The "New Forum" Discussion Thread

[ttfitz]

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

 

Not a bad idea, could certainly speed up things around here - maybe all of those page load problems would just go away, or at least be reduced. And like Shakespeare said in Hamlet, brevity is the soul of wit. On the other hand, you might miss out on the

[comicdonna]

[B-Smooth]

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

Fewer?

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

I'm glad I could clarify your confusion, then.

 

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?

 

I'm not sure you understand the point of the ignore feature. You keep saying "work around", as if it is somehow imposed by an outside element. It is not. If I voluntarily ignore someone, I can voluntarily take them off. I don't have to "work around" what is entirely in my control in the first place. That's the essence of self-control.

 

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.

 

Only when those people get offended with others pointing out their errors. Frankly, anyone getting offended that someone corrected their error...especially an innocent, minor one that is easily corrected...is probably the one with the problem. A mature person gladly accepts correction, no matter the source. The point is to say what's true, not "be right."

 

But that is your choice. I recognize that.

 

Exactly. Glad we can agree.

 

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.

 

No, I don't think I'm overthinking it in any way. I already explained the mechanism by which it occurs, so I'm not sure why you're not understanding...?

 

I've already explained how "complete ignore" works, but I don't think you understand.

 

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.

 

Well, of course you can "periodically ignore" it yourself. It is voluntary. But you don't understand the whole function, and how it works. You're missing half the picture, which is making it very confusing for you. I'm sorry I have not been able to explain it in a way that you can easily comprehend. My apologies.

 

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.

 

Again...you're not comprehending how the function works, and so are coming to conclusions based on a misunderstanding. I'm sorry that's the case, but I've already described how it works, both here and elsewhere. I don't quite know how else to explain it so that you'll understand.

 

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.

 

Again...you're not understanding what the feature is, or how it works.

 

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

 

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

 

Again...you're not understanding what the feature is, or how it works.

 

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 have no idea where you got "super-leader" or anything like that. There was no tangent of mine; I was simply responding to what you said. I think you've gotten quite off track, unfortunately.

 

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?

 

I think I already explained that already.

 

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.

 

Neither did I. Here's what you did say: "Having a 'super ignore' to block off a population that doesn't seem to engage well with an individual is an approach."

 

(emphasis added)

 

What is a "population" if not another word for a "group"? Where is there an implication of "coordinated effort"? There is none. "Group" simply means "a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship." That doesn't imply anything about a "coordinated effort", and I don't know where you got that idea.

 

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.

 

 

Forgive me, but nothing you're saying here makes any sense at all. This is basic English composition we're talking about, here.. I don't quite know why you don't understand this. I already explained it, but I'll post it again:

 

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.

 

 

Since there happens to be more than one individual I happen to have on ignore, that's where the "those" came from. When referring to more than one individual, you use the word "those." "Those individuals" which I have on ignore. It's not correct to say "that individuals." That's how those words work together in English, according to their meanings.

 

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

 

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?

 

Go where...? And you are incorrect. *I* said the admins are fairly intelligent. Since they are fairly intelligent, there is unlikely to be any confusion over what I've said, since it's straightforward and easy to understand. I don't know what the "there" is you believe I have "gone to." Do you find it offensive for me to say the admins are fairly intelligent...? I don't know why you would.

 

 

That's what causes friction is when you take off like that to the extreme.

 

I confess, I have no idea what you're talking about again. What "extreme" are you referring to? Calling the admins fairly intelligent is some sort of "extreme"? But beyond that, there is no need for you to make this personal, Bosco, by saying things like "when you do thus and such." Best not to go there.

 

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.

 

No one's suggested anything like that. You do not understand what the complete ignore function is. I thought I explained it pretty clearly, and, frankly, enough times. If there is still misunderstanding, please review previous posts, and in other threads. My apologies, but I don't think I can explain it any more clearly.

[comicdonna]

See what I'm saying?

[ttfitz]

See what I'm saying?

 

[Bosco685]

I'm glad I could clarify your confusion, then.

 

I am clear now that you have two positions on the ignore feature.

 

I'm not sure you understand the point of the ignore feature. You keep saying "work around", as if it is somehow imposed by an outside element. It is not. If I voluntarily ignore someone, I can voluntarily take them off. I don't have to "work around" what is entirely in my control in the first place. That's the essence of self-control.

