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

 

[lucusloc]

Sorry if this offends anyone, but this reads like "I wasn't popular in high school and I feel like it's happening again"

It's been my experience unless you have a mass majority of people asking for some thing it's way too difficult to change things on a website like this so it isn't gonna happen.

I mean, if you read through this very long thread it seems that a significant portion of the down votes are less about the idea behind it an more are personally directed at me as a way to voice displeasure with my writing style (e.g. post #425 above). But perhaps I am misreading that and the comments that allude to that are misunderstood

 

[Indy62]

I mean, if you read through this very long thread it seems that a significant portion of the down votes are less about the idea behind it an more are personally directed at me as a way to voice displeasure with my writing style (e.g. post #425 above). But perhaps I am misreading that and the comments that allude to that are misunderstood

I think the reason there are so many net down votes isn't so much against you personally. It's more a vote against trolls and their behavior. A troll likes to stir sh1t up and most importantly, get a rise or arguement out of someone. He can't see the result of his trolling if he's being ignored. In other words..don't feed the trolls.

So it would make sense that the people who most want the feature to change exhibit that behavior.

Not saying that's you..just my take on why people want to keep the status quo..and I'm one of them.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I mean, if you read through this very long thread it seems that a significant portion of the down votes are less about the idea behind it an more are personally directed at me as a way to voice displeasure with my writing style (e.g. post #425 above). But perhaps I am misreading that and the comments that allude to that are misunderstood

Nah, I think you get an A+ for reading comprehension

 

[lucusloc]

I think the reason there are so many net down votes isn't so much against you personally. It's more a vote against trolls and their behavior. A troll likes to stir sh1t up and most importantly, get a rise or arguement out of someone. He can't see the result of his trolling if he's being ignored. In other words..don't feed the trolls.

So it would make sense that the people who most want the feature to change exhibit that behavior.

Not saying that's you..just my take on why people want to keep the status quo..and I'm one of them.

But we have been over this, if the troll wants to see the results of his work just open the page incognito and boom, no more filter. A troll will not mind that level of work to relish in their behavior. The only thing this feature impacts is logged in users, and it makes it harder for them to interact with others on this site.

 

[Indy62]

But we have been over this, if the troll wants to see the results of his work just open the page incognito and boom, no more filter. A troll will not mind that level of work to relish in their behavior. The only thing this feature impacts is logged in users, and it makes it harder for them to interact with others on this site.

Disagree. Trolls are also lazy and probably don't like having to use a different browser. They want their magic front and center. Remember, they don't get a lot of light, generally have a BMI well above 35, and too many clicks set them off.

 

[lucusloc]

Disagree. Trolls are also lazy and probably don't like having to use a different browser. They want their magic front and center. Remember, they don't get a lot of light, generally have a BMI well above 35, and too many clicks set them off.

That has not been my experience, and I have modded for other sites and communities that have dealt with trolls. They will put in the effort if they get the payoff, so you have to make sure they never get the payoff. This is not a feature that provides any kind of deterrence or security, it is an annoyance to logged in members only. Just about the only place it does have an actual effect is in the Den, because you have to be logged in to see that content. If you want to make the entire site account-locked then you might have an argument, but that would have far larger detrimental effects on traffic and using this site as an open (and indexed) resource.

 

[Indy62]

That has not been my experience, and I have modded for other sites and communities that have dealt with trolls. They will put in the effort if they get the payoff, so you have to make sure they never get the payoff. This is not a feature that provides any kind of deterrence or security, it is an annoyance to logged in members only. Just about the only place it does have an actual effect is in the Den, because you have to be logged in to see that content. If you want to make the entire site account-locked then you might have an argument, but that would have far larger detrimental effects on traffic and using this site as an open (and indexed) resource.

LOL..see there you go again.

I said I disagree..

You said I don't have an argument..not that you disagree with me..but that my stance is invalid.

Which was the source of my..hrm..gripe about your communication method two months ago.

You seem to not comprehend that someone can disagree with you.

So you get ignored.

 

[solv3nt]

I mean, if you read through this very long thread it seems that a significant portion of the down votes are less about the idea behind it an more are personally directed at me as a way to voice displeasure with my writing style (e.g. post #425 above). But perhaps I am misreading that and the comments that allude to that are misunderstood

Not your writing style. Your lack of being able to give up on this.

 

[Joe13]

I mean, if you read through this very long thread it seems that a significant portion of the down votes are less about the idea behind it an more are personally directed at me as a way to voice displeasure with my writing style (e.g. post #425 above). But perhaps I am misreading that and the comments that allude to that are misunderstood

I was not directing that comment at anyone in particular.

