# Did Marley violate SDMB protocol here?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-marley-violate-sdmb-protocol-here/652378>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [March 8, 2013, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-marley-violate-sdmb-protocol-here/652378 "2013-03-08T14:33:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 51

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\
**Post date:** [March 8, 2013, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-marley-violate-sdmb-protocol-here/652378/51 "2013-03-08T19:46:04Z")

</div>

[quote=“pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber, post:42, topic:652378”]

\*\*Dex’s \*\*first paragraph easily could have read "Text inside of [noparse]

[quote]  
[/noparse] boxes falsely attributing a quote to another user, or modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light, even if meant in jest, is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges." The fact that he did not draw that distinction, but noted that “falsely attributing a quote” wherever it appears leads me strongly to believe that **Dex** intended that rule to apply to ALL quotes, and that the latter emphasis on quotes in the [noparse]

> [@American Idol 3/21 - the 1950s](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-idol-3-21-the-1950s/349270/342):
>
> [/noparse] boxes is a further distinction making the [noparse]
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > [/noparse] boxes especially noted.
> 
> You’re wrong.
> 
> > [@American Idol 3/21 - the 1950s](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/american-idol-3-21-the-1950s/349270/342):
> >
> > If you want to call someone’s argument “drivel,” that’s fine, but do NOT use the quote feature. The quote feature is to be used for actual quotes, subject to all the usual rules of quoting someone else’s material.
> > 
> > The use of the QUOTE feature is for quoting. If you want to paraphrase or summarize or re-state in your own words, use quotation marks if you will, but NOT the quote feature.
> > 
> > We thought this was made abundantly clear the last time it came around.
> 
> Note that the above post is from 2006 and is actually older than the rule quoted earlier.
> 
> > [@“Gay” (Re: How did "gay" come to mean "homosexual"?)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-re-how-did-gay-come-to-mean-homosexual/584100/23):
> >
> > Moderator interjecteth:  
> > Actual Comment by Wheelz:
> > 
> > **samjones** : in post #14 above, you have changed **Wheelz** quote within quote marks. This is a Rules Violation: See: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048)
> > 
> > If you want to paraphrase someone, do it in quotation marks. Use of QUOTE tags are subject to the same rules as formal quotation in a research paper or article: you may not make such changes without the usual editing remarks (sic, …, square brackets, etc.)
> 
> > [@3D movies - here to stay or soon to vanish again?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/3d-movies-here-to-stay-or-soon-to-vanish-again/501901/49):
> >
> > I’m getting to this late, **Marley** has said what I was going to say. But for any other readers who are not certain, please check the RULES: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048)
> > 
> > Basically, using quote tags means you are quoting. The only modifications within quote tags are standard editing (leaving out words marked by …, adding explanatory comments in square brackets, etc.) such as would be used in a research paper.
> > 
> > If you want to misquote and distort, use quotation marks, not quote tags.
> 
> I hope this makes it crystal clear exactly what the rule meant, what **C K Dexter Haven** was saying, and how this is moderated.
> 
> [QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]  
> Since I am objecting so strongly to the gross oversimplification of my point for the purpose of ridiculing what I was saying, can you at least grant me that it’s not so clear that you were merely summarizing my point with no malicious intent.

None of that is a moderating issue, and I thought it was a reasonable critique of the flaws in your argument. It’s no more malicious than the two posts I quoted upthread, and I’d argue it was significantly less so.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-marley-violate-sdmb-protocol-here/652378)._