 

Or the lack there of...but we see eye-to-eye on the details. It's the desire for the 'complete ignore' feature which then you would voluntarily ignore which seems like odd logic. If someone implements 'complete ignore' then it would be like having your own dedicated forum, with only those you wish in it. Why then work past the feature and disrupt that new assumed peace if you are not even the point of discussion?

 

Only when those people get offended with others pointing out their errors. Frankly, anyone getting offended that someone corrected their error...especially an innocent, minor one that is easily corrected...is probably the one with the problem. A mature person gladly accepts correction, no matter the source. The point is to say what's true, not "be right."

 

How someone acts is how someone acts. You potentially coming off as preaching how they should handle it could lead to even more friction, like any of us has the lockdown on overall people engagement. It's a lifetime endeavor to get it right.

 

Exactly. Glad we can agree.

 

See? Not so hard. Give it a try more often.

 

No, I don't think I'm overthinking it in any way. I already explained the mechanism by which it occurs, so I'm not sure why you're not understanding...?

 

I've already explained how "complete ignore" works, but I don't think you understand.

 

The 'complete ignore-partially ignore' feature is rock-solid at this point. It's an individual's choice how they use it. It just sounds still like it is going down two paths.

 

Well, of course you can "periodically ignore" it yourself. It is voluntary. But you don't understand the whole function, and how it works. You're missing half the picture, which is making it very confusing for you. I'm sorry I have not been able to explain it in a way that you can easily comprehend. My apologies.

 

No, I get it. Just from the standpoint of wanting a feature that you assume would bring you the peace needed to not have people get upset with you unnecessarily (misunderstood or otherwise), you would then go back to engaging with those people for the sake of correcting errors.

 

Some would perceive that as leading to a self-inflicted situation. Especially when in your mind it is clear how that will most probably go. But your hands proceed forward anyway to move that mouse.

 

Again...you're not comprehending how the function works, and so are coming to conclusions based on a misunderstanding. I'm sorry that's the case, but I've already described how it works, both here and elsewhere. I don't quite know how else to explain it so that you'll understand.

 

You seem to be repeating yourself here, yet what you are explaining is a 'complete ignore' feature which then through your own actions you disregard. Again, that is self-inflicted how it proceeds forward after having the means to totally avoid a potential blowup.

 

Again...you're not understanding what the feature is, or how it works.

 

The feature? Perfectly! The person's actions - mystified. But people can be very different in their actions, and no preaching will change that.

 

Again...you're not understanding what the feature is, or how it works.

 

I am clear. Are you clear on the self-control aspect in any situation like this, and the assumption by the person coding this feature what the end benefit should be?

 

I have no idea where you got "super-leader" or anything like that. There was no tangent of mine; I was simply responding to what you said. I think you've gotten quite off track, unfortunately.

 

No, I would say you drove down that path. In no way did I ever imply we are a bunch of automatons marching to someone's beat. That was your assumption. And at least you realize now you assumed wrong.

 

Point clarified for you.

 

I think I already explained that already.

 

If you say so. I'll go with it.

 

Neither did I. Here's what you did say: "Having a 'super ignore' to block off a population that doesn't seem to engage well with an individual is an approach."

 

(emphasis added)

 

What is a "population" if not another word for a "group"? Where is there an implication of "coordinated effort"? There is none. "Group" simply means "a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship." That doesn't imply anything about a "coordinated effort", and I don't know where you got that idea.

 

I'm just following your lead on that one. 'Group', 'Population', 'Many', 'Those' - from that all it had something to do with more than one. I get that.

 

But with a Population, the common meaning is a total number of persons or statistics an aggregation of like items. A Group is more like a military unit, a team, a collection of people with a common purpose.

 

Forgive me, but nothing you're saying here makes any sense at all. This is basic English composition we're talking about, here.. I don't quite know why you don't understand this. I already explained it, but I'll post it again:

 

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.

 

 

Since there happens to be more than one individual I happen to have on ignore, that's where the "those" came from. When referring to more than one individual, you use the word "those." "Those individuals" which I have on ignore. It's not correct to say "that individuals." That's how those words work together in English, according to their meanings.

 

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

 

I'm not the one that started talking about odd behavior referencing many versus an individual. I'm glad you are clear now on this topic. It took a while, but we got there - together!

