main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Disable the ignore function

Discussion in 'Communications' started by Ender Sai, Jun 2, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sith-I-5

    Sith-I-5 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Aug 14, 2002
    I've been noticing tl;dr's around with no-one complaining. Are those "unacceptable" as well?
     
  2. JoinTheSchwarz

    JoinTheSchwarz Former Head Admin star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 21, 2002
    It's not a board-wide rule, although if done repeatedly it would certainly be considered spam. In the Community forums, for example, threads with no content in the OP are locked, including things like "(nt)" or "sup". You can get more info on what's acceptable or not by checking this and the individual forums's rules.

    Yeah, we have some serious communication issues here. No, we don't have access to the lists, as I said in my original post. What I was trying to explain to you is that your worries that an hypothetical evil admin could misuse any access to the ignore lists pale in comparison to the access to personal information mods and admins already have.

    And you might have noticed that we ban a good amount of words. Do you see the similarity?

    I'm not sorry that I brought to your attention a point of view that you hadn't considered before; in all honesty, I'm glad I did instead of just leaving my concerns in Mod Squad. In that sense, this thread hasn't become less constructive. It's considerably more constructive now than when users were insulting each other and discussions were being had centered on technical features that don't even exist (like that hypothetical ignore limit).

    But, if you are still willing to participate, let's be even more constructive. No decision has been taken by MS. My own opinion has changed widely since we first started talking about this issue. So, let me present you and the rest of the pro-ignore users a question. Let's assume we leave the ignore feature as it is. What would you do to ease my worries about potential abuses? What should we do to stop incidents like the ones linked earlier in this thread from happening and, if we accepted that we can't, how should we react to them when they happen?
     
  3. Tim Battershell

    Tim Battershell Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Would you agree that, in normal usage, the 'Ignore' feature cannot be told apart from a user simply choosing not to respond to one or more other users?

    With the linked examples, the problem arose (IIRC and IMHO) because the fact of an 'Ignore' having been put in place was made known; something we have been informed (rightly) could be classed as 'Baiting' - and therefore should be within the ability of any MS member to deal with under existing regulations. I am not be opposed to that, at all. It might help if the MS specifically highlight that practice as being a TOS offence.

    However, not all MS members seem to be as 'noticing' as others. I'll not quote the example, or name names, but you took offence to a relatively recent post - when two other members of the MS had seemingly blown right past it, without comment!

    Consistent application of the rules is always vital, is it not? Either Training, or encouragement to seek a second opinion, would seem to be a helpful - if a MS member is in any doubt.
     
    V-2 likes this.
  4. JoinTheSchwarz

    JoinTheSchwarz Former Head Admin star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 21, 2002
    That seems like a sensible way of looking at it, but there are some situations that would need to be cleared, like...
    The case in more familiar with, because it happened in my forum, involved a user completely misreading a thread because of ignored posts, and thinking that a moderator was insulting her, leading to a series of reports, PMs and edited posts that I would have preferred to avoid. In that case, the ignore feature is not the same as "manually ignoring". Should we have banned the original poster for what was just a misunderstanding?
    Ideally, yes, but that's never going to happen. Simply put, no set of rules is going to cover any single situation, and no set of rules is going to be interpreted the same way but all mods (I, for example, I'm pretty much hands off and I only intervene if things are heating up; my standards in Comms are considerably higher than in the JC Community, because this forum is an administration tool and not a social forum, so whenever I get involved I rarely fool around). We try to use peer review; what you are suggesting is happening already. I can tell you that 95% of bans are discussed with the moderation team of the forum, and in most cases where we are talking about more than just a simple 24 hours spank, it's discussed with the whole MS. I know there's the perception that mods ban depending on their particular whims, but that rarely happens. I mean, novice moderators don't even have access to the hard ban tools; they have to confer with other mods before banning.
     
    Ender Sai likes this.
  5. Tim Battershell

    Tim Battershell Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Not for a misunderstanding, no.

    Perhaps if someone suspects they have been put on 'Ignore' an enquiry by PM through a Mod (using him or her as a go-between) would help resolve the matter.

    If the user you mention was the one who had issued the 'Ignore' in the first place, then the normal steps of looking at the post 'number-stamps' and/or inspecting the 'Ignored' content should make it possible to figure out what's going on. Other than that, (and I do not know exactly what went on there - and have no real wish to) a courteous inquiry to the Mod along the lines of "Was that remark addressed to me, please?" via PM would seem to be the way forward.

    Could there be something put into the FAQs about the function and/or its, possibly confusing, effects, do you think? Or would that lead to even more instances of confusion/abuse in your view?
     
    LostOnHoth and JoinTheSchwarz like this.
  6. LAJ_FETT

    LAJ_FETT Tech Admin (2007-2023) - She Held Us Together star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 25, 2002
    The FAQ question is one of the things being discussed in our mod forum.
     
