# When someone on your ignore list misrepresents you



## Bullgrit (Aug 1, 2010)

I know it is frowned upon around here to announce that someone is on your ignore list. I have a few people on my ignore list because I find their posts . . . exasperating. 

I just recently added someone to my list for this reason, and also because this person seems to always respond to my posts by exaggerating my statements to absurd reaches. I don't know if he does this exaggeration because he wants to make me look wrong (and my original, real statement isn't wrong enough for him), or he just wants to goad me into some forum fight. Either way, it's juvenile.

With this person on my ignore list, I don't see the misrepresentations he makes of my positions. Unfortunately, this can lead to other people misunderstanding my statement/position, especially when the ignored person posts many times in the thread -- many more times than I do.

How would/do you handle such a poster?

For example, say you made the statement:
"I prefer my hot chocolate to be made with milk."

You don't see the ignored person's comment in reply, but you see it quoted, later by someone else:
"Bullgrit thinks dirty water will taint his hot chocolate."

The someone else is defending the idea that water can be dirtier than milk and can therefore taint hot chocolate.

Now you've got a situation where it looks like your real position has been mutated to something you don't believe. Do you respond to the ignored person? Do you take them off ignore so you can rebut their misrepresentation? Is there some moderation recourse to take?

Note: If the idea of using the ignore list is anathema to you, don't bother responding here to tell me. I use the ignore list. I find it helpful, generally. My reading of the ENWorld forums is enhanced by removing posts by people I find annoying.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Aug 1, 2010)

The best way to deal with problematic posts is to report them.  Then the mods can take a look and act if necessary.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 1, 2010)

It is one of the risks of the ignore list.  If you jump in to defend yourself in someone else's post replying to the ignored poster's annoying comment, then the whole reason for ignoring the person is moot.  You have been goaded into what you were trying to avoid.  I recommend ignoring the reply as if you had not read it.

Personally it is why I gave up using the ignore feature a couple of years ago and instead use my own personal ability to ignore somebody or something when needed.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 1, 2010)

The same thing happens on occasion to me. One person on my ignore list scrutinizes my posts (how I wish they would put me on ignore also) for any anti or critical of DDI stuff and apparently criticizes me at length, which I sometimes see quoted later. 

I find it still pretty easy to ignore, if you take them off you list and start arguing, your blood pressure and vacation from Enworld will not be enjoyable.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 6, 2010)

Morrus said:
			
		

> The best way to deal with problematic posts is to report them. Then the mods can take a look and act if necessary.



Two problems with this. If the post is invisible (because the poster is ignored), then can't really report the post. (Until/unless it is quoted later in the thread, and then you can only report the post in which the ignored poster is quoted.)

And I wouldn't think the moderators would want to be have to add "You are misrepresenting his statement. He actually said. . . " to their already long list of warnings they have to give out.

Plus, unless a moderator is paying attention closely to individual poster's modus operandi, they may not be sure that the misrepresnter is being intentionally misrepresentative vs. just honestly misunderstanding. It's often not until it happens 3 or 4 or 10 times that the aggrieved becomes aware that a particular person(s) is doing it intentionally.



			
				Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> I wish they would put me on ignore also



Heh. Yeah, I've sometimes thought it would be nice to put myself on someone else's ignore list. 

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> Heh. Yeah, I've sometimes thought it would be nice to put myself on someone else's ignore list.




That's coming soon!  Mutual ignores.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Aug 6, 2010)

Morrus said:


> That's coming soon!  Mutual ignores.




How would that work?  Would it be a pop up that states: 


"*So-and-so* is placing you on ignore.  Would you like to ignore them also? "


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 6, 2010)

*GetOuttaMyFacebook*™, the internet's first anti-social networking tool:


> Albert has added you to his ignore list!  Do you wish to ignore Albert?
> 
> [Yes.]
> [ No. ]
> * [ Heck yeah I wanna ignore that m*$#&ing a@$#!!! ]*​



Seriously, though, I think mutual ignores would be a great feature.  I actually thought "quiet" ignores were already in effect, anyway.  Something nice to look forward to however it's implemented.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 6, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> How would/do you handle such a poster?




The phrase, "Don't feed the trolls," comes to mind.

Look, in the end, people will listen to you, or they will not.  If they listen to some other person's representation of what you said, instead of you directly, it isn't like jumping into the fray is going to help matters.  

In the long run, your own thoughts will win your reputation for you, no matter what others claim you say.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 6, 2010)

Relique du Madde said:


> How would that work? Would it be a pop up that states:
> 
> 
> "*So-and-so* is placing you on ignore. Would you like to ignore them also? "




No.  More "You are ignoring X. Would you like to be hidden from X?"


