# On number of ignores



## Morrus

One interesting tool is that we mods can see how many people have ignored or blocked a specific user. Here’s a look at the top few, with the names cropped out.






I have to wonder with so many people blocking some users, the site must seem very quiet to them.

Of course the easy solution is not to consistently behave in a manner that 130 people would just prefer it if you weren’t around. But other than that, it’s a curiosity.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Do you get a prize at 200?


----------



## Morrus

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Do you get a prize at 200?



Pretty sure I'd kick you out long before then!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Morrus said:


> Pretty sure I'd kick you out long before then!




As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. 
Anybody wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. 
Third prize is, you’re kicked out.


----------



## TwoSix

Man, I'd pay double on my Community Supporter account to see the names on that list.


----------



## Parmandur

Morrus said:


> One interesting tool is that we mods can see how many people have ignored or blocked a specific user. Here’s a look at the top few, with the names cropped out.
> 
> View attachment 136922
> 
> I have to wonder with so many people blocking some users, the site must seem very quiet to them.
> 
> Of course the easy solution is not to consistently behave in a manner that 130 people would just prefer it if you weren’t around. But other than that, it’s a curiosity.



Mostly I ignore the weird political ranters who don't contribute much, which does make some conversations hilarious to skim through, though I can tell exactly what is being said.

I wonder if I could spin this post into some speculation at a revival of d20 Modern, combining Transformers and My Little Pony in a massive cross media revival...


----------



## Nikosandros

Wait, there _are_ other posters on this forum?


----------



## TheSword

It did make me laugh that I can see 5 posts in this thread, but the numbering says 7 

Is it possible to see how many people are blocking yourself?

I normally send a note explaining why before I block someone. But to be honest I have no idea how many people I’ve cast _repulsion_ on myself. I hope it isn’t 130!

There are a few people I’d consider being ignored by a badge of honor.


----------



## BookTenTiger

I'm honestly not surprised! I once got on another poster's Ignore list when I sent them this in a chat message:



> You are absolutely free to disagree with me. But I do ask you do so in a respectful way, whether you are quoting authors or not.




If that's the threshold some folks have for ignoring other posters... Well, it just seems like a very low threshold to me!


----------



## Morrus

TheSword said:


> I normally send a note explaining why before I block someone.



How long do you leave between sending the note and blocking them? Because once the block is in place, PMs don't go through.


----------



## Morrus

BookTenTiger said:


> If that's the threshold some folks have for ignoring other posters... Well, it just seems like a very low threshold to me!



Not treating people in a respectful way seems like a reasonable threshold to me.


----------



## pming

Hiya!


Morrus said:


> One interesting tool is that we mods can see how many people have ignored or blocked a specific user. Here’s a look at the top few, with the names cropped out.
> 
> View attachment 136922
> 
> I have to wonder with so many people blocking some users, the site must seem very quiet to them.
> 
> Of course the easy solution is not to consistently behave in a manner that 130 people would just prefer it if you weren’t around. But other than that, it’s a curiosity.




I'll tell you my reason: Because their "current real-world outlook" butts heads against mine and they tend to say things that make me want to respond in a manner that gets me into "moderator trouble". So, rather than risk that, I just "Ignore" them. The things typically revolve around comments or assumptions that I disagree with, but seem to be acceptable on these forums...ergo...best to just "Ignore" them and remove all temptation.

PS: I'm not the "130" guy...but I'm definitely in the possibility of two-dozen or so.... O_O  Oh, and just for info sakes...I'm sure I've blocked more than a few of those annoying chinese/korean/japanese spam-bots before they got nixed. Speaking of which...does the "Ignore Total" decrease when the person Ignored gets kicked/removed, like those spam-bots? Or is it a simple 'running total to date' type of count? Just curious.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## TheSword

Morrus said:


> How long do you leave between sending the note and blocking them? Because once the block is in place, PMs don't go through.



