Can you quote cardboard posts?

So, here was the initial explanation I received from the admin, ego:
"We don't have a rigid rule regarding quoting posts from users who have been sanctioned. Feeding the trolls or responding to insults is strictly discouraged and can result in a warning. Generally speaking, there is no issue with addressing the constructive elements within a sanctioned user's post."
(In that first part, it’s pretty obvious ego meant "sanctioned" rather than "quoted"—just a slip of the pen)

Then today comes this warning from the moderator, Cuka:
"And there is no quoting sanctioned posts, in case anyone forgot."

Yeah, you can definitely end up with a ban if you just quote a banned post and keep pushing the same argument that got them flagged in the first place. Look, some banned posts actually have a constructive angle to them, and it’s perfectly fine to jump in on those parts. But if someone was just being off-topic, trolling, or being straight-up disrespectful, and everyone else keeps piling onto that nonsense, it becomes nearly impossible to follow the rules. It doesn't mean you'll get banned every single time—it really all comes down to what you actually write, whether there were prior warnings, the overall context, and all that other stuff—but yeah, it's a real possibility.

If I’ve interpreted this correctly, the warning stating "There are no quotas for quoting archived posts if someone forgets" can be safely ignored whenever one is responding specifically to the constructive elements within an archived post.

In truth, the warning should have read: "There are no quotas for quoting archived posts—unless you are addressing the constructive portions—in case anyone forgot."

Thanks for the clarification (and for the double standards, though I'll spare you the direct accusations this time).

In general, I don't see why there shouldn't be any issue with quoting the constructive parts of a post to keep the conversation moving in a productive direction. If a user has been banned, you can certainly comment on their points broadly, but you shouldn't be asking them direct questions or addressing them personally, since they aren't actually able to jump back into the discussion anyway.

So, we’re just cherry-picking fragments of a post and twisting them into a completely different meaning while I'm under a ban?

#6 And so it continues.

It seems you aren't exactly following the rules you laid out above.

Look, this is an old complaint, and we really don't go circling back to previous grievances unless there’s a damn good reason to do so. Since the original post was already addressed, I think we can call it a day on this one. And just to reiterate what I mentioned before, getting a formal warning isn't an automatic "yes" every single time—it all depends on a whole bunch of different factors involved in the situation.