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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SunriseParabellum@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You could just disengage by, yah know, not replying. What's the point of saying "disengage"?

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I actually kind of agree with you on this one, but some people don't have the self control to do this when they're in the midst of a heated argument
It also covers cases where one person does that but the other person keeps replying to them elsewhere in the thread or in another thread, keeping the argument going
And also we didn't have a block function then, if you really need someone to get off your ass then there had to be some way to handle it and this is what was decided on

[–] SunriseParabellum@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It also covers cases where one person does that but the other person keeps replying to them elsewhere in the thread or in another thread, keeping the argument going

Well yeah I agree with that, should be bannable. But fell like there's more eloquent ways of initiating it than saying "disengage" flatly to someone. Comes off as a bit of a condescending way to end a convo.

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago

I didn't really like the rule when it was proposed and I don't think that it ever really worked as well as it was intended to, but eh, its fine