There’s definitely a balance to be struck, and it depends on the table. I would only do this on a table where the rules are actually just guidelines.

For many others, a world needs to make sense internally. It doesn’t need to make real-world sense, but within the world with its different reality, things kinda need to be consistent. For example, if it is easily possible for a wizard to circumvent your will save by asking a trick question, the whole world would look completely different. Almost everyone who interacts with any kind of wizard would be extremely guarded around giving consent for anything since it might just be a ploy to remove their resistances.

A resourceful/logical player would now try to trick an NPC into agreeing first, and well, if it doesn’t work, you can still cast the spell normally, nothing lost. You could ask them to stop, or they could recognize themselves that doing it like that wouldn’t be fun, but if you act in the world you usually always try to make the best decisions. If you artificially limit that in a fourth-wall-breaking way, the game actually starts to lose its appeal.

If you allow stuff like this all the time, eventually the alternate reality of your characters will just become a random clown show. Problem solving will just be about who comes up with the most ridiculous thing that makes everyone laugh about its absurdity. There will be no logic or rational thought involved anymore, it’ll be no simulation anymore, just a sandbox. Which again, might be fine for certain tables, but many want to be able to immerse themselves in a different world that they can accept as at least possible, which is the actual fun for them.

So no, you aren’t necessarily “not fun” if you don’t allow this as a DM. You’re just playing a different kind of game with a different kind of fun.

Most “far right” people are exactly the kind that made the comment you reply to. I have a “friend” that became exactly like this.

Defense lawyers are supposed to try everything they can to defend their client, no matter how little sense it makes. It is theoretically possible for an admission of guilt to be false.

It’s up to the judge to understand their arguments are worthless and rule accordingly.

That’s how this is supposed to work.

It depends entirely on the maturity of the parties involved, it’s not really an “older/younger” thing.

But generally, the less mature you are, the more a relationship is selfish, i.e. you want to be in a relationship for your personal advantage, i.e. “i get sex when I have a girlfriend”. The more mature you get, the more relationships go into the direction of “I want to make the other person happy”. You still get your sex or whatever other advantage of course, but it’s much more fulfilling if you can actually give the other person what they need, and temporarily losing your personal benefit of the relationship doesn’t cause immediate breakups.

They don’t really. They are often learned the hard way, because no one attempts to explain them or just acts like they know but doesn’t really.

What to do with it is to act understanding and empathetic with people like that instead of standoffish and hostile. You still insist on the better way of doing things, but there’s no actual need to attack anyone that doesn’t support the better way of doing things, even if their reasons aren’t rational or even morally questionable/bad. It only serves to further entrench them in their positions, while the opposite might have a chance to happen in a more cooperative approach.

Funny how you made exactly the comment the article predicted within itself xD

I’m just confused because they already must have had a lot of money. How much you need?

Don’t remember, sorry

Am on e/os/

Xposed is just an API which is provided by the LSPosed Magisk module.

idk where I got it from, but it’s called “Universal SafetyNet Fix” by kdrag0n

Yeah but I mean if your bank would offer their app through F-Droid as an addition to Google Play, there is no reason to assume the app suddenly got less secure because of that.

But, there’s no difference in security between using a different storefront? The difference in security depends on the app itself, not where it was downloaded from.

Indeed, I already bypass SafetyNet and Play integrity with some kind of xposed module, I don’t expect this to change.

But it’s absolutely clear that the first definition is meant by the person that is being responded to. That is why the clarification is needed. This is not about “most people”, but this specific one person in this specific comment thread. “It doesn’t matter that the edges are curved?” is only said by someone that thinks in the first definition, not in the second.

Well that depends on your definition of curved… If I look at this image from a 3 dimensional coordinate system that includes the sphere, the edges are definitely curved. Of course, if you look at this from the coordinate system “surface of the sphere” then I would agree with you. There are 2 ways to look at this and decide if it is a triangle, and the bro you responded to didn’t understand this and needs it explained.

I agree. But is a statement like “everyone in hexbear is insane” helpful in any way at all in this situation? The only thing it serves is to further any divide and cause more hostility.

The times I went there with differing opinions I never got insulted. They think their views are right and (sometimes) mine wrong. They also shared their reasons and tried in their way to educate me. They have their own culture over there that is more rude/direct than normal, but it’s certainly possible to speak normally to them.

I think all people deserve respect by default. Only through someone’s actions may the respect for them be rescinded. Calling a whole bunch of people something is just almost never correct and only furthers any already existing divide.

You can do these things while talking face-to-face with somebody.

Calling a whole bunch of different people with different opinions than you, that you don’t all know, “insane”, seems to me like you feel you are smarter/better than them.