Disable the ignore function

Comparing the JC to Facebook is at best a bit silly. As I said; one is tied to your real identity. One isn't....

 

What makes you think you're entitled to see that information?

I know of sites where people proudly display their number of ignores, or lists of those ignoring them in their sigs/profiles, etc. I don't come here for that sort of experience. I think being able to see who ignores who would lead to some nasty divisions and factions, creating more conflict.

If you persistently quiz someone and they consistently fail to reply, that alone indicates that you shouldn't bother with them whether they have you on ignore or not. Just saying.

 

What's this 'real' identity you speak of, Ender? I've two identities myself - both of them very arguably real. Besides, there are dogs and cats with their own profiles!

 

Several users who use it, have advised how it is vital to them, and what they would be forced to do without it, such as walk away from the Boards, and the one user who cites it as keeping him/her out of fights.

Several impassioned arguments have been made that it protects users from bullying. At least one mod has admitted that bullying can happen that does not breach the TOS. Moderators enforce the TOS; they do not necessarily, it seems, have jurisdiction over all forms of bullying and harassment.

No, I am not going to search back through 18 pages to provide proof of any of the above.

 

As a solution to the problem, can a "weekly ignore" be added where a user you select is only ignored for a week?

Personally, I don't understand why anyone would choose to ignore someone on a message board where people come to chat with other people of varying opinions. I agree that it's counter intuitive to generate discussion. The ignore feature seems like a temporary Band-Aid on what could potentially be a more serious problem.

In my past experience, I have felt harassed, informed a mod, they disagreed. My solution wasn't to get mad, or flame, or ignore the mod or the user in question. Simply, I just avoided the message board that the user frequented, while I visited other boards, shared my thoughts, didn't feel attacked, and made some new friends/connections.

 

Good on you, TiniTinyTony.

One of the users of Ignore, tried your method, and cited that her particular harasser followed her around the Boards, picking on her posting style and even posting a Comms thread about it.

I am glad things worked out for you though.

 

I just avoided the message board that the user frequented,
--------

what if that that was your favourite board?

also are you talking about different message boards, or different forums on the same message board?

 

OK but in response to that Sith, my question is this - it's constantly framed in terms of net benefits for a single user, namely the person who makes use of the feature. This person, were it not for that feature, would have walked away. This person, were it not for that feature, would have gotten into fights.

Ok, but what about where this person ends up creating downstream issues? That is, what happens when that ignore feature provides a net disadvantage to the wider forum, but an advantage to one user?

I'll elaborate with examples later, but I'm keen to hear how the forums as a whole are served by this.

 

I have read both sides.

I empathise with your concerns, Ender, but we are a community, and a community is composed of individuals. Some individuals are finding the Ignore function a useful and vital coping mechanism here.

I have difficulty giving credence to instances of the "we coped well enough before this innovation, we should go back to that state" argument, be it the internet, smartphones, or this feature that came along with Xenforo.

 

That doesn't answer my question though. I agree it's a coping mechanism, and I would never consider myself in need of it because I'm not weak. But I understand others do need it, and my concern isn't about those who have less resilience than others.

My concern is that the feature is inherently disruptive, and not in a good way like when statesmen and business leaders talk of "digital disruption." My contention is that if you add up all the positives and all the negatives, the Ignore feature is a net negative feature, and as such it should not stand.

What I haven't heard is - at what point does disrupting a conversation that is in theory open to all (of course esoteric discussions may preclude people who aren't interested in the topic, etc) become an acceptable biproduct of the ignore feature?

 

"I'm not weak", "my concern isn't about those who have less resilience than others"~Donald Trump

Do you understand the criticism of self entitlement? Do you realise that when you claim you're not weak, or that others lack your resilience, that you are outing yourself as an incredibly needy person?

Some people have a better life without you in it. If you were truly strong and resilient you'd naturally cope with that without whining like a spoilt brat, and you'd feel no need to brag about it, or to try to shame others for failing to occupy the same zone in the autism spectrum.

This altruistic appeal to remove the ignore feature is transparent and desperate. Please provide examples of threads where the ignore feature has ruined everything. Please provide examples of this ignore issue being something more than an affront to your peculiar emotional needs. The threads where the flow is interrupted by merges and people *just talking past each other* will vastly outnumber whatever examples you can come up with, I'm sure.

 

My concern is for those who may have less resilience than others.

And after that, my view is the same as Weyland Yutani's regarding LV-426: All other priorities are rescinded.

 

The only reason I'm considering putting anyone on ignore is because mod intervention has failed. Ignore is my last resort and it may not even be forever. It may be for a couple weeks, just to give me a break. And I don't even plan to use it right now, but should things start becoming stressful, I'm happy to have the option available.