It was just an observation of the comments being thrown back and forth.

I don't really care if people I have on Ignore can read my comments or not.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Something to consider here....

Often it ain't what was said..it was how it was said.

As well as...
Sayin' the same stuff over and over...only slightly different...may not get you the answer / reaction you want.
Andy

 

[P7M13]

Something to consider here....

Often it ain't what was said..it was how it was said.

As well as...
Sayin' the same stuff over and over...only slightly different...may not get you the answer / reaction you want.
Andy

A similar adage for hunting / self defense exists -- it's not what was shot (caliber), it's how it was shot (placement).

 

[lucusloc]

LOL..see there you go again.

I said I disagree..

You said I don't have an argument..not that you disagree with me..but that my stance is invalid.

Which was the source of my..hrm..gripe about your communication method two months ago.

You seem to not comprehend that someone can disagree with you.

So you get ignored.

No, you said that this dissuades trolls, I said I have actual experience with trolls that disagrees with that point. There are facts and there are opinions. Facts are there are indeed high effort trolls, and you can find evidence of that everywhere, from forums that specifically cater to getting around moderation software (e.g. IP blocking and hardware fingerprint anonymization). Are their low effort trolls? Sure, but by and large the are the denizens of sites that don't even bother to require a login, or that do so without requiring any kind of verification (email, OAuth or whatever). Once you get past that you have mostly self-selected for the high effort trolls who will install software and plugins to get the rise they are looking for. Again, this is all info I have gained from personal experience running online communities. And this is a discussion about facts; does this feature do much to discourage trolls, or does it do very little? And if it does very little is it worth the cost it puts on the community?

You are of course are free to disagree all you want, but as of yet, in this whole thread, I have yet to see a refutation of my stance that this is not a security feature. I find it hard to understand how anyone can make that argument given that logging out removes the block on content.

 

[Indy62]

No, you said that this dissuades trolls, I said I have actual experience with trolls that disagrees with that point. There are facts and there are opinions. Facts are there are indeed high effort trolls, and you can find evidence of that everywhere, from forums that specifically cater to getting around moderation software (e.g. IP blocking and hardware fingerprint anonymization). Are their low effort trolls? Sure, but by and large the are the denizens of sites that don't even bother to require a login, or that do so without requiring any kind of verification (email, OAuth or whatever). Once you get past that you have mostly self-selected for the high effort trolls who will install software and plugins to get the rise they are looking for. Again, this is all info I have gained from personal experience running online communities. And this is a discussion about facts; does this feature do much to discourage trolls, or does it do very little? And if it does very little is it worth the cost it puts on the community?

You are of course are free to disagree all you want, but as of yet, in this whole thread, I have yet to see a refutation of my stance that this is not a security feature. I find it hard to understand how anyone can make that argument given that logging out removes the block on content.

You're correct..I said the feature dissuades trolls. You said because you have 'actual experience' of trolls from different communities then you must be right and I must be wrong. So..I have an opinion, and you have facts. (Anecdotal btw).

Like I said in my prior post.. This is exactly what you've done a number of times in different threads. You seem to believe only your (actual opinion) counts. Even some moderators shut you down. People have ignored you. Nothing gets through.

By the way..how do you know so much about trolls or even take an interest in them? Why the passion about a public, random, internet forum? There's what..thousands of them out there. Why keep pushing your opinion? Opinion... Opinion...

 

[Indy62]

Something to consider here....

Often it ain't what was said..it was how it was said.

As well as...
Sayin' the same stuff over and over...only slightly different...may not get you the answer / reaction you want.
Andy

Yep..Bill Burr points that out pretty clearly here.

 

[solv3nt]

You are of course are free to disagree all you want, but as of yet, in this whole thread, I have yet to see a refutation of my stance that this is not a security feature. I find it hard to understand how anyone can make that argument given that logging out removes the block on content.

The issue is that nobody really cares to change things.

 

[FATAL125]

 

[FATAL125]

nobody really cares

Nailed it...

 

[Indy62]

 

[Spitpatch]

View attachment 1885051

Ever notice that the beehive-hairdo Motel Lady In Charge ("I cain't give yew that int-formation!") takes none of Depardieu's attitude....and she is a rare survivor of the contact.

 

[Indy62]

Ever notice that the beehive-hairdo Motel Lady In Charge ("I cain't give yew that int-formation!") takes none of Depardieu's attitude....and she is a rare survivor of the contact.

Lol..yeah..makes ya think!