 

Go where...? And you are incorrect. *I* said the admins are fairly intelligent. Since they are fairly intelligent, there is unlikely to be any confusion over what I've said, since it's straightforward and easy to understand. I don't know what the "there" is you believe I have "gone to." Do you find it offensive for me to say the admins are fairly intelligent...? I don't know why you would.

 

 

It seemed like you were wanting to not assume something, yet to this day we still do not have this feature. Is that a clear example how such potentially confusing requirements and lack of use could be holding this up?

 

I'd hate to speak for the process used to deliver new code.

 

I confess, I have no idea what you're talking about again. What "extreme" are you referring to? Calling the admins fairly intelligent is some sort of "extreme"? But beyond that, there is no need for you to make this personal, Bosco, by saying things like "when you do thus and such." Best not to go there.

 

Telling me not to speak for the admins, as if I were speaking for the admins. Your explanation, unfortunately, is potentially where this could get confusing.

 

There - 'could'. At least that implies a potential for confusion. But not a definite chance at confusion.

 

No one's suggested anything like that. You do not understand what the complete ignore function is. I thought I explained it pretty clearly, and, frankly, enough times. If there is still misunderstanding, please review previous posts, and in other threads. My apologies, but I don't think I can explain it any more clearly.

 

Why are you assuming the feature is not understood already? That is clear. It is the personal application of the feature, and the lack of self-control to fully utilize the benefits of a 'complete ignore' function that was the point of confusion. I hope that is clear.

[Bosco685]

See what I'm saying?

 

 

You're just glad to take a break.

 

[ttfitz]

See what I'm saying?

 

 

You're just glad to take a break.

 

 

Ya got me.

[CAHokie]

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

 

 

 

even though I like them both, I don't have the energy to read all that.

[DavidTheDavid]

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

 

 

When the ignore function is the first item that someone mentions and when discussion on the topic consumes so much space, it's telling about both the individual and (elements of) the community.

 

Vbulletin again, fwiw. And leave old forum up for thirty days, no more, after new site is launched.

 

[Buzzetta]

Wait, what happened today?

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I am clear now that you have two positions on the ignore feature.

 

That would be incorrect.

 

Or the lack there of...but we see eye-to-eye on the details. It's the desire for the 'complete ignore' feature which then you would voluntarily ignore which seems like odd logic.

 

It seems like odd logic because you're not understanding how it works. Please re-read posts above for clarification. One more time: ignore is voluntary, and can be used by anyone, however they see fit, or not used, however they see fit. Having the OPTION for complete ignore doesn't FORCE its use. It's up to the individual to CHOOSE when and how they would use it.

 

This isn't rocket surgery.

 

If someone implements 'complete ignore' then it would be like having your own dedicated forum, with only those you wish in it. Why then work past the feature and disrupt that new assumed peace if you are not even the point of discussion?

 

The fact that you look at it as a "disruption" is really telling. As I asked before...why would you look at a simple correction as a "disruption"? Because you are offended that someone would correct you? Emotionally healthy people do not look at such things as a "disruption", nor are they offended. Indeed, they welcome it.

 

But, again...you're really missing the point. If you cannot see me...then I also would not be able to see you, and that's really the key. If I could be reasonably assured that it would be difficult to interact with me, then the desire to interact with you...positively, negatively, or any way in between...is greatly diminished, if not eliminated. As I have said, multiple times already, and which you keep mischaracterizing as "working past the feature"...these are happenstance occurrences, a result of a flaw in the system which allows quoted responses to be seen.

 

If you would stop mischaracterizing it as "working past the feature", you wouldn't be having this issue.

 

(totally unrelated aside...the board program has been altered so that the "i" no longer reverts to a capital "I" automatically. Neat!)

 

 

How someone acts is how someone acts. You potentially coming off as preaching how they should handle it could lead to even more friction, like any of us has the lockdown on overall people engagement. It's a lifetime endeavor to get it right.

 

Again, only to those who are easily offended. "How someone acts is how someone acts" is a justification for poor behavior. Many people find telling the truth to be offensive. That doesn't make it any less true.

 

Exactly. Glad we can agree.

 

See? Not so hard. Give it a try more often.

 

I completely agree, and think you should do the same. Not so hard at all.

 

The 'complete ignore-partially ignore' feature is rock-solid at this point. It's an individual's choice how they use it. It just sounds still like it is going down two paths.