Normally about 24 hours. I’m pretty sure I’ve had a ‘fair enough’ response from all of them. I’m sure it’s no skin off their nose either. I’ve only blocked 3 people so it’s a nuclear option for me. I don’t want to give up on the good stuff people say, as well as the annoying stuff.

It would be nice to know individually how many people we’d got that reaction from though. For ones own personal development!


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

Out of curiosity, what's the number of active posters on here, if you don't mind sharing? Being ignored by 130 out of 1,000 isn't completely awful. 130 out of 200, well, that's quite the feat.



Morrus said:


> I have to wonder with so many people blocking some users, the site must seem very quiet to them.
> 
> Of course the easy solution is not to consistently behave in a manner that 130 people would just prefer it if you weren’t around. But other than that, it’s a curiosity.


----------



## Morrus

pming said:


> Speaking of which...does the "Ignore Total" decrease when the person Ignored gets kicked/removed, like those spam-bots? Or is it a simple 'running total to date' type of count?



It's not the number of people you've ignored, it's the number of people who have ignored you.


----------



## Morrus

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Out of curiosity, what's the number of active posters on here, if you don't mind sharing? Being ignored by 130 out of 1,000 isn't completely awful. 130 out of 200, well, that's quite the feat.



It's in the thousands, but I don't have the exact figure to hand.


----------



## GMMichael

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Do you get a prize at 200?



You're not somebody until you get at least into the 30s.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I've never ignored anyone. I don't care if people appear unreasonable on the internet, I fully believe that most of the time it's an accidental effect caused by the serious flaws in communicating through short messages. Not everyone can write what they mean to say first draft (by which I mean almost no one can). 

I wonder how many people (if any) have ignored me? I've always worked (what I feel to be) doubly hard not to offend anyone, and I've certainly done it, no matter how hard I try.


----------



## Rabulias

Thanks for sharing, @Morrus. It is a bit discouraging to see some of those numbers.... 

Can you tell us how many users have at least 1 person ignoring them? Hoping it's fewer than 75.


----------



## Faolyn

FitzTheRuke said:


> I've never ignored anyone. I don't care if people appear unreasonable on the internet, I fully believe that most of the time it's an accidental effect caused by the serious flaws in communicating through short messages. Not everyone can write what they mean to say first draft (by which I mean almost no one can).



While that’s likely true, the people I personally have blocked, I did for the sake of my time and blood pressure. If I find that I’m only communicating with someone to argue with them, because for whatever reason their communication style and content bugs the heck out of me, then it’s better all around if I _don’t_ talk to them. And it’s easiest then for me to Ignore them.


----------



## Umbran

Rabulias said:


> Hoping it's fewer than 75.




It is not fewer than 75.  It is much, much higher.  However, it probably also includes many spammers who got an ignore or two before they got banned, and such.

The more interesting number might be how many active posters have at least one ignore, for some reasonable definition of "active".


----------



## Gradine

It takes a lot of bad faith to get me to ignore somebody, and every time I decide to go back and see what those folks are up to they are no longer around, either voluntarily or shown the door.

It is incredible helpful that Morrus and the rest mod team keep such a great zero-tolerance policy towards the type of "current real-world outlooks" that would be harmful or otherwise exclusive of people such as myself. It helps make this a space where I can be comfortable sharing my thoughts.

I'd have assumed most ignores on this site though were due to Saelorn-esque levels of stubborn "badwrongfun"-ism leading to endless pages of acrimony over semantics.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Faolyn said:


> While that’s likely true, the people I personally have blocked, I did for the sake of my time and blood pressure. If I find that I’m only communicating with someone to argue with them, because for whatever reason their communication style and content bugs the heck out of me, then it’s better all around if I _don’t_ talk to them. And it’s easiest then for me to Ignore them.



