The "New Forum" Discussion Thread

[jsilverjanet]

Video chat

[jsilverjanet]

Oh wait that last one was for another forum I'm on

[steveinthecity]

That "user X has removed themselves from this conversation" in pm's always strikes me the wrong way(a minor thing I know). There have been some good sugestions made so far.

[thirdgreenham]

Well, Ditch, it looks like your post about "the other guys'" forum not being up and running, got their butts into gear.

 

Well done

 

The Other Guys

[ttfitz]

By all means, mock if you must, but if you believe it's better to have conflict rather than people who don't get along not interacting with each other, perhaps the CGC board isn't really the place for you?

 

Where did I say it was better to have conflict? I'd prefer much less of that, here and in the world in general. It's just in who should have the power to decide what gets seen by someone and what doesn't is where we differ.

 

So the notion that YOU should have the power to decide what I see is something that I will most happily mock.

 

Sorry, that is a bit overstated - you most certainly SHOULD have the power to decide whether someone else sees your words. That power should be exercised by not posting in public that which you don't want the public at large to see.

[jaeldubyoo]

Even if the ignore function keeps people on ignore from reading your post, how can you stop him from seeing your post if he's not signed in? You don't have to be signed on to be able to read any post. It'll only work if everybody has to sign on to read anything.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Well, Ditch, it looks like your post about "the other guys'" forum not being up and running, got their butts into gear.

 

Well done

 

The Other Guys

 

That post didn't survive the last Stu purge.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Stronger ignore function - at times the same people asking for this ignore the ignore function we have today, even when they have someone on ignore. So it seems like an misused feature already.

 

That's because people they have on ignore can't resist trying to interact with them, or reply to what they've said, knowing full well they're on ignore. The ignore function isn't a pair of handcuffs; just because someone puts you on ignore, it doesn't mean you get to continue to talk to or about them, and they can't ever respond ever again without being called some sort of hypocrite.

 

That's not how it works.

[Wipple]

When I click on a persons name I would like a new drop down option. One that can be customized...Like sold me an AF15 or easy to deal with via PM..basically room for notes.

[Bosco685]

Stronger ignore function - at times the same people asking for this ignore the ignore function we have today, even when they have someone on ignore. So it seems like an misused feature already.

 

That's because people they have on ignore can't resist trying to interact with them, or reply to what they've said, knowing full well they're on ignore. The ignore function isn't a pair of handcuffs; just because someone puts you on ignore, it doesn't mean you get to continue to talk to or about them, and they can't ever respond ever again without being called some sort of hypocrite.

 

That's not how it works.

 

I don't know.

 

It would be like having someone on ignore, and when they post a simple, innocent mistake of when a book is published the person looking to ignore them feels compelled to correct the error.

 

That would have nothing to do with talking about a person. That is really more about self-control. No high-powered ignore feature is going to overcome that if someone is turning a feature off, or feeling compelled to respond to something like that because they become aware of it.

 

 

[Bosco685]

When I click on a persons name I would like a new drop down option. One that can be customized...Like sold me an AF15 or easy to deal with via PM..basically room for notes.

 

Profile notes? I don't think I've ever seen a feature like that. Sounds very interesting.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Stronger ignore function - at times the same people asking for this ignore the ignore function we have today, even when they have someone on ignore. So it seems like an misused feature already.

 

That's because people they have on ignore can't resist trying to interact with them, or reply to what they've said, knowing full well they're on ignore. The ignore function isn't a pair of handcuffs; just because someone puts you on ignore, it doesn't mean you get to continue to talk to or about them, and they can't ever respond ever again without being called some sort of hypocrite.

 

That's not how it works.

 

I don't know.

 

It would be like having someone on ignore, and when they post a simple, innocent mistake of when a book is published the person looking to ignore them feels compelled to correct the error.

 

That would have nothing to do with talking about a person. That is really more about self-control. No high-powered ignore feature is going to overcome that if someone is turning a feature off, or feeling compelled to respond to something like that because they become aware of it.

 

 

Why should misinformation not be corrected? What does that have to do with self-control? Is misinformation that isn't corrected a beneficial thing, or a detrimental thing?

