> didn't follow the site rules [...] rejected them
That's not what's happening here. Neither I nor crooked-v have broken any rules or gotten rejected.
> If what you suggest I'm saying is "obviously wrong", then come on, you can do better than that, "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation".
Sorry, I can't think of any other way to interpret what you said. You gave a definition of sour grapes that is different from the normal definition, but fatally flawed. Normally the "strongest plausible interpretation" would be to assume you mean the normal definition of sour grapes, but that would contradict your entire argument as I understand it, so I can't do that.
While for my argument, I was saying "you have to do X to do Y, which is dumb" and you responded to "you have to do X" in a vacuum. Obvious weakening.
> you don't need to post niche questions or hunt popular questions, you can deal with normal questions.
If it's not niche, I can nearly guarantee it's already been answered, or that I'd be responding to a duplicate where the rules-following behavior would be trying to get it closed.
> you don't need to hack or farm, you can genuinely participate
Not when I rarely find questions appropriate to respond to, and the correct way to respond is always a comment. I would have to seek out questions just for points, which is farming.
The site has a "no shoes" policy, rejecting people without shoes. You refuse to put shoes on, so can't go in. Rejected. Anticipating your next dodge, saying "I own shoes, I could put them on, they're not rejecting me, I'm rejecting them!" - they're rejecting people who won't pass the filter as well as people who can't; both look the same from the other side.
"that thing I can't have sucks": is sour grapes. "My leg hurts": not sour grapes. Not all complaints are sour grapes. "I can't comment without following their rules therefore the site sucks" is sour grapes enough for me. Anticipating your next dodge, whether you "can" have it or not, see previous paragraph. And dogdge after that, no neither of you used those exact words, yes that's what I read crooked-v's intent, supporting evidence: calling the SO score "MeowMeowBeenz" elsewhere in this thread.
> in a vacuum
This zillion comment deep subthread is not a vacuum, it's context and the reply was in all this context. Don't want to do X to do Y? No problem, don't do X or Y, simply move on with your life, nothing lost. You don't have to correct things on SO, and you don't have to be allowed to correct things on SO because it's not public property. Wanting to correct things but not on their terms doesn't change anything. "I want to offer corrections but don't agree to their rules, or don't have time or interest, so I don't" isn't sour grapes and isn't a problem for me. "You can't offer corrections without their gatekeeping meowmeowbeenz", sour grapes. Implying the site owes you a way to comment on your terms, and whining when it doesn't, is a problem.
> If it's not niche, I can nearly guarantee it's already been answered, or that I'd be responding to a duplicate where the rules-following behavior would be trying to get it closed.
A site so full that there's nothing left to ask or answer, yet you're so desperate to hurry in instantly so you can join in. You're not interested in following the site rules .. until it's convenient for you, so now suddenly you are.
> Not when I rarely find [..] I would have to seek out questions just for points, which is farming.
Again "I won't engage with the site on their terms, the only way I can engage on my terms is farming, and the site is bad for making me farm!!!!!". Yes, if you want to engage on your terms you would need to farm. Change yourself to engage on their terms because it's their site. If that means waiting patiently for "rare" questions, or if it means changing what you can answer, or if it means something else, whatever. It's not unfair that it has rules which are keeping you out because you don't want to follow them, and that doesn't make it a bad site.
That's not what's happening here. Neither I nor crooked-v have broken any rules or gotten rejected.
> If what you suggest I'm saying is "obviously wrong", then come on, you can do better than that, "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation".
Sorry, I can't think of any other way to interpret what you said. You gave a definition of sour grapes that is different from the normal definition, but fatally flawed. Normally the "strongest plausible interpretation" would be to assume you mean the normal definition of sour grapes, but that would contradict your entire argument as I understand it, so I can't do that.
While for my argument, I was saying "you have to do X to do Y, which is dumb" and you responded to "you have to do X" in a vacuum. Obvious weakening.
> you don't need to post niche questions or hunt popular questions, you can deal with normal questions.
If it's not niche, I can nearly guarantee it's already been answered, or that I'd be responding to a duplicate where the rules-following behavior would be trying to get it closed.
> you don't need to hack or farm, you can genuinely participate
Not when I rarely find questions appropriate to respond to, and the correct way to respond is always a comment. I would have to seek out questions just for points, which is farming.