# Jonathon Chance, what are you on about here? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 13, 2014, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470 "2014-08-13T22:38:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/1 "2014-08-13T22:38:44Z")
In the GD thread [Does Israel have to stay where it is?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=730097), [post #207](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17629032&postcount=207) drew a warning. > [@Does Israel have to stay where it is?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-israel-have-to-stay-where-it-is/694657/207): > > Answering for Terr, since he clearly dodged the question: > > Terr: “Of course not! Jews are morally and legally right! Israel needs to be there because we can’t trust the Palestinians because they are all terrorists! Besides, we need that whole Judgement Day thing to happen and it cannot happen as long as the Jews don’t have their land. Israel has every right to fight for itself. Palestinians do not.” > [@Does Israel have to stay where it is?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-israel-have-to-stay-where-it-is/694657/208): > > Bam. Warning. > > Please don’t attribute quotes to other posters that they haven’t actually said. A brief exchange followed, where Jonathon clarified: > [@Does Israel have to stay where it is?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-israel-have-to-stay-where-it-is/694657/211): > > Indeed. The rules quote is > > > [@Originally Posted by Rules of Straight Dope Message Boards](#): > > > > 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. > > > > This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached. > > > > Text inside QUOTE tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and you may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the QUOTE tags. > > So yes, altering things - other than removal of content extraneous to the discussion - from quote boxes is against the rules. But so is falsely attributing a quote to another user. YogSosoth did so in his post. By creating a quote - inside quote marks - for Terr he behaved as if Terr had actually written those words. Terr did not. > > In short, this shouldn’t be difficult. Don’t put anything inside quotation marks - or quote boxes - that you wouldn’t be able to say that person actually said. Such behavior would get someone fired at any journalism position in the country (or should) because doing so is potentially damaging to the person being falsely quoted. The manner in which this rule is now being enforced is, it seems to me, new and not at all helpful. IMO it is impossible to attribute a quote to a poster that is not in a quote box; quite frankly, I wouldn’t believe they really said that until I actually saw the post quoted with the link intact. It isn’t “falsely attributing a quote to another poster” because the only way the board has to allow us to attribute things to other posters is with quote boxes; anything else is _de facto_ not a fact. And as far as I can recall, the rule has never been that text could not be in quotes; how the hell else would I have a hypothetical conversation with another poster? Anyway, this mod warning seems inconsistent with past practices and with the spirit of the rule. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/2 "2014-08-13T22:58:59Z")
Based on the way the quote rule has been enforced throughout my time here, at least, this was not a rule violation. The text inside a formal, board-generated quote box, leading with “Originally posted by…” is considered sacrosanct. Any other use of quotation marks, italics, etc. to quote ( or misquote) a poster has never been considered to be the same thing. [Here is just one example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14076821#post14076821)of dozens that I can find right away, where TPTB reinforced the idea that text outside of a formal quote box can be edited. This came up recently in [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=719450), and despite a few mods indicating they thought “a quote is a quote” initially, the final decision as posted by Colibri was that it is only a rules violation if using the quote box with attribution. > [@Clarification request, re: Rules about changing text within quote tags](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-request-re-rules-about-changing-text-within-quote-tags/684746/112): > > Sorry, we’ve been having some discussion about this in the mod loop, since there was some ambiguity about whether what you did constituted attributing a quote according to the rules. Not everyone has been on line so it took a little while. Apologies to all for the delay in responding. > > Our consensus is that what you did does not constitute a violation of the rule on altering quotes. The warning is hereby rescinded. (Note that **RickJay** did not actually enter the warning in the automated system, so that has not appeared in your profile.) > > To clarify: > > -The rule applies to altering texts within the quote tags, which is attributed to another poster on the board (“Originally posted by”), in a way intended to change the meaning. > > -You may quote just relevant parts of a post. If you take out parts within the post, normal editing rules apply. Deletions should be indicated by ellipses (…), [snip], or something similar; and any editorial additions should be in square brackets. We’ll be the judge of whether a change of meaning was intentional or not. > > -To avoid misunderstandings, it’s better not to “fix” typos or omissions, unless they change the meaning (and in such cases use square brackets to indicate the change). > > -Unattributed text within the quote tags is OK. However, this shouldn’t be abused as a way to insult another poster outside the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/3 "2014-08-13T23:22:37Z")
Good find, **Crazyhorse**. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/4 "2014-08-13T23:39:25Z")
