"Ignore" function

[i]

I'd really like an option to allow me to ignore specific users. That is, if me (hah, you thought I was talking about myself, didn't you!) read through a discussion that has a post by a specific user, the whole post regardless of length would be reduced to a single line saying something like, "Post ignored, as per your profile settings". Only a name on the left would be displayed - no avatar, post information, or anything else would be shown.

If a whole discussion is started by a particular user you want to ignore, it'd be nice to either allow it to appear in the forum list, or make it totally invisible. That way you'd get the choice to either know they'd started a whole thread, or not even know that much.

 

[CougTek]

Do I annoy you that much?

 

[blakerwry]

http://www.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=150586


Although I dont agree with it.

Everybody deserves the chance to be heard. Once in awhile they might surprise you.

 

[Fushigi]

To me it would be useful to have options on ignoring:

- Ignore user.
- Ignore a user's posts in a specific thread.
- Ignore PMs from a user. (I probably wouldn't use this but someone might)
- Ignore an entire thread (disappears from the threadlist). Selectable from both the thread list and in the thread itself.

Searching, though, should probably include ignored posts/threads. Maybe include an '[Ignored]' flag next to the search results.

All that said (written?), for a forum this size I get by just fine with no ignore option available.

 

[jtr1962]

While it is tempting to say this would be a good thing to have, especially with at least one member here prone to saying the same thing in thread after thread, I also think everyone deserves the chance to be heard. Once in a while, the member I was refering to makes on-topic posts that actually make sense, so something would be lost by ignoring all their posts. I wish there was a way to ignore all posts pertaining to the same subject matter from a particular member, but software isn't that intelligent yet. Simply basing ignoring the post on certain keywords wouldn't work well.

Besides, I think an ignore feature will lead to a person ignoring someone's posts every time they lose an argument with that person. Since all of us here have probably been on the losing side at one time or another with nearly everyone else(except of course me ), this might mean everyone being on everyone else's ignore list! What would be the point of the forum then? You'll post something, see no negative responses, and then scream "I must be right! Nobody is disagreeing with me!"

 

[Handruin]

If this feature is much needed for everyone, then that says something about the whole of our community. My vote would be to not have this functionality, much for the same reasons that jtr1962 has mentioned. If there is one particular person that this request is needed for, then maybe the rules should be analyzed so that action can be taken.

 

[timwhit]

At this point I think I would use it for only one member.

 

[Jan Kivar]

And the blocking wouldn't work very well, if someone else quotes a part of the post from the user who is ignored by You... Also, the continuity of the thread can cause more double-posting (not by same user, but posts of same context).

Blocking per thread could work though.

Cheers,

Jan

 

[i]

http://www.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=150586


Although I dont agree with it.

Everybody deserves the chance to be heard. Once in awhile they might surprise you.

Yes, everyone deserves a chance to be heard.

And everyone also deserves the chance to be free from seeing the same blithering, non-sensical statements, over and over again.

You want to hear all of it? That's certainly your choice.

Grant me the benefit of the doubt here. If such a function were available, it wouldn't be something I'd enable haphazardly. I'd only do so after someone crossed my own personal line between "person with some character of unknown dimension" and "moron". Right now, after all the time I've spent here at SF and with all the participants, there's only one person coming close to crossing that line - and I'm not even saying they have crossed it.

...I also think everyone deserves the chance to be heard. Once in a while, the member I was refering to makes on-topic posts that actually make sense, so something would be lost by ignoring all their posts.

Again, yes, everyone deserves the chance to be heard. But they don't have the right to be heard indefinitely. They get a certain benefit of the doubt when they first appear. But after a while - and I'm a patient person - they've either proven themselves able to write things worth your time or they haven't. If they haven't, then it might be that they just hold a different perspective on things. But if they fail to prove their worth to you, and simultaneously post in a fashion you find immature or irritating, then that's a case for an "ignore" function in my book.

This possibly hypothetical person had their chance, and they blew it.

Besides, I think an ignore feature will lead to a person ignoring someone's posts every time they lose an argument with that person.

I'd wager the majority of people here at StorageForum are above doing something that childish.

If this feature is much needed for everyone, then that says something about the whole of our community.

Each person has their own threshold for this sort of thing, Handruin. I think I've explained how it works for me, but others of course approach this sort of thing completely differently. For starters, there are those who just filter it out as they go, and there are those that so fervently believe that every comment, every fart, deserves listening too, that they'd never consider ignoring someone else's posts.

