That hypothetical is all well and good, but look at the way you actually just used the quote feature. You quoted my entire post, which made multiple points in reply to multiple points made in multiple other posts. And you quoted all of those points and said “that has to do with post count”. “That” being the aesthetics? “That” being the fact that it’s not about server time? “That” the rapid fire?
No, you used the quote where saying “Carleas, …” would have done just as well, and you made your point less clear (and your presentation much more cluttered) by including a whole lot of discussion that appears immediately above your post.
And that’s how quoting happens in the wild. Even if there were a hypothetical post where nesting four quotes deep would really drive the point home (and I don’t think that is a realistic hypothetical), there would still be a net gain in clarity by reducing cluttery, easy copying of what the previous person said.
And if you were to, say, type out some of the things I said (e.g. “And you quoted all of those points and said ‘that has to do with post count’”), you’d be more likely to digest those things, to think about them and break them down, and to really pay attention to them and read them before you responded. Human reading comprehension, even 99+ percentile comprehension, is poor. Quoting in-line, actually using (as opposed to mentioning) someone’s words makes clear at the very least where they are ambiguous or subject to multiple interpretations. That’s a good thing for discussion.
EDIT: I apologize if the above comes across as overly confrontational; in many cases I meant “you” to serve the role of the genderless third person singular, and probably would have better conveyed my intended tone by using the word “one”.