@jhass I may have used ad hominem for “whimsical” but you are using a condescending attitude which is just as worse.
I guess your reality check is broken. I’m not even in the power to forbid that, I’m merely expressing my opinion, which is worth as much as yours or anybody else’s. I did not block the proposal, heck I did not even disagree with it. Since we’re into the logical fallacies now, you’re basically pulling a straw man there.
you are using a condescending attitude which is just as worse
Mmh, I try to avoid logical fallacies and I know I suck at doing so. But Google is not providing much on this one. Can you explain more? Specific examples of where I did that and alternate, better phrasings? Please remember, English is not my native language.
Weird, English is not my native tongue, but my past experience has shown me that my reading comprehension is not too bad.
You could have written:
Weird, it seems that I have misunderstood what you meant.
Weird, it seems that I have misunderstood what you meant.
That’s not what I meant there though. I did read your statement several times prior responding and did read it several times again now, I still don’t know what you’re meaning with that then. And so far you don’t seem to want to clarify. One could even argue that with not clarifying in
I’m not saying that.
you were showing condescending attitude first, since you assume that your statement is perfectly clear and I’m just incapable of understanding it. Note that I’m not saying it’s unclear, I’m saying it’s unclear to me. Which of the two is closer to the truth though, we won’t find out with just us two talking.
I should clarify, it’s unclear to me if my first obvious interpretation is wrong.
@jhass Then I guess you really did not understand what I meant. I felt offended because I thought you did. Sorry for such a misinterpretation mess.
Direct quote:
What I mean is that don’t forbid people from expressing themselves with the characters they want because you don’t like these characters or the way they are stylized.
Well I already answered to the “forbid” part and I made clear that I’m just expressing opinion on the topic a lot earlier. So I still kind of fail to see any misinterpretation of your statements on my part and I kind of have the feeling that you’re ignoring statements of mine that you cannot answer, but that might very well be an issue on my side.
@jhass The thing is, I don’t want to censor anyone and I don’t want you to unfollow anyone. It’s your choice if you want to unfollow someone because that person uses emojis. What I think matters, and matters to this Loomio discussion, is that diaspora* users should have the choice to use Unicode emojis, even though you don’t like emojis, and that these emojis should be replaced with images for cross-compatibility.
GP are you the same as Cam Camil/riderplus and others
Please be aware that one cannot create clone accounts on Loomio in the first place. Secondly, you can stick your sarcastic remarks where you took them from, if you know what I mean, in a very polite manner :). As @gp stated , you have to read the proposal before posting comments. Thank you.
@camil Please please please, don’t turn this into fire! He will have to realize this by himself in his life, no need to start a war here. You’re making it sound as if we are in war against him. And almost as if we are the same person! I can understand what he means.
And yes, it is possible to create multiple accounts on Loomio. Just have multiple email addresses, and Incognito mode in Google Chrome can do the job.
Stop the straw man please, seriously. I never said I don’t like emojis. I never said I would block emoji support in general. I did not block this proposal. Assuming I said any of these, as I already said multiple times now before (which is where the feeling comes from that you ignore part of my statements), I do not even have the power to keep them out of Diaspora, I do not own the project.
All I said is that I don’t like graphical emojis and that I would vote no on a proposal about adding them. I also said I would block this proposal if it’s in fact about providing graphical emojis, since that’s not clear from the proposal and thus the proposal is unclear and should be redone. Which would be the reason for blocking the proposal, not my dislike of graphical emojis. Additionally we decided in the early days that a block ultimately just counts as a no vote and is merely meant as an indicator to the involved parties that there’s something wrong about the proposal.
I don’t like graphical emojis
That’s the source of the misinterpretation. I assume “graphical emojis” is a pleonasm since emojis are graphic symbols.
I understand the value of a “block” vote.
Now instead of continue this argument, could you please rephrase the proposal according to your intererpretation?
I feel like I’m repeating myself here, but the entire reason for my abstain is that I’m unclear about what I would agree or disagree about on this proposal, so no I cannot as much as I’d wish to.
Here are examples to explain my view of the issue.
Please take a look at this web page.
Scroll down a bit.
Problem #1 is the “turtle example” I gave earlier. Most smartphones do support emojis, but most desktops don’t. Setting up a universal “emoji font” or equivalent would solve that issue.
Problem #2 is the “color emoji” example I gave earlier. Emojis have the popular reputation to be very colorful, which is not the case with most emoji fonts on the desktop.
This is why for now, until color emoji fonts get implemented as a standard for desktop and browsers, I think technologies like Emoji One and Twemoji should be used by diaspora* to display emojis consistently.
@jhass You seem to have pretty much only disagreed so far. Sorry if I’m wrong, this is not supposed to be offensive but just an observation.
Therefore, could you tell us in details what you agree with?
None that are explicitly mentioned in your proposal, it being too vague with too little details to agree or disagree with is my entire point after all. Saying that some abstract thing, in this case emojis, should work in some abstract way, in this case “be supported”, while multiple different and distinct concrete variations that fulfill these requirements exist, is, to me, a waste of time.
I already outlined that, but since we’re now in the repeating ourselves phase: I do agree that the storage mechanisms used should be able to store the unicode codepoints used for emojis unaltered. I do agree that we should be able to deliver the unicode codepoints used for emojis unaltered. I do agree that the post parsing should not alter these codepoints. I do agree that we should deliver a nice font being able to represent these codepoints in case we find one that we can use.
@jhass Thank you for the clear repetition 
However, could you explain us what “codepoints” and “parsing” are? I am not enough experienced with fonts and Unicode to be familiar with these technical terms.
Also, could I know why you absolutely want it to be a font, and not a system like Twemoji?
@jhass Also, I created the proposal because I thought you opposed emojis. Can I then close this proposal and then assume that we all agree that diaspora* should support emojis?