It seems like the problem here is that while several mods in the past deliberated at length and finally arrived at the clarification that the rule about quotes being sacrosanct applies specifically to quote tags, certain other mods missed the deliberate precision of that statement and decided that they could use their own personal definition of what “quote tags” means (specifically, quote tags or quotation marks). Now that we’ve uncovered the misunderstanding, I’m sure a retraction will be forthcoming.
So has there been a formal rule change since this thread, where Marley23 explained:
[Quote=Marley23]
Link.
No, it applies only to quote boxes…
[/quote]
and provided the following example to illustrate the difference between quotation marks and quote boxes?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Link.
‘Marley23 is a great mod and a handsome devil to boot.’
Thanks, magellan01- you’re alright!
[/quote]
Because it seems like you are saying we cannot do exactly what he demonstrated that we can do in his effort to explain the difference between quote marks and quote tags.
As I mentioned in the other example I cited upthread, there are dozens more examples I really don’t want to have to search for, but can if need be.
We have been told straignt up, through the years, many times, by mods and admins, that “you can do whatever you want inside quote marks, just don’t edit quote boxes” - and yes I am paraphrasing that with quotation marks. [Reported]
And this was spelled out specifically to mean not only parody or paraphrasing, but literally intentionally attempting to misrepresent what another poster said. It was always considered fair game as long as we have a strict rule that quote boxes are sacrosanct.
We have this way of indicating direct, literal quotes and we have been told point blank on numerous occasions that mod action will not be taken against anyone who misquotes, misrepresents, or otherwise twists what someone said into something else as long as they didn’t use quote tags.
As noted by others above, this isn’t just my own interpretation. There are several long time, rule-savvy posters here saying we have never before heard of any other interpretation of this long-standing rule.
If Yoga had stated in front of the quote marks ‘this is parody’ would the warning g still have been issued? If the answer is no then the warning seems misplaced. If the answer is yes that’s just odd. I used the apostrophe. Why? Iuse it to paraphrase . If Yoga simply replaced the quotes with apostrophes would that yield a warning? If no then this warning seems misplaced. If yes then I don’t understand the rule.
It sometimes seems that “this is parody” should be attached to half of the moderating decisions around here.
Should have just given a warning for a blatant personal attack, saved yourself a week of rules lawyering.
Since there seems to be some disagreement amongst the moderators, we’re going to discuss this privately. I’d like to ask for patience and a halt to major discussion here.
When we wrote the rules (I remember, 'cause I wrote them) we discussed it a great deal. We clearly decided that quote-tags are to be used accurately, like in academic papers, so one can alter but those alterations need to be marked (square brackets, dot-dot-dot, etc.) We also said that paraphrase and parody are acceptable in quotation marks " " but only up to a point: total distortion is not. That’s exactly what the rules say.
If you want to totally distort, don’t use quotation marks. I’ll give an example below.
EXAMPLE:
- Acceptable
Dex said, “Don’t use quote marks if you want to completely reverse the statement.” – acceptable
Dex said, “Never use quote marks, they’re insulting to the Inuit population” – Not acceptable. That’s not what was said, not at all.
Dex essentially said not to ever quote another poster outside of quote tags – Acceptable. No, it’s not what was said, but it’s the way someone has interpreted my comment. No quote marks, no quote tags, you can say what you want (as long as it doesn’t violate other rules.)
That’s the way I’ve always enforced, and I think that’s the way most other mods have too, but we’ll discuss behind the scenes, come up with consensus, and clarify. OK?
As per the rule as written and quoted above, a parody WITH NO NAME ATTACHED would have been OK. But a parody that “casts another poster in a bad light, even in jest” would not. That’s the way the rule was written.
Honest question: What about a parody that casts a poster’s argument in a bad light? Because that’s how I see the originating fake quote that started this whole thing. It’s insulting the argument, not the poster. It’s reductio ad absurdum.
Okay, I am sure I am not alone in getting confused here.
Let’s see if I have it right. Quote boxes- you just don’t tamper with.
Don’t parody a quote with a users name attached (if it casts them in a bad light). I guess here are different interpretations of bad light or bad taste. I’m okay with that- Mods have to make a call.
However (always) it could be distorted. If XYX said “Yttrium is a useless find” and I responded “It has been said that Yttrium is useless, but anyone who thinks that is a goose”- well it is clear to who I am referring but would not warrant a thumping- is this correct?
Just trying to clraify things, although I do believe the Mods actions were a little hasty.
Actually, we have long considered the second clause to be a violation of the rules against insulting posters. Posting an insult that is directed at a specific poster is forbidden, even when one tries to skirt the rules by leaving out the username or the second person pronoun.
OK, apologies for the delay, but there’s been considerable discussion and differences of opinion amongst the mods. Our consensus is as follows:
After discussion, we’ve decided to reverse YogSothoth’s warning. Posters are free to use quotation marks to paraphrase or criticize another posters argument. However, as a general rule, attacking or denigrating other posters is not allowed, including doing so by attributing positions or statements to other posters that they have not taken. The difference between an inaccurate, but honestly intended paraphrase and a malicious attack can be subjective, and it is ultimately up to the moderation staff if an individual post crosses the line.
YogSothoth’s post should more properly have been moderated as an example of the later. However, in the interest of moving on with the issue, we are not issuing a further warning over the post.
Thank you to the moderators for taking the time to resolve this and get everyone on the same page.
Thanks to all for participating in this discussion and thanks to the mods for discussing this and clarifying, for all of us, what the rule is, what it means and how it should be applied.
Well done, moderators. Thank you.