There’s always been a major diff in quoting within quote-tags (which is to be treated like quoting in a scholarly document), and using quote-marks. We do (and have) allowed paraphrasing within quote-marks, for instance. But we have NOT allowed completely mis-stating or distorting in quote-marks. So, for instance, I could say that **AClockworkMelon** just said, “Great find” to **Crazyhorse.** But I could NOT say that **AClockworkMelon** said, “Duh, how obvious” to **Crazyhorse.** Common mod approach has always taken the stance that **Jonathan** took on this one. This is NOT a situation of a parody with no name attached. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/5 "2014-08-13T23:51:57Z")
Indeed. As Dex said, unattributed text in quote tags can be OK - though if it’s clearly aimed at another poster I’d be irritable about it - but specifically attributed text within quote tags is not. The minute that attributed a position that Terr did not specifically take to him it crossed a line of misrepresentation that helps no one and further debate not at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2014, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/6 "2014-08-13T23:58:09Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Indeed. > > As Dex said, unattributed text in quote tags can be OK - though if it’s clearly aimed at another poster I’d be irritable about it - but specifically attributed text within quote tags is not. But there were no quote tags… ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/7 "2014-08-14T00:07:30Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > There’s always been a major diff in quoting within quote-tags (which is to be treated like quoting in a scholarly document), and using quote-marks. We do (and have) allowed paraphrasing within quote-marks, for instance. But we have NOT allowed completely mis-stating or distorting in quote-marks. > > So, for instance, I could say that **AClockworkMelon** just said, “Great find” to **Crazyhorse.** But I could NOT say that **AClockworkMelon** said, “Duh, how obvious” to **Crazyhorse.** > > Common mod approach has always taken the stance that **Jonathan** took on this one. This is NOT a situation of a parody with no name attached. The rule has been (for as long as I can remember) that you can say whatever you want inside these things: “” But you can’t alter things inside quote tags. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/8 "2014-08-14T00:19:25Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > But there were no quote tags… Pardon my inaccuracy…I meant quotation marks. In truth, when editing I call the ‘tags’ in real life. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/9 "2014-08-14T00:22:27Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Pardon my inaccuracy…I meant quotation marks. In truth, when editing I call the ‘tags’ in real life. Your understanding of the rules is incorrect, I can say whatever I want inside quotation marks, the rule applies to quote tags only. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/10 "2014-08-14T01:06:22Z")
This is a new interpretation of the rules I had never heard of before. If this is a new rule, it seems unfair to retro-actively apply it before the rule change was publicly announced. Also, it’s silly. It’s clear **Yog** was being sarcastic and not actually quoting **Terr**. I get that quote boxes are sacrosanct, because that’s a bright line rule. But to claim a parody of someone’s views is out of bounds because it’s in quote marks is pretty penny-ante. I suppose if it becomes an official rule I’ll comply, but I don’t think warning should be given out until it does. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/11 "2014-08-14T01:34:45Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Also, it’s silly. It’s clear **Yog** was being sarcastic and not actually quoting **Terr**. I get that quote boxes are sacrosanct, because that’s a bright line rule. But to claim a parody of someone’s views is out of bounds because it’s in quote marks is pretty penny-ante. I suppose if it becomes an official rule I’ll comply, but I don’t think warning should be given out until it does. I agree. Unless one argues that parodying someone’s views is a personal attack, which I could understand, constitutes a personal attack, I see no rules violation. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/12 "2014-08-14T01:40:48Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > The rule has been (for as long as I can remember) that you can say whatever you want inside these things: “” > > But you can’t alter things inside quote tags. I disagree. For as long as I can remember, the rule has been that you CAN alter and paraphrase within " ", but NOT go so far as to distort the meaning. It has NEVER been the case that “you can say whatever you want.” EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN"T BE DONE: **Raftpeople** said, “The use of quotations marks is forbidden.” That’s NOT what you said, that’s not even close to what you said, and therefore I can’t attribute it to you. > [@Larry Borgia](#): > > This is a new interpretation of the rules I had never heard of before. If this is a new rule, it seems unfair to retro-actively apply it before the rule change was publicly announced. I agree, IF it were a new rule, but it’s NOT a new rule. The [rule](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048) has always been: > [@SDMB Rules](#): > > 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. > [@Larry Borgia](#): > > Also, it’s silly. It’s clear Yog was being sarcastic and not actually quoting Terr. I get that quote boxes are sacrosanct, because that’s a bright line rule. But to claim a parody of someone’s views is out of bounds because it’s in quote marks is pretty penny-ante. I suppose if it becomes an official rule I’ll comply, but I don’t think warning should be given out until it does. I dont think the instance we’re talking about was parody, so much as snarky (and possibly insulting.) However, it clearly cast **Terr** in a a bad light, “even if meant in jest.” Repeat: This is not new. This is the way it’s always been. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/13 "2014-08-14T01:58:16Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > I disagree. For as long as I can remember, the rule has been that you CAN alter and paraphrase within " ", but NOT go so far as to distort the meaning. It has NEVER been the case that “you can say whatever you want.” EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN"T BE DONE: **Raftpeople** said, “The use of quotations marks is forbidden.” That’s NOT what you said, that’s not even close to what you said, and therefore I can’t attribute it to you.I agree, IF it were a new rule, but it’s NOT a new rule. The [rule](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048) has always been:I dont think the instance we’re talking about was parody, so much as snarky (and possibly insulting.) However, it clearly cast **Terr** in a a bad light, “even if meant in jest.” > > Repeat: This is not new. This is the way it’s always been. Can you give an example of a warning that was issued for this before? Because my understanding of the rule was the same as **Larry Borgia’s** - anything inside quote tags (not quotation marks) is sacrosanct; quotation marks are fair game for both paraphrasing and parody. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/14 "2014-08-14T02:11:36Z")
Bad moderation, imho. I too believe this is a new interpretation of the rules. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/15 "2014-08-14T02:28:11Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > I disagree. For as long as I can remember, the rule has been that you CAN alter and paraphrase within " ", but NOT go so far as to distort the meaning. It has NEVER been the case that “you can say whatever you want.” EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN"T BE DONE: **Raftpeople** said, “The use of quotations marks is forbidden.” That’s NOT what you said, that’s not even close to what you said, and therefore I can’t attribute it to you.I agree, IF it were a new rule, but it’s NOT a new rule. The [rule](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048) has always been:I dont think the instance we’re talking about was parody, so much as snarky (and possibly insulting.) However, it clearly cast **Terr** in a a bad light, “even if meant in jest.” > > Repeat: This is not new. This is the way it’s always been. I did some googling and I see some ambiguity. I do see posts by you stating your position over the years, you seem to be fairly consistent. But I also see discussions that include moderators that seem to support the view “just don’t change inside quote tags, anything else is ok”. So it was not nearly as black and white as I thought it was. ---
**Author:** ![choie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/choie/32/7829_2.png) [@choie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/choie)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/16 "2014-08-14T02:39:10Z")
Yipe, that does seem to be a much stricter interpretation of the quoting rules than I’ve ever considered before. I understand the worry that someone might hypothetically think **Terr** really said that, but… I don’t think such a person should necessarily be catered to, because (and no offense to such literal-minded folks) it seems to me we’ve always leaned–or at least aimed–toward a slightly more sophisticated demographic. Not that there’s an official sign that says, “Sorry, You Must Be _THIS_ Able to Understand Hyperbole to Ride the SDMB Roller-Coaster,” but it’s fairly implied, no? I hope it’d still be okay to imagine how someone else would respond if you state it clearly in the hypothetical. Like, if someone were in a discussion with me, I think it’d be perfectly fair to say, > [@My Hypothetical Interlocutor](#): > > Oh FFS, here she is sticking her eight-thousand cents in. Or as **choie** might say, “I shall now state in 10 million words peppered with parentheticals what I could just as easily have said in a single sentence.” Not only would it be a fair cop, I think the fact that it’s rather obviously not anything I actually said (for one thing, it’s too short!) should make it legal. If someone takes it seriously, it’s kinda on them to ask for clarification. If nothing else, since I really think most of us understood the rule as “Quote tags sacrosanct, hyperbolic rephrasing in quotation marks not so much” – and since for that reason I don’t think **Yogsooth** intended to break or flout the rule – maybe what’d be fair would be dialing down from the Warning, changing it to just a note or even a mere comment, and then if the mod consensus is that the rules really do need to be more tightly enforced because they’ve been flouted too often, restating the rules to be clearer? ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/17 "2014-08-14T02:43:13Z")
I’m having a hard time understanding the logic of any of **Jonathan Chance** ’s recent mod actions. Lately, it seems like every time I see his name, he’s closing threads that don’t need to be closed or scolding people for infractions that are barely within the letter of the law and nowhere near the spirit. **Jonathan** , I urge you to remember that your primary (and arguably only) role as a moderator is to help make the board a more enjoyable place for posters to post. The fight against ignorance is not well served when people can’t freely call out citations for being false, use rhetorical devices such as paraphrase to illustrate why someone else’s argument is wrong, or discuss a topic at all because you found the discussion annoying and locked the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/18 "2014-08-14T02:55:20Z")