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 7, 2010)

That seems to be a nice diplomatic way of doing it.  

Out of curiosity, what happens when a _thread_ is started by someone being ignored?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 7, 2010)

Morrus said:


> That's coming soon!  Mutual ignores.




While I normally hate any changes made to the site, I have to say I like the sound of that one!



the_orc_within said:


> That seems to be a nice diplomatic way of doing it.
> 
> Out of curiosity, what happens when a _thread_ is started by someone being ignored?




Well, once it's populated with replies, you just don't see the OP and any other posts made by the ignoree thereafter.  The post numbers even "skip" in count if you look for it.

As for that magical time before anyone else has posted in it?  I have no clue if it shows up in the forum, as the "newest post" on the gerals forums index page, or neither.  And if it shows up what happens when you click.  I do for a fact know that you can see on the forums index page when your ignoree has posted most recently in a thread, even though you cannot then read what he posted if you click.


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 7, 2010)

Morrus said:


> No.  More "You are ignoring X. Would you like to be hidden from X?"




Holy crap!  Diaglo is going to vanish from the boards completely!


----------



## evilbob (Aug 9, 2010)

"The secret is not to mind."


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 9, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> Out of curiosity, what happens when a _thread_ is started by someone being ignored?




The thread shows up on the forum; you can see replies (as long as they're from people you aren't ignoring), but not the original post. You also get no mouseover text on the forum index. I don't remember what it looks like when the only post is by someone on your ignore list; I think it's all the usual stuff, with just no post.

I don't think I've ever looked at a poll started by someone I'm ignoring, so I don't know if you'd see the poll or not. I'm tempted to temporarily ignore the next person to start a poll, just to see.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 10, 2010)

Morrus said:


> No.  More "You are ignoring X. Would you like to be hidden from X?"




I'm not sure that's a good idea. If somebody suddenly disappears from your view, you know that they put you on their ignore list. That just generates more bad will and angry feelings. 

When posting, we're not supposed to tell people who's on our ignore list or that we've put them on ignore (at least that's what I've heard from the mods when it comes up, unless that has changed) because it's just poor taste, and I think this is similarly in poor taste. 

It's also too easy to abuse - you just have to log out to see what they said anyway. I think it will cause more problems then it would solve.  

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 10, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> I'm not sure that's a good idea. If somebody suddenly disappears from your view, you know that they put you on their ignore list. That just generates more bad will and angry feelings.



I get what you're saying, but I really don't believe it would be a problem for most people, at least not here.  Honestly, I don't think I'd even notice if suddenly one poster  disappeared out of the hundreds of regulars. And I can't imagine thinking more than "meh" knowing some random person on teh int3rwebz decided to ignore me. (Except for you, of course, in which case I'd be devastated.)


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Aug 10, 2010)

Morrus said:


> No.  More "You are ignoring X. Would you like to be hidden from X?"




Bad call I would say on that.
What's to stop someone from Ignoring Mod's and blocking their view in this fashion?

That and your allowing someone to censor what others can view on EnWorld.
Yes censor is a strong word for it, but I couldn't think of a better one to describe it.

I'm going to use Bullgrit as an example since he is the OP in this thread.

Bullgrit makes numerous new threads in regards to Legacy Editions polls or insightful comments that I find regularlly helpful.
Now say we get in a internet squallable over the benefits of using THAC0. 
And he puts me on ignore.  He can no longer see my posts.  No big deal he censored *himself *from seeing forum material freely available to all users.

Now if you let him hide his posts from individual people he has chosen to ignore, who have just given him power to censor forum material freely available to all users from another individual.  Rather a powerful tool for the individual.  Though it's one easily defeated in the long run by a secondary account created.

I think leaving the Ignore feature as it is would be your best option in this regard.
And as far as someone on your Ignore saying stuff such as that, the best option would be to simply ignore them. 

Now realistic options for Morrus's side of things.
1. Prevent replies from those on OP's Ignore List.
2. Prevent quotes of post from poster's Ignore List.

Using Bullgrit again to make examples.
Bullgrit has me on Ignore.
1. I can read his threads he starts but can not reply to them.
2. I can read his replies to threads but can not quote them.

Would that be a possible option Morrus?


----------



## Morrus (Aug 10, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Bad call I would say on that.
> What's to stop someone from Ignoring Mod's and blocking their view in this fashion?




Software.



> That and your allowing someone to censor what others can view on EnWorld.
> Yes censor is a strong word for it, but I couldn't think of a better one to describe it.