I understand and respect that. I was tempted _once_ to block a poster, but I decided that I can use my own judgement to ignore them if I like, and maybe they'd say something interesting in the future (or something that might make me understand them better) if I just let them speak. I'm not judging others for blocking people - obviously the feature is popular for a reason - but I don't think that I personally need it. Besides, anyone that could _really_ offend ME would long since be kicked off the board by a moderator, I expect.


----------



## Rabulias

Umbran said:


> It is not fewer than 75.



Sorry to hear that.  :-/


Umbran said:


> The more interesting number might be how many active posters have at least one ignore, for some reasonable definition of "active".



This is more what I was looking for, with active being defined, say, as "unbanned, and with at least one visit to ENworld within the last 90 days."


----------



## Sacrosanct

TwoSix said:


> Man, I'd pay double on my Community Supporter account to see the names on that list.



Pretty sure I'm of them


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Sacrosanct said:


> Pretty sure I'm of them




Does it make you Proud, Ashamed, or Indifferent? (I mean that as a friendly curiosity).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

I have only ever ignored one person, and it was a troll that was banned from the site about a week after my Ignoring them. 

I wonder if anyone has ignored me after my just over a year on this site. I don't think anyone has told me if they have.


----------



## TwoSix

Sacrosanct said:


> Pretty sure I'm of them



If you make any number of interesting points, you're eventually going to piss somebody off.  Price to pay for being an interesting poster.

I don't think I have a lot of people ignoring me, but I know I have some.  At least getting ignored doesn't break links like it did in the old forum software.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

So I was going to say (pointing out the obvious) that there are three rough "groupings."

There are the people from 35-60. You can subcategorize that, a little, but it's roughly one contiguous group; the difference between 35 and 60 is only 25, and there is no gap larger than 5 anyhwere in there (47-52, which is why you could subdivide it from 35-47, and 52-60 if you really wanted).

Then there is 74, which would be an outlier. 74 is as close to 60 as 60 is to 46....

Except, you know ... 130. 

Come again? You know I don't speak Internet. In English, please. 
What? You pooped in the threads? And you got up to 130 ignores? How'd you do that? I'm not even mad, that's amazing.


----------



## CleverNickName

If you put me on your Ignore list, please reply to this message and I'll try to make amends.


----------



## TwoSix

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Come again? You know I don't speak Internet. In English, please.
> What? You pooped in the threads? And you got up to 130 ignores? How'd you do that? I'm not even mad, that's amazing.



This is why I'm sad we don't have a subforum dedicated to forum gossip.  I have like 10 candidates for who it could be.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

TwoSix said:


> This is why I'm sad we don't have a subforum dedicated to forum gossip.  I have like 10 candidates for who it could be.




Oh, I don't know. That type of subforum would be dangerous. At least half the time I would be speculating about who amongst us plays Bard on the sly!

The weird thing about getting ignored _that much _is that it actually makes you less likely to get moderated. You don't report what you don't see.


----------



## Faolyn

FitzTheRuke said:


> I understand and respect that. I was tempted _once_ to block a poster, but I decided that I can use my own judgement to ignore them if I like, and maybe they'd say something interesting in the future (or something that might make me understand them better) if I just let them speak. I'm not judging others for blocking people - obviously the feature is popular for a reason - but I don't think that I personally need it. Besides, anyone that could _really_ offend ME would long since be kicked off the board by a moderator, I expect.



Unfortunately, I'm a picker by nature, and once I get into an argument on a topic that I feel strongly about, it's often quite hard for me to stop (yeah, like that xkcd comic: "I can't go to bed now; someone is _wrong _on the internet!"). I _wish _I could be like you and just lower-case ignore people who bug me, seriously. You have a very good attitude there for forums.

It's probably a good thing that the closest I get to social media is forums like this or reddit, and not facebook or twitter.


----------



## Maxperson

FitzTheRuke said:


> Does it make you Proud, Ashamed, or Indifferent? (I mean that as a friendly curiosity).



