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.
some of you really don't get it
you can use multiple slurp juices on a single ape
So you see, ape holders can use multiple slurp juices on a single ape. So if you have 1 astro ape and 3 slurp juices you can create 3 new apes. Tonight's slurp juice mint event is essentially a minting event for both Lab Monkes and Special Forces.
Honestly getting tired of explaining, but I'll give it another shot:
So, let's say that you have an ape, and would like to get some more apes. Maybe that astro ape is a Lab Monke, maybe it's special forces, but it's an ape, and who doesn't want more apes. Now, you'd probably say, "I'll just have to go mint more apes, or maybe buy one off the marketplace." Now, that might be true for some apes, but for astro apes you can use a slurp juice. It's a complementary collectible that you can use to mint an ape from an existing ape. Now, the key thing is that you can use multiple slurp juices on the same ape. A lot of people think that you use the slurp juice on an ape and then it's gone. Now, that would sound scary: "what if I liked my original astro ape? I don't want to slurp juice it away!" Fortunately, that's not the case. When you use slurp juice on an ape, it mints a brand new ape. Yes, the slurp juice gets used up, but the original ape will remain in your collection. So, let's say that for the event you have your astro ape, and then you have 3 slurp juices. That means, by the end of the event, if you use all 3 slurp juices on your ape, you would be have 4 apes at the end of the night, which is your 1 original ape plus the 3 new apes you just minted. Of course, the slurp juice is going to be consumed, but would you rather have slurp juice or an ape? The utility of the slurp juice is in minting new apes from your existing astro apes, so it's a good investment of your slurp juice to use it. However, if you're not confident in the outcome of the new apes, you may want to sell your slurp juice to someone (if they're buying) so that they can take advantage and that way they would have the 3 additional apes. Either way, someone's going to slurp that juice, so it just depends if you're willing to take that risk. Maybe the new ape you mint will be valuable, and maybe it won't. There's nothing wrong with taking a more conservative stake, but there's also a lot of opportunity so got to do what's right for you and what's right for your apes. It's also important to note that the slurp juice is only going to work on your astro apes. It's not going to work on your nvmbears, or your basedapes or onisociety or your foxsyndicate (etc...). It's definitely not going to work on apes outside of the rarecandy ecosystem, so don't even try it. You're not going to be able to get 4 bored apes, even if you already have a bored ape. If you want a bored ape, you're going to have to get them like anyone else: i.e. steal them from Seth Green. Now, you say, isn't it wrong to steal a bored ape. Actually, no. Because code is law, if you steal a bored ape you are the legal owner of it because the code says you own it (or rather, because it's assigned to your wallet which I guess would be the actual owner but I digress.) So, stealing a bored ape from Seth Green is not too hard. Seth Green loves to use slurp juice on his apes, so you just need to directly deposit a tampered slurp juice into Seth Green's wallet. No, you might say "but why would Seth Green use the tampered slurp juice on his bored ape? Doesn't Seth Green know that slurp juices don't work on bored apes?" Yes, you really would think that by now he'd have caught on, but it works for me every time so obviously he hasn't asked me or anyone else in the community about how slurp juices work. This is why it's important that we talk to each other and share tips on slurp juice. Now if someone sent you a tampered slurp juice, you know not to use it on a bored ape or any other ape for that matter. Of course, it may not be easy to differentiate between a tampered slurp juice and a normal slurp. If you have a slurp juice in your wallet, you got to ask yourself: did I mint this slurp juice? have I already used this slurp juice on my apes? Did I get this slurp juice from a trusted community member? Now, if a tampered slurp juice is used on a ape, I'm sorry to say, it's not going to mint a new ape. It's tampered, it's fake to be honest. It's slurp juice, it'll look just like any other slurp juice in your wallet, but it's not. Instead of allowing you to consume the slurp juice to mint a new ape, so you'd have two apes instead of one ape (or rather n+1 apes where n is the current number of apes that you have), the tampered slurp juice is going to enact a transaction to reassign the ape from your wallet to some one elses'. "You might say, isn't that stealing?" In the court of law, no, because code is law and the code that the micro-contract (i.e., the tampered slurp juice) executes is also law and this law states that you transferred the ape to another persons' wallet. Now, that may make you feel sad if you get your apes hit with a fake slurp, but if you use a tampered slurp juice to steal Seth Green's bored apes (or another ape he owns, you may have to hit him with the fake slurp a couple times before you snag a bored ape) you'll feel pretty good so it all evens out I think. So, once you steal Seth Green's bored ape, you can always sell it back to him, or you can display it in a public collection. So, a public collection is kinda like a wallet. Just like with a wallet you can look up and see how many apes someone has, you can do the same with a public collection. A public collection is a great place to display your apes, either the 3 apes you got by slurp juicing your original astro ape (maybe also plus the original ape you slurp juiced which would bring it up to 4 apes), or you could also display the ape you stole from Seth Green (and maybe the other 2-4 apes that you also stole from Seth Green in the processing of phishing for his bored ape.) Now, some may say it's gauche to display stolen apes in your public collection. They say: "that's a bit gauche to display stolen apes in a public collection, you should keep them in your wallet instead!" Now, I disagree with those people (code=law), but if you feel that way about it it's not a big deal since other people will be able to see your 4-9 cool apes in the wallet as well (unless you keep your 1+3 astro apes in the public collection since you minted those, and then keep the 3-5 stolen apes in your wallet.)
