles on the sidewalk because there are other avenues for motorcycles to take, and you objected to my not wanting motorcycles at all…which obviously isn’t the case at all.
Otherwise,
Your analogy makes no sense to me. If I had to fit it into the conversation - I think the motorbikes on sidewalks rule exists because we don’t want pedestrians to be run over. If a motorcyclist cordons off part of the sidewalk to ensure no pedestrians can get on it, and then rides his bike on it, I would say the spirit is not being broken. You, however, think the rule exists as a justification for itself, and would say that the spirit has been broken.
And give it…and give it…and give it…and give it…
The reason is so that there would be just one method of quotation that is free from sabotage/parody/misquoting. If you object to my reason for wanting quotes within quote tags sacrosanct, then please state those reasons…but you cannot state that I haven’t giving you that reason at all.
This is getting more heated than the subject or the forum warrants.
If you are going to fight with someone you shouldn’t be doing it in About This Message Board.
Everybody chill out. If this subject cannot be discussed in a civil fashion the thread will be closed.
Would it be possible to get a final ruling as to what can and cannot be done within quote tags, then have the official rules changed to reflect that, if need be?
tomndebb says that parodied text inside quotation marks is considered differently from parodied text inside quote tags. twickster says it is not - quotes are quotes. That seems contradictory to me. It also seems that the stipulation that no name be attached to a parody implies use of the quote tags, because that what the QUOTE=PosterName does.
Apparently the mods agree that text inside quote tags is sacrosanct. FWIW, that appears a bright line and a useful one, given what tomndebb says about it appearing to be a cut and paste or quote produced by the board software. That makes sense.
So suppose I wanted to parody a post. [ul][li]It is quite clear that I cannot put the altered text inside quote tags, even if I don’t code QUOTE=PosterName as the first tag.[/li][li]According to tomndebb, it would OK to use quotation marks. According to twickster, it would not. [/li][li]I assume that my use of italics and/or spacing to separate altered/parodic text in this thread is OK. [/li][li]An equally clear ruling on the use of single or double quotation marks would be useful, IMO. Additionally, perhaps a standard way of signaling parody or FTFY might be defined. [/ul][/li]
So the rule would be
*Text inside quote boxes, or inside single or double quotation marks, is sacrosanct. Altering such text even for purposes of parody, is grounds for immediate suspension and/or banning.
If you want to parody a piece of text, use italics, and do not attribute the altered text to anyone.*
Or whatever unambiguous way the mods like to mark something as a parody. Perhaps even tell them to enclose parody text in tags like this -
[FTFY]Lying about your political opponent is bad, except if it is a Democrat. [/FTFY]
Regards,
Shodan
I have not at all stated that you don’t give me a reason. I say that your reason is silly, and I have stated this quite clearly. My objection to your ‘reason’ is that it is too close to tautology to be a useful answer to my question about the spirit of the rule.
“Everything inside quotation tags is sacrosanct”.
Why?
“So that we know everything inside quotation tags is sacrosanct”
My own answer to the above “Why” would be “So that you are not misrepresenting the views of someone else”. That is what the rule is trying to achieve. And in this it is in no danger of being pipped by magellan’s post.
I could go with this…except for maybe that last sentence, which should have said Lying about your political opponent is bad, except if it is a Republican.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Czarcasm
My opinion is that the route magellan took, which opened up this can of worms, was totally unnecessary because he could have accomplished the same thing without using quote tags at all.
100% in agreement with bldysabba here, it seems like the point of the rule is to prevent arguing in bad faith, because I seriously can’t imagine any other purpose to the rule other than some fetishistic devotion to the rules for their own sake.
Is that sort of thing really against the rules? It’s in a quote box and it has a name attached to it, but I can’t imagine someone mistaking that for something that was actually said.
I can understand why the rule exists, it’s to keep people from arguing in particularly bad faith. So I can get behind the rule for, say, quotes with full markup generated by clicking the Quote button. It makes sense to extend that to quote boxes in a post where you’re responding line-by-line, because it’s obvious from context that all those boxes were spawned from a forum-software-generated quote-with-markup.
If you’re not quoting a post with the quote button and keeping the markup though, I think it should be obvious that you’re using the quote tags as useful formatting tools and nothing else. If you’re explicitly pointing out that you made changes by saying FTFY or whatever, then you’re taking ownership of the contents of the quote box and there’s no mischief intended. If you insist that quote boxes have a specific, prescribed diacritical purpose, I guess you could say they mark where you stop talking in your own voice and you break out the funny accents; that’s all you should expect from them.
I’ve got no love for magellan01, but making a FTFY post is not just the least of his crimes, it shouldn’t be a crime at all.