A change to block/ignore

[lucusloc]

Currently if you block/ignore someone it not only hides their content from you, it also hides your content from them. It should not do this, if they do not wish to see your content they have a block/ignore button of their own. If your content is hidden from them it can make it more difficult for them to continue participating in conversations that other people are having on the topic, as they will be missing half the context of that conversation. This allows someone to fragment small sections of the community without the consent of other members by making certain conversations almost entirely opaque to the blocked member. This should not be a possible function of the block/ignore feature, and for this reason I think that that feature should be one way only. If you block/ignore someone you will not see their content, but they will still have full visibility of yours. They will still be able to quote and interact with that content in order to participate in the conversation with other members, but you will not be alerted to or see any of that content (including not being able to see their quotes by other members, just as it works now). This would reduce the power of the ignore button to fragment the community and would reduce the impact on the blocked user.

For those that like not seeing the content of those that have ignored them, there could be an "automatically ignore back" option on the user profile that would maintain the current functionality.

Read More

 

[Indy62]

Appears the problem was solved

 

[Spitpatch]

We band of Brothers...

 

[Nosferatu]

Should an OP of a thread (who also happens to be a Moderator) exercise his "block from thread" power against a Member he disagrees with on that thread (and has broken no website rules)?

I do not believe the ignore function in any fashion is available to Moderators.

 

[lucusloc]

But this community has been, and IS, robust. And growing every day For 16 years so far.

It's pretty good for a small site, but I am the only active member out of almost a dozen people I know IRL who have accounts, and am the only paying member in that group. Of the people I have asked (when it comes up in normal conversation) they cite issues with the community here. Paraphrasing, they do not like how clickish and easily segregated it can become. At least some of that comes down to how the block feature works, because people who are using the block feature can isolate other people from the entire conversation, not just themselves. If you manage to get blocked by one or two of the more active members that means a whole lot of the popular threads become almost unreadable, and that can kill any sense of belonging or motivation to stick around and interact with the other people who may actually like your posts.

 

[Spitpatch]

I do not believe the ignore function in any fashion is available to Moderators.

This was "blocked from thread".

 

[lucusloc]

This was "blocked from thread".

Is that a moderator feature? I have never seen a "block from thread" function.

 

[Spitpatch]

It's pretty good for a small site, but I am the only active member out of almost a dozen people I know IRL who have accounts, and am the only paying member in that group. Of the people I have asked (when it comes up in normal conversation) they cite issues with the community here. Paraphrasing, they do not like how clickish and easily segregated it can become. At least some of that comes down to how the block feature works, because people who are using the block feature can isolate other people from the entire conversation, not just themselves. If you manage to get blocked by one or two of the more active members that means a whole lot of the popular threads become almost unreadable, and that can kill any sense of belonging or motivation to stick around and interact with the other people who may actually like your posts.

If my behavior resulted in enough Members (even those of delicate composition) ignoring me or blocking me to the point where my navigation and/or participation on this website was noticeably and regularly negatively affected, I'd.....

Um,... well,... I'd....

Somebody else please say it.

 

[Spitpatch]

Is that a moderator feature? I have never seen a "block from thread" function.

It was rather effective.

...and perhaps something for others to shoot for.

 

[lucusloc]

If my behavior resulted in enough Members (even those of delicate composition) ignoring me or blocking me to the point where my navigation and/or participation on this website was noticeably and regularly negatively affected, I'd.....

Um,... well,... I'd....

Somebody else please say it.

You'll leave? Yeah, that is my point. If you are disliked (for whatever reason) by enough of the "primary clique" here then your use of the site will be negatively affected enough that leaving is the easiest option. Which means the site will never grow beyond that primary clique. It is effectively self policing at that point, as a few of the more prolific posters can exercise enough influence to push out newer users through shear frustrated participation.

Which neatly ties back into my original point: putting holes in your feed should be a personal decision, it should not be something you can have imposed on you by other members.

 

[solv3nt]

Um,... well,... I'd....

Somebody else please say it.

 

[TTSX]

 

[solv3nt]

I think we can get -20 guys. Let's go!

