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

That clears it up, as the items I listed follow normal editorial rules.

Do you agree with that OP? I think it’s nonsense. I use ellipsis only when I think there’s no way that a partial quote would misrepresent the writer’s meaning; if in doubt, bolding the part you want to comment on but quoting the whole thing gives the context right there so that others can judge for themselves.

What’s the alternative? Quoting large blocks of text with no indication which part you care about does not facilitate conversation, imo.

We already have enough problems with people who don’t read the entire thread and jump in with something out of context. The last thing we need is people responding to a “humorously” altered quote without having read the original.

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

That’s been the rule for as long as I can remember. Like, I’m not even sure why you’d question it. If you don’t agree with it, that’s one thing, but it’s certainly the rule. Anything in a quote box, has to be exactly what the person said (other than emphasizing in a way that doesn’t change the spirit of the quote).

IME, if you want to change something in a quote, you can sidestep the rule by removing their name (and probably the chevron/link).

TLDR, no you can’t change a quote.

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.

For the record, I felt neither belittled or insulted by your post John. Not that that matters in any way. No blood, no foul.

No prob.

The event occurred in 2002, in a Pit thread. The poster threatening legal action was banned and the rule was instituted then.

Part of the rule, from the FAQ:

Text inside

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

We regard bolding and highlighting as within “normal editorial rules.” However, you should indicate this after the post.

You’ve only taken a portion of the rule:

"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.

I can’t help but feel this demonstrates my earlier point. We have a bright line rule that is very well known and has been on this board pretty much forever, yet still here is an attempt to rules lawyer some of the finer details. Can you imagine what would happen if the rule were less rigidly enforced and exceptions were actually possible?

No. Those fish are defenseless swimming around the barrel.

That’s like saying “I can steal if it’s a joke, the law only states that I can’t do it to deprive others of their belongings”
In any case, the rule has multiple parts and you’re only claiming to not break one of them, you took that line out of context.
The other part of that rule is “Text inside {QUOTE} tags is sacrosanct.”
The mods have always upheld that rule as far as I know, with no room for judgement.

As I stated earlier. If you had stripped the name, you’d probably be okay.

I don’t think this rules lawyering. It’s a pretty clear rule. Don’t misquote someone in order to make them look bad.

Then, later, it says “text inside quote tags is sacrosanct.”

That’s fine. It clearly supersedes the “in a bad light” stipulation. Zero room for doubt.

So… why have the “in a bad light” stipulation at all? It’s needless verbiage for a very simple rule. The rule should be:

Who cares? You know what the rule is and on this topic we have little tolerance for rules lawyering.

Best practices to avoid warnings? Don’t try to figure out where the line is. Stay well within any potential boundary.

I will note that mis-quoting a person is possible without using quote tags. :wink:

The point is that the rule should remove any quibbles that could lead to rules-lawyering. :wink:

So, you’re saying you think people shouldn’t use quote tags. Huh.

It’s odd that the OP asked if they can break a rule for specific reason when there’s a rule and it even addresses that exact reason [misquoting, in jest].

I’d take your rule and get rid of the ‘even if meant in jest’ line. Just make it ‘no changing a quote’, except the handful of reasons regarding bolding and shortening a quote.

But, in the end, I don’t think it matter. It doesn’t change the rule and it comes up often enough anyways that people clearly aren’t reading it.

I’ll point out that there’s no rule about misquoting people inside quote SIGNS.

" "

Just saying.

This isn’t some arcane grammatical debate over article usage - it’s a chunk of wording that genuinely should not be there and is serving no purpose but to make the rule less clear.

Why shouldn’t the rule be edited for clarity if there’s legitimate room to do so?