 

This "complete ignore-partially ignore" is a creation of your own making, and has nothing to do with anything I've said. I know it sounds like that to you, but it's not, and I've explained it in myriad ways.

 

You don't understand what the "complete ignore" function is, how it works, or why it is necessary, so you keep reverting back to this idea that someone isn't "really" ignoring if they don't "completely ignore under any and every circumstance", which doesn't have anything to do with the function itself. I don't know how else to explain it other than how I already have, so you'll forgive me if I seem to be repeating the same thing...because I am.

 

No, I get it. Just from the standpoint of wanting a feature that you assume would bring you the peace needed to not have people get upset with you unnecessarily (misunderstood or otherwise), you would then go back to engaging with those people for the sake of correcting errors.

 

None of that paragraph is accurate, on every level imaginable. Every sentence presumes things that aren't true.

 

Here, let me see if I can explain it more clearly:

 

If I choose to ignore someone...that's my choice. It's my decision. It's up to me. I can ignore them completely and totally, I can ignore them occasionally, I can "soft ignore" them, I can put them on ignore, for any time, length, duration, and situation that I see fit.

 

That's my choice, and it's the choice of every person posting here.

 

In that way, it truly is an exercise in self-control. That is "I find X's posts to be dull/obnoxious/irritating/stupid/lacking in merit/etc, so I will simply put them on ignore so I don't have to be tempted to interact with them."

 

And that's that person's CHOICE, to be exercised as THEY see fit, whenever and however they see fit.

 

You cannot decide for anyone else who they will ignore, how, when, why, and where. But you and a few others have used the USE of the ignore function as a weapon against people, telling people (quite incorrectly) that "well, if you're going to put me on ignore, then you're a hypocrite if you toggle my posts or respond to what I say at any time, for any reason."

 

As I have consistently said, for many years, this isn't accurate at all. As I said...everyone here can ignore anyone else, as they see fit. The point of the ignore function is that an individual doesn't HAVE to see what someone else posts, if they CHOOSE not to (which, of course, exposes the flaw when such posts are quoted, which we've discussed.)

 

It doesn't mean that just because someone puts you on ignore that you now have the right to tell them they can't take you off if they so choose, and call them a hypocrite if they do. The ignore function as it exists is the CHOICE of the person using it, not the people he/she uses it against.

 

That's why I suspect you don't have ANYONE on ignore (though I could certainly be wrong)...because you like to keep that philosophical weapon handy, to use against people when they say things you don't like, and it allows you to maintain what you feel is a level of moral superiority, that you don't "need" to ignore anyone, that nothing "bothers" you. Really, I believe it is more a function of your desire to make sure no one is saying anything with which you don't approve. In that, you lack self-control, because you don't let anything slide...if someone says something you don't like, you are certain to say something, and usually something cloyingly snarky. So, in that respect, you would never willingly ignore someone, because that's not how you operate.

 

But....the NEW function would prevent that. You wouldn't be able to see me, just as I wouldn't be able to see you. And, if you don't know what I'm saying...and thus, can't respond to it...a great deal of the problem goes away.

 

That's a very, very good thing.

 

Some would perceive that as leading to a self-inflicted situation. Especially when in your mind it is clear how that will most probably go. But your hands proceed forward anyway to move that mouse.

 

A couple of observations: first, you don't know what is going on in anyone else's mind. I needn't say that thinking that is presumptuous, need I?

 

Second, as I said before...it is the person doing the ignoring who chooses when, how, where, why, and how much they will ignore.

 

That's always the case, and always been true.

 

The proposed change, however, would give the power to you, as well, should you so choose.

 

As far as "self-inflicted situation"...again, that's really telling, is it not? That someone would be so insecure and emotionally instable, that it would automatically lead to conflict because of something as simple as a small correction...?

 

Why do you presume that someone correcting someone else they have on ignore is going to lead to conflict? Surely, you're not so easily offended that such a minor thing would cause that, are you....?

 

I've had people who had me on ignore correct me, and it didn't bother me. Why would it? Would I rather be correct...or "be right"?

 

You seem to be repeating yourself here, yet what you are explaining is a 'complete ignore' feature which then through your own actions you disregard.

 

Yes, I apologize, I am repeating myself, because I want to make sure you can understand it.

