Would you support a new feature that allowed us to OPTIONALLY mute bards or other ambient chatter?

Kelces

Heck yes. I would really like to have this available. ("Yes")

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Kelces wrote: »

buttaface wrote: »

Wouldn't mind the bards so much if the ones singing about Ayrenn in DC and EP taverns got booed, hissed and murdalized as they should rightfully be.

Yes, I thought about that too. This can be expanded even further perhaps, war and all...

@spartaxoxo Wasn't it you that wanted this poll shut up, because it is biased in your opinion?

Nope. It's objectively biased, which I pointed out. But I never said it should be closed. I noted my objection and then expressed support for the option to add it. I was forced to play devil's advocate because OP cannot fathom how insulting people who disagree with you in the poll options could possibly show bias.

There are clearly defined options saying "no" aswell as there are "yes"-choices. You are far from objective, in this case.

You can chose to ignore the rest next to the no/yes and just vote. Instead of getting enraged over it, you might provide some sensible explanation, why there should or should not be an option for audio as described. That's how you convince people, not by claiming something that is obviously not the case.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

spartaxoxo wrote: »

they started insulting someone's name and such because they disagreed

Now, now. Let's not start lying. I've already asked you once to learn how to read. Let people take up for themselves. That's not really what happened. People shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. I know you like to try to be some White Knight, but give it up.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

Kelces wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Kelces wrote: »

buttaface wrote: »

Wouldn't mind the bards so much if the ones singing about Ayrenn in DC and EP taverns got booed, hissed and murdalized as they should rightfully be.

Yes, I thought about that too. This can be expanded even further perhaps, war and all...

@spartaxoxo Wasn't it you that wanted this poll shut up, because it is biased in your opinion?

Nope. It's objectively biased, which I pointed out. But I never said it should be closed. I noted my objection and then expressed support for the option to add it. I was forced to play devil's advocate because OP cannot fathom how insulting people who disagree with you in the poll options could possibly show bias.

There are clearly defined options saying no aswell as there are "yes"-choices. You are far from objective, in this case.

You can chose to ignore the rest next to the no/yes and just vote. Instead of getting enraged over it, you might provide some sensible explanation, why there should or should not be an option for audio as described. That's how you convince people, not by claiming something that is obviously not the case.

I love you.

Ruvalie

Personally, I very very strongly want to mute "Dragons! In your own homeland! What are you going to do????" but still be able to hear everything else. Having the ability to mute all dialogue wouldn't bother me, but it also wouldn't solve my problem of generally liking the immersion but finding only one or two pieces of dialogue annoying. So I would prefer a different solution, such as 1. making the dialogue harder to trigger, so that it can't happen more than once an hour or something rather than every two minutes, and/or 2. give the NPCs in question a conversation option that lets you turn off their specific dialogue forever.

spartaxoxo

Other. (Please explain.)

Kelces wrote: »

There are clearly defined options saying no aswell as there are "yes"-choices. You are far from objective, in this case.

You can chose to ignore the rest next to the no/yes and just vote. Instead of getting enraged over it, you might provide some sensible explanation, why there should or should not be an option for audio as described. That's how you convince people, not by claiming something that is obviously not the case.

The poll is neutral if you ignore the wording. Hahaha. Okay. Now I have heard everything. That's so funny.

Objectively, the "yes" option was characterized neutrally or positively. Factually, the "no" option was characterized as negative. The OP explained they did that on purpose to take a swipe at people who tell others to be quiet, and because they don't believe there is any sensible reason that exists for someone to say no.

So it was done on purpose to attack anyone who disagrees with them by their own admission.

That's biased. Period and point blank.

And again, I support the addition of an option.

Raisin

Amber322 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

they started insulting someone's name and such because they disagreed

Now, now. Let's not start lying. I've already asked you once to learn how to read. Let people take up for themselves. That's not really what happened. People shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. I know you like to try to be some White Knight, but give it up.

Hi I'm speaking for myself.

You insulted my name because I disagreed.

Byeee

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

Raisin wrote: »

Amber322 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

they started insulting someone's name and such because they disagreed

Now, now. Let's not start lying. I've already asked you once to learn how to read. Let people take up for themselves. That's not really what happened. People shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. I know you like to try to be some White Knight, but give it up.

Hi I'm speaking for myself.

You insulted my name because I disagreed.

Byeee

Lol. Honey. Oh, sweet darling. I insulted your name because you implied that I should be embarrassed of myself. Like I said, don't dish it if you can't take it.

