Emote spamming, or “chain reactions”

@Toadofsky solid argument there... Congrats!

@NaturalBornTraveller It's pretty straightforward. In Firefox I have a "Custom Style Script" extension, and if you add the following style to the domain lichess.org, all emotes are hidden:

button.yes {visibility: hidden; display: none;}
button.no {visibility: hidden; display: none;}

Of course the reactions are still there for other users, but users won't be bothered with them anymore if they don't want to see them.

@thijscom thank you. Unfortunately I play on a phone.

Can a Firefox android browser also do this?

I appreciate this discussion. Good points have been made on both sides of our friendly little debate. Not unlike a game of chess played with words. 🙂 So far, I think the game is a draw.

I just wanted to say, I notice censorship has been mentioned a couple of times. I confess I find this puzzling. You see, censorship means taking something that already exists and removing it or covering it up. But if it’s simply not possible to use a certain emote after using another one, what exactly has been censored? … Is it even possible to “censor” something that hasn’t happened yet?

As I mentioned in post № 5, we currently lack an emoji for winking 😉; and if we had this one, I would use it all the time. So does that mean all of my would-be winks are being “proactively censored”? (What a concept!) … What other currently nonexistent options are “censoring” users’ latent choices? 🤯 This is a very troubling line of inquiry. …

censor (v.): to suppress or delete as objectionable
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

suppress (v.): to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress

prohibit (v.): to prevent from doing something
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prohibit

Horsey?

I think @Toadofsky is trying to say that the mere choice of not having a “tacos” emote is actually a form of censorship, as it prevents people from using it... :)

By the same token, the game of chess itself should be considered as a monumental example of censorship, for it prevents people from using the pieces as they please.

I think we can all see where the glitch is... Establishing a conventional (and logic) way of conveying a certain meaning is not censorship: it’s just the foundation of any language (or game). You simply cannot move the queen AND a rook at the same time, if you want to play a game of chess the way it is COMMONLY accepted. Similarly, you shouldn’t be allowed to use emotes of opposite meaning at the same time, as it is simply illogic... (You can’t affirm A and not A at the same time)

Logic is not censorship insofar as we accept it as a necessary precondition to make communication possible.

I can’t edit my posts anymore... now THAT is censorship! I should be entitled to changing/rewording my own thoughts, shouldn’t I? :-P

№ 35,

Censor, v.:
Scrutinize, revise, or cut unacceptable parts from (a book, movie, etc.).
— The Oxford English Dictionary

By implication, the subject matter being treated in this way already exists. Again, I don’t think simply not having the option to do something, in the first place, counts as censorship. Not only is that a serious stretch of the concept, but because the realm of impossible actions will always vastly exceed the realm of possible ones, the many implications of such a loose use quickly become absurd.

There is no Barney emoji. So is Lichess censoring Barney fans? 🦖 If we follow your logic to its necessary conclusion, then it becomes apparent we are already censoring nearly everything! And surely that is intolerable behavior. Shame on us.

😉

“Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn't tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

... but back to #37, you'll actually find that I too play chess by different rules. For example, I'm OK with allowing castling to be done by two hands, or promoting a pawn by placing a rook upside-down in the even that a queen cannot be found. Usually rules are agreed upon in advance of the game although with some students I've allowed them to change the rules mid-game.

On the other hand, something being common does not make it logical. Exhibit A: