ANSWERED:Forum Function: Ignore posts by this user

[olympe]

I'd really like a forum function that allows me to put people on an ignore list - not just for PMs, but also for forum posts. Because, obviously, reporting/warning/whatever else doesn't work to prevent people from repeatedly post stuff I feel highly objectionable, and I'd like to be able to filter them out.

[MedievalMystic]

Ah, what an absolute relief this would be! To be able to block out users whose very user names put my teeth on edge would be a godsend. My fingers would bleed from hitting block.

 

Because, obviously, reporting/warning/whatever else doesn't work to prevent people from repeatedly post stuff I feel highly objectionable,

 

 

 

So because you personally find something 'objectionable' and go running to mods, the other person should automatically be warned or worse on that alone and/or should be kept from/banned from posting their thoughts and views? That's a good one. The day people start getting silenced/warned/banned on websites because someone else doesn't like what they have to say or someone claims their feelings are hurt, is the day the world really does go to hell in a hand basket. Unless someone insults you personally and in an ugly, malicious kind of way, I don't think warnings are appropriate at all, period, not for the reason you mentioned.

 

Otherwise, yeah. Bring. It. On.

Edited February 8, 2015 by MedievalMystic

[OtomeKristinOtaku]

I like this idea, but I have no idea how this will work out. What if someone blocks a mod/TJ and they miss out on some critical information? Not that people would go and block mods on purpose, but it's possible.

[danicast]

Every time that someone makes a forum suggestion it is reminded by someone (a mod or TJ himself) that the problem about the forum is that some functions doesn't exist/aren´t available in the forum current software and TJ expressed that he have no intention to change the forum software at the moment. That's why all the forum changes suggestions has been shut down.

There are a lot of things that would be nice to have in the forum but at least so far TJ has been said that he have no intention to mess with the forum code or update or change the forum software.

[MedievalMystic]

I like this idea, but I have no idea how this will work out. What if someone blocks a mod/TJ and they miss out on some critical information? Not that people would go and block mods on purpose, but it's possible.

 

I've tried to block a mod on purpose. Would that I could have. They can bypass it so no worries there.

[AnanoKimi]

I think blocking on personal objection is... not the right way to go. If the person has not changed their posting style or language it is because they have not been warned, and if they have not been warned it is because the moderator did not see the post as insulting or warn/ban worthy. As such it is safe to assume any feeling of insult is purely self created and not an intention or point of the post.

 

I don't like this idea simply because it feels it is going to be used as a way to block out those who don't agree with you (not you specifically) or share your same view. Its no better than blocking out people from posting in certain threads unless they agree/an improve your suggestion no matter how poor or game breaking it can be. If there is content from certain users you don't like my best advice is keep an eye out for their name and simply scroll past their post instead of initiating a fight.

 

Best way to stop certain behaviors is to not encourage them and if there is a behavior you dislike, don't fight against it and make it worse. Pick out the important parts and ignore the rest.

Edited February 8, 2015 by AnanoKimi

[Fuzzbucket]

There's nothing wrong with "ignoring" members whose posts set your teeth on edge. It doesn't impact on them in the least. I don't actually think this version of invision supports it but still.

 

On another forum I frequent, I have a LONG ignore list. It means I have lower blood pressure and don't get into fights - and it isn't as if people know you are ignoring them. You just see a little link over the post "This post is hidden because the member is on your ignore list" and you can actually click it and view the post if you want. (They do know here if you block their messages though - there they don't even know that.) And you can't ignore a mod there - and I imagine that is easily set.) You can say you are stifling their views - they will post as they wish; you just don't get your fuse lit every time they do.

 

Support - if it were possible. How does it harm anyone ?

Edited February 8, 2015 by fuzzbucket

[_Sin_]

I'd really like a forum function that allows me to put people on an ignore list - not just for PMs, but also for forum posts. Because, obviously, reporting/warning/whatever else doesn't work to prevent people from repeatedly post stuff I feel highly objectionable, and I'd like to be able to filter them out.

I'm laughing here. Just this week I've been thinking of contacting a mod just to figure out if the forum software allows for "ignoring posts" since is a feature that exists in other environments. Right now I just move down the cursor as fast as I can as soon as I see certain posts to avoid to read them. And I do that not because I disagree all the time with the people I would want to ignore. It is their way to express their objections (in general they never have suggestions) that annoys me to the point that I end not reading a topic where I know that they are active. Unfortunately they are all over the place so I end taking forum hiatus.