I'm likely on that list as well.  For me, I'm indifferent.  People get contentious with me and often can't handle it when I respond in kind, so they block me.  I've seen it happen time and time again.  I personally won't block someone, as I think everyone has something meaningful to contribute at least some of the time and I don't want to miss it, but I don't count it as any great loss when someone contentious blocks me.  It just leaves me a greater percentage of people willing to engage in more civil conversation.

I will say that I think this implementation of the block feature is the worst one that I've seen this site enact.  One person blocked me and then proceeded to talk about me behind my back.  If I hadn't seen someone who didn't have me blocked defend me by name, I'd never have known.  Also, being unable to see when someone quotes a person who has blocked me has caused me numerous issues. I have repeatedly responded to a post that appears to be someone just posting without a quote, only to be told that my response is out of context(which it was due to being unable to see who was quoted) or else asked why I am entering into a conversation between two people.  As a result, I've had to start logging out periodically in threads in which I'm active, so as to see the proper contexts and see if I am being talked about.  I'm not going to respond to anyone who has me blocked, but being able to see their posts is necessary for a proper response to those who I can see.


----------



## Deset Gled

TwoSix said:


> This is why I'm sad we don't have a subforum dedicated to forum gossip.  I have like 10 candidates for who it could be.




Circvs Maximvs still exists.  Home | Circvs Maximvs


----------



## Sacrosanct

FitzTheRuke said:


> Does it make you Proud, Ashamed, or Indifferent? (I mean that as a friendly curiosity).



Depends. Some of the people who have me on ignore I have no problem with them doing so since it saves me from doing the same.

Others are some who I normally got along with great but may have had a disagreement with at some point, and I wish those weren’t the case.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Maxperson said:


> I'm likely on that list as well.  For me, I'm indifferent.  People get contentious with me and often can't handle it when I respond in kind, so they block me.  I've seen it happen time and time again.  I personally won't block someone, as I think everyone has something meaningful to contribute at least some of the time and I don't want to miss it, but I don't count it as any great loss when someone contentious blocks me.  It just leaves me a greater percentage of people willing to engage in more civil conversation.
> 
> I will say that I think this implementation of the block feature is the worst one that I've seen this site enact.  One person blocked me and then proceeded to talk about me behind my back.  If I hadn't seen someone who didn't have me blocked defend me by name, I'd never have known.  Also, being unable to see when someone quotes a person who has blocked me has caused me numerous issues. I have repeatedly responded to a post that appears to be someone just posting without a quote, only to be told that my response is out of context(which it was due to being unable to see who was quoted) or else asked why I am entering into a conversation between two people.  As a result, I've had to start logging out periodically in threads in which I'm active, so as to see the proper contexts and see if I am being talked about.  I'm not going to respond to anyone who has me blocked, but being able to see their posts is necessary for a proper response to those who I can see.



My biggest issue with the current ignore is that I might reply to someone who said something not knowing that they were replying to a quote I couldn’t see.

It really causes confusion.


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> I'm likely on that list as well.  For me, I'm indifferent.  People get contentious with me and often can't handle it when I respond in kind, so they block me.  I've seen it happen time and time again.  I personally won't block someone, as I think everyone has something meaningful to contribute at least some of the time and I don't want to miss it, but I don't count it as any great loss when someone contentious blocks me.  It just leaves me a greater percentage of people willing to engage in more civil conversation.
> 
> I will say that I think this implementation of the block feature is the worst one that I've seen this site enact.  One person blocked me and then proceeded to talk about me behind my back.  If I hadn't seen someone who didn't have me blocked defend me by name, I'd never have known.  Also, being unable to see when someone quotes a person who has blocked me has caused me numerous issues. I have repeatedly responded to a post that appears to be someone just posting without a quote, only to be told that my response is out of context(which it was due to being unable to see who was quoted) or else asked why I am entering into a conversation between two people.  As a result, I've had to start logging out periodically in threads in which I'm active, so as to see the proper contexts and see if I am being talked about.  I'm not going to respond to anyone who has me blocked, but being able to see their posts is necessary for a proper response to those who I can see.