Yep. The internet - including EN World - is full of permissions. You can't view my Facebook profile if I don't want you to. You can't access certain EN World features without paying for them. We can stop you posting at any time; we can prevent you viewing anything we wish. You can't read New York Times articles without paying for them. You can't view my blog if I decide I don't want you to. This is all in line with perfectly normal internet privacy controls.

jaerdaph's argument that it might foster ill-will is something I can see (I'm not convinced he's right, simply because I don't think anybody would notice - and we can put some really strict rules in place anyway), but "censorship is bad" as an argument against privacy controls isn't something I can agree with. On the internet, privacy controls are good - even when you call them "censorship".


----------



## Deset Gled (Aug 10, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Now realistic options for Morrus's side of things.
> 1. Prevent replies from those on OP's Ignore List.
> 2. Prevent quotes of post from poster's Ignore List.
> 
> ...




Even if it were possible, this can only work if you assume you're replying and quoting using the buttons the board expects.  You could still reply to something Bullgrit says by clicking "Quick Reply" to the bottom post in a thread (which is what I normally do) or use standard quote tags and the C+P.

I'm not a fan of the idea that ignores could be made mutual, but I don't think it would break the boards, either.

Edit: Ninja'd by Morrus.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 10, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Bad call I would say on that.
> What's to stop someone from Ignoring Mod's and blocking their view in this fashion?




If I recall correctly, you can't put mods on your ignore list even now.  



> Now if you let him hide his posts from individual people he has chosen to ignore, who have just given him power to censor forum material freely available to all users from another individual.




It sounds bad stated that way, but it isn't like he can sensor any old material from arbitrary folks.  He only gets to censor his own words, when he first says them, and only from people who he's not able to see himself.  So, unless you're Crothian, it is a very small chunk of content, in a very specific situation, from a small group of people.




> Using Bullgrit again to make examples.
> Bullgrit has me on Ignore.
> 1. I can read his threads he starts but can not reply to them.
> 2. I can read his replies to threads but can not quote them.
> ...




I think (1) is far more powerful than the censoring above.  If I start a thread, you can see it, but _not participate at all_?  That's not just controlling whether you can see a few paragraphs to text now and then, that's controlling who gets to speak where.  We have never supported that sort of thread ownership in the past, and are unlikely to start doing so now.

(2) only means the "quote" button wouldn't work.  But if you just post a reply, use quote tags, and copy-paste, you get the same effect.  I'm not sure that weak protection would be worth the code needed to implement it.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Aug 10, 2010)

Morrus said:


> Software.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Morrus you missed the point of the post.  You will be allowing an individual user of EnWorld to dictate what other users of EnWorld see.  A forum isn't someone's Facebook private Facebook or Blog page.
Yes I'm quite aware there are forums on here I can not see due to the fact I pay you no money.  That doesn't bother me in the least.  That is my own descsion to be made.
But if your Ignore of me prevents me from seeing a post on the General Disscussion area that is publically viewable even to non-logged on users it becomes a different animal.  I hope you see where I'm coming from on this.




Deset Gled said:


> Even if it were possible, this can only work if you assume you're replying and quoting using the buttons the board expects.  You could still reply to something Bullgrit says by clicking "Quick Reply" to the bottom post in a thread (which is what I normally do) or use standard quote tags and the C+P.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the idea that ignores could be made mutual, but I don't think it would break the boards, either.




The Quick Reply and Quote could be disabled on the posts to the ignored.
Sure you can't get around a Cut & Paste and type it out.  But if they are going through that much trouble, I'm sure someone would notice the extra ordainary effort of cyber stalking and report it themselves.






Now if the software prevents this I don't think you should go forward with the "Hide your Posts" method.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 10, 2010)

TheYeti1775 said:


> Morrus you missed the point of the post. You will be allowing an individual user of EnWorld to dictate what other users of EnWorld see. A forum isn't someone's Facebook private Facebook or Blog page.
> Yes I'm quite aware there are forums on here I can not see due to the fact I pay you no money. That doesn't bother me in the least. That is my own descsion to be made.
> But if your Ignore of me prevents me from seeing a post on the General Disscussion area that is publically viewable even to non-logged on users it becomes a different animal. I hope you see where I'm coming from on this.




I understand the point.  I disagree with the point.  There's a difference. 

I support the idea of privacy controls which allow me to prevent certain people viewing my content on the web - whether that's a blog, a messageboard post, a picture of me drunk at a party that I don't want my boss to see, personal information that I don't want my exes to see, or - in this case - things I've written which I don't want people who harass me online to see.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 10, 2010)

Morrus said:
			
		

> things I've written which I don't want people who harass me online to see.