I fully support this suggestion. The only issue I see is that those people will still be quoted by people that I love to read but... better than nothing.

Edited February 8, 2015 by _Sin_

[Nine]

Support - if it were possible. How does it harm anyone ?

By encouraging the use of physical censorship to avoid social disagreements rather than practicing emotional tolerance and mental adaptation to otherwise worldly situations?

 

Not that the DC forums are prime for socially preparing people for the real world, of course. I'm just throwing it out there.

 

I'm fine with there being no ignore function, since I feel it asks members for a little bit more maturity than forums with endless ignore slots. Plus, I think a lot of initial ignore usage comes from knee-jerk reactions to something someone disagrees with, whereas in 97.4% of other situations said person would be agreeing or not mind the user at all. If a person is being ignored, there will be no opportunity for the ignoree to read things over and maybe decide, "huh, this person isn't as bad as I thought." I think the lack of ignoring actually benefits a lot of people in the long run.

[DragonNighthowler]

I'd love this. Certain users seem to be in it only for the "action". I'd rather not read useless posts from people whose only goal seems to be inflaming the rest of the userbase. If they actually added something to the discussion, but more times than not, they don't.

 

I have to admit the majority of users, no matter how much we might disagree, are sensible, polite, nice people to talk with. Some have even swayed my initial views by using the art of parlay with mastery, and it is a delight to talk with them. But that minor, MINOR, minority, specially when heavily active, ruin perfectly polite and mature discussions.

[Ha-Ki]

I've seen things like this suggested on other forums as well, and I keep wondering whether hiding single posts helps at all. You still have to read the answers people give to such a person, and often they even quote the person when answering. And people who are annoying enough to make other users want to block them usually do get answers to the stuff they post...

 

Personally, I don't mind scrolling down and skipping posts. What really annoys me is the never-ending fights that are started by certain posts, because they fill pages, and it's hard to ignore that.

 

So I'm rather neutral about this - it's something I wouldn't use because it wouldn't be able to hide the stuff I find annoying. But if others feel they need something like this, and if it's possible with the forum software, why not?

[Laugh]

I don't support this because this would make communications within threads complicated and frustrating. I'd assume some threads wouldn't appear either if the blocked person started, which could (very unlikely) cause duplicate threads and how would merging of threads work out? :s

[Mondat]

I requested this in the 'forum feedback' thread before but after some re-thinking, I do not think this is a very good idea.

 

- For a productive discussion you'll need different input & views. Just imagine somebody posts a suggestion and everybody has people on their 'ignore lists'. If we went that far we could also change to a "post anonymously, only TJ can read your post" system, that way "everbody would be right"

 

- I personally think all this would do is encouraging "preferring some people over others", something I personally think does exist already to some extent unfortunately. A person is naturally more likely to agree or 'work' with a long-time DC friend than with a person who never seems to have the same opinion or who's new. I try to focus on the things people write in the S/R threads no matter who writes them - after all, they may have a point. I am absolutely against favoritism of any kind when it comes to discussing changes for DC. Regarding other threads on this forum, I may not care so much.

 

- All we have is letters and smileys which can be misinterpreted easily. Some people are more blunt that others, some people aren't native speakers of English. However, we are all allowed to have an opinion and have the rights to be he- uh read. I do admit that I had some moments where I read year old posts of me and thought that I could have expressed myself in a more balanced way - however I cannot change the past.

 

- Unlike in some real life circumstances, you can always walk away or ignore. Personally speaking...if the sheer online presence of an user annoyed me that much I think I would need to think about myself a bit. It's just the internet after all. I understand that one can get fed up with something here but is it really worth it?

 

Also: basically what danicast already wrote.

[CNR4806]

I never really understand the need to play ostrich and hide someone's post for yourself, even on forums that do have such a function.

 

If you're truly upset by someone's wording, why don't you try the report button? If the mod decides that it stepped over boundaries, that would be one less unacceptably rude post for the entire forum community. If the mod deem the post acceptable, perhaps you should just calm down and stop getting so upset over it?

 

This isn't a voice chat where not being able to mute people locally would lead to ear bleed, hearing loss and/or an unusable channel.

[whitebaron]

By encouraging the use of physical censorship to avoid social disagreements rather than practicing emotional tolerance and mental adaptation to otherwise worldly situations?

 

Not that the DC forums are prime for socially preparing people for the real world, of course. I'm just throwing it out there.