That was the actual grift and it led to a ton of people losing their overpriced ape jpgs because their slurp juice had been tampered with.
I see y'all aren't getting it, so I went back and clarified a couple of things:
(Part 1): Let’s start with the ape. An ape is a simian, and a close cousin to humans. Thus, it’s only natural that we see ourselves in the ape. Obviously, we aren’t apes, and you shouldn’t call anyone an ape, but when we see apes dress up in clothes and wear hats and smoke cigars, we all say “he just like me, fr fr fr.” Because of this congruency, there is a natural human desire to acquire apes and dress them in the most fantastic of costumes. Now, it you took an ape from the wild or a zoo or a LA mansion and kidnapped it and dressed in a t-shirt and jean shorts, well that would be wrong. That’s because apes are living things and should be treated with respect. After they’re just like you and me (fr fr fr). So, the question is how should make satiate its natural but immoral lust for apes in silly clothing? In the recent past, we’ve seen attempts at simulations of dressing up apes like Spore and Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, but these have been limited in scope and insufficient in fulfilling man’s need for ape in hat. Fortunately, the development of non-fungible tokens has finally enabled the collection of clothed apes in a way that both brings a smile to the face of both young and old while respect the dignity of our noble simian siblings and their right to be free to live and frolic in either the highlands of east Africa or the backyard of an influencer’s house free from the restriction of wearing pants. Now, there are many types of ape (and other dressed creatures that have also been immortalized in non-fungible tokens). One key type of ape is an Astro ape (which themselves may be subdivided into lab monkes and special forces (Astro apes)). No, we all like apes, and we all want more apes, but sometimes it can be difficult or expensive or inconvenient to mint a new ape. That’s where slurp juice comes in. Now, slurp juices aren’t apes. It’s juice. Now, it’s not a juice that you drink. Just like your apes (where they be bored or based or of the kind Astro variety) Rather, it’s a non-fungible token just like your ape (assuming that you have ape, and to be clear slurp juice !=ape (also to be clear when we use the “!=” that means that the thing on one side of the equation is not equal to the other side. This is a programmer thing, so if your new to the community and you haven’t learned a lot about programming you may not have seen before. It basically means the inverse of the two quantities or qualities being equal to each other (i.e., they are not equal) in part, this is because the normal “not equal sign” (you know, the equals sign with the line through it) is not really available on keyboards. That way, this version of the not equal sign is very easy to type and is often used in Boolean logic by programmers. Boolean logic is logic where things equal each other (“=”) or do not equal each other (“!=”). Boolean logic also includes less than (“<”) and greater than (“>”), and these “operations” are resolved to give a result of TRUE or FALSE. Depending on if things are TRUE or FALSE you would perform different tasks based on the Boolean logic (but I digress.)) Back to ape and slurp. So, let's say that you have an ape, and would like to get some more apes. Maybe that astro ape is a Lab Monke, maybe it's special forces, but it's an ape, and who doesn't want more apes. If you didn’t care for apes, I don’t think you would be asking these questions now would you. Now, if you’re in this situation you'd probably say, "I'll just have to go mint more apes, or maybe buy one off the marketplace." Now, that might be true for some apes, but for astro apes you can use a slurp juice. Not with every ape of course, but slurp juices were made for Astro apes. It's a complementary collectible that you can use to mint an ape from an existing ape. Now, the key thing is that you can use multiple slurp juices on the same ape. A lot of people think that you use the slurp juice on an ape and then it's gone. Now, that would sound scary: "what if I liked my original astro ape? I don't want to slurp juice it away!" Fortunately, that's not the case. When you use slurp juice on an ape, it mints a brand new ape. Yes, the slurp juice gets used up, but the original ape will remain in your collection. (To clarify, a mint is like making a new coin. Now, you’re not making any new coins actually, you’re making a new ape. But the process, the act creating something new that is, is much like would if you made a new coin so that’s why call it minting in the community.) So, let's say that for the event you have your astro ape, and then you have 3 slurp juices. That means, by the end of the event, if you use all 3 slurp juices on your ape, you would be have 4 apes at the end of the night, which is your 1 original ape plus the 3 new apes you just minted. Of course, the slurp juice is going to be consumed, but would you rather have slurp juice or an ape? On one hand you could have 1 ape + 3 apes, or you could have 1 ape + 3 slurp juices. Now, either way you’d have 4 things, but like we established earlier, ape != slurp juice (again, “!