savageorange said:
To be frank, I cannot read your earlier post and get any sense of trying to move to another thread. That idea just doesn't seem to be included in any way, even if it's what you actually intended.

Well... I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. In retrospect, I was a bit vague... though it still seems clear to me. *shrugs* Perspective is a hell of a thing.

(I find the psychology of subtlety to be fascinating. Two people communicate and one person says something that, to them, is clear as day and the other doesn't see it at all.)

and irrelevant to the post you replied to.

Well, my point THERE was mostly "let's not shit on an idea, just because it hasn't already been discussed for the project in question" as you seemed pretty determined to tell clawdragons "This isn't a good idea"

Saying 'it would be good if we had X' or 'it would be good if we didn't have to Y' is not the same kind of thing as 'we will have X if we get Y'. The latter statement is a claim about "how Y would relate to the existing system", rather than "how we want the system to behave".

If it's a clearly false claim, then it is misinformation, which needs to be pointed out promptly, *especially* in the case where most participants are technically clueless.

*slow blink*

This is because you interpreted clawdragon as assuming that having transcription feature would mean it would be blacklistable.

Whereas, my interpretation of their post was "This could be an interesting addition to this potential feature."

Again, I find it fascinating how two people can understand entirely different things out of the same sentence.

I could have posted to the other thread. I considered that a bit more hostile of an option though, like 'Look what Clawdragons posted over here!', since AFAICS the topic was the existing system and not primarily transcript:.

And again, from my perspective... what existing system? there's a proposal, not a system. Proposals need ideas and discussion.