πŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œ
πŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈ
β€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’š
πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™
πŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œ
πŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈ
β€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’š
πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™

some things i wanted to say to random people on <redacted> in no particular order,
and using the exclusive and foolproof anti-calling-out anti-suspension <redacted> system provided by Support Inc: the marvelous <redacted>β„’

well, it's been foolproof so far for others, but let's test if it works on my <redacted> threads.

πŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œ

  • thanks for being my best friend on sg <redacted> πŸ’—
  • you are awesome <redacted>, don't stop spamming πŸ’›
  • stop talking about me when i'm not around, <redacted> πŸ’”
  • <redacted>, go play your wins ❀️️
  • read the rules before posting <redacted> πŸ’™
  • i hate <redacted> so much πŸ’•
  • sorry for deleting you, <redacted>, you gave me no choice πŸ’œ
  • <redacted>, thanks for giving me a game last week! πŸ’š
  • stop adding me <redacted> i'm not gonna accept πŸ’–
  • keep posting emoticons, <redacted>, i love them! πŸ‰
  • <redacted>, if you want to <redacted> me again for 5-6 months, at least make up a semi-valid <redacted> for it 😍

and last but not least:

  • kindly go <redacted>, <redacted> πŸ–€

πŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œ

some trash that i don't even care to protect against bots, because they are obviously not against the <redacted>.
feel free to set up an autojoin <redacted> in this very thread to join everything <redacted> post.
everything is lv0 without <redacted> rules.

BUMP BUMP <redacted> BUMP BUMP BUMP BUMP
<redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted>

πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™πŸ’œπŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ’›πŸ’™

View attached image.
7 years ago

Comment has been collapsed.

it was unfair and stupid

View Results
<redacted>
No

I'm so confused about this post..
Have a bump anyway :)

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

thanks for the first <redacted>!

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But I can't play my wins until I get a new GPU.
You're probably not talking to me but thanks to <redacted> you could be.

And not sure who that next to last <redacted> is for but ( Ν‘Β° ΝœΚ– Ν‘Β°)

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i also don't have a gpu since july 2016, but i play in my <redacted>'s pc when it's available. =3

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

all this colours bwaaaaaaah xD

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You have been suspended for <redacted>

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

<redacted>

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

β„’

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Too many colors, it hurts to read, <redacted> this <redacted>.

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What about <redacted>?

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

don't bring <redacted> to my thread 😭

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sorry, I forgot about that time when <redacted>

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

thanks 4 skyrim <redacted> edition!

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Is that the one with only one main quest and nothing else?

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

no that's the LOTR edition. xD

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

colorful rage bump

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

bumpppp

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm expecting some <redacted> in this thread, don't defraud me!

View attached image.
7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 1 year ago.

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm happy about not understanding what is the thread about, I guess.

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yes. You are. D

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

it's <redacted> content πŸ’”

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks! πŸ’™ <redacted>

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

β€οΈοΈπŸ–€πŸ’”β£οΈπŸ’›πŸ’—πŸ’ŒπŸ’žπŸ’“πŸ’œπŸ’πŸ’•πŸ’šπŸ’–πŸ’™πŸ’˜πŸ–€πŸ’”β£οΈπŸ’›πŸ’—πŸ’ŒπŸ’žπŸ’“πŸ’œπŸ’πŸ’•πŸ’š
bump! bump! bump! bump! bump! bump! bump! bump! bump! bump! bump! bump!
πŸ’ŒπŸ’žπŸ’“πŸ’œπŸ’πŸ’•πŸ’šπŸ’–πŸ’™πŸ’˜πŸ–€πŸ’”β£οΈπŸ’›πŸ’—πŸ’ŒπŸ’žπŸ’“πŸ’œπŸ’πŸ’•πŸ’šβ€οΈοΈπŸ–€πŸ’”β£οΈπŸ’›πŸ’—

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

😍

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

this looks like it's about games workshop

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Plz don't be banned for SGHG4 so I can revive you as Redacted Mully. Unless you can think of something better cause I is not clever.

7 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thank you very much! <redacted> is awesome!

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thank you for the GA's :)

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Are the hearts a new feature on SG? I don't think I ever saw them
bump

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

November 3, 2016

Updated backup volume to 1TB of storage.
Updated data volume to 250GB of storage.
Updated software on our database server.
Converted character encoding across our site, allowing support for the full range of Unicode characters.
[>>]

See also: http://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html
(Please emoji responsibly.)

View attached image.
7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thank you

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

View attached image.
7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

So many unnecessary icons. I like it!

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This thread makes me wonder if there is a word if <redacted> is undone? Irredacted? Deredacted? Unredacted?
I know unexpurgated though!

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 5 years ago.

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

( I suppose you probably were just joking, so I hope you don't mind this tangent. =O)

Rounded brackets are used to indicate the contained content should be read as part of the sentence, but is otherwise an aside. Square brackets are editor brackets, and indicate supplemental or edited material, and thus are most common for [redacted] use.

Angle brackets aren't much used in language, but when they are, they're used to reference dynamic content such as youremailaddress@somewebsite.com (or any other e-mail or website) or <Whatever thoughts you may be having at the moment.>- ie, elements which are considered both part of the sentence as-read, but are also referencing content outside of what is being openly expressed. Curly brackets, as in math, are only used when referencing sets, and thus are seen least of all (especially as colons and semi-colons are usually used to indicate when multiple options are available).

As no actual redactions are occurring, angle brackets theoretically are actually the more accurate grammatical formatting, as they better indicate the perspective of the redactions as being internalized to Mully [as opposed to redactions which are actually occurring].