At this point I think I would use it for only one member.

I've been here for a fair amount of time. I don't really post much (it varies a lot depending on the phase my life is in). I'm very patient. And after all that - after all this time - I too only have one candidate in mind. And who's to say I'd enable it and never consider disabling it from time to time to see if the ignored user had changed their tune at all?

So please, those of you who are fearing some of giant "ignore-fest": I'm sure the majority of us are capable of handling the responsibility of something like this without allowing some immature, virtual, mass bitch-slapping to develop.

And the blocking wouldn't work very well, if someone else quotes a part of the post from the user who is ignored by You...

It'd still be better than nothing.

Besides, the point you raise may be a good thing. If the ignored user happens to post something that someone else you don't have ignored quotes, then that may be a good time to disable the "ignore" and see if the person is worth listening too again.

 

[blakerwry]

I dont agree with it.

Everybody deserves the chance to be heard. Once in awhile they might surprise you.

I'm with JTR.

 

[Howell]

My internal filter is strong enough that the only way I'd know if something worth my time was posted is if somebody quoted it. The avatars really help. While I tend to lean toward everyone has a right to be heard, if the S/N ratio became too high I'd be tempted to skip whole threads altogether and therfore miss stuff.

 

[i]

Blakerwry and jtr1962, tell me how an "ignore" function would impact you.

 

[timwhit]

If it's not evident from my above post, I am in agreement with 'i' on this one.

 

[blakerwry]

It's just part of my ideals. I think that it's pretty hard for someone to not have 1 useful thing come out of their mouth. So even if you don't agree with someone or you think they are annoying, there is bound to be a useful piece of information they can provide you. And thus it would be wrong to stifle them.

I personally, wouldn't use the feature and instead can skim over posts I feel are irrelevent. Since this is a per user setting, you are not affecting my viewing of the forums, so I don't have a problem with it being implemented. I just said I don't agree with it.

 

[timwhit]

Maybe a poll could be created to see if people want this feature implemented.

Just remember, if it is implemented it doesn't mean that you have to use the feature. But, it could come in very handy if more trolls appear.

 

[jtr1962]

Blakerwry and jtr1962, tell me how an "ignore" function would impact you.

Honestly, it probably wouldn't impact me at all. I can only think of one possible person on these boards I might use it for, and even there it isn't clear cut(yet). Of course, a few more nonsensical posts could tip the scales. :x I don't believe I would be on anybody's "ignore" list(at least I hope not ), so it's not a problem there, either. And I don't think anyone here would sink to the level of ignoring posts from a person with whom they've lost arguments one too many times. I know I wouldn't. I don't post here to have a bunch of people agreeing with every word I say. I like healthy disagreement and debate so long as it doesn't sink to childish name-calling or other types of personal attacks. As long as someone explains why they disagree with me, even if they don't change my mind(or I theirs) I think the discussion was worthwhile. Take that thread on unions as a good example of this. While I may not agree with everything some others have written, at least I can understand why they feel as they do.

In the end, if enough people here want an "ignore" feature it will happen. However, I tend to think if the time comes that a majority here feel the need for one, then I submit that this is due to greater problems which the ignore feature may not solve anyway. As it is I'm perfectly capable of filtering posts(and threads) based on just reading the first few words. Some threads are about specific components or software I have no interest in, so I don't read them. Sometimes in a thread I'll see a few words by a particular member, and see that they are completely off-topic and are just a repeat of rhetoric written elsewhere, so I ignore the rest of the post. Maybe I'm better at this than most, but the (mostly) nonsensical posts by a particular member here aren't really that annoying to me. Sometimes I even get a good laugh at the responses to those posts, so at least they have some entertainment value(much like Trinton Azaleth's posts on SR did, for example).

 

[P5-133XL]

So sorry. I won't do it again. Please don't muzzle me. :lol:

 

[CityK]

I don't think they heard you Mark

 

[flagreen]

What happens if you hit "ignore" for your own user name? Do you disappear?

 

[Tannin]

Aha! A very good question, Flagreen!

 

[Mercutio]

Just recently, I was thinking to myself that the fact that there HAVEN'T been anti-fubar posts are an indication of how well this site works. He has, on occasion made on-topic and interesting posts. Like it or not, he chooses to be part of this community.

