I have a question about your code of ethics you apply as binding to yourself and all the groups and functions you run, one where you're urged to answer in the form of a yes-or-no answer to as a natural guardrail against you being roundabout. Is every last one of the messages I link to here (referring to the ones which are connected to you are cited or identified in any of them, whether by name or not) canon to the code of ethics in question as prescriptions/advice/precepts/additions to the mindset or approach one is meant to take away from the school of thought the code of ethics was meant to convey to everyone willingly applying it (with at least one thing being canon to it but only when read from a certain language)?
Yes.
And if I were to ask the same question again, to the same effect (in which you are urged to answer in the form of an answer that's exactly eighteen words long, with only citations that are things which are directly being asked about), would your answers to questions I cite here as having asked recently be canon to the same self-applied code of ethics, as well as what all of the things I link to here imply or are conveying as a main or side detail, referring to your input when it's given or your ideas when you're referred to as the only one who's subtly referred to (or the discussion itself when it's not)?
And if I were to ask the same question one more time, to the same effect (in which you are urged to answer in the form of an answer that's exactly eighteen words long, with only citations that are things which are directly being asked about), would your answers to questions I cite here as having asked recently be canon to the same self-applied code of ethics, as well as what all of the things I link to here imply or are conveying as a main or side detail, referring to your input when it's given or your ideas when you're referred to as the only one who's subtly referred to (or the discussion itself when it's not)?
He's saying "eighteen words wrong", right? Or am I missing something?
We did say each of us was going to bring on the block if guardrails (the ones that prevent you from being too roundabout) for ignored for us respectively (and that was said outside of my role as a contrary).
"Long", yes. But I grew uncertain over whether that meant that many or less based on the literal subtext. But this is the last question of theirs and only one thing (about what the most proper democratic mindset would be) would be something one might consider missing; what are they gonna do, fire me?
Looks like they just didn't. And thus so will I. Do you have any first words to share?
Nani...!?
Consider myself having backtracked on blocking you out of being caught off guard by certain people who have been so eager to declare people each others' "alts" that they only just remembered how "alting" works in this community and just found out I was originally known as smollestviolin.
(for the record, to give a summary, "EverythingButOpposites" is "Inquisitron" using the "alting" format of the community to embrace her heritage, "GrandDreamPaper" runs "SorceryDramatica", "ExactlyBeardedNinja" and "GrandDreamPaper" are a couple that feed things into each other, it wouldn't technically undermine us to say we do partially "perform" what we say copypasta style because that's how hermeneutic dialogue works [which as it happens gets linked to in the code of ethics; it's a building process], and "Cat" is thinking of "Key" but should backtrack considering it's quite selective to set up a criteria on which to base suspicions of who "The-Abyss-Watcher" is but exclude "Gelly", "Mariana", etc. especially if cracks are showing in the form of a schism, the final nail in the coffin on how bad this criteria is when people use it. And I don't know how someone can't have ethics they codified for themselves just because they give someone a voice or because they've been accused of things in the past; that has been addressed too and answers that question.)
(For people who say they're longtime tumblrites, they have forgotten that identity works so differently here you can't use the same "alt"-finding rules. Also, did one of them just use the Wheatley line on an underweight adoptee expecting people to forget the argument has failure built into it by script writers?)
I don't know about you, but I'll grant their request to say "I don't like you" or "we think this is trolling you" to them.
I don't.
Just a piece of criticism here. Everyone might claim to have solid evidence, but that doesn't change that the evidence of the claims towards all of us varies drastically, being struck with denial of even the most mundane claims about one's life, like it would matter to someone who wasn't trying to express anything more than a dishonest grudge (what makes people think they can speak for others on that level?)
I'm going to bring this on topic again though. Thus I have a question I'd like to ask where you're urged to answer in a strict yes-or-no format so as to not be roundabout like you often are. Is everything I just said, as well as your answers to certain questions (when you get around to them), "right" and canon to the code of ethics? Might as well revive the conversation at this point.