  7. Tim Battershell

    Tim Battershell Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Thanks, LAJ!
     
    LAJ_FETT likes this.
  8. JoinTheSchwarz

    JoinTheSchwarz Former Head Admin star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Great suggestions, by the way.
     
    Tim Battershell likes this.
  9. Tim Battershell

    Tim Battershell Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Thanks, JTS! Just so long as they're (or can be made) workable, I'm not worried over 'great'.
     
  10. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    I think Tim's suggestion is a good one and the FAQ is a good way of letting users know about the potential consequences of putting someone on ignore.
     
    Tim Battershell likes this.
  11. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    I agree. I think that if nothing else, having the Admins flag that their intent is to review the bullying and harassment guidelines is a positive as they are unfit for that purpose in their current iteration. Unless of course Ramza is going to be Sapient Mk2, in which case we would only benefit by way of having a) a policy to deal with it and b) the best celebrity name/portmanteau for that sort of behaviour, in that Sapient + Razma = Samza or... Rapient.

    Jokes aside though, there's probably more to be gained by defining it and it is a decision. Do we harass, say, conservatives in the JC? Or is it not that clear? I don't have an answer, but I think we have a lot to cover before implementation of any changes.
     
  12. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    We should definitely do that.

    The reason why I don't think a cursory ERM analysis is a worthwhile point of discussion about the JCC (and in this thread in particular) is that you would have to go through the entire process properly in order for it to have any practical efficacy. For example, before the process even begins you need to articulate what the strategic objectives of the entity are as that will necessarily guide the appetite for risk. Then you need to consider the risks which may prevent the entiity from achieving those strategic objectives. Then you you need to evaluate the inherent risks in terms of likelihood and consequence and agree on an outcome in terms of whether the outcome of the likelihood/consequence matrix falls with the risk appetite (ie, whether it is 'low', 'moderate', 'high' or 'catastrophic'- you also have to define what those terms actually mean). If the inherent risk falls outside of the risk appetite then you need to consider what kinds of treatments and controls should be implemented to address the inherent risk and then evaluate the effectiveness of those treatments and controls in order to determine whether the residual risk falls within the risk appetite.

    So yeah, the ignore function, the TOS, the MS are all 'controls' but nobody has ever articulated these controls in terms of the overall ERM model and to so so would take months and who ****ing well cares anyway?

    Let's just talk practicalities without over-thinking it or getting too analystical/philosophical. The JCC is a message board. People post stuff and presumably it is for fun. We have to have rules and we have to have people who enforce those rules. As there are never going to be enough people to enforce the rules relative to the amount of people posting then you need to have functions for people to self regulate rather than rely upon a mod squad to intervene. The ignore function is such a device. However, the ignore function comes with potential problems of itself. The logical conclusion is to have a discussion about how those potential problems may be addressed, which we are doing. We don't need to muddy the waters with partial/incomplete ERM analysis is all I'm saying.

    BTW - we use the GuardianERM software which is awesome!
     
  13. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    I think a few people on the YJCC get an inordinate amount of grief for reasons that are, to me, inexplicable.

    But "conservatives" are not who comes to mind, given that some of them are friendly and easy to have conversations with and are treated as such. And I think we would need to make it clear in the new policy that "bullying" is not defined as "a large group of people refusing to treat racist/sexist/homophobic posts as 'just another belief system'," especially given that we have a hate speech policy in place already for such posting.
     
  14. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    My point, though, is that bullying is hugely subjective and I would say by way of the absence of many of those people they would in fact feel a culture of harassment exists. Given the innate subjectivity of the matter the risk of a policy that's too prescriptive or alternatively not effectual is fairly high. We need to really be comfortable as a forum with our definition before we articulate a policy position on it.
     
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  15. Metal Lord

    Metal Lord Jedi Knight star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2016
    Just would like to give my two cents: Yesterday I saw a very racist post and reported it. But since most people don't really change I also put the guy with the racist comment on my ignore list. Why? Because a lot of pressure in live contributed to me getting a burn out, I am easily stressed now. Hence, I am very pleased that the ignore function exists.
    And it does not bring any problem with it because I would not like to discuss with someone who posts racist comments anyway, so I don't miss out on anything of value.
    Self protection is important in these times of permanent information, be it on the job or during leisure time, especially since there are always people who don't give a thought about how their mind poisons the (digital) world.
    Please keep the ignore function alive.
     