This is technically an issue for moderators, not the general populace. That would be, uh, Howell, at the moment (JtD is absent and if The JoJo gets out of his honeymoon bed before next Monday, I'll e-slap him)

Part of the reason for moderation is that the general populace DOESN'T just get to decide to censor someone. The populace here gets to decide who should have the responsibility to moderate, just like in the real world we can't just go around arresting people we don't like, but we choose the people who can arrest.

fubar hasn't seriously violated any rules that the mods abide by. His posts aren't THAT difficult to avoid (although they are easy to confuse with the other fubar). Institutionalizing "ignoring" someone does not seem like the right answer here.

OTOH, fubar should read this thread and realize that he's treading on thin ice. Maybe that's his goal. But maybe he wants. Who knows.

 

[i]

*ahem*

I'd like to state that I haven't mentioned any names here because I think doing so would be unfair, if not flat out unkind.

That is part of my point. I don't want anyone else to know who I'm ignoring, because I respect other people's right to make up their minds about who's worth listening to or not. I don't want to affect their judgement in any way. Furthermore, I don't want the person I'm ignoring to know because I don't want them to feel bad.

And those are the exact same reasons why I would never involve a moderator in something like this. FOR THE LAST TIME, EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD. Mercutio, to me what you're saying is completely backwards. Going to a moderator to inflate an issue like this is promoting the very thing you are claiming you have a problem with: censorship. Now instead of dealing with the issue internally, you're suggesting that an external force should be employed to make a bigger deal of the issue, and to alter or squash the individual in question. I'm sorry, your implication that an ignore function is censorship does not make ANY sense to me. The solution you are suggesting is more likely to involve or promote censorship.

I want the ability to make a quiet, personal decision as to what I consider worth my time and what I don't. What is wrong with that, Mercutio? And how is it not oodles better than the sledge-hammer (a.k.a. moderator) option?

Part of the reason for moderation is that the general populace DOESN'T just get to decide to censor someone.

I could view that as simply saying that moderators won't be as necessary if an "ignore" function is implemented.

I happen to be a firm believer in something called personal choice. I happen to think most things that increase the opportunity for this thing called "choice" are good, unless you're dealing with a group of people who are incapable of exercising that choice responsibly. Mercutio, you can't tell me you think the people here at SF are irresponsible, right?

 

[timwhit]

*ahem*

I'd like to state that I haven't mentioned any names here because I think doing so would be unfair, if not flat out unkind.

That is part of my point. I don't want anyone else to know who I'm ignoring, because I respect other people's right to make up their minds about who's worth listening to or not. I don't want to affect their judgement in any way. Furthermore, I don't want the person I'm ignoring to know because I don't want them to feel bad.

And those are the exact same reasons why I would never involve a moderator in something like this. FOR THE LAST TIME, EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD. Mercutio, to me what you're saying is completely backwards. Going to a moderator to inflate an issue like this is promoting the very thing you are claiming you have a problem with: censorship. Now instead of dealing with the issue internally, you're suggesting that an external force should be employed to make a bigger deal of the issue, and to alter or squash the individual in question. I'm sorry, your implication that an ignore function is censorship does not make ANY sense to me. The solution you are suggesting is more likely to involve or promote censorship.

I want the ability to make a quiet, personal decision as to what I consider worth my time and what I don't. What is wrong with that, Mercutio? And how is it not oodles better than the sledge-hammer (a.k.a. moderator) option?

Part of the reason for moderation is that the general populace DOESN'T just get to decide to censor someone.

I could view that as simply saying that moderators won't be as necessary if an "ignore" function is implemented.

I happen to be a firm believer in something called personal choice. I happen to think most things that increase the opportunity for this thing called "choice" are good, unless you're dealing with a group of people who are incapable of exercising that choice responsibly. Mercutio, you can't tell me you think the people here at SF are irresponsible, right?

Well said, i. I was thinking of making a similar post to yours, but now I don't have to because you already did.

 

[blakerwry]

i hope no one's ignoring me :-(

 

[sechs]

I use websites with such a function and have used it. Turned it off after seeing just one thread with an ignored poster.

The ability to ignore only allows people to be ignorant of what is happening in a thread.

If there is someone who is generally being an ass, then the moderators need to take care of it. I'm hoping that this community is adult enough to actually discuss such situations and resolve them.

 

[Howell]

For my part as a moderator, there is a difference between someone being royaly and repetitively annoying and someone being offensive. To meet the offensive qualification some of it is gut feel but I always keep an eye to what a new visitor will think when it is read.

I have been contacted before regarding conduct. Sometimes I explain (hopefully sufficiently) why I'm not taking any action. Sometimes I send a little friendly PM warning or in thread "calm down" warning. I am open to this sort of discussion over PM. It does not have to be a big deal.