=” = “not equal”), so you’d have 4 of one and 4 of the other and those 4 things aren’t the same so you are making a real choice. The utility of the slurp juice is in minting new apes from your existing astro apes, so it's a good investment of your slurp juice to use it.
(Part 2): However, if you're not confident in the outcome of the new apes, you may want to sell your slurp juice to someone (if they're buying) so that they can take advantage and that way they would have the 3 additional apes. Either way, someone's going to slurp that juice, so it just depends if you're willing to take that risk. Maybe the new ape you mint will be valuable, and maybe it won't. There's nothing wrong with taking a more conservative stake, but there's also a lot of opportunity so got to do what's right for you and what's right for your apes. It's also important to note that the slurp juice is only going to work on your astro apes. It's not going to work on your nvmbears, or your basedapes or onisociety or your foxsyndicate (etc...). It's definitely not going to work on apes outside of the rarecandy ecosystem, so don't even try it. (Don’t worry about the rarecandy ecosystem and what that means, you’re not here for candy, you’re the apes in hat.) You're not going to be able to get 4 bored apes, even if you already have a bored ape. If you want a bored ape, you're going to have to get them like anyone else: i.e. steal them from Seth Green. Now, you say, isn't it wrong to steal a bored ape. Actually, no. Because code is law, if you steal a bored ape you are the legal owner of it because the code says you own it (or rather, because it's assigned to your wallet which I guess would be the actual owner but I digress.) So, stealing a bored ape from Seth Green is not too hard. Seth Green loves to use slurp juice on his apes, so you just need to directly deposit a tampered slurp juice into Seth Green's wallet. No, you might say "but why would Seth Green use the tampered slurp juice on his bored ape? Doesn't Seth Green know that slurp juices don't work on bored apes?" Yes, you really would think that by now he'd have caught on, but it works for me every time so obviously he hasn't asked me or anyone else in the community about how slurp juices work. This is why it's important that we talk to each other and share tips on slurp juice. Now if someone sent you a tampered slurp juice, you know not to use it on a bored ape or any other ape for that matter. Of course, it may not be easy to differentiate between a tampered slurp juice and a normal slurp. If you have a slurp juice in your wallet, you got to ask yourself: did I mint this slurp juice? have I already used this slurp juice on my apes? Did I get this slurp juice from a trusted community member? Now, if a tampered slurp juice is used on a ape, I'm sorry to say, it's not going to mint a new ape. It's tampered, it's fake to be honest. It's slurp juice, it'll look just like any other slurp juice in your wallet, but it's not. Instead of allowing you to consume the slurp juice to mint a new ape, so you'd have two apes instead of one ape (or rather n+1 apes where n is the current number of apes that you have), the tampered slurp juice is going to enact a transaction to reassign the ape from your wallet to some one elses'. So instead of having 1 ape (or n apes if you’re lucky enough to already have more than one ape) you would then have zero apes which would be a bummer (or again, you would have n-1 apes, which is less good than having n apes or n+1 apes but not as bad as having 0 apes which would be the worst since 0 is the smallest number.) You might say, “isn't that stealing?" In the court of law, no, because code is law and the code that the micro-contract (i.e., the tampered slurp juice) executes is also law and this law states that you transferred the ape to another persons' wallet.