 

Perhaps the issue is that the person being corrected is the one with the self-control problem, and feels the need to make an issue out of being corrected. After all, if it's a simple, innocent mistake, wouldn't it make sense to say "oh, hey, thanks for the correction!" and move on...?

 

Seems like the problem lies there.

 

Of course, for those who are offended at being corrected, no matter how minutely, the "complete ignore" function will take care of a lot of that.

[Bosco685]

Why should misinformation not be corrected? What does that have to do with self-control? Is misinformation that isn't corrected a beneficial thing, or a detrimental thing?

 

Perhaps the issue is that the person being corrected is the one with the self-control problem, and feels the need to make an issue out of being corrected. After all, if it's a simple, innocent mistake, wouldn't it make sense to say "oh, hey, thanks for the correction!" and move on...?

 

Seems like the problem lies there.

 

Of course, for those who are offended at being corrected, no matter how minutely, the "complete ignore" function will take care of a lot of that.

 

Calling out a simple mistake is not the problem, depending on how you point out the correction. But if you have a person on ignore due to past friction, and feel that feature is there to eliminate such conflict, then mistake or no mistake you utilize that feature. Working around it when a feature is voluntarily enabled is a self-control issue.

 

Having a 'super ignore' to block off a population that doesn't seem to engage well with an individual is an approach. Unfortunately, it's a wasted feature if that same individual that voluntarily enabled the ignore feature then can't help but work around it. That's where the self-control comes in.

[Bosco685]

Since there are a number of comic book resellers on here...

 

Is there an AWAY feature where if someone sends a PM to one of these resellers, an auto-response can post an away message they are on vacation but will respond upon returning?

 

Not that buying comics is an emergency. At least it doesn't make a potential buyer assume to move on and purchase from someone else before giving the reseller a chance to follow up.

[Bosco685]

With posting videos, I realize we support the IFRAME element. What about other video link formats being supported? Facebook seems to be going head-to-head with Youtube now in supporting video uploads, yet it doesn't use the IFRAME element.

 

Or does that lead to any security concerns because of the code that would need to be supported?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Why should misinformation not be corrected? What does that have to do with self-control? Is misinformation that isn't corrected a beneficial thing, or a detrimental thing?

 

Perhaps the issue is that the person being corrected is the one with the self-control problem, and feels the need to make an issue out of being corrected. After all, if it's a simple, innocent mistake, wouldn't it make sense to say "oh, hey, thanks for the correction!" and move on...?

 

Seems like the problem lies there.

 

Of course, for those who are offended at being corrected, no matter how minutely, the "complete ignore" function will take care of a lot of that.

 

Calling out a simple mistake is not the problem, depending on how you point out the correction. But if you have a person on ignore due to past friction, and feel that feature is there to eliminate such conflict, then mistake or no mistake you utilize that feature. Working around it when a feature is voluntarily enabled is a self-control issue.

 

That is your opinion, and others are free to disagree.

 

If the misinformation is detrimental, and could do harm to others, then yes, it should be addressed. If someone wants to look at that as a "self-control issue" and take such correction personally, then they are probably putting their own interests above those of others.

 

As I said before...the ignore function isn't a pair of handcuffs. If you "voluntarily enable" it, then you can "voluntarily disable" it as the need arises. That is the very essence of self-control. Context is critical. If you're ignoring someone to avoid conflict, then taking them off ignore to correct an error isn't (necessarily) trying to inflame conflict.

 

What you're really saying here is that the person using the ignore isn't using it in the manner you think they should, which isn't about self-control at all.

 

And....I will say, there are people who refuse to ignore people they have a conflict with, precisely so they can monitor what they say, and initiate conflict with them if something that person says rubs them the wrong way, while simultaneously maintaining a moral superiority by "not needing to have that person on ignore." So, it really works both ways.

 

Having a 'super ignore' to block off a population that doesn't seem to engage well with an individual is an approach.

 

I'm not quite sure what that means. Do you mean that a "population" is composed of identical automatons who cannot think and reason for themselves, and all react to an "individual" in the same exact way, or should react in the same exact way...?

 

That seems an odd way to look at things. It would seem more realistic to address the situation as individuals dealing with individuals.

 

Unfortunately, it's a wasted feature if that same individual that voluntarily enabled the ignore feature then can't help but work around it. That's where the self-control comes in.