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wow, okay. Even when using escape marks, I can't get SG to not auto-convert links into such when they're surrounded by angle brackets. In fact, attempting to use escape marks has, ah.. interesting results:

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

maybe formatting it as inline code would help? <youremailaddress@somewebsite.com>

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 5 years ago.

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Quick question:

As no actual redactions are occurring, angle brackets theoretically are actually the more accurate grammatical formatting, as they better indicate the perspective of the redactions as being internalized to Mully [as opposed to redactions which are actually occurring].

Could this have been writen as:

As no actual redactions are occurring, angle brackets theoretically are actually the more accurate grammatical formatting, as they better indicate the perspective of the redactions as being internalized to Mully (as opposed to redactions which are actually occurring).

Or is there a reason for the square brackets here? πŸ€”

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Super short version, yes, there's a reason- but the reason has been <redacted>. :P

Short version, yes, it could have been written either way, but yes, there's also a reason for the square brackets. The distinction in the usage is that I was attempting to express a different tone with the text than parentheses would have given it.

Long version:

As I noted, parentheses (round brackets) are meant to be read as part of the sentence, and are used by the narrator/speaker to include a tangential subpoint (that is, an aside), either to offer clarification or add additional detail to the overall discussion. They're a pretty strong element of conversational writing, as it is pretty natural for conversational sentence flow to include such usage:

I hear that John (along with his family) really enjoyed his vacation.
After 2 years of waiting on cg to update the FAQ, the userbase was fed up with cg's updating habits (or, rather, lack of such).

As with the four examples above, they add information that, while perhaps interesting, isn't critical to the core point of the sentence. Instead, they're meant to add tone, flavor, or clarification to the topic in question- in doing so, they can change the overall impression of the sentence (as with that last example, giving it a slightly more negative indication).

Square brackets are meant to add additional information or edits to a sentence, but aren't meant to be read from the perspective of the narrator/speaker. Where parentheses are a common element in conversational writing, square brackets are more a component of scholastic writing or [edited] quotations. Aside from indicating edits, they're meant to provide outside clarification where meaning may not be intuitive- thus, where rounded brackets indicate a continuation of personal perspective, square brackets indicate outside perspective (or reference to such).

In other words, either round or square brackets would have worked in the paragraph you quoted, but the difference is one of intent- had I included it in parentheses, it'd have shown I'd intended it to be a part of the sentence flow, and as an element in further expressing the point the sentence was covering.
More straightforwardly put, parentheses would have indicated I was emphasizing the contrast in question as being a relevant part of the sentence, due to my stressing the extra mention within the sentence flow itself. Aside from the shift in tone, this could also imply that other options (aside from internalized redactions and 'actual' redactions) are part of the sentence's considerations, and that I'm stressing the specific alternative so as to distinguish it from those. Consider (along with his family), above, as a similar arrangement- that aside implied other options had been available to John (primarily, the option of vacationing alone), and the inclusion of the aside served to stress the specific approach that was used.

Square brackets, however, make it clear that I'm just offering outside clarification of what the preceding elements were intended to convey (and that no change in the sentence's impressions is intended). As my intent wasn't clarification of topic, but clarification of what the preceding element was intended to reference, that's a more appropriate formatting for me to have used there- especially as I'd never have included the clarification had I been speaking the sentence out loud to someone, which is also a clear indication that it's an outside clarification, rather than a conversational one.

tl;dr: You should use round brackets to clarify the topic and elements related to it, and square brackets to clarify grammar and elements related to presentation.

As a final note, had I intended it to flow as part of the sentence, I'd actually have formatted it as such:

As no actual redactions are occurring, angle brackets theoretically are actually the more accurate grammatical formatting, as they better indicate the perspective of the redactions as being internalized to Mully, rather than being redactions which are actually occurring due to outside interference.

(As this formatting avoids any confusions of intent that making an aside of the clarification may cause.)

In the end, the nuance is mostly in how I intended to convey the matter (that is, in downplaying the need to put meaningful consideration toward the bracketed material). You could just as easily have presented it with parentheses, and it may have been the more accurate option for how you would have expressed the matter. As both forms of brackets are intended to offer clarification of some sort, they do sometimes overlap in ways that make choosing between their usage more a matter of personal perspective than straightforward grammatical consideration (at least, so far as their usage in casual written environments such as those found on forums goes).

7 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I see. Thank you for the explanation. I guess I'll stick to my rule of thumb of hardly ever using square brackets unless they are unequivocally called for [due to formatting rules, for example] but I'll be more conscious when I do feel the need to throw them in (rather than just using regular parentheses). :)

I hope I'm doing this right. πŸ€”

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Pretty reasonable- square brackets are generally not necessary (as their sparsity compared to round brackets in my post above helps to indicate). But yeah, if you're clarifying grammar or editing quotes, that's when you'd want to give strong consideration to using square brackets- especially for the latter, as misquoting someone without noting that you're doing so can be interpreted negatively.

doing this right

Either one would have worked there, as you're both clarifying your usage of unequivocally and adding clarification to the topic. Parentheses would imply that formatting rules are an active (presumably foremost) consideration in what you view as an exception to your rule of thumb, while square brackets would simply clarify an example of what unequivocal could refer to (without indicating there being any special weight to the example). In other words, as before, the difference between continued personal perspective and simple grammatical clarification.

Given how casual the reference you're making is, the difference in implication wouldn't make any significant change to the meaning of the sentence from the perspective of most readers- but you may prefer one or the other approach for the sake of better expressing your true intentions.

Side note, someone who is conscientious is meticulously careful or strictly principled in their approach. Someone who is conscious is, y'know, not napping on the job. :P
I mean, I'm not saying you needed a correction there.. I'm just saying, the narrative changes a bit without one. :3

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

<redacted>

7 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Closed 7 years ago by Fyantastic.