 

I'm fine with there being no ignore function, since I feel it asks members for a little bit more maturity than forums with endless ignore slots. Plus, I think a lot of initial ignore usage comes from knee-jerk reactions to something someone disagrees with, whereas in 97.4% of other situations said person would be agreeing or not mind the user at all. If a person is being ignored, there will be no opportunity for the ignoree to read things over and maybe decide, "huh, this person isn't as bad as I thought." I think the lack of ignoring actually benefits a lot of people in the long run.

Thank you for so eloquently putting this down.

I really dislike private muting.

[diaveborn]

Aside from TJ not doing stuff with forum software -

 

For people with triggers, this might be very helpful, when they can't just calm down / ignore the effects of something on them. If someone repeatedly says things that are within what mods would consider acceptable but doesn't work for that person, then by blocking they could have more options as to what they'd be able to do on the forums (i.e. less having to avoid parts of the forum).

 

Also - It works on other forums without conversation degenerating into unintelligibility (edit: although, granted, not many other forums I've been a part of have been so on the ball about duplicate threads, which I could see being an issue if blocking was an option)

Edited February 9, 2015 by diaveborn

[FiveSix]

I don't think this should be necessary on a forum for discussion of a game about raising dragons, but I wouldn't object to it if TJ thought the effort it would take were worth it. I've been on forums where the majority of conversation is on topics that can be very contentious and can easily slide into triggering territory and this feature is available, and it's never caused confusion about the flow of a conversation that I've seen (in over a year). Over there it's very important that people can avoid other users who frequently discuss difficult subjects in a way they find triggering, over here I see very few situations where it wouldn't be simpler just to avoid the specific thread the conversation occurs in or take a few minutes and calm down before/after getting into such a thread (depending on the extent to which the poster upsets you).

[AnanoKimi]

Aside from TJ not doing stuff with forum software -

 

For people with triggers, this might be very helpful, when they can't just calm down / ignore the effects of something on them. If someone repeatedly says things that are within what mods would consider acceptable but doesn't work for that person, then by blocking they could have more options as to what they'd be able to do on the forums (i.e. less having to avoid parts of the forum).

 

Also - It works on other forums without conversation degenerating into unintelligibility.

If someone has a trigger to a particular set of words, or phrases, then in the report this should be stated. That way the mod can deal with it appropriately and warn/talk to the person as well as edit the post to ensure no further triggers happen.

 

This is why the button exists. If there is something (An image, a phrase, something specific) then a mod can deal with that if it is pointed out in a report. If it is not stated in a report then there is no way to deal with it.

 

As others have said, this is simply going to cause the issue of "You don't agree with me so I don't wanna see it." and really as some have said, its more of a matter of needing to look past that. I honestly haven't see people who are here only to cause drama. It just seems to happen when one side misinterprets another or one side actually does say something a tad rude or triggering. Again, that's why report buttons exist.

[diaveborn]

within what mods would consider acceptable but doesn't work for that person

 

edit: and actually I'm leaving the thread now, sorry

not because of anyone in particular

Edited February 9, 2015 by diaveborn

[KuroYukia]

I'm not for this one.

 

(Trys to figure out a nice way to explains things)

 

OK well my best thing would be.... IT WON"T HELP. i mean come on, someone explained it better, just because its objectionable to you really?

 

I have a handful of people I would love to ignore on here as well. They're argumentive, think they're superior but they have something nice to say every so often. I just overlook their posts if they're reportable then I report it. Otherwise ignoring them won't really help.

 

It's the internet, not everyone is going to like you and vise versa.

 

Edit, though after saying that. I'm gone. Like the poster above me. I don't agree, said my piece and now like the wind. Away I go

Edited February 9, 2015 by KuroYukia

[pinkgothic]

Generally speaking, I'd like this.

 

It's not a matter of handling people that are saying something I disagree with. There are a lot of people that slot into that here. I might even be annoyed at them occasionally.

 

But when I come across someone who from my perspective doesn't actually add anything to the discussion while being abusive, and this is recurring behaviour, I'd like to be able to ignore them.

 

But I also agree that it would probably result in kneejerk ignoring going on, which I also find worrisome. I'm not sure if there's a way to find a middle ground there. If it's easily available, you'll have the 'kneejerk ignore' problem. If it isn't available, the forum gets a bit toxic.