Were I to get a volume of PMs requesting some moderation, that would affect my decision.

I try and think of this place as a pub. If the loud mouth in the back corner was just occasionally biligerent, patrons would ignore him. However, if it continued on, at some point the patrons would throw him out.

 

[Howell]

I use websites with such a function and have used it. Turned it off after seeing just one thread with an ignored poster.

Please explain a little further. Due to the abreviated sentence I don't understand.


---------------------------------------------
Apparently most people rely on an internal filter while some do not have as good a filter as they would like. I would be more supportive of a method to enhance a persons internal filter. Say an option to highlight posts by a particular poster in some way.

This need not be seen as an anti-poster mechanism. This could also be used as a "must read all posts by poster X" mechanism. Varying colors for different rules?

 

[sechs]

I use websites with such a function and have used it. Turned it off after seeing just one thread with an ignored poster.

Please explain a little further. Due to the abreviated sentence I don't understand.

There was someone on one of these sites being an ass... so I ignored him. The next day, I opened a thread in which this person was a poster. Every third or fourth post was "you have ignored this person"; I had no idea what he was saying and to what others were reacting.

It's like when the government puts out those formerly secret documents with sections blacked out. You can't be sure what it is being said in what context.

 

[P5-133XL]

I really see little point in an ignore function on this site. There just isn't enough of a problem with the people that are here that it is worth the bother using.

I definately think that it is a personal choice issue and not something that needs moderator action. It is simply an extention of what people do all the time when choosing or not to read particular thread.

 

[LunarMist]

I think it a smashing idea to ignore some users! How would "ignoring" extend to the quoted replies? I agree the option is not needed here as it is at SR. There are at least five truly annoying people there that can ruin a thread. :x

 

[its.fubar]

I have read through most of all your replies here and I find that most of you are missing the point you are here for one reason and that is too participate in a discussion regardless of what the other person is saying if you wish a discussion which is one sided and always confirms your way of thinking then I suggest you join a monastery and become a monk because they also do not except the realities of life.

but feel free to do as you wish with your buttons .

 

[Handruin]

You joined StorageForum on February 24th 2003. One year later your history shows that you've spent 99.97% percent of your posts in the pub and brewery. A good portion of those posts were related to jokes, and the rest were to antagonize the members of this forum. For the remaining 0.03% of your time you asked for one piece of help, and now this single post in the feedback section. (8 post total outside the pub.)

If I have to be the one to say it, this sole "ignore" feature is most likely intended for you. I strongly question your motives on this forum and any value you might add. I think by now you realize this is a low traffic site, and the people who do enjoy visiting don't necessarily enjoy weeding through a magnitude of your repetitious thoughts. To defend your own thoughts are fine, to not agree with the mass, that's fine...to continuously repeat one specific thought time after time...it gets very old, and fast.

I'm not going to speak for anyone but myself here, but I warrant your actions to be borderline troll. There is no rule that you must agree with everyone, or that you must not have an opinion, but there is no way you cannot deny 99.97% of your time has not been helping the community as a whole.

Origins
Originally this term applied to people who were intentionally posting flamebait, by analogy with the fishing technique of trolling: metaphorically, these people were dragging a conversational lure through the group, hoping for a response. The concept of "this person is trolling our newsgroup" became shortened to "this person is a troll", and picked up the association of the monster trolls of folklore. Note that this is a highly subjective term, as everyone is affected differently by the nature of the term deemed a "troll".
Trolling does not maintain its earlier meaning of posting messages specifically in order to elicit a particular response, usually anger or argument. The most common form, troll, usually refers to someone who induces general controversy, not necessarily a particular response.
Sometimes people use this to discredit an opposing position in an argument. By asserting that one's opponents are trolls, one is asserting that they are only maintaining their position in order to feed the flames, and that their position is actually indefensible. To demonstrate that someone is a troll in this sense therefore carries a far more difficult burden of proof than is required merely to show that someone has posted messages that have the effect of creating controversy.

source link

Simple question. Most people come here for a sense of community and enjoyment. What (if any) enjoyment have you derived from your visits over the last year? Please take some time to answer that question. I truly want to know why you continue to visit storageforum.net.

 

[zx]

I don't think that the ignore feature is necessary. I agree with jtr in the sense that I give everybody the chance to be heard, except when they "cross the line". In that case, the moderators should take care of it.

However, I have no objections about such feature being implemented.