 

One more time: ignore is voluntary. HAVING the "complete ignore" as an OPTION doesn't mean anyone is FORCED to use it. Your statement is inaccurate, because there never has BEEN a "complete ignore" function. So, it's not possible "through my own actions" to disregard it, because it's never existed to BE disregarded.

 

Not that it matters...the point, as always, is that a person is free to ignore, AND not ignore, as they choose, when they choose, how they choose. Having the OPTION of a complete ignore doesn't mean one is FORCED to use it.

 

That's the key issue you're missing.

 

Again, that is self-inflicted how it proceeds forward after having the means to totally avoid a potential blowup.

 

And I'll say it again...surely, you're not that easily offended that a minor correction would lead to a "potential blowup", are you...? Do you not claim any part in this "potential blowup", or is it all the fault of the person who chooses not to ignore you...?

 

Again...you're not understanding what the feature is, or how it works.

 

The feature? Perfectly! The person's actions - mystified. But people can be very different in their actions, and no preaching will change that.

 

If you understood the feature, you wouldn't be responding as you are. I don't know what "people can be very different in their actions" means, because that sentence doesn't make sense. I'll assume you mean "people say one thing, and then do another", which is certainly true. I will agree to disagree with you on the effectiveness of real preaching, but no one's been doing that here, so not sure why you brought it up.

 

Again...you're not understanding what the feature is, or how it works.

 

I am clear. Are you clear on the self-control aspect in any situation like this, and the assumption by the person coding this feature what the end benefit should be?

 

I'm clear on what the function would be, but your statements don't make much sense, no.

 

I have no idea where you got "super-leader" or anything like that. There was no tangent of mine; I was simply responding to what you said. I think you've gotten quite off track, unfortunately.

 

No, I would say you drove down that path. In no way did I ever imply we are a bunch of automatons marching to someone's beat. That was your assumption. And at least you realize now you assumed wrong.

 

That's interesting, because I never said anything about "marching to someone's beat", nor did I assume anything. I asked, which is the opposite of assumption. Here, here's the question again:

 

"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...?"

 

And your answer is "no", so I have my answer. Simple.

 

I still question your use of the word "population", but I can't seem to get a clear answer from you on that, so we can set that aside.

 

Point clarified for you.

 

Why, thank you!

 

I think I already explained that already.

 

If you say so. I'll go with it.

 

There you go! Compromise achieved.

 

Neither did I. Here's what you did say: "Having a 'super ignore' to block off a population that doesn't seem to engage well with an individual is an approach."

 

(emphasis added)

 

What is a "population" if not another word for a "group"? Where is there an implication of "coordinated effort"? There is none. "Group" simply means "a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship." That doesn't imply anything about a "coordinated effort", and I don't know where you got that idea.

 

I'm just following your lead on that one. 'Group', 'Population', 'Many', 'Those' - from that all it had something to do with more than one. I get that.

 

But with a Population, the common meaning is a total number of persons or statistics an aggregation of like items. A Group is more like a military unit, a team, a collection of people with a common purpose.

 

Interesting but not accurate, and not at all relevant to this conversation, so I think we can safely set this aside.

 

I'm not the one that started talking about odd behavior referencing many versus an individual. I'm glad you are clear now on this topic. It took a while, but we got there - together!

 

And I'm glad you're clear on it, too! I wouldn't say we got there together...it was more of a leading/dragging situation, but hey, the point is, we got there!

 

It seemed like you were wanting to not assume something, yet to this day we still do not have this feature.

 

That statement doesn't make much sense. Perhaps restate?

 

Is that a clear example how such potentially confusing requirements and lack of use could be holding this up?

 

Not in the slightest. Architecht has stated that such a functionality isn't possible with this board. Your suggestion, while interesting on a purely theoretical, doesn't hold up against the barest scrutiny.

 

I'd hate to speak for the process used to deliver new code.

 

I confess, I have no idea what you're talking about again. What "extreme" are you referring to? Calling the admins fairly intelligent is some sort of "extreme"? But beyond that, there is no need for you to make this personal, Bosco, by saying things like "when you do thus and such." Best not to go there.

 

Telling me not to speak for the admins, as if I were speaking for the admins.

 

Who told you not to speak for the admins?

 

Here, let's put back in the pertinent text:

 

"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."

 

Where is that telling you not to speak for the admins? I simply said I wouldn't presume to speak for them. If you want to presume to speak for them, that's certainly something you can do.