This.



			
				TheYeti1775 said:
			
		

> You will be allowing an individual user of EnWorld to dictate what other users of EnWorld see.



I can send Morrus a message that you cannot see. I can send a message to anyone on this site that you cannot see. I can send you a message that no one else can see.

Bullgrit


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 10, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> I can send Morrus a message that you cannot see. I can send a message to anyone on this site that you cannot see. I can send you a message that no one else can see.




And what is that called? _*Private *_Messaging...  

At the end of the day though, Morrus has to do what he feels is best for the site.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 10, 2010)

Morrus said:


> I support the idea of privacy controls which allow me to prevent certain people viewing my content on the web - whether that's a blog, a messageboard post, a picture of me drunk at a party that I don't want my boss to see, personal information that I don't want my exes to see, or - in this case - things I've written which I don't want people who harass me online to see.




As do I, but ultimately, ANYTHING you post online can come back to bite you in the butt. You can't rely on anything being 100% secure or protected online. As I said earlier, all I would have to do is log out and see what somebody that put me on ignore posted on this public forum.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 11, 2010)

It's privacy only in the sense that I don't talk to my ex when we end up at the same party, so as to avoid making a scene.  When she can't hear me and I can't hear her, we're much less likely to get into a shouting match, and we're both more likely to enjoy the party-- as are all the other guests.

If she _really_ wants to hear my brilliant oratory, she can talk to others to learn what I said, or she can crouch behind the ficus and eavesdrop, or she can leave and come back cleverly disguised as Chewbacca and talk to me directly.  But to go to all that trouble takes a lot of effort that normal people just won't bother with.  And to go to all that trouble only to then pick the very fight I was trying to avoid in the first place is psycho, and she'll most likely get kicked out of the party.

That's not really "censorship".  It's just etiquette encouragement for the thick of skull.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 11, 2010)

the_orc_within said:
			
		

> It's privacy only in the sense that I don't talk to my ex when we end up at the same party, so as to avoid making a scene. When she can't hear me and I can't hear her, we're much less likely to get into a shouting match, and we're both more likely to enjoy the party-- as are all the other guests.
> 
> If she really wants to hear my brilliant oratory, she can talk to others to learn what I said, or she can crouch behind the ficus and eavesdrop, or she can leave and come back cleverly disguised as Chewbacca and talk to me directly. But to go to all that trouble takes a lot of effort that normal people just won't bother with. And to go to all that trouble only to then pick the very fight I was trying to avoid in the first place is psycho, and she'll most likely get kicked out of the party.
> 
> That's not really "censorship". It's just etiquette encouragement for the thick of skull.



Brilliant point, and humorously presented. Sadly, I've given you xp for something else recently.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Aug 11, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> As do I, but ultimately, ANYTHING you post online can come back to bite you in the butt. You can't rely on anything being 100% secure or protected online.




I don't think anybody imagines for a second that you could.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Aug 11, 2010)

A couple of questions on the mutual ignore feature (accepting that it is forthcoming and may change):

If you request to be ignored by a user, how will any quotes of your posts by other users be seen by the person on your ignore list?  Will the quote appear?  Will the reply appear with the quote blocked?  Will the entire quote and reply not appear?  How this is handled will be the main factor in somebody knowing that you have requested your posts to not be viewable by them.

Can somebody you put on ignore PM you?  In all honesty, if I discovered that somebody had put me on ignore, unless it is with a user I had obvious animosity issues, I would like to understand why they chose to put me on ignore and see if there is something I could change to make things better.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 11, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> In all honesty, if I discovered that somebody had put me on ignore, unless it is with a user I had obvious animosity issues, I would like to understand why they chose to put me on ignore and see if there is something I could change to make things better.



You having this kind of attitude to start with says it is unlikely someone will ever need/want to put you on an ignore list.

I have six or seven people on my ignore list, and none were placed there lightly or off-hand. I chose to ignore them based on numerous, repeated aggravations. Only one do I believe is not intentionally aggravating.

So, the attitude you have of wanting to get along shows you probably won't ever aggravate anyone enough to get put on an ignore list.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Aug 11, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> If you request to be ignored by a user, how will any quotes of your posts by other users be seen by the person on your ignore list?  Will the quote appear?




The Ignore function looks at the surface "who posed this post", and does not dig into the contents of posts to see if that is something you should see. 

Right now, if you put someone on ignore, and some third party quotes the ignored person, you do see the quote.  I would not expect this to behave differently.


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Aug 11, 2010)

Why not just leave it as is?
I would wager to guess situations like Bullgrit's are far and few inbetween.


----------

