See what pastebin.com/qFv8Yc8C brings to light for more

So after revisiting your haggling policy that was elaborated on in response to you talking about this, I have a question I'd like to ask where you are urged to answer in a strict yes-or-no answer. There is a blurry, gradient "line" between what counts as haggling and what counts as, say, roleplaying or perhaps hypotheticals/round robins. Do such things fall under the same thinking/approach?

Yes.

I'm going to have to object to this, unless there's some nuance to your approach to this that accommodates to what I'm about to say. Haggling is indeed a form of leverage, something that reflects a lack of certainty on the value of something, and a way of "playing hard to get". However, in ways whose elaborations can be cited, it's often in response to other leverage. To use an example, if I were looking for a certain product, I might find myself having to consult a big business that pressured, blackmailed, or otherwise killed the competition by unfair means. And this big business might be taking advantage of its monopoly by having a high price tag on its products. So then it's natural to walk in and, in order to cope with an underwhelming result, say "this coffee maker is shit, I'd only pay ten dollars for it"; and it's here you might think of haggling as a form of controlled, honor-enforced rebellion against big business, since here you have a cycle bubbling to the surface involve one side who could otherwise topple the business if too displeased and another side who is incentivized to (to an extent which matches observers' expectations of how the haggling might play out) play a negotiation game to avoid the risk of losing face or business. If you could answer this question in the same format for the same reason, surely (along with what else has been discussed in this conversation), in a situation like this where it becomes a catharsis for something else that shouldn't be in one's monetary experience, it would be canon to your code of ethics (that you use as a code of honor for yourself and as a TOS for your groups and functions) to take the classic West Asian view on haggling and treat it as a duty (while providing the opposite view when going in under fair circumstances), right?

Yes.

And if you were to answer this follow-up question in the same way (because the same circumstances apply), when you imply centrism can manifest itself religiously, are you implying this in the same way as how people assert that Islam can manifest itself politically by virtue of its philosophy (as opposed to having a different reasoning), with Jewish/Abrahamic religiosity implied by virtue of its own kind of connection to centrism, with it noted that there is more than one way the undertones of centrism branch out?

Yes.

And to provide a follow-up question where you're urged by the circumstances to answer in exactly seventy-two words so as to not be roundabout like you often are, what about the pope/scholarch of centrism in this sense? Is or would there be one, or how would one be determined? Because I take it it's the apologetics of everything combined that determines everything else. I know a certain naming technicality ranks you up there.

If we're being technical, people can, as one might say, end up following whoever they want, noting that the envisioning of being able to summarize, say, Catholics, as "following the pope because they're Catholics", forgets that, by virtue of the spectrum-esque nature of it all, there are as many "independent Catholics", and, furthermore, "independent Catholics following Tolkien". But the technicality mentioned, combined with others, does maximally do as you say it does.

What about the ruler of Singapore? They literally rule over a nation where that's their school of approach. Assuming you can answer this which you're urged to answer in an eighteen word format so as to not be roundabout like you often are, wouldn't they be to this what, say, the emperor is to Shinto?

If only their ruling lineage wasn't broken. So the next best thing applies. Though I also have ties.

Inspired by what you have said about your theology, if I may ask (in a way where you're circumstantially urged to answer each part collectively in the form of a thirty-six word answer so as to not be roundabout like you often may be), what about the patron saint of centrists, whoever that might be identified as at the time the answer to this question is comprehended? Is it canon that, if someone can prove they were on the perceived receiving end of word (and/or gestures) from them that has moral/hermeneutic value, that they can follow that person (the patron saint of centrism) first and use the code of ethics associated with you to fill in the gaps? What about Jesus, given that what he came to reform is itself "rather centrist"; could someone be "Christian" except reforming your associated framework or Singaporean legal framework with it being canonically tolerated?

"Yes" to the patron saint having that authority. "Yes" to the part with Jesus and that nation, at least in the sense of having favored status, if along with the guardrails that the movement brushes upon.

Wait, really?

Yessiree ma'am. Might as well spite them, and the best way to do that is to join the greener grass on the other side (your Australian/Kiwi LDS diaspora branch, with all of its stories of Jesus and Australian aborigines). Can you teach me about it?

