When responding to another post is it OK to change the color of the phrase or sentence you responding to in another posters quote?

For example, "The snake and the frog and the bird." If I was only interested in asking about the snake.

Thanks

Rule 30:-

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

You can trim quotes to just leave the paragraph / sentence to which you refer in order to clarify what you are responding to but generally we don't permit modified quotes.

Something I've wondered about for a while, what's the reasoning behind this rule? I can perfectly understand a rule preventing people from editing the text of a quoted post, but adding bold font or another way to highlight the part of the quote you're referring to can be useful. Why is this considered a bad thing, and why is there a rule against it?

We have had cases where posters have changed the quoted text out of context.

As mentioned, I agree with a rule forbidding changing the text itself.

But what have you got against highlighting part of a quote in bold font (or similar) to help clarify which part of it you're referring to, but leaving the text unchanged?

As mentioned, I agree with a rule forbidding changing the text itself.

But what have you got against highlighting part of a quote in bold font (or similar) to help clarify which part of it you're referring to, but leaving the text unchanged?

I agree. It is sometimes difficult to understand a response as a quote within a quote is not easy to read. For example above if one could change the color it would become easy to read.

I agree. It is sometimes difficult to understand a response as a quote within a quote is not easy to read. For example above if one could change the color it would become easy to read.

I agree it makes it easier to read if you highlight the part that you want to give emphasis to, but retain the whole quote for context.

Do like this: Just quote the exact part of the text you was planning to highlight.

highlight.

Then you will often end up with a meaningless fragment of a sentence such as the above. It's easier and clearer if you can keep the sentence, and thus the context of the quote, but just highlight the bit you want to give emphasis to, like this:

Do like this: Just quote the exact part of the text you was planning to highlight.

It still doesn't answer the question though, what's your objection to us using the latter method?

highlight.

Then you will often end up with a meaningless fragment of a sentence such as the above. It's easier and clearer if you can keep the sentence, and thus the context of the quote, but just highlight the bit you want to give emphasis to, like this:

Do like this: Just quote the exact part of the text you was planning to highlight.

It still doesn't answer the question though, what's your objection to us using the latter method?

Highlighting a word or phrase in another member's post can modify the emphasis to something that the member was not intending. It has happened before and gotten reports for such.

So can quoting a fragment of a post, in fact that can be more damaging because you can change the context completely in some cases.

If someone wants to deliberately twist what another member is saying, they can probably find a way to do it, even within the current rules. That's not really the issue though: are you honestly saying it's such a common complaint to warrant completely forbidding touching a quoted section in any way? If someone wants to simply draw attention to a part of a sentence they're quoting, without modifying the text at all and without doing anything malicious, to me it seems a bit silly that the rules prevent them from doing so.

So can quoting a fragment of a post, in fact that can be more damaging because you can change the context completely in some cases.

If someone wants to deliberately twist what another member is saying, they can probably find a way to do it, even within the current rules. That's not really the issue though: are you honestly saying it's such a common complaint to warrant completely forbidding touching a quoted section in any way? If someone wants to simply draw attention to a part of a sentence they're quoting, without modifying the text at all and without doing anything malicious, to me it seems a bit silly that the rules prevent them from doing so.

My wife says that sex is better if I stand on my head and whistle Danny Boy. TYwais wrote, "It has happened before and gotten reports for such."

Just a friendly bump on this topic. Is there any chance of rule #30 being up for reconsideration or will it be staying as-is?

So can quoting a fragment of a post, in fact that can be more damaging because you can change the context completely in some cases.

If someone wants to deliberately twist what another member is saying, they can probably find a way to do it, even within the current rules. That's not really the issue though: are you honestly saying it's such a common complaint to warrant completely forbidding touching a quoted section in any way? If someone wants to simply draw attention to a part of a sentence they're quoting, without modifying the text at all and without doing anything malicious, to me it seems a bit silly that the rules prevent them from doing so.

My wife says that sex is better if I stand on my head and whistle Danny Boy. TYwais wrote, "It has happened before and gotten reports for such."

I always knew these moderators can see everything everywhere.

Edited February 26, 201313 yr by harrry