I've been going through a lot of crap right now, and I don't need petty crap from some user. I also don't want to leave the board. I've left other places and this is the last one and I don't want to leave. I'd rather ignore a user than have them chase me away from a community I love.

 

V2 i think I've been clear about it not being about me and moreover i am happy to remain on ignore. Not having to actually waste time on some people is a massive bonus for me, and i am glad of it.

I can give two examples off the bat which do not remotely affect me. The issue is whether there's benefit in sharing because inherently i am naming names. Whilst I have no issue with it i don't have consent to use these people as an example and it may prompt the thread to become about being defensive.

Arguably it is too late because they have done what they did but you know what people do.

Ramza JoinTheSchwarz - what is protocol here? Can I use two examples which illustrate disruption and/or abuse of the feature?

 

Well said. I think you also have to consider that most people visit and participate in these boards as a form of recreation and enjoyment, which is just a small part of everyone's daily lives. There is no need in my opinion to require users to apply some emotional/psychological rigour to some people when it is easier to just hit 'ignore'. Whilst I have only used the ignore function once it was really useful because even though I had decided not to respond to the disturbed psycho who was stalking me in every thread and therefore I had him on mental 'ignore' I still had the content of his posts floating around in my head driving me to distraction. Having the ability to basically make this person invisible was a great help and restored my enjoyment of visiting the boards.

 

Thing is, though, LoH et al - the question of this is not disputed. It is obvious I think, to all, that a measure of relief is provided to the users. The question therefore is if that creates a disruption is it a good thing and do the needs of one outweigh the needs of many?

 

Regretfully, I am unable to quantify the "downstream" problem that you refer to, Ender.

I have not witnessed any mysterious disruptions among the many threads and forums that I have been hopping about, the last few months.

 

I guess it depends on what you mean by "disruption"? Does the ignore function make the boards crash? I don't know. I'm not aware of any disruptions to the board but if you are allowed to post your examples that would be useful.

 

If the ignore function means that a user doesn't have to go the extreme route of having to adopt a new user name just to enjoy coming here, then I'm all for it. (It would have been a nice feature to have back around 2000-2003, for example).

 

EDIT: To hell with it. If he has a problem I'm sure I won't hear about it.

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...ion-has-begun.50011934/page-211#post-53162784

This is fairly obvious abuse of the ignore feature which, when the post was quoted without citing its original author by a mod was responded to. Meaning the post itself, which as you can see via the link was the origin of the ignore and wasn't read, was not the issue but simply an arbitrary and frankly weak decision not to engage.

So not only did Knightwriter make it clear he was putting the person on ignore, he was doing so for what you're all telling me is the intended purpose. And in doing so, it made it so people - including a moderator - had to interrupt the discussion to point out the ridiculousness of the gesture and how disproportionate it was to the post that prompted it. Of course, those pleas were ignored and a user made to feel unwelcome. For those following along, that user wasn't the one who employed the feature.

Not only is it unclear how KW benefitted from that action, it's unclear how the community as a whole isn't in a net negative position.

I have other examples.

And for your purpose, V2, you will note how none of it is about me being on ignore.

 

I don't see how that was a disruption though or an abuse of the ignore function or even how KW's use of the ignore function negatively affects the community as a whole. I'm not going to judge KW's decision as clearly there is history between Mr44 and KW and it is a matter for KW whether he chooses to use the ignore function or not. Personally I wouldn't announce it, but perhaps that can be something that is addressed in future. I think I'd need to see more compelling examples of how the ignore function is so "disruptive" to the operation of the boards that it needs to be disabled before I am convinced.

 

I announced it in part to avoid any future attempts to address me directly-- in effect, to reduce or eliminate future "disruptions." It also seemed courteous to let someone know not to waste their time. I could have done it privately, but I didn't want to engage in any kind of conversation about it. The thread moved on and no further "disruption" happened.

 

LOH - think about Moviefan. Or there is one other I hesitate to bring up without input from mods.

EDIT: Also note on the above how there's no reference made to how PointGiven and Vivec had to post their reactions to what happened and create discussion that didn't need to exist?

Kind of shows where the ignore feature has limitations...

 

I try not think about Moviefan if I can avoid it Ender, I'm just not convinced that is a good example. I think that any time somebody announces they are putting somebody on ignore then that invites comments and temporary distraction from the topic at hand. On this basis, I would argue for a rule that people shouldn't announce they are putting somebody on ignore. If such a rule was in place (if it isn't already) then that would eliminate any resulting distractions.

 

But the point being that the decision KW made then, to put 44 on ignore, instantly impacted on other users. And at some point KW could, as KW is wont to do, over-commit himself to a point and make a factual error. If 44 identifies it, and KW keeps going as if not called up - someone else is then going to have to go in and say "stop, 44 answered it and here's what he said."

You see what I mean there? That KW essentially transfers any negative aspect of his decision to the community to put up with.