Or we could just eliminate the people that aren’t competent.
It isn’t.
It’s always seemed to me that people who are in favour of nested quotes have superior coding skills, and so I would suggest that they manually build nested quotes, which should be an easy task. Use the multiquote button to include several posts in your reply, do the appropriate simple copy/pasting, and voilà, nested quotes. There is nothing at the board preventing anyone from making nested quotes.
Besides for the fact that it takes time and effort, the real problem with non-nested quotes is not in my posts - I know what I’m trying to say - it’s in the posts of other people, that I’m reading.
Those mirror exactly my feelings about having automated nested quotes. 
I never understood the whole “quoth” thing. It makes more work for the poster using it, and more work for people replying to it. It does look quaint, though, in a quothy sort of way.
Personally I find it less work: It’s easier to just select a portion of a post and copy it, then paste that in the reply box, than it is to quote the entire post, and then delete the extraneous portions (which often seems to lead to accidental deletion of part of the tags). Plus, you can’t even trim quotes at all in the quick-reply box, using the automatic feature.
That, and I got into the habit of doing it that way before we even had the GUI for replies.
Wait, are you instituting a new rule about quoting, or is this just Chronos specific? Because I still manually quote. I have learned to use the multiquote button, especially since the auto italics was removed, but there are times I’ll decide to add another comment to a post I’m composing, so I’ll just manually cut and past to insert.
I understand how the non-nested quotes leads to content disappearing, and thus potential misunderstandings of attributions. But now, are you saying that it’s no longer allowed to post
Chronos said:
There’s nothing wrong with that. The error comes when the next person is creating their post. They have to not be sloppy.
So? We posted around here forever without those. I still don’t always post to create them. Sure they’re useful, but are we making this a rule now?
Funny, to me it was never more popular.
That’s all I’m saying. IMHO it doesn’t need to be a rule, but it shouldn’t hurt either to ask someone to please do it that way.
You can accomplish the same thing by using the “quote=” tag instead of putting the attribution outside the quote box. That’s really the problem.
Yes, there is something wrong with that. You’re needlessly increasing the risk that the next poster will misattribute the next quote and you’re needlessly creating make-work for other posters and for moderators who have go fix the icreasef number of misattributed quotations.
You can copy and paste the selected text,as you normally do. Then highlight the selected text. In the quick reply box click on the button that looks like a speech bubble. It wraps quote tags around the selected text. You end up with this:
You don’t get the attribution with the handy button to click back to the quoted text, but it’s quick and solves the problem of potential misattribution in future replies that seems to be of concern.
That just does the same thing as putting in the quote tags by hand, which I do anyway. And I find it quicker to keep my hands on the keyboard, rather than mess with mouse buttons, but I’m sure mileage varies on that.
Add “=username” in the first quote tag. Problem solved.
Irishman, are you kidding me? Why does everything an individual moderator says have to be taken as a “new rule”? I never said or implied any such thing.
I asked Chronos not to do manual quotes as a matter of courtesy to both his fellow posters and the moderators who may have to clear up the apparent misattributions produced by this method. If you are using this method as well, I would also ask you to desist and also use the regular quote function. But I’m not going to warn you over it. But you would be doing me a personal favor if you would learn to use the quote tags the way most people do.
Do him this favor—he won’t forget it. Ask your friends in the neighborhood about him. They’ll tell you he knows how to return a favor…
I know, and I typically do that now.
But Chronos has a point that the vB implementation of the quote attribute is in the wrong place. It puts in inside the quote delimiter, as if it is part of the quote. It isn’t, and should be outside the box. It’s not my particular annoyance - mine was the auto italicizing of quotes. Once that went away, I transitioned to using the multiquote and auto-attribution features. But I can understand why Chronos is annoyed personally by it.
Also, using the “quote=” tag does not add the blue arrow that Arnold Winkelried mentioned.
When you said:
That sounded like a moderator instruction, but upon rereading I see you are saying that as a moderator it tends to make more work for you so you would hope he would do you a favor. Correct?
I don’t consider that a point. I consider it pedantry, and erroneous pedantry at that. The “quote delimiter” is a visual structure with three clearly delineated parts. There’s no reason to consider the entire quote box as the equivalent of quotation marks, when it’s clear, through indentation, a line break, and the use of boldface, that part of the material inside the box is an attribution and part of it is the content of the quoted matter.
That’s true, but it takes care of the primary problem that I’m talking about.
That’s correct. I meant “speaking from the point of view of a moderator.” If I had meant it as an official instruction, I would have labeled it as such. But now I see where you got the impression it was an instruction.