Here’s the rules:
1: Post something you have never done that you think many people do. 2: Read the other posts, if you have done that thing, upvote it. If you have not done that thing, downvote it. 3: If you believe the person is lying, call them out on it in a reply. 4: If you are called out, give the full story. 4a: If you see a thread containing the full story, boost the person you think is right and truthful.
Person who has the most upvotes when the thread dies wins.
meta: I think you should invert the rules, so that if you have done it, you downvote. The winner with the most votes is then the rarest of them all
That’s what OP is saying. The wording could be clearer.
Essentially, if you can relate to what the comment says, then downvote.
I think you and I share the same mind, but different eyes.
If someone says “I never shot a hippo”, then right now I will down vote (because I haven’t shot a hippo), so then if it gets upvoted…
OHhhhhh. It just clicked for me. Yep, you’re right. It makes sense
Either my reading comprehension has been turned to dust or you didnt read itAs in: Upvote, I have not done that thingEdit: Seems like I can’t read. I think it’s called double negation?
The problem is that the “thing” is either: