The "New Forum" Discussion Thread

[Bosco685]

I think it is funny (ironically of course) that the main topic of discussion on board improvements is to how much we can "enhance" (or not) the ability to ignore someone.

 

The purpose of an online forum is openly discuss, this clearly would be counterproductive.

 

While I get that an individual would want to ignore someone, I don't think it is right for an individual to be able to dictate who can read their posts. It is only thing to decide you don't want to see someone's posts, but it is another thing entirely to decide for others what they can see as well. This is, after all, a public space.

 

If someone feels that worked up they need an ignore feature like that, then it is probably for the better they get it.

 

But that ignores the impact on other users. Why should person A getting worked up be able to impact person B?

 

Unfortunately, because otherwise that individual may revert to negative replies, whether the original posts are truly about them or not.

[VintageComics]

In your example the sociopath could put someone on ignore and then take all the same shots at the person they want to and the person would never even see it. I don't think that would be a fair situation at all.

 

If it kept going people would notice it and it would eventually somehow work itself out through moderation or the community noticing.

 

I'd agree that a good ignore feature would work better but is such a thing possible? Has anyone used it on other forums?

 

Personally, I think moderators who are more involved in the chat forum discussions would probably be a better move rather than just mods who pop in and out based on the notify button. Some people are masters at manipulating that button.

[BarryAllen]

Another option would be sub-forums where an individual can only see posts from people they "invite" to post...

 

Or they can start their own chatboard?

 

[Jeffro.]

Before this thread I had never given any thought that a user would not only be able to ignore someone but have that person not see their posts as well. I'm not in favor of that. We are posting on a public message board. Find a non public venue if that is what you want. I don't think a user should be able to dictate what any other user sees.

 

Imagine this scenario:

 

There is a person who has decided he/she doesn't like wombat. He/she is not a stable person, but is actually a high functioning sociopath. These people manage to blend in to society, and by all outward appearances, appear mostly "normal." Their overarching characteristics are a complete lack of genuine (as opposed to feigned) empathy, and a total unwillingness to accept personal blame for anything...it's always someone else's fault.

 

(For a more complete definition of what a sociopath is, see here: http://www.md-health.com/Sociopath-Traits.html )

 

There have been, and are, many sociopaths on this board, as there are in life. Most of them are very, very good at hiding their true motives.

 

So, this particular sociopath has decided to target you, wombat, and make it his/her mission to annoy, harass, frustrate, embarrass, humiliate, or otherwise go out of their way to make your life miserable. However, because they're a high functioning sociopath (meaning, intelligent), they do it subtly and cleverly, always making sure to keep 1 or 2 steps below the threshold of obvious, so they can plausibly deny the true motive for their behavior, and thus avoid moderator interaction.

 

So, what if you, wombat, became such a target? I suspect you think you could ignore it, but after a while, the persistent (but oh so gentle!) tap tap tap, like water dripping on a mountain, would eventually wear anyone down. Paranoia? Maybe, but it's happened here and elsewhere many times. Why? Who knows?

 

As far as "a user dictating what any other user sees"...they're my words, and even if I'm in public (and you are incorrect...this is a PRIVATE message board, whether it's publicly accessible or not)...I'm not obligated to make sure everyone in the vicinity knows what I'm saying. Think of it as walking down the street a ways, to avoid the loud man who keeps trying to interrupt your conversation.

 

And why should someone be forced to find a non-public venue if they don't want to interact with Bob, but have no problem interacting with Fred, Steve, Sally, and Dave? If I don't want you to see what I say, why should I be forced to, if there's another option? Why should anyone feel the need to be silent, out of fear of having to deal with what someone else may say about their comments? (And this works for everyone. If people want to be free of my commentary, they should be, and vice versa.)

 

Let's get down to brass tacks! Cliff notes, please. Who is the sociopath?

 

There have been times recently when I have truly believed that this place could be considered a "community" of sociopaths.

[BarryAllen]

In your example the sociopath could put someone on ignore and then take all the same shots at the person they want to and the person would never even see it. I don't think that would be a fair situation at all.

 

If it kept going people would notice it and it would eventually somehow work itself out through moderation or the community noticing.

 

I'd agree that a good ignore feature would work better but is such a thing possible? Has anyone used it on other forums?

 

Personally, I think moderators who are more involved in the chat forum discussions would probably be a better move rather than just mods who pop in and out based on the notify button. Some people are masters at manipulating that button.

 

It is really easy to flirt the "moderation line" in this place and still off a whole bunch of people. To your point, an ignore feature won't change how people post or how they treat others in general (myself included).

[Comicopolis]

There's quite a few howlers on here.

 

But some sing much prettier than others.

 

 

Only inside their own noggin.

