Jonathon Chance, what are you on about here?

[Munch]

We’ve done this before, mods. 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 quotemarks (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, 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:

@Miller

**cochrane **has the right of it. So long as you’re not doing it within a quote box, you’re okay.

@tomndebb

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:

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

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…