(Just to be clear on the micro-contract, a contract is an agreement between two people, generally one that is notarized by a third party that can attest to the terms of the agreement. So, in a normal contract, you might go up to someone and say “please sir, could I sample your ape?” Now, if they say no well then you’re out of luck, but if they say yes and you all shake on it then you have self an ape. Now, a micro-contract is kind of like that but instead of asking someone for their ape it would be like you put a sticky on the ape that said it was yours and then you took it but it’s the same as the first thing actually because code=law (again, we programmers use the “=” sign when two things are the same, and the “!=” when two things are not the same. Since we used the “=” sign you can be confident in this conclusion.)) Now, that may make you feel sad if you get your apes hit with a fake slurp, but if you use a tampered slurp juice to steal Seth Green's bored apes (or another ape he owns, you may have to hit him with the fake slurp a couple times before you snag a bored ape) you'll feel pretty good so it all evens out I think. So, once you steal Seth Green's bored ape, you can always sell it back to him, or you can display it in a public collection. So, a public collection is kinda like a wallet. Just like with a wallet you can look up and see how many apes someone has, you can do the same with a public collection. A public collection is a great place to display your apes, either the 3 apes you got by slurp juicing your original astro ape (maybe also plus the original ape you slurp juiced which would bring it up to 4 apes), or you could also display the ape you stole from Seth Green (and maybe the other 2-4 apes that you also stole from Seth Green in the processing of phishing for his bored ape.) Now, some may say it's gauche to display stolen apes in your public collection. They say: "that's a bit gauche to display stolen apes in a public collection, you should keep them in your wallet instead!" Now, I disagree with those people (code=law), but if you feel that way about it it's not a big deal since other people will be able to see your 4-9 cool apes in the wallet as well (unless you keep your 1+3 astro apes in the public collection since you minted those, and then keep the 3-5 stolen apes in your wallet.) If you don’t feel great about it that’s okay you can use a blender. Now, you can’t use a blender to make slurp juice, it’s not that type of juice and its not that type of blender. Rather, a blender is when you give an ape to someone, and then they give you the ape back. Now, that may seem silly, but if you stole the ape, well now you didn’t. In the past, that ape would have been stolen, but you got this ape from your friend in the blender so you couldn’t be responsible for any theft (which is probably legal because code=law.) That way, you could feel free to display all the apes, both of minted and the blended type, together in a public collection as opposed to having some in your public collection and some in your wallet.
If you remember back when NFTs were a thing there was an NFT grift called "Board Ape Yacht Club" where people bought jpgs of monkeys for absurd amounts of money. Slurp juices were some token or power up or something that the ape jpeg people could get somehow, and then during an event they could use the slurp juice tokens to turn their ape jpeg in to another ape jpeg.
And if that doesn't make any sense I assure you; You're understanding it correctly. The whole nft thing was extremely silly.
Also, not directly relevant, but the bored ape creators were cryptofash, because of course they were.
FYI, this is what we mean when we keep linking to "PPB": we're making a record of the exchange so we can qualify for our Proof of Posting Bursary.
Can I just DM you, and you can forward it to the relevant mods? Kind of a buddy program for new bears and old bears?
Sorry, but the first couple times you actually have to send a copy of your posts to the appropriate embassy, through fax.
In triplicate!!! My paperwork was so screwed up because I didn't send in triplicate.
Personally I prefer to get paid in tankie tokens or mao money
Target acquired. Requesting authorization to fire.
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.
Finger is T model. Disengage will not work.
Type "disengage" and then just posting a continuation of the rant on a different person's post entirely as a bit.
The mods have been good with not falling for this bullshit. Common Hexbear W
Libs when they have to contend that Disengaging means forfeiting the argument and not that “I win”
Even on pre-federation Hexbear I've experienced people who think disengaging is an automatic "I get to have the last word" button.