Your second sentence doesn’t mesh well with the rest of your posts. Happens to you a lot, does it?


----------



## Maxperson

Sacrosanct said:


> My biggest issue with the current ignore is that I might reply to someone who said something not knowing that they were replying to a quote I couldn’t see.
> 
> It really causes confusion.



Yeah.  That's what I was talking about when I mentioned responding in the wrong context.


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> Your second sentence doesn’t mesh well with the rest of your posts. Happens to you a lot, does it?



It used to.  It happens much less now that most of the contentious people have blocked me.


----------



## TwoSix

Deset Gled said:


> Circvs Maximvs still exists.  Home | Circvs Maximvs



It's not very active, sadly.  Although at least I now have the context of what @Maxperson is talking about.


----------



## darjr

Hello?

huh? Strange empty thread.


----------



## Deset Gled

TwoSix said:


> It's not very active, sadly.  Although at least I now have the context of what @Maxperson is talking about.




True.  I had to google to find it.

There was another alt board a few years back, but I have no idea if it's still around.  A group of people from the WotC boards all came here at once and called themselves OTTers.  At one point, they started their own message board to talk about stuff that wasn't allowed here.  Googling anything related to OTTers doesn't show anything useful, though, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Deset Gled said:


> Googling anything related to OTTers doesn't show anything useful, though, for obvious reasons.




You're kidding! I googled OTTers and I got all of these AMAZINGLY ADORABLE PICTURES!

Awwww... I can't believe those little guys used to post on these threads.


----------



## Maxperson

Deset Gled said:


> True.  I had to google to find it.
> 
> There was another alt board a few years back, but I have no idea if it's still around.  A group of people from the WotC boards all came here at once and called themselves OTTers.  At one point, they started their own message board to talk about stuff that wasn't allowed here.  Googling anything related to OTTers doesn't show anything useful, though, for obvious reasons.



I used to be in that group until I left a number of years ago.  Pretty sure that board died out.


----------



## Asisreo

I'm sure a few number of people have blocked me. I guess my opinions are controversial when it comes to D&D, though I never talk politics or get into arguments about real-life stuff. 

I do try to stay cordial and respectful to the fellow forum members here, but I remember I may have been a bit more easily agitated earlier in my times here. I've definitely learned to not let what people say get under my skin, especially when they're anonymous. 

I've never blocked anyone, though. Never really felt the need to. If I'm done arguing, I just...stop arguing and let the steam clear in the thread for a bit. If I have at least some semblance of a good argument, somebody will pick up where I left off. 

Though I never see them as arguments in the first place, at least, not as aggressive as an argument. To me, the threads I participate in are discussions rather than arguments and its perfectly fine if we don't see eye-to-eye as long as we can recognize and explain our reasoning for our positions.


----------



## Sabathius42

I'd be interested to see the data on how many posts those who have the blocks are missing out on.  If you were blocked by all of the Top 20 posters....it might truly be a ghost town.


----------



## Morrus

Sabathius42 said:


> If you were blocked by all of the Top 20 posters....it might truly be a ghost town.



In a sense, it feels like a self-solving problem. If you act in a way that enough people don't want you around, the site starts to become less useful for you.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Opposite of ignore lists, there used to be a way to see a list of everyone's likes and laughs.  I can only assume that went away when the forum went to reactions in general (like, love, etc)


----------



## Morrus

Sacrosanct said:


> Opposite of ignore lists, there used to be a way to see a list of everyone's likes and laughs.  I can only assume that went away when the forum went to reactions in general (like, love, etc)



Different software. We moved from vBulletin to Xenforo.


----------



## CleverNickName

I just checked my stats, and it says that I'm not currently ignoring anyone.  Weird.  I could have sworn I was ignoring at least a handful of people from back in the 4E Edition War days...does the Ignore list ever expire or get purged?


