Discussion in 'Communications' started by Ender Sai, Jun 2, 2014.
Since roughly 98% of people missed it:
****ing a, I couldn't think of a better way to say it at the time. I shouldn't have used a cliche. I hate well-worn metaphors. I should have said "mod actionable behavior covers the things that a reasonable* person would consider highly offensive or harassment," and "mod actionable" would include SLG's example (the most compelling one, in my opinion) 573 pages back.
*I'll kill ignore the first Pvt. Obvious who says "That's subjective!"
Well, for some forums, having a thick skin is a must; it's not that much of a silly argument.
Yeah... you gotta have some balls, a good sense of humor, the ability to laugh at yourself, and thickish skin for JCC threads, sometimes. All of those are pretty admirable traits to have, in general, though.
Halibut suggested that people using the ignore option (back on page 12) Are not strong of character, or some such. I whole heartedly disagree with that.
However, all arguments have been made, and there is nothing else to be said. The unintentional consequence of this thread is that if one does use the ignore function, don't be a Pratt and point it out to the person you are going to ignore.
Lock it up.
I'm locking this thread.
If you have any concerns or suggestions about this issue, feel free to PM me.
Based on request and renewed interest in this subject amongst both the user base and MS, I'm reopening this thread. If folks can't keep it civil I'm not going to be especially thrilled, so please keep that in mind.
Definitely don't disable it. It seems more likely that some people have a hard time with being put on ignore-- a blow to the ego, perhaps. Anyone who has someone on ignore can still view their posts by unhiding them, either individually or for all the hidden posts on a page.
I've found it very useful and it has helped keep me from effectively abandoning most of the handful of discussions that keep me here.
Also-- in my view, the Mod Squad has allowed too much abrasive and sometimes inappropriate posting on the part of certain people (names aren't necessary here). Since person-specific action and editing has been uncommon at best, the ignore feature is a decent replacement.
People talk past each other all the time, comments go unnoticed or unread with or without an ignore function.
You can generally tell when someone on your ignore list has joined a thread because people start having pointless arguments and the post numbers start skipping, at which point the thread's use by date has probably expired anyway, and things naturally trail off. The ignore function merely allows people to automatically scroll past the people who we consider a drag, who add nothing interesting or positive, or who we've noticed deliberately tick us off, or who are clearly insane.
I don't think the emotional needs of a minority of confrontational people should factor into the decision to keep the ignore feature or not. If someone has a driving need to have people who dislike them read their comments on an internet forum, that really is only their problem. If someone has an emotional need to block out someone they find objectionable, and technology allows for that, it's really nobody else's problem.
This isn't Black Mirror, this is a Star Wars forum.
Using the ignore function on here is like using the block function on Facebook. All it does is prove that you can't act like an adult, but instead you must stick your fingers in your ears and pretend that the other person doesn't exist (clue: they do exist, whether you like it or not). Except that the block function on Facebook is a two-way block, which makes it actually a legitimate tool when defending against stalkers and the like, while from what I understand, ignore here is a one-way block (they can still see you), so there's no legitimate use case.
Not only that, but it negatively impacts the experience for other users, who have to try to read a discussion thread where one user is completely oblivious to the comments made by another user, leading to disjointed discussion as (for example) it's likely that the same things will end up explained multiple times and/or one user will post an answer either well after it was posted by the ignored user or after it's already been explained why that answer is wrong.
Bottom line: It's childish and immature and leads to disjointed discussions. Kill it with fire.
(Also, I wish to make it clear that I have not ever put anyone on ignore here, nor have I ever blocked someone on Facebook.)
I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to ignore someone, whatever. It only gets bad when someone starts using it as a bait or a threat. But that comes down to basic maturity and courtesy. Just click ignore, nobody needs the drama or antagonistic behaviour.
I haven't personally used it, because I usually just roll my eyes instead, but I definitely can see why someone would want to. I think it takes away from their experience a bit, because posters who get heated and may be considered blunt or rude tend to not be that way in less opinionated settings (or vice versa). And, other posters who are authentically terrible people usually don't last very long anyway. Which makes it kind of pointless.
If someone doesn't want to or can't handle a person, for any reason, ah well, let them have the option to ignore. It doesn't affect anyone else.
If they can't handle another person, perhaps they should go back to kindergarten.
I'm just going to be as respectful as I can and not name names, but if needed I can explain why I really think it's a good idea. As someone who has had VERY bad experiences with people from these forums, and as someone who has gotten entirely ticked by other posters, I can entirely understand why someone would say it is too much and ignore. Not everyone can just deal with it. I think it's respectful to those people to give them the option if they use it properly (i.e. not baiting, threatening, using it to derail things).
Now, I do agree with anakinfansince1983 's post on the first or second page. If they are going to be ignoring people just because of opinions or something, that's a bit much, and definitely will make them look silly. But that's not what I am discussing. I am focussed on the people who for any legitimate reason, don't want to deal with another poster. It doesn't mean they go back to kindergarten. It means they have the option to not deal with them - an ignore function. Since this is a place for stress relief, I don't see why anyone should be forced to deal with someone who stresses them out. I certainly wouldn't want to, if the scenario ever came up.
