You’re welcome not to reply to anything else I say, and I will gladly do the same with you.
My typical (and suggested) policy with respect to people with whom interaction is not desired but who are present in a shared community is to respond only for the purpose of making necessary contributions to the broader conversation. There is a correlation between the groups and the groups . (If not for such an approach there would be a rather glaring exploit. Just escalate conflict with anyone who disagrees with you until nobody is permitted to argue.)
Totally false. If one person escalates conflict with anyone who disagrees with them, they will quickly have no one to talk to, or have too many enemies to have a positive experience, while you can ignore them. You’re welcome to try this approach. Buh-bye.
Where I previously expected EGarrett to exhibit undesired social behaviour I now anticipate him combining that with a complete incomprehension of simple game theory.
You’re welcome to try this approach.
This is an utterly bizarre retort given that the entire reason I do not recommend that people must refrain from replying to people who do not treat them well is because of the perverse incentives it creates. I myself help ensure that the approach doesn’t work (even to the extent of publicly opposing it when used by a particularly high status individual here) so clearly I’m not going to use the approach. Since I assume you are not intending to be deliberately disingenuous with your insult it would seem that you do not understand the position being expressed (since one of those two must be true).
Nope, and that’s a completely wrong interpretation of what I said. It’s best for you to move onto other topics that might actually add something to your experience here, and I intend to do the same.
Apologies to anyone else scrolling through this topic. I won’t be replying again and will skip over anything else wedrifid says to try to perpetuate it.
In such exchanges both people lose almost all the time.
It is possible but extremely difficult to actually come off ahead in such things but I certainly don’t have that skill. The choice I have to make when deciding whether to engage is whether it is worth spending the karma and reputation in order to ensure that the initial defection has a negative rather than positive incentive. It is a much milder and more common variant of the decision faced regarding dueling in honour based societies that serve the role of reducing small social costs by risking larger ones.
As a general tendency I likely err too much on the side of “refuse to submit to social dominance ploys” and so in retrospect would advise myself to be more conciliatory in most cases. In this case, however, I seem to reflectively endorse my approach and would only change details to optimise effectiveness, not general strategy.
If the site consisted solely of people like you, who don’t recognize what I said, I wouldn’t have posted.
You’re welcome not to reply to anything else I say, and I will gladly do the same with you.
My typical (and suggested) policy with respect to people with whom interaction is not desired but who are present in a shared community is to respond only for the purpose of making necessary contributions to the broader conversation. There is a correlation between the groups and the groups . (If not for such an approach there would be a rather glaring exploit. Just escalate conflict with anyone who disagrees with you until nobody is permitted to argue.)
Totally false. If one person escalates conflict with anyone who disagrees with them, they will quickly have no one to talk to, or have too many enemies to have a positive experience, while you can ignore them. You’re welcome to try this approach. Buh-bye.
Where I previously expected EGarrett to exhibit undesired social behaviour I now anticipate him combining that with a complete incomprehension of simple game theory.
This is an utterly bizarre retort given that the entire reason I do not recommend that people must refrain from replying to people who do not treat them well is because of the perverse incentives it creates. I myself help ensure that the approach doesn’t work (even to the extent of publicly opposing it when used by a particularly high status individual here) so clearly I’m not going to use the approach. Since I assume you are not intending to be deliberately disingenuous with your insult it would seem that you do not understand the position being expressed (since one of those two must be true).
Nope, and that’s a completely wrong interpretation of what I said. It’s best for you to move onto other topics that might actually add something to your experience here, and I intend to do the same.
Apologies to anyone else scrolling through this topic. I won’t be replying again and will skip over anything else wedrifid says to try to perpetuate it.
Who won? Who lost? YOU DECIDE!
In such exchanges both people lose almost all the time.
It is possible but extremely difficult to actually come off ahead in such things but I certainly don’t have that skill. The choice I have to make when deciding whether to engage is whether it is worth spending the karma and reputation in order to ensure that the initial defection has a negative rather than positive incentive. It is a much milder and more common variant of the decision faced regarding dueling in honour based societies that serve the role of reducing small social costs by risking larger ones.
As a general tendency I likely err too much on the side of “refuse to submit to social dominance ploys” and so in retrospect would advise myself to be more conciliatory in most cases. In this case, however, I seem to reflectively endorse my approach and would only change details to optimise effectiveness, not general strategy.
It’s like the dollar auction, but with social standing instead of money!