What would you like to know? Ask me anything.

On behalf of "Inquisitron", joining your religion is a decision that has been replaced with the decision to join Scientology, which I'm sure makes us ten times more relevant to this conversation (as Inquisitron, it would give me protection from haters, including the ones who lump everyone in with you, as Scientologists do not tolerate it when fellow Scientologists are persecuted; this, on paper, would offer you protection due to the circumstances, effective tomorrow, even though you're not a Scientologist), so scratch that and the other thing said. Do you have any objections (and are you a suppressive person)?

No.

There are multiple variants of how serviceable mentality should work. The other famous one involves the ikigai. Both emphasize living for others' sake, which is like theft by pressure. Removing what we must be careful for is also rather excessively absolute and is dismissal in an oversimplified form, not being the same as guardrails (neither does dedicated performance seem to need to mean maximum performance). You'd think traditions like fugu would violate that thinking. Again, there are many variants, and it's a sign that the ways work ethic is summarized are projected. Other than that, the modus operandi is sound.

There are multiple variants of how serviceable mentality should work. The other famous one involves the ikigai. Both emphasize living for others' sake, which is like theft by pressure. Removing what we must be careful for is also rather excessively absolute and is dismissal in an oversimplified form, not being the same as guardrails (neither does dedicated performance seem to need to mean maximum performance). You'd think traditions like fugu would violate that thinking. Again, there are many variants, and it's a sign that the ways work ethic is summarized are projected. Other than that, the modus operandi is sound.

I don't think they feel the concern.

If I could ask an additional question except in a thirty-six word format for the same reason, if there was an eleventh e-cept, what would it be and why?

To be suspicious of words about others when spoken by removed identities or ban evaders, for it (often with nuance regarding explicitness of reason) marks potentiality as a punished slanderer in ways not being removed doesn't.

Triagonal, a self-proclaimed Machiavellian claiming their critics lack morals relies on laughable false equivalences such as trying to equate supporting piracy or watching Rick and Morty to their pedophilia only makes them look even more foolish and desperate and no less of a lonely, disowned pedophile.

I'm getting a small bit of satisfaction from the fact that they got around to addressing how bonkers this is, which someone phrased best. This amazing franchise which hasn't gotten a single ounce of representation wrong deserves better. Regardless of why I might be asking how I am, give me as many words as you can to describe how relatable this is.

Very. They can ask me anytime what it's like to be a magnet for absent-mindfulness.

Yes.

Well, I don't know if this counts, but the "such people" I mentioned, which would now be revealed to be a fascist mob, are definitely worth casting out for their treatment of the crew, right?

Yup.

People feel they need my permission for that?

Do I have to answer that? Though I notice you already know this, the icing on the cake is the fact that, after this all happened, as if to do nothing else but prove the people wrong who said this wouldn't have happened, episode 9 of The Amazing Digital Circus (so your other major fandom you're in), which actually was headed to theaters, also got leaked, and in the same exact fashion. If I could ask the following where you're urged to answer in the same format as the first question for the same reason, could we endlessly expand the horizons of our approach in response to this?

Yes.

Does the madness ever stop?

Don't I wish.

And now not only is it downright nuts, but the people on the hostile end remind me enough of your haters to make me feel blessed you happen to have fallen into the other archetype. If I could ask a question I'd like to ask where you're urged to answer in the same format (with the same reasoning) as the first part of this conversation, what advice would you give?

Yes?

I apologize, I meant a twelve word answer, not a yes-or-no answer. I still have that question to ask, one where you're urged to answer in exactly twelve words, more or less. Especially as it's kicking off again.

In a world full of sheep, be the shepherd. Tinker the unadvised.

You know someone is effed when Iroh is telling people to show no mercy toward them; someone refill his tea please.

For reasons of experience, I'll keep that in mind.

Just be happy aside from the toxicity being the one thing outstanding.

Paramount. The fandom is mistaking desire for monetary wisdom and fair consequences.

Yes.

We stand by their honoring of their prearranged negotiations, not much else.