Dear Bruce, dear all,

I am often using bot-phrases like
“Don´t you think so, too?”
in my rules, but my bot is quite big
and it would be very laborious to code
for every pissibility by hand:

a: (~yes) [I am glad that you share my opinion] [I like that you see it my way][...][...]
b: (~no) [Why do you disagree?][Why not?][...][...]
c: (*) [Why don´t you answer me?][ Do you think this was a rhetorical question?][...][...]

Is it possible by the instruments CS gives us
to create a general rejoinder for that?
One could write a concept like ~bot_isnt_it (“Don´t you think” “shouldn´t we” “isn´t it”)
and than code it once and for all like:

G(eneral)a: (~yes ~bot_isnt_it ) [I am glad that you share my opinion] [I like that you see it my way][...][...]
G(eneral)b: (~no ~bot_isnt_it ) [Why do you disagree?][Why not?][...][...]
G(eneral)c: (*  ~bot_isnt_it ) [Why don´t you answer me?][ Do you think this was a rhetorical question?][...][...]

Perhaps, if it´s not possible,
this could be a feature-request.
Best

Andreas

As a side note, your rejoinders are all alternatives at equal level and should all be a

It is possible to share rejoinders by adding a bit of code on the rule you want to have share it. In its most microscopic instance it will take 3 characters per rule you share from.

The technique is:
topic: ~rejoinder system repeat ()
s: SHARE (?) x
  a: (~yes) whatever
  a: (~no) really?

Then elsewhere you do this.
t: Do you like me? ^setrejoinder(~rejoinder.share)

and to make that the 3 characters I promised you do
outputmacro: ^b()  ^setrejoinder(~rejoinder.share)

so it becomes
t: Do you like me?  b()

The ~rejoinder topic is “system” so that you don’t lose what topic you are within when the rejoinder doesn’t match.

Dear Bruce,

sorry for my little a-lapse
and thank you very much for
showing me how my CS-wishes to come true.

Best

Andreas