----------



## Sacrosanct

CleverNickName said:


> I just checked my stats, and it says that I'm not currently ignoring anyone.  Weird.  I could have sworn I was ignoring at least a handful of people from back in the 4E Edition War days...does the Ignore list ever expire or get purged?



I'm guessing when the new software got implemented, you'd have to redo all of your lists.  But that's just a guess and I could be wrong.


----------



## CapnZapp

I note this thread has 52 posts both in the app and in the (logged out) web view (this post should thus become the 53rd).

My guess is that this means we are not on each other's ignore lists then?

_Edit:_ It was the old forum software that just counted visible posts (so that if the logged-in and logged-out totals didn't match you would know some posts were "missing"; in other words, somebody has you on their Ignore list and is using two-way blocking). Currently, "invisible" posts just skip one in the post count, so you'll have to carefully note if the post count (a small number in the upper right hand corner of each post) skips a number. If you don't bother you'll simply remain unawares you've missed a post and all's well!


----------



## MNblockhead

Morrus said:


> Pretty sure I'd kick you out long before then!



Would you kick someone off simply because of how many ignores they get?

If so, I worry I'm using the feature in an unfair manner.

If I feel that someone is getting out of hand with political discussions, or is being abusive, I would report them. I've done this very rarely.

But I've ignored people, for example, when a thread I'm interested in spawns a side discussion where a small group discusses/argues minutia or some tangential point ad infinitum, making it hard to follow posts related to the original point of discussion that interested me in the thread in the first place.  I may ignore several people just to make the thread readable and unignore them later.

I treat the ignore feature more like a filter and never considered it a punishment.


----------



## Morrus

MNblockhead said:


> Would you kick someone off simply because of how many ignores they get?



Correlation not causality.


----------



## MichaelSomething

I got a lot of work to do if I want to become the most ignored poster here!  Off to general discussion to tell people they're playing D&D wrong!!!


----------



## Umbran

MNblockhead said:


> Would you kick someone off simply because of how many ignores they get?



No.  But if you are getting ignored by that many, it means you're probably acting like a Grade A Large Jerk, and that would get you gone.


----------



## Lanefan

I will never ignore anyone.  Sooner or later everyone has something useful to say.

I can think of only one quasi-regular poster who has for sure ignored me, but there's probably others.

I'd prefer if ignore did not exist as a function.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> I will never ignore anyone.  Sooner or later everyone has something useful to say.
> 
> I can think of only one quasi-regular poster who has for sure ignored me, but there's probably others.
> 
> I'd prefer if ignore did not exist as a function.



I don't mind it existing.  If people don't want to see my posts, they shouldn't have to.  It's that the ignore feature goes the other way that I don't like.  I should be able to see any posts I want in order to get context for the thread responses and so that I don't miss out on any good ideas.  That the quote feature no longer shows those who block you that really, REALLY borks the threads.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> I don't mind it existing.  If people don't want to see my posts, they shouldn't have to.  It's that the ignore feature goes the other way that I don't like.  I should be able to see any posts I want in order to get context for the thread responses and so that I don't miss out on any good ideas.  That the quote feature no longer shows those who block you that really, REALLY borks the threads.



I dunno, it makes some arguments entertaining.


----------



## CapnZapp

CleverNickName said:


> I just checked my stats, and it says that I'm not currently ignoring anyone.



You do realize we're not discussing "number of people you ignore".

We're discussing "number of people ignoring you".

Just checking, thanks


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> I don't mind it existing. If people don't want to see my posts, they shouldn't have to. It's that the ignore feature goes the other way that I don't like. I should be able to see any posts I want in order to get context for the thread responses and so that I don't miss out on any good ideas. That the quote feature no longer shows those who block you that really, REALLY borks the threads.



You have to accept the sole focus is protecting the person compelled to put someone on his or her ignore list.

That this might make life harder for that ignored person is just not a concern (neither for the forum software devs not the owners of the sites using that software), since "be nicer so nobody puts you on their block list" is the preferred solution.