 

What it seems you're really saying, again, is that that person lacks your idea of self-control. But if they voluntarily chose to use ignore, rather than it being imposed on them from an outside source, they can voluntarily set it aside as the need arises. Far from being a lack of control, that is the very essence of self-control.

[Bosco685]

That is your opinion, and others are free to disagree.

 

This is true.

 

If the misinformation is detrimental, and could do harm to others, then yes, it should be addressed. If someone wants to look at that as a "self-control issue" and take such correction personally, then they are probably putting their own interests above those of others.

 

Definitely comes down to what you define as detrimental. But it does sound like you want a super-ignore feature, but then ignore it is there.

 

As I said before...the ignore function isn't a pair of handcuffs. If you "voluntarily enable" it, then you can "voluntarily disable" it as the need arises. That is the very essence of self-control. Context is critical. If you're ignoring someone to avoid conflict, then taking them off ignore to correct an error isn't (necessarily) trying to inflame conflict.

 

Isn't that what you can do today with the current ignore feature?

 

What you're really saying here is that the person using the ignore isn't using it in the manner you think they should, which isn't about self-control at all.

 

If you go back to your earlier post, you wanted an ignore feature that was close to being like neither party can even see one another. Why is another matter. But now you are saying something different, in that you want to turn it off and on and jump into a chat with that party when you feel it is appropriate. It sounds like even when the chat has nothing involving you, but more you feel something needs to be corrected.

 

My usual one-trick pony: a much more versatile ignore function, that makes it so that 1. My posts can't be seen by those I have on ignore (and vice versa, of course) and 2. my posts can't be seen even when quoted. I suspect even that will have a workaround by copying and pasting, but that would require more effort than most people would be willing to put in most of the time, and most would eventually give up. Whatever's left could be dealt with by moderation, and there wouldn't be much left if it was (as always) rigorously enforced.

 

It's like walking on the convention floor, but not having to deal with people I don't like/who don't like me. I can have conversations with my friends without having to deal with unwanted commentary from others (and vice versa.)

 

It's a workable solution, and might even improve relationships over time by not having that constant irritation, and after a while, wondering what the fuss was all about, allowing for space to patch things up.

 

That sounds counter now to what you first posted. As in the first post, you were concerned more about improving relationships. Now it is about correcting people's errors too. That may not always improve relationships if you are jumping in and out of the coverage of the super-ignore feature. It could come across counter to what you wanted.

 

And again, that feature and ability to turn it on and off exists today. Doesn't it?

 

And....I will say, there are people who refuse to ignore people they have a conflict with, precisely so they can monitor what they say, and initiate conflict with them if something that person says rubs them the wrong way, while simultaneously maintaining a moral superiority by "not needing to have that person on ignore." So, it really works both ways.

 

All I can say is I am glad we don't fit into that category, because you responding to my post discussing the ignore feature - not you. That's a good thing.

 

I'm not quite sure what that means. Do you mean that a "population" is composed of identical automatons who cannot think and reason for themselves, and all react to an "individual" in the same exact way, or should react in the same exact way...?

 

'automatons acting the same way'? No, we are talking about the ignore feature you proposed that would keep people separated to improve relations. Where did an automaton come up? Sounds like you are bringing some historic issues to the conversation. Always best to move on from that.

 

That seems an odd way to look at things. It would seem more realistic to address the situation as individuals dealing with individuals.

 

I agree - then why did your original post talk in the plural rather than the singular?

 

'by those I have on ignore'

 

 

What it seems you're really saying, again, is that that person lacks your idea of self-control. But if they voluntarily chose to use ignore, rather than it being imposed on them from an outside source, they can voluntarily set it aside as the need arises. Far from being a lack of control, that is the very essence of self-control.

 

Although I appreciate you attempting to be a translator for my statements, you may want to circle back to your differing thoughts on the ignore feature. Any admin reading this would be confused are you really needing a new feature or not.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

If you go back to your earlier post, you wanted an ignore feature that was close to being like neither party can even see one another. Why is another matter. But now you are saying something different, in that you want to turn it off and on and jump into a chat with that party when you feel it is appropriate. It sounds like even when the chat has nothing involving you, but more you feel something needs to be corrected.