[wombat]

In your example the sociopath could put someone on ignore and then take all the same shots at the person they want to and the person would never even see it. I don't think that would be a fair situation at all.

 

If it kept going people would notice it and it would eventually somehow work itself out through moderation or the community noticing.

 

I'd agree that a good ignore feature would work better but is such a thing possible? Has anyone used it on other forums?

 

Personally, I think moderators who are more involved in the chat forum discussions would probably be a better move rather than just mods who pop in and out based on the notify button. Some people are masters at manipulating that button.

 

It is really easy to flirt the "moderation line" in this place and still off a whole bunch of people. To your point, an ignore feature won't change how people post or how they treat others in general (myself included).

 

So those people getting upset can then choose to ignore that person.

[BarryAllen]

In your example the sociopath could put someone on ignore and then take all the same shots at the person they want to and the person would never even see it. I don't think that would be a fair situation at all.

 

If it kept going people would notice it and it would eventually somehow work itself out through moderation or the community noticing.

 

I'd agree that a good ignore feature would work better but is such a thing possible? Has anyone used it on other forums?

 

Personally, I think moderators who are more involved in the chat forum discussions would probably be a better move rather than just mods who pop in and out based on the notify button. Some people are masters at manipulating that button.

 

It is really easy to flirt the "moderation line" in this place and still off a whole bunch of people. To your point, an ignore feature won't change how people post or how they treat others in general (myself included).

 

So those people getting upset can then choose to ignore that person.

 

Which exists today, right?

[wombat]

In your example the sociopath could put someone on ignore and then take all the same shots at the person they want to and the person would never even see it. I don't think that would be a fair situation at all.

 

If it kept going people would notice it and it would eventually somehow work itself out through moderation or the community noticing.

 

I'd agree that a good ignore feature would work better but is such a thing possible? Has anyone used it on other forums?

 

Personally, I think moderators who are more involved in the chat forum discussions would probably be a better move rather than just mods who pop in and out based on the notify button. Some people are masters at manipulating that button.

 

It is really easy to flirt the "moderation line" in this place and still off a whole bunch of people. To your point, an ignore feature won't change how people post or how they treat others in general (myself included).

 

So those people getting upset can then choose to ignore that person.

 

Which exists today, right?

 

Problem solved.

[BarryAllen]

In your example the sociopath could put someone on ignore and then take all the same shots at the person they want to and the person would never even see it. I don't think that would be a fair situation at all.

 

If it kept going people would notice it and it would eventually somehow work itself out through moderation or the community noticing.

 

I'd agree that a good ignore feature would work better but is such a thing possible? Has anyone used it on other forums?

 

Personally, I think moderators who are more involved in the chat forum discussions would probably be a better move rather than just mods who pop in and out based on the notify button. Some people are masters at manipulating that button.

 

It is really easy to flirt the "moderation line" in this place and still off a whole bunch of people. To your point, an ignore feature won't change how people post or how they treat others in general (myself included).

 

So those people getting upset can then choose to ignore that person.

 

Which exists today, right?

 

Problem solved.

 

Yay!

 

[CAHokie]

Before this thread I had never given any thought that a user would not only be able to ignore someone but have that person not see their posts as well. I'm not in favor of that. We are posting on a public message board. Find a non public venue if that is what you want. I don't think a user should be able to dictate what any other user sees.

 

Imagine this scenario:

 

There is a person who has decided he/she doesn't like wombat. He/she is not a stable person, but is actually a high functioning sociopath. These people manage to blend in to society, and by all outward appearances, appear mostly "normal." Their overarching characteristics are a complete lack of genuine (as opposed to feigned) empathy, and a total unwillingness to accept personal blame for anything...it's always someone else's fault.

 

(For a more complete definition of what a sociopath is, see here: http://www.md-health.com/Sociopath-Traits.html )

 

There have been, and are, many sociopaths on this board, as there are in life. Most of them are very, very good at hiding their true motives.

 

So, this particular sociopath has decided to target you, wombat, and make it his/her mission to annoy, harass, frustrate, embarrass, humiliate, or otherwise go out of their way to make your life miserable. However, because they're a high functioning sociopath (meaning, intelligent), they do it subtly and cleverly, always making sure to keep 1 or 2 steps below the threshold of obvious, so they can plausibly deny the true motive for their behavior, and thus avoid moderator interaction.

 

So, what if you, wombat, became such a target? I suspect you think you could ignore it, but after a while, the persistent (but oh so gentle!) tap tap tap, like water dripping on a mountain, would eventually wear anyone down. Paranoia? Maybe, but it's happened here and elsewhere many times. Why? Who knows?