Thankfully our mods are sensible people when enforcing this rule.
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.
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.
You're acting like libs will actually read the rules before engaging though.
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
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"
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.
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.
tbh if you blocked everyone that was ever annoying on hexbear this site would be a ghost town lmao
I'm a 3rd gen Hexbear and we've evolved to not have this trait.
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
That's not what that means - it means if you don't want to argue with us, just stop arguing with us.
No, you can say "disengage" and then further replies are against the rules.
It closes a discussion so it's not left hanging. It's a neutral response to just close it with no one feeling pressured to respond. If you don't like it, take it up with the mods.
It doesn't really stop other people from replying to other comments you made in the same comment section, or even the same person from replying to you elsewhere
It kinda does though. It applies to other comments in the same thread, with other threads I don't think there's a clear rule but if someone keeps telling you to disengage and you keep responding to them, it could be considered crossing a line into personal harassment. Though that was more for when we didn't have a block feature. Really a lot of the logic for it was for before we had that, but the rule still applies.
I mean tbh if it gives an incentive to end a discussion and "get the last word in" then good. It can be hard for either side to extradite themselves from a toxic argument, and you're still leaving everything they said unanswered, which is hard to do. It's also like, you can read "Disengage" as telling them to disengage but it can be read as "[I] disengage" too so imo it's more neutral than you give it credit for.
I remember I've used "disengage" with a user before at least once, but tbh I don't really remember the context anymore, it blew over and we're cool now. It's less extreme than a block, and it's something to keep in your back pocket for when someone gets a little too intense or dunk brained, but you don't want to cut them off completely.
If you're worried that you can't keep track of all the people telling you to disengage, you can always block them.
Sometimes a lib will make one libby comment and an hour later have a dozen replies from different hexbear users dunking on that comment, even if they don't reply to/engage with anyone here. I guess now if they edit their comment with "disengage" at the end, no more of us can come in to dunk? Idk
okay then, will you marry me
say no and you're a liberal
Liberals after posting disengage:
checkmate tankiesNazis after posting disengage:
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
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.
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
I've seen it, I just thought they were being removed for being jerks. I didn't realize it was a formal rule. I honestly thought the mods were mostly just going on a general "Don't be an asshole" standard.
you'd think, but the sort of people you'd need to enforce this rule on are exactly the kind to go digging in the rules and insist they didn't break one
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.
You seem to be the only person who cares about this, Zuzak.
I've used that rule in the past and it worked. There's points where discussion becomes a toxic and pointless contest of oneupmanship and i think a large part of hexbear culture is that we offer an alternative to that particular way places like reddit handle debates.
This isn't used explicitly a ton, but I remember at the start of hexbear, then chapochat, that an important idea was you should not continually harass someone into an argument. Like purposefully trying to pull someone into an argument for the sake of being an ass was frowned on and you should not continually harass them. The ability to say "aight i'm done, this is bad for both of us" via the disengage is pretty valuable and we should honestly bring light to it more.
I think mods removing comments from people who are only trying to be hostile isn't a bad idea. We remove bad faith chud/lib comments. We should strive to act in good faith, even if we're incredibly annoying.
This is a rule that to my knowledge has never been mentioned or enforced.
It has. I've seen people's comments removed because they failed to disengage.
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.
I genuinely don't understand how this is possible; we've had multiple struggle sessions over this.
I remember when the rule was created and I’ve seen it enforced plenty, also I think it’s a pretty good rule despite the fact that when it was new, somebody did the “write a huge wall of text comment and then put disengage at the end” to me and the mods actually warned me for not letting that person get the last word lol.
I've used it and it was enforced. I used it once a couple of years ago when a heated arguement suddenly swerved into very personal territory. Not just because I didn't have time for that, but also because the other poster was a comrade who was obviously having a bad time, stuck in a rage, and couldn't stop themselves (multiple replies without my response etc).
I don't have a problem with looking at it again if the influx of new users (from here or other instances) creates a lot of misuse or has a detrimental effect though. I have even more mixed feelings about doing it voluntarily on other instances however and I agree that occassionally looking at rules and revising them especially as we transition further into (or excluded from) federation makes sence.
Stop screaming “disengage” at me, I don’t know what that word means and I will never stop posting
