From Blygger
OK I am completely confused about the status of "replies" in Blygger. The 0.3 spec says both "a stub is a response" and "a stub is not a reply". I don't understand the difference. And if its too obscure for me to grasp it probably needs to get clarified if this is going to be a widely-shared protocol. blygger-spec/docs/protocol-v0.3.md at main · blygger/blygger-spec · GitHub
will blyg about this in hopes of a response if not a reply haha.
I suppose this is an aspect of the design principle "this is a network of soapboxes, not a conversational medium". I not only don't like this rule, I think it's incoherent, as the confusing language indicates. Are you trying to technically legislate non-arguments? I suppose a lot of that kind of thing is tedious and boring, especially when it is across ideological lines, but calling it something else probably isn't going to help.
Oh actually I just figured out the difference (I think): "reply" denotes a kind of 1st-person style of direct argument, where person A and B are talking back to each other. "response", or citation, implies that you are talking to a 3rd party about a 2nd party. A is talking about B to C, where C is the audience. Isn't there a senate rule about that?
Ask Claude
- Yes, you've hit on exactly the right analogy. Under Senate Rule XIX:
- All speeches must be addressed to the Presiding Officer. Only the Presiding Officer may be directly addressed in speeches; other members must be referred to in the third person.
- In most cases, senators refer to each other not by name, but by state, using forms such as "the senior senator from Virginia" or "the junior senator from California."
- So the structural logic is identical to your reply/response distinction: a Senator never directly addresses a colleague on the floor — they speak to the Chair about the colleague. Senator A addresses the Presiding Officer (C) about Senator B. Direct second-person address between senators isn't the form debate takes...
- That seems like a crisp way to clarify the spec. The distinction is real and meaningful — it might just need a sentence in the docs that makes the rhetorical direction explicit, perhaps something like: "a stub is addressed to readers, not to the author of the cited post."
Yes, you've hit on exactly the right analogy. Under Senate Rule XIX:
All speeches must be addressed to the Presiding Officer. Only the Presiding Officer may be directly addressed in speeches; other members must be referred to in the third person.
In most cases, senators refer to each other not by name, but by state, using forms such as "the senior senator from Virginia" or "the junior senator from California."
So the structural logic is identical to your reply/response distinction: a Senator never directly addresses a colleague on the floor — they speak to the Chair about the colleague. Senator A addresses the Presiding Officer (C) about Senator B. Direct second-person address between senators isn't the form debate takes...
That seems like a crisp way to clarify the spec. The distinction is real and meaningful — it might just need a sentence in the docs that makes the rhetorical direction explicit, perhaps something like: "a stub is addressed to readers, not to the author of the cited post."
Hm maybe, I think it needs better naming or it will cause a lot of confusion. Why not "citation" as the primitive if that is what they are? It was explained to me as like quoting a tweet, so maybe call it a quotation?