 

As far as "a user dictating what any other user sees"...they're my words, and even if I'm in public (and you are incorrect...this is a PRIVATE message board, whether it's publicly accessible or not)...I'm not obligated to make sure everyone in the vicinity knows what I'm saying. Think of it as walking down the street a ways, to avoid the loud man who keeps trying to interrupt your conversation.

 

And why should someone be forced to find a non-public venue if they don't want to interact with Bob, but have no problem interacting with Fred, Steve, Sally, and Dave? If I don't want you to see what I say, why should I be forced to, if there's another option? Why should anyone feel the need to be silent, out of fear of having to deal with what someone else may say about their comments? (And this works for everyone. If people want to be free of my commentary, they should be, and vice versa.)

 

Let's get down to brass tacks! Cliff notes, please. Who is the sociopath?

 

You are more optimistic than I am if you think there is only one!

[RockMyAmadeus]

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

 

Appearances can be deceptive. I managed to stay on the trail, as meandering as you made it. The detective has to follow the path, as convoluted as it may get. I'm not lost. How about you?

 

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.

 

Let's translate the psychotherapeutic jargon into plain English: "I want to have the ability to choose who I interact with, and who can interact with me." That has nothing to do with "creating a virtual world." The internet is already a virtual world. I simply want to have the ability to walk down the street to avoid the loud, interrupting man on the corner, without him following us.

 

That seems to be a pretty obvious conclusion. Doesn't everyone have the right to choose who they will and won't associate with? Or, must everyone be forced to deal with everyone, even those they don't wish to deal with, all the time? Perhaps that seems healthy in your world, but I don't know if that's necessarily accurate.

 

As for "fix things", what do you imagine needs "fixing"? Have I led you to believe that something is broken, and requires "fixing"? If so, my apologies, because that isn't the case at all. This would be an improvement of an existing, already working situation. It's not broken...it can simply be better.

 

- You want the ability to jump out from your virtual 'complete ignore' world

 

It isn't an "ability" to "jump out" of anything. You are drastically overcomplicating the situation.

 

If I take someone off ignore, does that mean I have used the "ability" to "jump out" from my own CURRENT "ignore" world...?

 

No, it just means I took them off ignore.

 

Let's not get too lost in ourselves, here. This isn't the X-Files, after all.

 

because of what may come across as a self-righteous need to correct errors of those not fitting your acceptable norm.

 

Oh come now, Bosco, this is getting beyond silly. You have latched onto this "correcting errors" scenario like a drowning man to a life preserver. You have tried to build an entire argument on a situation that is so rare, you wouldn't be able to find even three instances where I have "corrected the errors of those not fitting my acceptable norm" (aka "had on ignore.")

 

As I already explained, ad nauseum, many, many times, what you're describing is a happenstance, a function of other people quoting those on ignore. It isn't a common, regular occurrence, so you cannot build an entire argument upon it. You'll have to try something else.

 

That you are so grievously offended at being corrected for what you, yourself, characterized as "minor, innocent mistakes" that you need to make it the foundation of your entire argument says more about you and your own ability to interact with others. You have constructed this very elaborate argument about "complete/partial ignore" and "acceptable norms" on something that happens so infrequently, you wouldn't be able to find even three examples of it in the last 10 years.

 

This whole discussion has just gotten beyond silly.

 

And I think we've played around enough. No one is fooled by your very, very careful "couching" of your words, so as to appear inoffensive and conciliatory, with the "some may say (oh, but not me!)" method of saying precisely that.

 

We're both grown men, ostensibly; I think we can end this silly charade, don't you?

 

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.

 

Indeed. The person you have gone to very, very great pains to paint a picture of would, indeed, be a "socially-challenged individual."

 

Fortunately, that person only exists in your imagination, and not at all in real life. It's pretty straightforward, Bosco: you can't see me. I can't see you. And it works both ways, regardless of which party initiates it.

 

And....since we're questioning motives and whatnot...what does it say about the person who absolutely insists that they have every single conversation conducted by everyone on the boards accessible to them at any time they choose...? Here, let's try the careful couching: "Might not some think that such a person was a rabid control-freak, insisting on seeing what everyone else is saying, especially about them, all the time?"

 

I mean, *I'm* not saying that, but some could certainly make that case, no.......?

 

I think this discussion has reached its conclusion, don't you.?

[BarryAllen]

I wonder how many people in this thread have me on ignore....

[RockMyAmadeus]

I think it is funny (ironically of course) that the main topic of discussion on board improvements is to how much we can "enhance" (or not) the ability to ignore someone.

 

The purpose of an online forum is openly discuss, this clearly would be counterproductive.

 

I'm not sure I agree with your idea of the purpose of an online forum, but at least in THIS forum, it's not possible to "openly discuss" whatever you wish. This board is privately owned, and while it may appear otherwise (and purposely so), there are many very defined limits as to what can, and what cannot, be discussed, for all sorts of reasons.

