D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[doctorbadwolf]

Because we were discussing the topic of IF the only way to fix this issue is to ditch the existing blocking function THEN what would be your threshold for when you'd be OK with that?

Right now, Morrus seems to either be disinterested or not willing or able to go through whatever difficulties are involved with fixing it. If that remains the case, then the only option available may be to ditch the existing block function (though I will raise the topic with him again).

If you have a threshold somewhere on that metaphorical line which runs from on the far left end "ditch it on principle even if it never impacts anyone ever" to the far right end of "never ditch it even if all posts are completely ruined because of it," then perhaps can you understand why other people's thresholds might be on some other point along that line somewhat to the left of yours. Asking about your threshold begins to establish a means to try and talk about empathizing with those who simply chose a slightly different point along that line. You don't have to agree with them of course...

Here’s the thing. I don’t think unrealistic hypotheticals are useful in this case, and in any reasonably likely case, I’d rather leave things as they are than ditch block, if forced to choose between those two options.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If they don’t want to talk to me and my statements aren’t actually to them then it is not weird IMO. I can reference what someone says and talk about what they said without ever speaking to them.

What’s weird IMO is thinking that every quote of your words means someone is talking directly to you. That’s a bit Narcissistic IMO.

If someone quotes you, it is literally a direct response to you. IT is the same as replying to someone in person while maintaining eye contact and quite obviously directing your reply to them.

 

[Mistwell]

Here’s the thing. I don’t think unrealistic hypotheticals are useful in this case, and in any reasonably likely case, I’d rather leave things as they are than ditch block, if forced to choose between those two options.

Given the goal is seeking a way for others to appreciate a sense of empathy for those experiencing this problem...how can you possibly conclude (prior to even attempting that discussion) that you don't think it could be helpful in this case?

 

[Charlaquin]

If someone quotes you, it is literally a direct response to you. IT is the same as replying to someone in person while maintaining eye contact and quite obviously directing your reply to them.

It literally is not. The purpose of quoting a person on a forum is to reference their post. It is the forum equivalent of, in a group conversation, responding to a point raised by another person involved in the conversation, and/or using their comment as a jumping-off point from which to make your own point.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It literally is not. The purpose of quoting a person on a forum is to reference their post. It is the forum equivalent of, in a group conversation, responding to a point raised by another person involved in the conversation, and/or using their comment as a jumping-off point from which to make your own point.

Nope. This is replying to you.

If I wanted to speak on the same topic without replying directly to you, I’d just make a new post starting with “Regarding the idea that XYX...”

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nope. This is replying to you.

If I wanted to speak on the same topic without replying directly to you, I’d just make a new post starting with “Regarding the idea that XYX...”

Or you could take a shortcut and quote the initial statement of idea XYX.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Or you could take a shortcut and quote the initial statement of idea XYX.

Sure, but any normal person being quoted is going to take that as replying to them. General forum behavior shows this day after day.

 

[Xetheral]

Sure, but any normal person being quoted is going to take that as replying to them. General forum behavior shows this day after day.

When I'm quoted I interpret the quoting post as a direct reply only if there is additional context suggesting that I am being addressed personally. Usually, that takes the form of the poster addressing me in the second person. Otherwise, I interpret the quoting post as addressed to everyone.

Similarly, when I quote another poster and intend my post to be a direct reply to that poster, I will indicate as such, usually by addressing them directly in the second person. When I intend my post to be addressed to everyone (e.g. this post) I avoid using the second person, and confine my language to discussing ideas relating to, or stemming from, those in the quoted post.

Accordingly, I think a post including a quote is sometimes a direct response and sometimes not a direct response. Until reading this thread, I would have thought that the difference between the two would usually be readily discernable by context. I find it fascinating that there is instead such divergent opinion on whether posts including quotes are direct replies to the quoted poster.

 

[Mistwell]

Sure, but any normal person being quoted is going to take that as replying to them. General forum behavior shows this day after day.

So people who disagree with your view are not normal?

I think I need a break from you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, but any normal person being quoted is going to take that as replying to them. General forum behavior shows this day after day.

Hmm... Are you, doctorbadwolf one of the people I’ve gotten into big disputes with over the use of the general form of “you” instead of the more technically precise but less casual “one”? If so, I think I’ve found the source of our disagreement.