Holy shit... what if #mastodon's so-called "reply guy" problem is actually caused by the lack of quote toots?

If I want to disagree with someone who is an expert in a related field, I would be much better off quote tooting. That's a way to register my informed disagreement for my own followers and branch the conversation to a place where the original author has far less of an obligation to reply; whereas a direct, public reply would be seen more as egging on the OP or (if they're a woman) even "mansplaining".

@LouisIngenthron

I think the problem is more fundemental than that. I have noticed for many decades (perhaps before I was born) there are two major classes of people with a pretty hard divide. One group of people dont see "reply guy" as bad, in fact, they want to encourage it, they feel open discussion and debate and expression of opinions are a good thing. These people also dont generally feel conversations and threads are "owned" by their poster, but is rather an invite to a public forum about some utterance. These people tend to be the "reply guy" but also are overjoyed when they see others being the "reply guy" on their own posts. They generally see anti-"reply guy" people as the socially corrupt.

Similarly you have tne anti-"reply guy" people, these people tend to be super censored and generally are offended by other peoples opinions and more importantly feel they have some ownership or domain about the discussion that arises over their utterances and threads. These people have a "you are in my house" attitude int he threads and generally feel they can make any arbitrary social expectations as such. Typically they have extremely strict idea of what is acceptable or not in their comments... any disagreement, negativity, facts they dont deem as facts, etc is an offense. Even just making it about you in some way can be an offense. These sort of people see the reply guys as just plain trolls and are generally very concenred with ettiquette and formalism and closed rather than open forums.

@freemo I agree, but rather than a binary, I see it as more of a spectrum. I largely fall into the former camp, but there are still some behaviours that I consider to be unacceptable "reply guy" behaviours. Some examples would be (a) replying in a condescending tone to a subject matter expert on the subject they're an expert of; (b) replying to pedantically obsess about a tiny detail of the OP while missing the larger point; (c) replying dismissively of the OP's perspectives and personal experiences just because they conflict with the replier's. Most of these things are just basic manners in any conversational context, but I get why they can, for example, be especially problematic for women online.

But then there's the other side of the coin, the people who complain about easily-solvable problems and then get mad when people suggest those obvious solutions.

We've just got to find the line for ourselves, I suppose.

@LouisIngenthron

I agree, but rather than a binary, I see it as more of a spectrum.

While there is no doubt a spectrum that can exist, and a few people may exist along the spectrum. I do find the distribution is highly uneven with a strong favoring of either end of the spectrum and with significantly less concentration in the middle.

I largely fall into the former camp, but there are still some behaviours that I consider to be unacceptable “reply guy” behaviours. Some examples would be (a) replying in a condescending tone to a subject matter expert on the subject they’re an expert of; (b) replying to pedantically obsess about a tiny detail of the OP while missing the larger point; (c) replying dismissively of the OP’s perspectives and personal experiences just because they conflict with the replier’s. Most of these things are just basic manners in any conversational context, but I get why they can, for example, be especially problematic for women online.

These, at least to me, have little to do with the “reply guy” behavior… that sjust generally being an asshat and has little to do with you replying and giving an unwelcome opinion… Its like if i give an unwelcome opinion while punching you in the face… For example a, its not that they disagree with an expert, its that they are condescending, which is rude regardless if someone is an expert. (b) isnt because your pedantic in your reply so much as the fact that you are completely missing the point. A small detail that may not address the point but also doesnt miss it would be perfectly find (c) has less to do with dismissing a persons conclusion and more to do with the casual illogical way in which it is done only due to disagreeing, etc

To me reply guy isnt “A person replying who is genuinely and objectively rude by any measure”.. a reply guy is someone who “there is nothing wrong with your reply, but it is not the narrative I want told on my feed”