 

Perhaps a great deal of why you have problems here (not that I would presume to know all the reasons): you see things and interpret them much differently than what is actually said.

 

I say "I wouldn't presume to speak for the admins" and you read "You can't speak for the admins." That's a major, major problem, and the potential cause of all the admittedly significant conflict you've had on these boards.

 

Your explanation, unfortunately, is potentially where this could get confusing. There - 'could'. At least that implies a potential for confusion. But not a definite chance at confusion.

 

It depends on the intellect and cognitive abilities of the reader, of course. But it's extremely straightforward: install a function whereby people that one places on ignore cannot see what the person ignoring says, either. Both parties simply vanish from each other's page.

 

It's a very simple concept, that surely the most simple among us can grasp.

 

No one's suggested anything like that. You do not understand what the complete ignore function is. I thought I explained it pretty clearly, and, frankly, enough times. If there is still misunderstanding, please review previous posts, and in other threads. My apologies, but I don't think I can explain it any more clearly.

 

Why are you assuming the feature is not understood already? That is clear. It is the personal application of the feature, and the lack of self-control to fully utilize the benefits of a 'complete ignore' function that was the point of confusion. I hope that is clear.

 

As I already said...having the OPTION to use such a feature does not FORCE the use of such a feature, regardless of what you think should happen. Since we've never HAD such a feature, you cannot say that those benefits haven't been "fully utilized." You don't know, and neither does anyone else. Since it's nothing like the current feature, you cannot make any claim as to its effectiveness based on the current use (or non-use) of the extant feature.

 

And...again...I feel like you're really missing this point...ignore is voluntary. You operate from the position of "well, if you're going to use the ignore function, you can't ever UNignore them, or you're a hypocrite!"

 

And that is fundamentally false, since it is a voluntary feature that each person can choose to use in any way they see fit, however, whenever, with whomever, and at any time.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

When the ignore function is the first item that someone mentions and when discussion on the topic consumes so much space, it's telling about both the individual and (elements of) the community.

 

 

Not that you answer direct questions, but I'd be curious as to what you believe it tells....

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

See what I'm saying?

 

 

You're just glad to take a break.

 

 

Ya got me.

 

How remarkably condescending of both of you. Not offended, just pointing it out.

 

I wonder if either of you are aware of that....

 

[wombat]

I would actually vote for there being no ignore function.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I would actually vote for there being no ignore function.

 

That doesn't surprise me.

 

What I would vote for is to not have the "this user is ignoring you. You cannot send them a message" changed to something much less confrontational like "we're sorry, but this user may not be accepting private messages at this time."

 

That just bristles people.

[ttfitz]

See what I'm saying?

 

 

You're just glad to take a break.

 

 

Ya got me.

 

How remarkably condescending of both of you. Not offended, just pointing it out.

 

I wonder if either of you are aware of that....

 

 

I bow to your expertise on condescension.

[RockMyAmadeus]

See what I'm saying?

 

 

You're just glad to take a break.

 

 

Ya got me.

 

How remarkably condescending of both of you. Not offended, just pointing it out.

 

I wonder if either of you are aware of that....

 

 

I bow to your expertise on condescension.

 

Oh no, I can't hold a candle to your skill. I know when I've been bested.

 

[Bosco685]

With all that, let's go simple because it appears you may be getting lost in all that discussion.

 

It depends on the intellect and cognitive abilities of the reader, of course. But it's extremely straightforward: install a function whereby people that one places on ignore cannot see what the person ignoring says, either. Both parties simply vanish from each other's page.

 

Here is where your assumptions about the benefits of this feature may have challenges.

 

- You want a 'complete ignore' feature, as if that is going to fix things by creating this virtual world where only those fitting your acceptable norm are allowed to engage directly.

 

- You want the ability to jump out from your virtual 'complete ignore' world because of what may come across as a self-righteous need to correct errors of those not fitting your acceptable norm. As if this may change their discussion approach with you upon benefiting from these well-intended corrections (I'm assuming well-intended, as otherwise that is just another situation which builds further friction).

 

In the end, this sounds like someone wanting only their views on the world being heard. But if others respond in a way this individual doesn't like, back into virtual 'complete ignore' world he goes to banish those others from his presence. Sorry, but that sounds like a socially-challenged individual.