 

No, that's not accurate at all. I didn't say anything at all about wanting to "turn it off and on" at will. I said it was possible. Something being possible, and wanting that thing to happen, are two entirely different concepts. It just requires a little extra thought to understand. Let me explain:

 

The current "ignore" allows people to quote, and one can see what those he/she has on ignore are saying, without the need to "toggle."

 

99.9% of the time, if a response is not directed at me specifically, I don't toggle. However, if a response is quoted, I can see that response, without toggling, and occasionally those comments contain things to which I might want to respond. If I happen to see misinformation, I correct it as a by-product. It is a happenstance, not a seeking out.

 

That doesn't mean the entire ignore system has failed, and people have a complete lack of self-control. It's not as black and white as you may want it to be.

 

And, sometimes, to get context, I will toggle. However...to not be seen by those I don't wish to engage, the occasional lack of clear context is something I'm happily willing to deal with.

 

I won't call it a "super ignore" feature, because that's a bit childish and unprofessional, but a "complete ignore" feature would alleviate much conflict.

 

That should clarify it for you a bit.

 

That sounds counter now to what you first posted. As in the first post, you were concerned more about improving relationships. Now it is about correcting people's errors too.

 

No, it isn't about that at all. That was one example, which you brought up. It is a happenstance, not a sought out occurrence.

 

That may not always improve relationships if you are jumping in and out of the coverage of the super-ignore feature. It could come across counter to what you wanted.

 

I don't think you're understanding the "complete ignore" feature. It is not something one "jumps in and out of."

 

And again, that feature and ability to turn it on and off exists today. Doesn't it?

 

No, because you can still see, and respond to, what I post. That's the point.

 

I'm not quite sure what that means. Do you mean that a "population" is composed of identical automatons who cannot think and reason for themselves, and all react to an "individual" in the same exact way, or should react in the same exact way...?

 

'automatons acting the same way'? No, we are talking about the ignore feature you proposed that would keep people separated to improve relations. Where did an automaton come up? Sounds like you are bringing some historic issues to the conversation. Always best to move on from that.

 

No, there aren't any historic issues from my end being brought up. What are you seeing from yours that would lead you to think that? But if that were the case, why do you think it's "always best to move on from that"? If there are unresolved issues, I heartily disagree. Nothing is resolved until it is dealt with (I'm speaking philosophically here, not referring to any specific situation.)

 

I don't think you answered my question. I'm not quite sure what you mean in your comment "Having a 'super ignore' to block off a population that doesn't seem to engage well with an individual is an approach." Perhaps you could explain how this "population" relates to an "individual"?

 

That seems an odd way to look at things. It would seem more realistic to address the situation as individuals dealing with individuals.

 

I agree - then why did your original post talk in the plural rather than the singular?

 

'by those I have on ignore'

 

 

Well that's certainly easy to answer: I'm an individual. Like many, I have more than one person on ignore. That doesn't make them a "group." Those decisions are individual decisions, based on individual interactions. I don't ignore anyone because of a group they may be a part of.

 

I don't mean to belabor the obvious, but that seems rather self-explanatory.

 

 

What it seems you're really saying, again, is that that person lacks your idea of self-control. But if they voluntarily chose to use ignore, rather than it being imposed on them from an outside source, they can voluntarily set it aside as the need arises. Far from being a lack of control, that is the very essence of self-control.

 

Although I appreciate you attempting to be a translator for my statements, you may want to circle back to your differing thoughts on the ignore feature.Any admin reading this would be confused are you really needing a new feature or not.

 

Those differing thoughts are only a product of your perception, and don't really exist. Hopefully, my explanation here has settled that. I doubt any admin reading this would be confused...they're fairly intelligent after all...and I wouldn't presume to speak to what they do, and do not, find confusing, personally.

 

 

 

[Bosco685]

No, that's not accurate at all. I didn't say anything at all about wanting to "turn it off and on" at will. I said it was possible. Something being possible, and wanting that thing to happen, are two entirely different concepts.

 

I read what you are saying now. It just came across differently earlier.

 

It just requires a little extra thought to understand. Let me explain:

 

The current "ignore" allows people to quote, and one can see what those he/she has on ignore are saying, without the need to "toggle."