    Vialco, Deliveranze, Dandelo and 2 others like this.
  16. DANNASUK

    DANNASUK Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 1, 2012
    I only ignore for the following reasons:

    1. Trolls (who quickly get banned)
    2. Obsessed fans, who cannot be reasoned with (saves the urge to keep responding)
    3. Those who bait and constantly try to get my attention (after a while, I'll remove them from ignore)
    Certain threads, especially in the ST section, can get quite 'heated'; sometimes it is better to leave for a while, post on another topic and return when the mods have restored order. It's silly to slap ignore because someone gave a different opinion. Best to walk away; there is no shame in it.
    Also, you can ignore people without using the function, too.
    My two cents.
     
    Deliveranze and V-2 like this.
  17. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Well, I thought I was going to be content to leave this alone, but now I feel compelled to bring it back up.

    I and others are seeing the ignore feature used as a way to avoid responsibility for posting inappropriate things. In short, "if you don't like it, put me on ignore." This is a problem.

    Is something you were alluding to, Dave?

    anakinfansince1983
     
  18. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Speaking only for myself, I see a few options:

    1. Keep the function, and add "If you don't like it, put me on ignore" to the list of posts that are considered baiting, along with "I'm putting you on ignore" and "I have X number of people on ignore" and "I can't see what So-and-So is posting."

    2. Disable it, because that **** is too much trouble. If it is disabled, give instructions to people who use it in a non-disruptive fashion and feel they need it, on how to set their PMs and wall posts only to people they follow, and remind them to use the "scroll down function."
     
    jcgoble3 likes this.
  19. FatBurt

    FatBurt Sex Scarecrow Vanquisher star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 21, 2003
    As I said in the thread that I believe is being referenced, I would prefer the Ignore feature to be removed as I don't think it's conducive to a community such as ours.


    People may dislike me in real life and they can "ignore" me but they can't not hear what I'm saying so when I'm in an environment where I'm sharing idea's I can be heard. In life, you need to have alternative opinions in there otherwise your own beliefs and prejudices will be reaffirmed by those around you who support your position rather than differing viewpoints which IMO is stagnating and bad for a community overall.

    When I'm in a social situation they can just walk away from me, the alternative on the board is "scroll past".




    If it stays it stays but I'm not in favour of it and never have been.
     
    jcgoble3 likes this.
  20. V-2

    V-2 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Can't you just scroll past people who say "if you don't like it, put me on ignore"? The kinds of exchanges where that phrase turns up are generally not worth reading anyway.

    I'm struggling to identify the problem. Making such a statement does not remove responsibility for saying inappropriate things. People would still behave inappropriately without that phrase in their rhetorical arsenal. Is the appearance of the phrase in modern internet parlance the problem?

    People and systems are already in place to moderate inappropriate behaviour, so if making such statements is to be deemed extreme, just get moderating. There are a tonne of statements far more offensive and malevolent that we're all guilty of from time to time though. The statement itself functions only slightly differently to saying 'I'm not forcing you to read my posts' or words to that effect, and, given that the ignore function exists, it is a valid option. Perhaps even helpful and compassionate depending on context and intent.
     
    Dandelo likes this.
  21. Sith-I-5

    Sith-I-5 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Aug 14, 2002
    No, the alternatives are "scroll past" and "ignore".

    You and others are trying to move us to where "scroll past" is the only option, but to say that is the only option now, is incorrect.
     
  22. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    No, you can't just scroll past someone who says "if you don't like it, put me on ignore," because if it's an active part of a conversation, you're essentially scrolling past an active element that multiple people could be or are responding to. It's also an aggressive, challenging thing to say, all in an attempt to say whatever a person wants (no matter how offensive and inappropriate it may be).
     
  23. Random Comments

    Random Comments Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Well then, why not ignore them, either with or without the function?
     
    Thuro and Tim Battershell like this.
  24. Tim Battershell

    Tim Battershell Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Or just never go near that kind of possibly contentious thread. They're nothing to do with Star Wars, are they?
     
  25. V-2

    V-2 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2012
    I was being a bit facetious, parodying the anti-ignore camp's internet tough guy style of argument. Explaining it makes it even funnier, obviously.

    I'm not sure what context you're speaking in, I guess you must mean that in your capacity as a mod you can't just scroll past an active element of conversation, in which case bravo. Very thorough of you.

    I can scroll past everything to the bottom of the page, really really fast if I want to. It's up to me how deeply I involve myself in a conversation, if I choose to involve myself at all.

    Can be. Could also be helpful advice. Like if you (as a user) were bored, dragged down and depressed by me, I wouldn't want that, but selfishly I wouldn't want to avoid being where I am just to make you feel better. So out of the goodness of my heart, and my own self interest, I could inform you that it's possible to just make my posts vanish from your browsing experience. I could use your problem phrase without any aggression, or challenging behaviour, or intention of causing offence, even without behaving inappropriately.

    The phrase itself isn't the problem here. A lot of Beezer issues could be solved if significantly fewer people chose to interact with him. Banning everything he says isn't an efficient solution.
     
    CT-867-5309 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.