Jump to content

Everyone ignore a member


Sheffielder
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
On 8/15/2018 at 12:32 AM, opentype said:

No, and that sounds like a terrible idea. Who would want to be on a site with that function, where you could potentially being muted forever for everyone without even knowing. 

If you have a troublemaker, talk to him or ban him or whatever. 

Obviously, this is not for you, and not a function that you want or need - why are you replying to this thread??

The OP asked about a reasonable function, a comprehensive ignore function, for which there is certainly a need. Like in this thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DaffyDuck said:

Obviously, this is not for you, and not a function that you want or need - why are you replying to this thread??

Simple: Because this is how the internet (and especially forums) and free societies work. I am free to voice my opinion and I have given reasons for my opinion, because as I have explained, my reasoning might even be worth considering for people asking for such a function. Dismissing that and going with the logic “if you are not for it, stay out of it“, which is implied in your post, is a rather narrow-minded way of dealing with the world. It’s fine to discuss things and collect and weigh arguments for different positions.

(Oh, and by the way: You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse me of. You saw my post and thought you should address my involvement in it, even though that part is completely irrelevant to the original question. See the irony in that? You can post your opinion, but I should not?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DaffyDuck said:

The OP asked about a reasonable function, a comprehensive ignore function, for which there is certainly a need. Like in this thread.

There is a need for that.
It could be used instead of a ban.
vBulletin's earlier versions had it named: Tachy goes to Coventry.

Edit: Currently they have it as:
Global Ignore
This option allows you to effectively add a user or users to every member's 'Ignore List'. However, users in this list can still see their own posts and threads...

 

Edited by Misi
Added information
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Not quite sure why this one has hit such a nerve ha ha

I just thought it might be a useful way to quieten down members without banning them etc

2 hours ago, opentype said:

Simple: Because this is how the internet (and especially forums) and free societies work. I am free to voice my opinion and I have given reasons for my opinion, because as I have explained, my reasoning might even be worth considering for people asking for such a function. Dismissing that and going with the logic “if you are not for it, stay out of it“, which is implied in your post, is a rather narrow-minded way of dealing with the world. It’s fine to discuss things and collect and weigh arguments for different positions.

(Oh, and by the way: You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse me of. You saw my post and thought you should address my involvement in it, even though that part is completely irrelevant to the original question. See the irony in that? You can post your opinion, but I should not?)

 

 I honestly never thought I'd see a post like this in a community like this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DaffyDuck said:

Obviously, this is not for you, and not a function that you want or need - why are you replying to this thread??

The OP asked about a reasonable function, a comprehensive ignore function, for which there is certainly a need. Like in this thread.

 

Part of the benefit of posting on the IPS community is seeking feedback on not just a 'narrow' view of the request, but a 'broader' view of the request.  @opentype is giving this kind of 'broader' feedback to challenge the original merits.  If you're in an open community, all of the posts are available to see.  Trying to ignore a member who is consistently acting out or not following guidelines in the entire community is not a strong case for the ignore function since you can read everything anyways and the bad behavior is allowed to continue.  You're ignoring your responsibility as a moderator and trying to find an easy way out.   

When you post feedback to IPS, it's exactly these sorts of scenarios that they're going to challenge you with and to find out whether your idea even has merit.  They don't want to just hear the idea itself, they want to hear WHY the idea is needed.  

Ultimately, I agree with @opentype.  You're ignoring the behavior of a troublemaker and allowing him to continue posting.  Your first and best line of defense is your own community guidelines, to which you should hold every member accountable.  A universal ignore is a lite version of being banned without knowing that you're banned, which doesn't provide a chance for remediation at all.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2018 at 8:27 AM, Sheffielder said:


Is there an option where a simple button can be pressed in the admin or mod CP where you can essentially press it and then that member will be added to the 'ignore' facility for every other member on the forum?

Currently there is not such an option, but it can be achieved through custom coding. I can develop one for you for a fee.

Alternatively, if you want to have some fun with your troublesome members, have a look at my plugin here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2018 at 7:19 AM, Joel R said:

Ultimately, I agree with @opentype.  You're ignoring the behavior of a troublemaker and allowing him to continue posting.  Your first and best line of defense is your own community guidelines, to which you should hold every member accountable.  A universal ignore is a lite version of being banned without knowing that you're banned, which doesn't provide a chance for remediation at all.

Which is exactly the point in the case of some misbehaving trolls -- and, again, I am not advocating a UNIVERSAL ignore function, but rather a RECIPROCAL ignore function -- which is very different.

