FYI @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] and a few others
A rage bait post they just restored: https://lemmy.world/post/24282976. The initial removal was about rule 3 - no rage baiting. That rule has been removed.
Another rage bait comment against vegans: https://lemmy.world/comment/14535452
if this is an instance-wide rule, it should be stated in the main sidebar. it’s not a deal breaker for me, but I strongly feel people should be encouraged to use the block feature, rather than getting the power to decide who is allowed to participate in a discussion.
Ye I should probably add smt. Just a lot to do.
The point of the disengage is that sometimes you might not necessarily want to block a person. Blocking still allows them to talk shit about you without you seeing it for example. The disengage is a way to say “ok, let’s agree to disagree before things get (more) flamey” in a succinct and official manner. You don’t always want to block everyone you get into a heated argument with, so there’s good to have a way to disengage where neither party feels like they have to have the final word.
I hope lemmy at some point would give us a way to lock individual comment threads.
Disengage should only be enforceable if it’s invoked in good faith. Posting a wall of text and using it to get the last word forfeits any protection it provides. It’s the equivalent of calling for a fair catch in American football, then attempting a return.
Immediate edit: it doesn’t even have to be a wall of text. Any response included with the disengage request invites further discussion and suggests that there is a desire to continue the conversation, at least to the extent of having the final say.
That’s what I said already, yes
Great, then we see eye to eye on it. I think it needs to be made as explicit as it possibly can be, so I responded with my own thoughts. It’s wonderful to know that more than one person can share a viewpoint.