my reading and interpreting of the same rules?
Obviously, but based on what principles and what passages from the rules have you arrived at this interpretation?
the 2-3 other posters that agree with me, the hand full of times this quastion keeps poopin up
That’s an argument
ad populum, which is fallacious and therefore not logically valid.
so the rules on how to use social skills (with page numbers and qutoes) wasn't evidence?
It was not a sound argument for the position it was being used to support, as
@iserith demonstrated.
Okay, here is my basic thoughts, there are no rules for what happens when you make a skill check. there is no rule saying what happens to your monster/npc/pc when a social skill happens. IT is up to the DM/PC, and as such never interferes with the player agency.
I disagree. When a player describes an action (assuming it is a complete description, including goal and approach), what happens on a success is that the player succeeds in their goal. When an NPC takes an action in a social context, the outcome is not uncertain, since the player decides what their character does, so no roll is necessary to determine the outcome.
I also agree with "Sometimes you don't need to roll" if my NPC kobold is trying to threaten the 15th level barbarian I wont roll, it just isn't happening. Also if the 1st level wizard tries to intimadate the adult dragon...also no roll. when there is a question, when someone can be intimadated we have them roll, then the person in charge (DM for NPC Player for PC) decide how they react.
Great!
why? what makes you get to decided what is and is not enough to count as following the rules?
I don’t get to decide, words just mean things. The quote cited did not contain an explicit exception to the general rule that the player decides what their character does. You may have inferred an exception, but no exception is explicitly written, and in an exceptions-based rules system, an exception must be written explicitly in order to override a general rule.
and this board isn't a peer review journal or college term paper.
Ok? But we’re arguing about what the rules say, which requires us to use epistemology to determine the validity and soundness of the interpretations being presented.
you are talking in circles. go back and read my examples and find anywhere that I go against the rules.
Go against what rules? You cited the existence of social skills on monster/NPC stat blocks as evidence that those skills are meant to be used against PCs, based on the logic that they would be useless if they weren’t. I countered your argument by pointing out that those skills would still have a use if they were not meant to be used against PCs - specifically, they can be used against other monsters/NPCs. Your conclusion therefore does not follow logically from its premise.