So, NO altering of quotes, even if just for purely humorous effect, is allowed either?

[Bone]

@John_DiFool

Because the current rule, as quoted upthread, clearly says “modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light.” Since (my admittedly lame) alteration was intended purely to cast Trump in a bad light, and not the original Doper (Morgenstern), I felt it was a valid question. Esp. since I have never seen anybody else modded/noted/warned for doing so w/ said obvious intention.

No real sweat off of my brow, and I’ll do the (more cumbersome) change below the quote from now one (whenever the mood strikes me again). If the rule needs altering tho to match the current de facto interpretation, then it needs to be altered.

You’ve only taken a portion of the rule:

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

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.

"modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light is a sufficient, but not necessary condition to trigger a violation of this rule. Parsed accurately, the rule states that:
Falsely attributing a quote to another user; or
Modifying another’s post in order to cast him/her in a bad light

Are grounds for sanction.

There is also a prohibition on adding editorial comments to quote boxes or editing it to change the meaning.