It means that if I were to place a member on my own ignore list, in addition to not being able to see any of their content (including quoted content), that ignored member will not be able to see any content that I am posting -- this provides essentially a self-managing pricing of trolls, or members that don't get along with each other. Everybody else can still see the troll's messages, and the troll can continue to interact with the forum -- just no longer with whoever placed them on ignore.

Ditto this also applies to new threads started by the member who placed them on ignore, and thus allows this member to enjoy new threads without the disruption of the troll. Subsequently, as more members place that troll on ignore, he might end up very lonely, and will just go away on their own.

The reason behind this suggestion, versus just plain blocking or banning a troll, is that they will just come back under a new alias -- while this way, it might take them a long time to figure out what happened. Kind of a more customized version of the old universal ignore, that makes everyone no longer see a member that has been thus tagged.

There is a good use case for such reciprocal ignore functions -- and even whatever the OP asked for, it means that THEY have a reason to ask for it -- endless discussions of challenging them on it is just unhelpful, trollish behavior -- no different from technical forums where someone asks how to install 64GB of RAM in their computer, and invariably 1-2 morons chiming in with "why would you need that much RAM?" or "You shouldn't require that much RAM if you managed your storage... blah blah".

Emphasis on 'unhelpful'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2018 at 2:21 AM, opentype said:

Simple: Because this is how the internet (and especially forums) and free societies work.

Actually, thats exactly everything that is WRONG with how the internet 'works' - giving "how the internet works" as a justification is likely to be the worst 'rationale' you could possibly provide. The 'internet' also works (or, at least used to work, when there were more helpful people on usenet), that when someone asked a question, they received an answer - not some sort of trollish 'challenge' later on justified as 'how the internet works'.

Sorry, see my earlier example of the ones jumping into technical questions and invariably asking "why do you need that" or "you don't need that". This is no different.

The OP's question was simple and clear - he asked about this function, because he needs this function. The nature of forums being what it is, it makes perfect sense why he would need such a function, and why he asked this question. 

On 9/11/2018 at 2:38 AM, Misi said:

There is a need for that.
It could be used instead of a ban.
vBulletin's earlier versions had it named: Tachy goes to Coventry.

Edit: Currently they have it as:
Global Ignore
This option allows you to effectively add a user or users to every member's 'Ignore List'. However, users in this list can still see their own posts and threads...

The problem with the IPBoard 'ignore' function is that it still shows you that someone is ignored, and then give you the option "do you want to view the post' ????

 

On 9/11/2018 at 10:32 AM, Faqole said:

Currently there is not such an option, but it can be achieved through custom coding. I can develop one for you for a fee.

THANK YOU MISI and FAQOLE for giving on-topic responses, and actual helpful answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DaffyDuck said:

 giving "how the internet works" as a justification is likely to be the worst 'rationale' you could possibly provide.

Don’t use quote mining to try to make me or my arguments look bad. My reasoning did NOT boil down to “this i how the internet works“. You just quoted that part and cut off everything that was my ACTUAL reasoning. Very dishonest. 

 

Quote

not some sort of trollish 'challenge' later on

Again, complete misrepresentation and everything can see that by just scrolling up. The question was, whether such a function already existed. I answered that with “no” and in addition gave my opinion on such a function. Nothing about answering questions and giving opinions is “trollish” nor a “challenge”. 

 

Quote

he asked about this function, because he needs this function.

He *thinks* it might be helpful. Yes. And once more: Why are we not allowed to discuss this “need” in a discussion forum? I and Joel have provided reasons why it might be a good idea to do so, you haven’t provided anything to the contrary. If the feature request is good and convincing, wouldn’t it stand being challenged? Do you think you need to silence people with different opinions just to get IPS to implement it? Or why do you oppose a simple discussion in an online forum specifically made for discussions so strongly?

 

40 minutes ago, DaffyDuck said:

 1-2 morons chiming in 

Oh, great. We reach a new low. It’s called the ad hominem attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Welcome to my block list. Personal attacks, deliberate misrepresentations, wanting to silence people just because they have different opinions … But we are supposedly the trolls? Right. 

Edited by opentype
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/13/2018 at 1:57 AM, opentype said:

Welcome to my block list.

Good, saves me from having to block you, myself. Couldn't care less if you block me - in fact, thank you, now maybe you won't chime in with your words of wisdom.

Gee, if only we had a reciprocal ignore function, eh?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...