Byeeeeeeeeeeee

Kelces

Heck yes. I would really like to have this available. ("Yes")

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Kelces wrote: »

There are clearly defined options saying no aswell as there are "yes"-choices. You are far from objective, in this case.

You can chose to ignore the rest next to the no/yes and just vote. Instead of getting enraged over it, you might provide some sensible explanation, why there should or should not be an option for audio as described. That's how you convince people, not by claiming something that is obviously not the case.

The poll is neutral if you ignore the wording. Hahaha. Okay. Now I have heard everything. That's so funny.

Objectively, the "yes" option was characterized neutrally or positively. Factually, the "no" option was characterized as negative. The OP explained they did that on purpose to take a swipe at people who tell others to be quiet, and because they don't believe there is any sensible reason that exists for someone to say no.

So it was done on purpose to attack anyone who disagrees with them by their own admission.

That's biased. Period and point blank.

And again, I support the addition of an option.

Ah, I see now: The right word to use here is not "biased", better to use "offensive".

spartaxoxo

Other. (Please explain.)

Amber322 wrote: »

Raisin wrote: »

Amber322 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

they started insulting someone's name and such because they disagreed

Now, now. Let's not start lying. I've already asked you once to learn how to read. Let people take up for themselves. That's not really what happened. People shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. I know you like to try to be some White Knight, but give it up.

Hi I'm speaking for myself.

You insulted my name because I disagreed.

Byeee

Lol. Honey. Oh, sweet darling. I insulted your name because you implied that I should be embarrassed of myself. Like I said, don't dish it if you can't take it.

Byeeeeeeeeeeee

After you told him that he was embarassing you because he disagreed with you.

Literally the entire thing started because he disagreed with you. His first post in this thread was neutral in tone.

Multiple people pointed out that you should not have gotten so personal. And they were right and you shouldn't.

You talk about people who bully others for disagreeing but you attacked Raisin unprovoked. I think you should consider practicing what you preached.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

spartaxoxo wrote: »

So it was done on purpose to attack anyone who disagrees with them by their own admission.

To attack??? I don't believe I ever said that. You sound very triggered and defensive.
It wasn't my intention "to attack". It was indeed my intention to make people think twice before mashing the "no" options over something that probably wouldn't effect them.
People seem to really enjoy selecting negative or jibberish options in polls. I wanted to make people think a bit more. Not attack.

Raisin

Amber322 wrote: »

Raisin wrote: »

Amber322 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

they started insulting someone's name and such because they disagreed

Now, now. Let's not start lying. I've already asked you once to learn how to read. Let people take up for themselves. That's not really what happened. People shouldn't dish it out if they can't take it. I know you like to try to be some White Knight, but give it up.

Hi I'm speaking for myself.

You insulted my name because I disagreed.

Byeee

Lol. Honey. Oh, sweet darling. I insulted your name because you implied that I should be embarrassed of myself. Like I said, don't dish it if you can't take it.

Byeeeeeeeeeeee

You genuinely don't realize how cringy you and every post you made in this thread is, right?

Edit: Forgot I can't use the at symbol I emojis here. Imagine there's a spiral-eyed emoji. Thanks.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

Your signature suits you.

Raisin

Amber322 wrote: »

Your signature suits you.

I usually try to make it work. But then sometimes there's threads like this, where you can't help but be a good person for once. I'll make up for it later.

spartaxoxo

Other. (Please explain.)

You wouldn't have flipped the hell out at everyone that disagreed with you anyway. You've been nothing but rude to everyone that has disagreed with you in this thread, and only polite to praise. While at the same time preaching that people shouldn't try to silence others who disagree.

I'm sorry but actions speak louder than words.

LoneStar2911

Sure, why not? What's the harm? ("Yes")

Raisin wrote: »

Amber322 wrote: »

Your signature suits you.

I usually try to make it work. But then sometimes there's threads like this, where you can't help but be a good person for once. I'll make up for it later.

Good person? Man, that's a good one. Woo. Thanks for the laugh.

Can the thread get back to what's important now, please?

Let us mute bards and/or other meaningless chatter!!!

[Deleted User]

Hello everyone,

With this thread derailing from all sides, we're going to go ahead and close it down. For further posts be sure to stay constructive and respectful with the Forum Rules in mind to avoid thread derailment or action on one's own account.

Thank you for understanding.