chicken

The questionable consent in The Lusty Argonian Maid is totally intentional, but should be taken in context, because in lore it's

by Crassius Curio

who is

spoiler

a wealthy and influential NPC who, after spending lots of time doing a series of quests for him to advance in his faction, he hits you with a quest to take off all your equipment so he can see the player character naked, and if you refuse to do this you can't advance further in that quest line. This happens regardless of your character's gender. He's depicted as a sex pest and a creep in a way that feels very personal and elicits a strong negative reaction, because you can't say no without making a meaningful sacrifice within the game.

So if you play the game you're going to be inclined to view the author's intent with a strong negative bias.

I've blocked a bunch of people, who may be replying to me with harassing comments, but that isn't influencing what I do. It might influence the overall conversation, and that could be a problem, but I think the way that problem is dealt with should be public, because the problem is public, it's not something that's exclusively my problem. I don't think I should have the authority to act to police any arbitrary community like that, especially without anyone being able to know that I'm doing it.

I do think it would be less bad if it only prevented direct comment replies, and not replies to top level posts or replies to other comments by other people further down the thread.

I don't understand what you mean by it still occurs in the other direction though. Nobody can prevent people from commenting except moderators and admins, which is how it should be. Mute style blocking isn't moderation because it doesn't affect anyone's ability to comment, it's effectively the same as a client level filter.

Because the alternative is easily abused, see all the issues Reddit has with this type of block mechanism.

The core of the problem as I see it is, this gives every user limited moderation powers in every sub, the extent of that power is determined mainly just by how much they post and comment (blocked users can't comment under their posts, and can't reply to any comment in a chain started by the blocker), and the extent to which it is happening is invisible to most users. People advocating for this seem to assume it will be used mostly defensively, to prevent harassment, but the feature has way more utility offensively, and it's totally unaccountable. If there is something someone is saying (not even necessarily to you) that you don't like for whatever reason, whether or not it's against the rules and regardless of what anyone else thinks about it, you can partially silence them by blocking and then working to get engagement in the same spaces they comment in. Think about if this was implemented on Lemmy, lots of communities have only one or a few people making all the posts, if one or more of them blocked you that's almost the same as a ban. It doesn't make it better that the people making those posts are often also moderators, because it would be a way to pseudo ban people without it showing up in the mod log.

Moderation of online discussion spaces should be transparent and accountable, it shouldn't be a covert arms race between users.

Shit, it's broken again, where's the reset button?

Not universally true but in the context of soup yeah fair point

Supposedly starch can work as a binding agent, so that might be what does it.

Are there any ingredients in there that would substitute for egg as a binding ingredient? Pancakes with just flour salt and baking powder have problems.

I eat beans basically as my main diet and don't really soak or rinse them or anything, have no digestive issues from it.

There is no way these beans all have the same cooking time

Do you not add an egg to it? I've tried using mashed banana instead which sort of works but still isn't as good.

in what sense is the page dimension that big then, is it just an arbitrary unit, or something to determine print size?