Name a legitimate reason, keeping in mind that 1) ignoring only works one way, so the ignoree can still see the ignorer, and 2) you can very easily just scroll past a post that you don't want to read, which works just as well as ignoring but isn't as childish and still retains the ability to see the posts so that discussions don't become disjointed.
Disjointed discussions aren't something I've noticed. You can scroll past any of the "disjointed" posts too, you know.
yes, keep it.
I'm almost entirely against the ignore function at this point. I've seen it abused too much, and people I like made to look like idiots because of it.
The problem is a lot of folks don't realize what the ignore function does. As has been said, the ignorer cannot see the other ignored person's posts. The ignorer probably understands that much, but the ignored person often doesn't know that and doesn't know they're being ignored, and the rest of us usually don't know who's ignoring who. So what happens is the ignored person often "wins" arguments and to the rest of us that often don't know what's going on (especially the noobies who aren't familiar with board drama and who-hates-who), the ignorer sounds ridiculous. So the person trying to hide from trouble is being trolled without their knowledge.
Maybe on some boards around here with quick conversations this isn't as much of an issue. But on other boards where people are quoting each other all the time to build up a conversation, the ignorer can't see half the quotes.
Also -- and maybe I shouldn't bring this up here, but whatever because I know it happens -- one thing people do with the ignore function is that they use it to hide someone who's harassing them. I'm not saying there's an easy answer here, but is that really the best way to avoid harassment? Shouldn't it be brought to the attention of the mods?
How does one "abuse" the ignore function? You can only be ignored once, you know?
This isn't about "winning" arguments-- I think that's a nonsensical idea. I'd like to see examples of what you're talking about. Also, people ought to be able to infer certain things. If a particular person isn't being responded to, they ought to think about why that could be (it could have something to do with that "ignore" feature visible on each person's profile).
Again, anyone who is ignoring people has the option to unhide all content, and you can always view an ignored person's post by clicking the link for the thread (and then choosing "show content.").
I'm not saying there's an easy answer here, but is that really the best way to avoid harassment? Shouldn't it be brought to the attention of the mods?
How do you know it hasn't been? An uptick in the ignore feature being used may correlate well with a greater allowance for posting that some would consider to be inappropriate. That's true for me, at least.
In short-- things haven't been taken care of the way I think would be best, and so I've handled it myself as best I can.
1) Person is obnoxious but not against TOS.
2) Person is antagonistic but not against TOS.
3) Person had falling out with other person, doesn't want to put up with them.
4) Person finds them to be a troll or annoying and doesn't want to put up with them. (They always make purposefully dumb or abrasive comments instead of contributing).
5) Person doesn't like a mod resolution because they still have to put up with said person, one click of the ignore button, they no longer have to deal.
I realise that the ignored person can still see the ignorer. But whoop de doo, honestly. If I was that annoyed/frustrated/upset about someone to the point I was ignoring them, I would not care if they were seeing my posts. If anything happens that is in violation of TOS or rules (say, the ignored flames the ignorer), then the moderation staff can deal with it.
The other issue about disjointed discussion is something I'm on the fence about, because while it's not a non-existent issue, it's also not something that I've seen or had a huge issue with. Especially since in most cases, you can unhide the ignored person's posts, should you need to or want to.
It's also just going to be using your brain here to decide if someone is just annoying & can be scrolled past, or if they actually bother you enough that you would need to ignore them. If you're ignoring 15 people it is more likely to affect discussion and such, especially if you are ignoring posters who are respectful and courteous just because you disagree with them. As an example.
I don't think it's worth it to disable it at all.
All of those can be solved by simply scrolling past. Anyone who "needs" an ignore function for those is, again, being childish by essentially demanding that the other person disappear.
So no, you have not provided a valid reason as to why the ignore function is necessary. It has no way to be used that is not childish and can cause problems for others. Kill the "feature" and be done with it.
It's not childish, and your saying it is does not make it so. I certainly don't appreciate being called childish, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. No one is making anyone disappear to everyone, just to one person. That's all. If it was more than that, I could understand the criticism. It's not more than that, however. Fortunately, no one needs to provide a "valid reason" to you. It's not for you to suggest how people should feel. It's really not any of your business.
I have my own suggestion for you: Don't use the ignore feature if you have a problem with it.
You are, unfortunately, making many, many other people feel invalidated by saying they are childish for preferring to ignore versus have to scroll past. Some people get angry at the sight of a name or face. I do, for very valid reasons. If the person I was upset at was still here, I would be very hurt by someone telling me I was childish for wanting to ignore them versus see their posts and scroll past. Unfortunately, nobody knows the full story about why someone is being ignored, and it could be a lot more personal than you are making it out to be. It's not fair to tell someone that they should just deal with it or grow up when you don't know the circumstances.
I agree with Knightwriter. If you don't like it, don't use it. Nobody is going to force you to use it.
I don't like signatures!
therefore I suggest that everyone get rid of signatures as they are pointless and some liable to offend.
note: my post would have more merit if I didn't have a sig.
I think some people feel that they're entitled to be listened to, or to have the appearance of being listened to. If someone has to scroll post, another person can retain the possibility in their minds that they're being read. To deny that entirely is a bit difficult for some people, I think. After all, you can't shout someone down if you're on mute (this is related to why I think tumblr is hard for some men to deal with-- they can't stop people from posting and reblogging, and contributing in some way only gives more attention to a post).