Disable the ignore function

How do you think the TOS would need to be amended to reflect that ignoring the posts of a user or multiple users can be abused in practice? This is a sincere question. I ask this because presumably ignoring can still be abused in practice without an ignore feature? If the ignore feature is removed, but I choose not to read or respond to certain users in a thread and only read and respond to the users that I choose to respond to, are we not in the same place? If so, then wouldn't the current TOS need to updated as well anyway? It seems to me that either way, if we are going to have a discussion about the possible negative the consequences of 'ignoring', the TOS needs to be modified.

 

Personally I think most people here are more mature than announcing "Welcome to the ignore list."

 

I would have no issue with the TOS having a line saying "There is an ignore feature on this forum. If a user annoys you, feel free to use it. But also be aware that others may ignore you as well"

I don't see the point personally, but happy to have that there.

 

It largely depends on how the MS intends to scope it. It would strike me that a bare minimum it would need to specifically cover baiting towards a user who has you on ignore; and it would also need to specify that if you have someone on ignore you can't inflame them ("hey, I just added my first ignore!") or you can't selectively respond to one of their posts whilst having them on ignore. That way, you both establish boundaries (which is good for everyone) and you also add a minor deterrent by saying "look, if you do this, it's all or nothing for so long as the feature is in use".

Essentially carving out situations unique to the feature.

 

Well, I disagree here. I think that because options to both selectively respond to a post from an ignored user, and the potential for baiting exist - notwithstanding that it can, too, impact the flow of a discussion - means it would have to be deemed material.

You said the TOS wouldn't need to carve out boundaries for ignore. I disagree. Practically the majority of users don't flame, bait or troll but that behavior is defined in the TOS. You're not looking for the answer of "will it 100% always and forever materially impact it?" You're asking if potential exists in more than one case. If the answer is yes, it needs to be defined in the TOS too.

 

These are the points I'm talking about

 

Baiting and flaming are already covered by the TOS. Why is the ignore function any different?

 

Well, it would be important to specify that such posts are now considered baiting/flaming/whatever.

 

Because baiting specifically is defined as behavior designed to inflame a situation and provoke a reaction. It's subjective, in other words - a user in effect has to feel baited in some instances where it's not obvious. It can't really properly be baiting if a user has me on ignore, which is why confirming that the TOS will be applied to posts blocked by the ignore feature is crucial in my view. Otherwise, are you just punishing a user for skirting the line even though their behavior did not and could not elicit a reaction>?

 

Then as you say, leave it to the post/user level. If it's considered baiting or flaming then let the mods deal with it.

But at the end of the day, if someone - let's call them "film enthusiast" is being a **** on the boards and puts you on ignore yet continues to post whatever drivel this imaginary person does, who comes out looking like a fool? I can tell you, it's not anyone who's posted in this thread.

It's hardly a reason for such a lengthy comms thread let alone as going as far as to suggest changes in the TOS.

 

Well it depends on whether you view this as purely reactionary or "I identified an issue and want to future proof against it".

I know you're putting on a brave face, halibut, but don't you think this one is a little too ****ing brave?

 

I'm not sure I understand your use of 'call out', but assuming you mean 'which rule allows you to actively ignore others?' Well I can't find a list of things that we are allowed to do. Behaviours are encouraged or disallowed. Can you point me to the area in the rules that either prohibits ignoring people or specifies that you must reply to people?

Ignoring people isn't the big deal you seem to think it is.

 

It doesn't matter if they don't see it. A bait is a bait. Whether they have you on ignore, or whether they don't see your post is irrelevant. So yes. it "can really properly be baiting if a user has you on ignore"

I really don't see that this has ever been an issue. It's never been a "defence" that not seeing a post has meant there's been no breach of the TOS. You should have paid more attention in mod school.

 

V2, I spent 3 years enforcing, debating and interpreting the TOS as a mod. I'm reasonably sure i understand its importance old boy.

 

I feel like you are aware that I among others have developed a knack for skirting the line. Hence why I specified "when it's not obvious".

 

But that's my opinion. If you want validation from the current admin, then sit tight. They'll be along shortly

 

No one's talking about amending the TOS, just the rules. We didn't make many changes when the new software was installed, thinking we'd see the different problems as they arised. This looks like one to me.

 

"Any post will be treated the same as it is now, regardless of any usage of the ignore feature."

Is that what you are wanting to hear from the admin?

 

It's not a problem, Dave. You just run along while we all work it out

 

You don't get to go nuts because the person won't see it. This has always been the rule.


You can't bait users period, whether they have you on ignore or not, whether they ever see your posts or not. The same thing applies to people who are simply taking a break, choosing not to return ever, or have been banned or even permabanned.

You can't flame users period, whether you have them on ignore or not.

This doesn't require any change to the TOS, we already have these rules in place. The mods should continue to use the same judgment they always have, the same judgment they've been using these years we've had the ignore button. They should mod as if the ignore button does not exist, just to err on the side of caution. Besides, removing abusive posts isn't all about the person on the receiving end, no one should have to see posts like that directed at anyone, and posts like that should discouraged with moderator action. No one should think it's okay to break the rules because the person didn't see it, nor should they think it's okay, period.

However, if mods want to put "welcome to my ignore list" snark bait on the official list of **** you don't say, fine, make it official, then edit, warn and ban as usual.

As an aside, I LOVE that I can't tell people "you're on my ignore list", (I've actually been edited/warned for explaining to someone why I was putting them on my ignore list; i.e. relentless spamming) but admins have decided that droves of people can tell me to "JUST LEAVE" (and that's the nice version) over and over for months on end.



(aaaaaand beaten to the punch by halibut)

 

Thank you for clarification. I was reading through TOS and I wasn't sure exactly what was being discussed.

 

That's very easy for you to say... you weren't subjected to sexist and antagonistic posts in a thread about misogyny and entitlement. People have every right to post their thoughts, but if they're going to post such thoughts within a group of people, thyey should be prepared to take part in a discussion with people who have opposing viewpoints. That's the whole point of discussion threads, after all. It's like walking into a room and yelling "I DON'T LIKE MEXICANS" then not giving people a chance to respond to you. It's obnoxious behavior.

 

Excellent. Now could you answer the question? I'm not the only one to ask it of you, I notice.