D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[Guest 6801328]

(BTW can anybody please tell @ad_hoc that whatever he thinks I did I'm really really sorry, if it is the pink letters I'm not using them anymore

Hey! He blocked me, too. (Boo-hoo. I'm such a victim.)

 

[Sunseeker]

You need not to use it, someone just needs to use it on you.

While I disagree with your assertion that the block function is annoying, I am consoled by the fact that if the person I blocked had anything important/interesting/creating/constructive to say, other people would quote them in support or reasoned disagreement with them and I would be able to see what they said and decide if it is worth unblocking them (though I can't help if they block me).

However the above does not typically happen, leading me to safely conclude the blocked individual has nothing of substance worth reading and my forum experience is no worse for the lack of their input.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, you mean like:
stopbullying.gov
anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk
restorativejustice.org.uk
cyberbullying.org

No. I mean real definitions from, you know, dictionaries.

bul·ly1
ˈbo͝olē/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: bullying
use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

Meriam Webster

Definition of bullying
: abuse and mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger, more powerful, etc. : the actions and behavior of a bully

Cambridge Dictionary

bully
noun [ U ] /ˈbʊl·i/
​
a person who threatens to hurt someone, often forcing that person to do something:

Dictionary.com (this one says the person has to habitually badger weaker people, but says nothing of it happening to the same person multiple times)

bully1
[boo l-ee]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural bullies.
1.
a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.


Hell, even YOUR definitions don't all require it to be multiple instances. One of them says often repeated, and another says has the potential to be repeated. Basically, you have a few groups trying to re-define bullying, and a few groups that use the real definition.

That may be true, but you should take that up with Morrus, instead of getting mad at the people who don't want to see your posts.

I don't care about people who don't want to see my posts. I only care about people who bully me into blocking them against my will.

Hmm...I think we can conclude from the links that I provided that it's not.

ROFL Half your links and all of the dictionary definitions back me up!

I've yet to ever see you temper a position, let alone admit you're wrong. Will this be a first?

When 4 out of 4 dictionary definitions and 2 of your 4 links back me up and say that I am right? Oh, and look in a mirror with this last statement of yours.

 

[Lanefan]

How did a good thread about yea-or-nay to magic shops and magic item trading/purchasing/selling become a thread about the definition of bullying?

Are all magic shop owners being classed as bullies?

Or conversely, can they be bullied into giving a better deal?

Inquiring minds want to know...

 

[Guest 6801328]

No. I mean real definitions from, you know, dictionaries.

Ah, I was going with the legal definition that a lot of state are adopting, that requires both repetition and imbalance of power (I was taught that "real harm" is also required, but that apparently is less consistent). You can check state statutes, and the Department of Education. Nevertheless, that's a fair point that dictionaries are defining it differently.
So let's take a look at your dictionary definitions:

bul·ly1
ˈbo͝olē/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: bullying
use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

Meriam Webster

Definition of bullying
: abuse and mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger, more powerful, etc. : the actions and behavior of a bully

Cambridge Dictionary

bully
noun [ U ] /ˈbʊl·i/
​
a person who threatens to hurt someone, often forcing that person to do something:

Dictionary.com (this one says the person has to habitually badger weaker people, but says nothing of it happening to the same person multiple times)

bully1
[boo l-ee]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural bullies.
1.
a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

Not a single one of those even remotely describes the situation here. I realize your arguments are usually weak, but that's not what those definitions mean by weak/strong.

I only care about people who bully me into blocking them against my will.

That's just....delusional. You didn't block them. (Unless you felt so intimidated by their actions that you went and manually added them to your block list.) They are blocking you from seeing their posts. That's not you blocking them. (If it were, you could go into your settings an unblock them.)

ROFL Half your links and all of the dictionary definitions back me up!

When 4 out of 4 dictionary definitions and 2 of your 4 links back me up and say that I am right? Oh, and look in a mirror with this last statement of yours.

Sigh...

Ok, I can't believe I'm wasting more time with this, but here are quotes from my four links, in order:

Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more than once.

the repetitive, intentional hurting of one person or group by another person or group, where the relationship involves an imbalance of power

Bullying is behaviour by an
individual or group, repeated over
time

aggressive behavior that is intentional and that involves an imbalance of power. Most often, it is repeated over time

So one of the four leaves it as an option.

Literacy FTW, Max.

 

[Kobold Boots]

This might be my last post in this thread, because the topic has been well discussed and I'm seeing some sillyness I'd rather not see in quotes (because blocking someone doesn't help if they keep getting quoted by people I'd rather continue reading)

1. My understanding of the ignore feature is that it allows me to be discerning about the experience I want to have on the forums. If I determine that I don't want to read what someone else is doing, I don't have to. However, I don't think that prevents the blocked person from seeing my posts unless they choose not to.

2. Based on this definition, I'm not bullying into doing anything. My only intention in advising Max that I was blocking him was so that he knew I wouldn't be replying to anything he wrote to me. I suggested that he also block me if he found what I was writing difficult to deal with on his end.

3. Last, I use the function often and take quality posters off of it as I note valuable threads that I can't view while logged on. Sometimes my assessment of a poster is accurate in the moment but isn't when a larger sample size is taken into account. When I know this, I correct my position and if appropriate, apologize.

Right now though, all that I'm seeing from others in quotes, just reinforces my original thought process on value.

Again my apologies to those who are replying to Max in my stead. I'll be less forthcoming in the future when it comes to using the ignore function.

Be well
KB

 

[Hussar]

No.


You keep saying the entire game must be rewritten. You base it on some logic where the way that PCs acquire the very same magic have profound influence on the entire game as is and any future supplements.
To say the least, I disagree. Actually, I've seen no one in this thread support that argument.

Of course it does. Being able to pick and choose your magic items is far, far more powerful than random generation. How do you figure that it isn't?

The idea doesn't need to be supported because it's true on its face.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, I was going with the legal definition that a lot of state are adopting, that requires both repetition and imbalance of power (I was taught that "real harm" is also required, but that apparently is less consistent). You can check state statutes, and the Department of Education. Nevertheless, that's a fair point that dictionaries are defining it differently.
So let's take a look at your dictionary definitions:

We aren't in a legal situation here, so the common definitions apply.

Not a single one of those even remotely describes the situation here. I realize your arguments are usually weak, but that's not what those definitions mean by weak/strong.

You mean besides most of them. They are in the stronger position and I am in the weaker(as they have all the power to force me to block them). They force me to block them, since I have no ability to keep reading their posts, let alone reply to them. That's blocking, whether they are on my blocked list or not.

Ok, I can't believe I'm wasting more time with this, but here are quotes from my four links, in order:

So one of the four leaves it as an option.

Literacy FTW, Max.

The first one involves bullying that has the potential to happen more than once. Does not say to the same person. You can block many members here, so it is a bullying behavior that can be repeated. The fourth one is an aggressive and intentional behavior that involves an imbalance of power. Forcing someone to do something is an aggressive behavior, blocking is intentional, and it involves an imbalance of power because the person blocking holds 100% of the power, while I am powerless to prevent him from forcing me to block him.

That's two out of four. Literacy for the win indeed.

 

[Guest 6801328]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] you defend the nuttiest positions sometimes. I don't know why I let myself get into this with you.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] you defend the nuttiest positions sometimes. I don't know why I let myself get into this with you.

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] wrote

So one of the four leaves it as an option.

You were wrong and it was two, but even if it were only that one, that's all it takes for me to be right. You've admitted that there was a definition out there that fits what I am claiming here. Why do you continue to argue against yourself?