this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
156 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13447 readers
900 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

That's it. Our instance requires us to stop responding if you explicitly ask us to. It's right here buried in our Code of Conduct

Any discussions may be opted out of by disengaging.

In the past, this rule has only applied to the specific user you say it to. I'd like to suggest going forward that if someone on another instance uses it, we treat it as applying to all of us.

Unfortunately this rule wasn't communicated clearly before, so I'm making this post for visibility.

Edit: As the comments clarify, this has to be done in good faith, typically just a one word "disengage" comment. If you add more stuff to the discussion and then say "disengage" at the end, you're not disengaging, it's a way to put a stop to a toxic argument not to get the last word in.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 95 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

You do have to actually disengage though, to be clear. No "I disengage, but also [fuck you, x,y,z, trying to get the last word]". If you're disengaging, it has to be mutually respected.

[–] [email protected] 70 points 1 year ago

The usual format is (wall of rage text) then "therefore I disengage." smuglord

[–] [email protected] 60 points 1 year ago (1 children)

no more half measures walter

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait a second I know how to stop you

Disengage, Mike

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Type "disengage" and then just posting a continuation of the rant on a different person's post entirely as a bit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

inhales 1984 CHINA BAD VUVUZELA NO IPHONE

Disengage

[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 year ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 61 points 1 year ago (2 children)

“Hey tankie, DISENGAGE”

smuglord

ooooooooooooooh

[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Libs when they find out that they also have to stop talking: agony-shivering

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 year ago (9 children)

imo i feel like the disengage rule should really only apply amongst comrades. it will just be used to silence us otherwise and the libs have plenty of ways to do that without us handing them another

plus giving the libs a magic debate-winning word seems like it validates their worldview a bit too much, idk

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You're acting like libs will actually read the rules before engaging though.

And the debate pervert types would never use a "stop talking to me now" option. They live off of the attention they get for being obnoxious.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This came up as an alternative to blocking when we lacked a block feature. Since everybody has a block feature now, it probably just makes sense to use that, though there are cases where it is preferable to just tell someone to drop it instead of blocking them. Anyway, it is still the rule.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

tbh if you blocked everyone that was ever annoying on hexbear this site would be a ghost town lmao

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago

I'm a 3rd gen Hexbear and we've evolved to not have this trait.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes! Great note for our new federated friends!

Additionally, the admins have clarified that this is not a free "get the last word" trick either though, so it doesn't count if you go "hey I want to disengage and also here's why you're a doodoo head"

Frankly, most people on other instances have seemed either content to ignore us (and optionally make inaccurate complaints behind our backs), or just as eager to get into a slapfight as our users, so idk if it will make a huge difference, but this will get us to leave you alone if you are in that scenario, and if it doesn't can be reported to our mods/admins

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This won't work in startrek.website folks. They're all about engage.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (20 children)

That's not what that means - it means if you don't want to argue with us, just stop arguing with us.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Liberals after posting disengage:

smuglord checkmate tankies

Nazis after posting disengage:

wall-talk

guys it says in your own rules that you have to disengage, and you keep on posting the fucking picture of the pig with the

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago

Russian bots: walter-breakdown

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is dumb. There's basically no scenario where this would be used in good faith.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (9 children)

You seem to be the only person who cares about this, Zuzak. This is a rule that to my knowledge has never been mentioned or enforced. I didn't even know we had rules until last week and I've been here the whole three years. Pulling this out as a "gotcha" that everyone has to abide by because it's in a document no one knew existed, that is never or nearly never referenced, and that in no way guides or informs site culture is not helpful or productive.

If anything, we should be discussing revising the site rules to reflect current practice, now that some people know they exist.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

comments get removed & people have been banned for pursuing an argument after one user has 'disengaged'. you've really never seen this? it is in the rules, and i think there was even a clarification at a later date regarding people who'd say 'disengage' but continue the argument for the last word.

i guess it's fortunate you've never been in a shit-flinging hostile enough it's been needed but this is by no means a new rule or one that's gone unused/appreciated

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

It's the rule, and it always has been if you want it to changed, talk to the mods, I don't have the power to change it even if I wanted to (I don't).

is not helpful or productive.

I saw a blahaj user post a link to this in defense of staying federated in their thread, so I beg to differ.

Not to mention, you just said you hadn't heard of it, now you have. Sounds like the post was necessary then.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago

Stop screaming “disengage” at me, I don’t know what that word means and I will never stop posting

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago

I DO NOT WISH TO CREATE JOINDER WITH YOU

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Thats why i play rogue and can disengage as a bonus action

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In the past, this rule has only applied to the specific user you say it to. I'd like to suggest going forward that if someone on another instance uses it, we treat it as applying to all of us.

Gonna be hard to get this since I don't think most of us are down for reading a 200-1000 comment thread before commenting when the disengage request might be buried somewhere in it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

The corollary is that bad faith disengages don't count as disengages.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›