 

[Indy62]

If you are disliked (for whatever reason) by enough of the "primary clique" here then your use of the site will be negatively affected enough that leaving is the easiest option. Which means the site will never grow beyond that primary clique

Sorry but you're completely wrong. A community, whether in person, internet forum..whatever, will operate the same. If someone, an individual, consistently acts against the will of the group at large, that person will generally be held to consequences. Banishment, ignored, etc. That's one individual. That doesn't mean that two other individuals, or five, or ten, also join the forum and act in a manner that is productive and socially acceptable. Thereby becoming 'part' of the group. So you see...the site DOES grow. It grew even though one person left. Your logic it seems, it based on the idea that because YOU may leave, everyone else must be having the same experience.

Not that I want you to leave..not what I'm saying..just trying to point out where you're thinking wrong about this.

The TV show survivor comes to mind.

 

[MTpockets]

I dislike this thread sooo much...I try to ignore it, but I have to keep coming back.

 

[lucusloc]

Sorry but you're completely wrong. A community, whether in person, internet forum..whatever, will operate the same. If someone, an individual, consistently acts against the will of the group at large, that person will generally be held to consequences. Banishment, ignored, etc. That's one individual. That doesn't mean that two other individuals, or five, or ten, also join the forum and act in a manner that is productive and socially acceptable. Thereby becoming 'part' of the group. So you see...the site DOES grow. It grew even though one person left. Your logic it seems, it based on the idea that because YOU may leave, everyone else must be having the same experience.

Not that I want you to leave..not what I'm saying..just trying to point out where you're thinking wrong about this.

The TV show survivor comes to mind.

I am relaying what has already been told to me. And honestly I can see it too. If you have a disagreement in one thread with one somewhat prolific member and they block you over it it can have ramifications over the whole site. My point is that when this removes you from part of the conversation it amplifies the propensity to segregate the entire site to basically one clique.

This is not about people behaving in completely socially unacceptable manners, this could be valid disagreements on how decorum on a text based site works. For example the "last word" privilege in a disagreement. I sometimes get flamed for "being argumentative" but quite honestly if you reply to one of my posts I take that as an open invitation to reply in turn. If you do not want to continue the conversation the polite and proper action is to not reply at all. But we have members here who are happy to tell me how upset they are with my posts, and then get all huffy when I reply in turn, without consideration for how I consider that a rather glaring breach of etiquette.

But if other members of their clique decide to pile on, well the block feature can render many threads all but useless, thus enforcing their preferred etiquette through what is on other sites reserved for moderator levels of content control. So the "clique" in this case can ensure that only their version of site etiquette is the defacto standard, simply by pushing out members who disagree, all without one iota of moderator input. This behavior has already driven out members I have talked to. And if I can find examples of such within just my IRL connections I am left wondering how prolific it is with the wider community.

 

[Bobbygun]

Somebody else please say it.

"Block them all and let God sort them out!"

Was that it?

 

[Spitpatch]

"Block them all and let God sort them out!"

Was that it?

When modification of one's own behavior is not an option, Scorched Earth Policy always is.

 

[Indy62]

I am relaying what has already been told to me. And honestly I can see it too. If you have a disagreement in one thread with one somewhat prolific member and they block you over it it can have ramifications over the whole site. My point is that when this removes you from part of the conversation it amplifies the propensity to segregate the entire site to basically one clique.

This is not about people behaving in completely socially unacceptable manners, this could be valid disagreements on how decorum on a text based site works. For example the "last word" privilege in a disagreement. I sometimes get flamed for "being argumentative" but quite honestly if you reply to one of my posts I take that as an open invitation to reply in turn. If you do not want to continue the conversation the polite and proper action is to not reply at all. But we have members here who are happy to tell me how upset they are with my posts, and then get all huffy when I reply in turn, without consideration for how I consider that a rather glaring breach of etiquette.

But if other members of their clique decide to pile on, well the block feature can render many threads all but useless, thus enforcing their preferred etiquette through what is on other sites reserved for moderator levels of content control. So the "clique" in this case can ensure that only their version of site etiquette is the defacto standard, simply by pushing out members who disagree, all without one iota of moderator input. This behavior has already driven out members I have talked to. And if I can find examples of such within just my IRL connections I am left wondering how prolific it is with the wider community.

Let me ask you something..I'll try a different angle here.

If your wife gets pissed off at you for some reason, and is at work or out and about, and decides to unload on you in a text message. Do you feel a need to have the last word, to 'make your point'?

I don't. I let it go, don't respond. Wait for things to cool, and talk in person.

I think that point has been brought up with you before. It seems you always need to 'be right' and make your point.

Trying to help here..

 

[Spitpatch]

You'll leave?

View: https://youtu.be/oPwrodxghrw

 

[Nosferatu]

Post #400