 

A compromise I could see working, but cannot support, is to make ignoring a function the moderators can put in place for someone on request. So if you wanted to ignore someone, you'd ask the mods to add them to your ignore list. It would even have the benefit that the mods are even more aware of problem users, but it has the severe downside that it's a lot of work.

[Fuzzbucket]

Generally speaking, I'd like this.

 

It's not a matter of handling people that are saying something I disagree with. There are a lot of people that slot into that here. I might even be annoyed at them occasionally.

 

But when I come across someone who from my perspective doesn't actually add anything to the discussion while being abusive, and this is recurring behaviour, I'd like to be able to ignore them.

 

But I also agree that it would probably result in kneejerk ignoring going on, which I also find worrisome. I'm not sure if there's a way to find a middle ground there. If it's easily available, you'll have the 'kneejerk ignore' problem. If it isn't available, the forum gets a bit toxic.

I don't know about kneejerk. Most of the posts I would like to ignore here are in GD. Particularly from people who simply repeat - over and over - this one in particular irritates me - that God says x, so whatever I say (as I don't believe) is by definition wrong.

 

OK maybe I have too short a fuse, but when every single carefully argued post I might make is simply answered by "but god says it's wrong" it can be REALLY irritating and - well, also depressing. And when they add that the bible says x - and you can quote chapter and verse showing that it does NOT - and they continue to say "but it does" - that REALLY stifles discussion far more than my just not reading those bits.

 

Just picking one area here; there's also politics, and the people who KNOW that US laws apply in every country in the world so when I say xyz cannot happen here, they will tell me that it can because the constitution says so...

 

I don't know that kneejerk ignoring is that much of a problem, mind. So I don't see a post and then say my piece in response - is that SUCH a problem ?

Edited February 9, 2015 by fuzzbucket

[olympe]

Generally speaking, I'd like this.

 

It's not a matter of handling people that are saying something I disagree with. There are a lot of people that slot into that here. I might even be annoyed at them occasionally.

 

But when I come across someone who from my perspective doesn't actually add anything to the discussion while being abusive, and this is recurring behaviour, I'd like to be able to ignore them.

 

But I also agree that it would probably result in kneejerk ignoring going on, which I also find worrisome. I'm not sure if there's a way to find a middle ground there. If it's easily available, you'll have the 'kneejerk ignore' problem. If it isn't available, the forum gets a bit toxic.

 

A compromise I could see working, but cannot support, is to make ignoring a function the moderators can put in place for someone on request. So if you wanted to ignore someone, you'd ask the mods to add them to your ignore list. It would even have the benefit that the mods are even more aware of problem users, but it has the severe downside that it's a lot of work.

Pretty much this, yes. People arguing for an opinion that differs from my own aren't a problem. Not at all. Quite the contrary, it makes discussions more interesting. (There's nothing worse than a "discussion" where everyone agrees, really.)

 

What I perceive as a problem is the behavior of some people who don't seem to be doing much but adding fuel to embers. I just want to be able to ignore people who seem to be trolling - and nothing but.

 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

Pretty much this, yes. People arguing for an opinion that differs from my own aren't a problem. Not at all. Quite the contrary, it makes discussions more interesting. (There's nothing worse than a "discussion" where everyone agrees, really.)

 

What I perceive as a problem is the behavior of some people who don't seem to be doing much but adding fuel to embers. I just want to be able to ignore people who seem to be trolling - and nothing but.

YES - that too. Stirrers !

[Xasora]

Provided this were possible by the forum software, I wouldn't mind seeing this idea implemented.

 

Blocking someone's post doesn't mean that they were posting something that could get them a warning/ban/etc from a moderator if it were reported. And, generally, the person would never even know they're being ignored. It's typically a system that would only benefit the person who is doing the ignoring. It may even cut down on the amount of people reporting a post because they don't agree with what's written in it, even if the post didn't violate any of the forum rules.

 

Sure, in an ideal world we would all get along and be able to eloquently debate the topic (and not the person), using a logical and reasonable approach. Sadly, we are not yet in an ideal world. If this setup would lead to less arguments because people would be able to remove themselves from the person they may otherwise get in an argument with, then I say it's a great idea.

 

I have seen forum systems where users who are on an ignore list also have their quoted bits blocked out, so it is plausible to have it work where you never see anything written by that person, unless it's manually copied/pasted into a post. Maybe you'll see replies to that person, but I wouldn't say that's a reason to deny an ignore post feature. It'd still offer some assistance even if it's not perfect.