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.
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
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.
deleted by creator
That's why we have moderators I guess, instead of just bots that automatically ban people for rule breaking. It has to be a case-by-case thing most of the time.
I suppose that's true, but I was replying to the world OP had conjured where we would somehow make them privy to this information routinely, or however they pictured it. I guess I wasn't really focused on how they intended to implement an idea I disagreed with, tbh.
yeah. it makes sense to prioritize peace and unity among comrades, but between comrades and liberals maybe we should prioritize getting the message out.
maybe it works as long as “disengage” is a single word comment
It would but in practice it far more often than not is some epic zinger then "disengage."
deleted by creator
We could lean hard into the "has to be in good faith" clause to put them in the ultimatum of "this will only work if you resist your impulse to be an asshole"
🥺
i exist to be your bane, comrade
Reminds me of when a concensus based org has open meetings and people who don't like the org show up and maliciously block all business. It is pretty funny when people have to have covert constitutional amendent meetings to fix themselves to majority vote and memebership criteria.