 

So, while I don't have a problem with open discussion, that's not what happens here, nor can happen here, and never has. If anyone believes any privately owned message board is a place where people can "openly discuss" anything they want, they are very much mistaken.

 

While I get that an individual would want to ignore someone, I don't think it is right for an individual to be able to dictate who can read their posts. It is one thing to decide you don't want to see someone's posts, but it is another thing entirely to decide for others what they can see as well. This is, after all, a public space.

 

That is private property, not a public space.

[wombat]

I wonder how many people in this thread have me on ignore....

 

Did you say something?

[Comicopolis]

I wonder how many people in this thread have me on ignore....

 

Did you say something?

 

What?

[RockMyAmadeus]

First of all, reading through this thread feels like I am studying for a test. I've said it before that I would like a complete ignore function. They cannot see me, I cannot see them. I'd like to think of myself as being pretty easy going but even I have my limits. Trying to get along with everyone like the world is some hand holding hugging place devoted to rainbows and unicorns is naive. I am okay with not getting the full experience of someone else for my own peace of mind.

 

This morning I chose to completely ignore the person that was howling in the city and throwing things. I do not want to, nor need to interact with them on the subway. However, I remained with my coworker and friend on the subway. Same premise here. We should have the option to being completely invisible to someone if we choose. The trade off is if we do it to too many people we are only hurting ourselves.

 

I totally agree with your thinking!

 

Excellent! It looks like Buzz was able to clarify the position for you in a way I was not. Understanding hopefully achieved.

 

At least your real-world example didn't have you running over to the hooligan (I haven't used that word for years) and tell them 'I'm ignoring you - and stop making noise'. That defeats the purpose of the ignore concept.

 

Of course. The people who "announce" they're "putting someone on ignore" or "have someone on ignore" say it out of spite and pettiness.

 

[BarryAllen]

I think it is funny (ironically of course) that the main topic of discussion on board improvements is to how much we can "enhance" (or not) the ability to ignore someone.

 

The purpose of an online forum is openly discuss, this clearly would be counterproductive.

 

I'm not sure I agree with your idea of the purpose of an online forum, but at least in THIS forum, it's not possible to "openly discuss" whatever you wish. This board is privately owned, and while it may appear otherwise (and purposely so), there are many very defined limits as to what can, and what cannot, be discussed, for all sorts of reasons.

 

So, while I don't have a problem with open discussion, that's not what happens here, nor can happen here, and never has. If anyone believes any privately owned message board is a place where people can "openly discuss" anything they want, they are very much mistaken.

 

While I get that an individual would want to ignore someone, I don't think it is right for an individual to be able to dictate who can read their posts. It is one thing to decide you don't want to see someone's posts, but it is another thing entirely to decide for others what they can see as well. This is, after all, a public space.

 

That is private property, not a public space.

 

I would have thought you had me on ignore.

 

Fine, private space in which they enable public discourse (it isn't masked to non-members), with a short list of rules on what is acceptable to discuss.

 

Please address why a person should be able to dictate what someone else should be able to read?

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'm pretty sure I would find that amusing. I certainly trust my ability to ignore posts that I don't want to read. And if it isn't crossing a line where moderation could step in then more power to them.

 

I'm sure you believe that. And you probably would...at first.

 

But there are many, many ways to harass people without actually crossing any obvious lines.

 

In your example the sociopath could put someone on ignore and then take all the same shots at the person they want to and the person would never even see it. I don't think that would be a fair situation at all.

 

Ah, that's the beauty of "out of sight, out of mind", which is a genuine principle of human interaction. Sure, said sociopath could do that....but like a stream that gets no water, eventually it will dry up and they will look for another source. If they're not getting the feedback they need, they will move on and find an easier target.

 

No one's going to continue trying to harass someone that they can't even see, after all.

[wombat]

I'm pretty sure I would find that amusing. I certainly trust my ability to ignore posts that I don't want to read. And if it isn't crossing a line where moderation could step in then more power to them.

 

I'm sure you believe that. And you probably would...at first.

 

But there are many, many ways to harass people without actually crossing any obvious lines.

 

In your example the sociopath could put someone on ignore and then take all the same shots at the person they want to and the person would never even see it. I don't think that would be a fair situation at all.

 

Ah, that's the beauty of "out of sight, out of mind", which is a genuine principle of human interaction. Sure, said sociopath could do that....but like a stream that gets no water, eventually it will dry up and they will look for another source. If they're not getting the feedback they need, they will move on and find an easier target.

 

No one's going to continue trying to harass someone that they can't even see, after all.

 

If the person annoyed puts them on ignore and doesn't respond to them then wouldn't your statement of " If they're not getting the feedback they need, they will move on and find an easier target." work?