2025-AT-01: Staff and ChineseDrone Upheld

[Cosar]

Also, considering that I wrote a post about disengaging posts, in response to someone saying that the correct way to disengage is to not post anything at all, I am not sure why you are under the impression I'm specifically talking about whatever specific edge case of bad faith faux-disengagement you seem to be taking up arms against? But uh, I'm not specifically talking about that. My post feeling just weird to you is because you are reading it wrong, it seems?

Click to shrink...

Just to be clear, the post you were conceivably replying to was absolutely talking about this bad faith faux-disengagement:

The correct procedure to disengage is to just stop posting. Not get in their last piece then declare the discussion over.

Click to shrink...

And this doesn't really change from earlier on in the discussion.

I'm sorry but being an ass to someone and then demanding no more interaction is ridiculous. It's a petty attempt to get the last word, to 'win' the argument. And should not just not be respected, it should be disrespected. Don't do this. It's literally one of the least civil things you can do.
.... If you don't want to continue an argument, stop posting. Don't flame someone and then declare they are not allowed to respond.

Click to shrink...

Sorry but if you make a point and then demand I let that point stand because you don't want to be talked to any more, imma address your point. And quote you to do so.

Click to shrink...

I don't see any reasonable way to read these posts as talking about someone just going "Yeah, I'm done here. Please don't quote me". All of them indicate that the post includes arguments and/or vitriol, followed by an something characterized as getting the last word. But now you claim that you aren't? Are you sure the issue isn't that you are reading the earlier post wrong?

 

[DoobleDeeDooble]

In everything you've quoted you skipped out the stratigo post that I was largely replying to, which was explicitly in response to a Derpmind post discussing disengagement in general rather than specifically the flame-outs, etc. (The one immediately preceding the poaw post you quoted there, excuse me if I don't quote it.) I have been consistent in my every post in here on the topic in saying that it's just generally uncivil to reply to someone saying that they don't want to be replied to; if I've come off otherwise, that's been a mistake. You're welcome to think I'm not posting a topic quite germane to the discussion, but it remains the case that your characterization of what I was saying in the earlier post was not what I was intending.

I didn't say that as some kind of gotcha, it's that you expressed apparent confusion about my point and so I attempted to alleviate it. I think that is also what you are doing here, in which case I think everything's cleared up now! If this is instead some kind of rhetorical thing about who is "wrong" and thus at fault for the misunderstanding then I really do not care.

And Fey'lya's right, this isn't really the venue for this discussion in the first place, anyways.

 

[hghwolf]

JFC, this cannot possibly be as complicated as people are making it out to be.

If you want to disengage, disengage. Don't engage then attempt to forbid the other party from engaging in the same post. That's gauche as fuck and should not be respected. If you want to disengage but only after saying your last bit, just say something along the lines of 'you may have the last word, should you so choose' after your argument or statement or whatever, post, then stop engaging. 'You're not human, don't talk to me anymore' is different from 'don't talk to me anymore' and should not be treated the same.

SV provides us with tools to use if we don't want to see someones posts. If we don't use them it's on us to actually disengage.