[We’ve done this before, mods.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=719450) That particular thread deals 99% with misattributed quotes within quote **tags** (bolded, as to not confuse Jonathan Chance), but there is sufficient (IMO) secondary discussion regarding parody, paraphrased, or preemptively predicted sentiment within quote **marks** (again, bolded for both clarity and emphasis) to make that thread a fairly clear discussion drawing the line between quotes that happened and that did not happen, and the manner in which they may be recorded on this board. It’s interesting that that thread makes a few references to [this older 2011 thread on the subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=618120), and the mods do a good job of completely avoiding that aspect of the conversation (it’s nice that Tuba got the chance to shut down the conversation on that 2011 thread, it was almost getting somewhere useful for everyone - whew!). There are a few very interesting observations from moderators: > [@Re-writing someone's post - against the rules?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-writing-someones-post-against-the-rules/590685/3): > > \*\*cochrane \*\*has the right of it. So long as you’re not doing it within a quote box, you’re okay. > [@Re-writing someone's post - against the rules?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-writing-someones-post-against-the-rules/590685/10): > > The problem with using the quote box, with or without attribution, is that is gives the appearance that the quote was taken from some post verbatim by the software. This would be misleading for modified quotes. > Italics, CODE boxes, offsets and indentations, quotation marks, and other techniques do not give such an immediate perception that the quote is a direct copy. It is not that any form is utterly free of confusion, but keeping the QUOTE boxes sacrosanct for unmodified quotes imposes a certain consistency of application that provides a level of expectation for any reader at any time. And finally: > [@Re-writing someone's post - against the rules?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/re-writing-someones-post-against-the-rules/590685/20): > > The intent of the rule was that quote-boxes were to be treated like quotes in academic or literary or similar papers. You can edit as you please, as long as it’s clear what you’ve done – that is, use of … to indicate omission, additional words in square brackets, etc. and as long as you’re not substantively changing the meaning. In short, exactly as cited by CrazyHorse in post #12 above. > > > [@Rules of Straight Dope Message Boards](#): > > > > 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. > > > > This does not apply to parodies to which no name is attached. > > > > Text inside {QUOTE} tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and you may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the {QUOTE} tags. There are a lot of very specific quote\*\*“tag”\*\* rules, and - as far as I can tell - zero quote \*\*“mark” \*\*rules. I’m apt to go with **C K Dex** ’s very literary take on the matter - that quote **tags** (please don’t make me color that red and in 16 pt font…) are a clear indication of another poster’s comments. Anything else is … not. At least, that’s my reading of it. And if that’s not correct, then why all the discussion about it? Why not make a blanket statement that “all quotes (marks or tags or otherwise) are to be moderated the same”? Why would TPTB endure multiple threads over multiple years over multiple moderator terms, etc. to continually hash out minutia regarding this subject, when the rules have been so clearly been laid out? I mean, _maybe_ it’s because the rules aren’t there to actually set the tone of the board and set clear guidelines on how discussions would best take place - but rather, rules are there to simply be adjusted to best suit whatever whimsical fancy any particular mod has decided upon that particular day, and all the rest of the mods must then readjust their clocks to accommodate for that particular wrench in the clockwork. Maybe… ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/19 "2014-08-14T03:38:21Z")
I take objection to “Bam, Warning.” Warnings are not a joke. They are precursor to banning someone. Even if the rule were violated, it is a rule that just gets a mod note. I know, I’ve gotten them before. And I even bitched at the person out who got offended. Still only a mod note. Warnings are for serious violations of the rules. They are not for the little tiny things. Did anyone actually think that Terr said what was in quotes? No. Thus it was not a misquote. Nothing was harmed by it. Warnings are for when you know someone has intentionally broken the rules or has an egregious violation of them. They are not tiny things you hand out like candy. They are not Emeril’s adding extra garlic to his recipes. If you want users to treat Warnings with respect, you need to, too. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2014, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470/20 "2014-08-14T04:09:15Z")
Truly awful moderating, IMO. The rule against altering words in the quote tags is a good one, and it serves a useful purpose in preventing direct misattribution and dishonest quotation. But the issue of intent and interpretation need to be taken into account here. And no-one with a reading age greater than 13 actually thinks that **YogSosoth** ’s post was intended to confuse people regarding **Terr** ’s opinion. His post was basically his own—admittedly hyperbolic and sarcastic—interpretation of **Terr** ’s overall philosophy regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He basically announced this fact when he began his post with the words, “Answering for **Terr** …” Hell, it couldn’t be more obvious if he had actually begun his post with: “The following is my hyperbolic and sarcastic reading of **Terr** ’s arguments in this thread.” No-one reading what he wrote could be in any doubt that it was **YogSosoth** ’s interpretation. There was no intention to deceive, and no deception involved. We can argue about how accurate his interpretation of **Terr** ’s position was, but if this qualifies as warnable misrepresentation, then you’d better just close down GD. Not only does the warning fly in the face of the actual written rules, but it also flies in the face of the spirit behind the rule against altering quotations. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jonathon-chance-what-are-you-on-about-here/695470.md?page=2)