 

99.9% of the time, if a response is not directed at me specifically, I don't toggle. However, if a response is quoted, I can see that response, without toggling, and occasionally those comments contain things to which I might want to respond. If I happen to see misinformation, I correct it as a by-product. It is a happenstance, not a seeking out.

 

Again, that is self-control driven, or lack there of. As you earlier noted about having those on ignore which could lead to better relations, does it really make sense to then work around the ignore feature if what you are now going to point out as a potential error is something other than a scam being pulled, a lie being told for financial benefit or something along those lines?

 

If anything, being focused on better relations by avoiding those that may end up in conflict doesn't always go better when you appear back just to point out an error - then go back on ignore.

 

But that is your choice. I recognize that.

 

That doesn't mean the entire ignore system has failed, and people have a complete lack of self-control. It's not as black and white as you may want it to be.

 

And, sometimes, to get context, I will toggle. However...to not be seen by those I don't wish to engage, the occasional lack of clear context is something I'm happily willing to deal with.

 

I won't call it a "super ignore" feature, because that's a bit childish and unprofessional, but a "complete ignore" feature would alleviate much conflict.

 

'childish and unprofessional'? Maybe you are overthinking it then, because to call something 'complete ignore' but then you ignore that feature to follow up on someone you may not want to engage with due to friction is most probably going to be a counter-experience to the original intent: complete ignore.

 

That should clarify it for you a bit.

 

Unfortunately, all it clarified is you want a 'complete ignore' feature which you then will periodically ignore yourself. That doesn't sound like a very wise feature investment.

 

But that is an opinion. You could be right.

 

No, it isn't about that at all. That was one example, which you brought up. It is a happenstance, not a sought out occurrence.

 

Okay. I'll go with that. It doesn't seem consistent with the two thoughts you went with ('complete ignore' and 'pick-and-choose ignore'). But I am reading what you are posting to understand the concept better.

 

I don't think you're understanding the "complete ignore" feature. It is not something one "jumps in and out of."

 

Oh, I get it. A 'complete ignore' feature that then at times gets ignored partially - not completely.

 

No, because you can still see, and respond to, what I post. That's the point.

 

The 'complete ignore - partial ignore' feature. Crystal clear!

 

No, there aren't any historic issues from my end being brought up. What are you seeing from yours that would lead you to think that? But if that were the case, why do you think it's "always best to move on from that"? If there are unresolved issues, I heartily disagree. Nothing is resolved until it is dealt with (I'm speaking philosophically here, not referring to any specific situation.)

 

I don't know. You went off on a tangent about automatons following some super-leader or single thought person thingamabob. I was just trying to understand where you were going with that.

 

I don't think you answered my question. I'm not quite sure what you mean in your comment "Having a 'super ignore' to block off a population that doesn't seem to engage well with an individual is an approach." Perhaps you could explain how this "population" relates to an "individual"?

 

 

Your recommendation - you tell me. 'Those' means an individual?

 

Well that's certainly easy to answer: I'm an individual. Like many, I have more than one person on ignore. That doesn't make them a "group." Those decisions are individual decisions, based on individual interactions. I don't ignore anyone because of a group they may be a part of.

 

I don't mean to belabor the obvious, but that seems rather self-explanatory.

 

 

Where did group come from, as if implying a coordinated effort? I didn't say that. You may be reading into what I am posting. I just was trying to understand the 'those' since you started pointing out an odd way of looking at things when going beyond the individual. Yet it was you that posted 'those' originally.

 

 

Those differing thoughts are only a product of your perception, and don't really exist. Hopefully, my explanation here has settled that. I doubt any admin reading this would be confused...they're fairly intelligent after all...and I wouldn't presume to speak to what they do, and do not, find confusing, personally.

 

Nobody said the admins were intelligent or non-intelligent. So why go there? That's what causes friction is when you take off like that to the extreme.

 

What may be confusing is designing a 'complete ignore' feature, but it must have the capability to allow for partial-ignore which can be flipped on and off like a rapid switch. Again, we have that today with you can turn off or on, and can quickly toggle to review what is posted.

[comicdonna]

Perhaps, the new forum could limit each post to 50 words or less.