----------



## CapnZapp

Sacrosanct said:


> Opposite of ignore lists, there used to be a way to see a list of everyone's likes and laughs. I can only assume that went away when the forum went to reactions in general (like, love, etc)



This is off topic for this thread, but:

If you want a list of likes you have given out I'm not sure you can't access that. At least I see no reason why the software would actively prevent you from viewing your own likes.

As for that list for a different user, yeah, no, I quite see why that's not available.

PS. The previous functionality described was active when the site used vBulletin yes but AFAIK it was a third-party hack and not part of a standard installation, not an official plug-in, so it isn't super surprising privacy and integrity wasn't quite as prioritized. Again AFAIK the site now runs Xenforo very stock - in particular the ignore system is using the default functionality that was decided by Xenforo and not EN World. (Obviously correct me if I'm wrong)


----------



## CleverNickName

CapnZapp said:


> You do realize we're not discussing "number of people you ignore".
> 
> We're discussing "number of people ignoring you".
> 
> Just checking, thanks



Yes, I'm aware of the topic of discussion, CZ.  But through that discussion _and tangent to that topic_, I noticed that my ignore list had changed and asked about it.

I'll show myself out.


----------



## CapnZapp

Finally I can add for those unawares of how the site works when accessed through the app (not the mobile web skin - the EN World app, which really is just the Tapatalk app but just for one single forum):

When someone you have ignored posts, that post is visible but with the contents hidden as if that person wrapped their entire post in spoiler tags.

As for the other case; when a person that has put you on their block list posts, I ... really have no data. Either the app correctly makes those posts entirely invisible or I'm not on anyone's ignore list ...or (Edit I guess there's technically a third explanation where I somehow never happen to read the threads in which people ignoring me post 

_Edit:_ I can now confirm that the web site just silently hides posts from people that have you on their ignore list (and have enabled two-way blocking), but that the app completely ignores this functionality. (That is: those posts show up normally in the app, meaning that if you only use Tapatalk to access the forum you might not even realize somebody has blocked you. As I said above, posts made by users YOU have blocked does stand out, and that the app wraps them in spoiler tags to make it easy to skip, and if you expand the spoiler it is clear you're about to read a post from someone you've blocked. But Xenforo's two-way blocking feature does nothing in the app.​​I can also add that - unlike the previous implementation - if you put me on your ignore list (and activate two-way blocking), that correctly doesn't kill off entire threads. Your first post will be the only post from you I see. Any subsequent posts you make just vanish while posts made by others appear normally, which is great. (Of course, if they directly engage the thread-starter in a back and forth you might be confused by the lack of context, but that is a feature and not a bug (as discussed later in this thread).​​Furthermore, I can add (and this was new to me too) that Xenforo even strips quotes out of people's messages. That is, if person A blocks you, and person B replies to A with a quote, you will see B's post but not the quoted text - you won't even see that he or she quoted A unless the context hints at it. Again, this is the only rational implementation. (Addendum: I guess that this requires you to specify the user-post information in the quote. You know, the thing in the actual quote tag you see when you edit bbcode tags manually. I will simply assume non-specific quotes remain since the software doesn't know whose text you include in the quote.)​​
(I am assuming the former and I guess I could confirm it by comparing logged in and logged out post counts, but I have never had a reason to bother.

And no, I don't find the argument "since you technically can find out if you're on someone's ignore list the software should not hide their posts from you" compelling. Just because it's impossible to construct an ironclad protection system doesn't mean a system isn't appreciated for trying. tldr making it hard for stalkers is worth our while and that other more benign users can be inconvenienced by the ignore system is a price worth paying imo)


----------



## CapnZapp

CleverNickName said:


> Yes, I'm aware



Great and no problem!


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> I will say that I think this implementation of the block feature is the worst one that I've seen this site enact.



For the record you're talking about a pretty standard two-way ignore feature.

To me the prize for "the implementation of the block feature that was the worst one that I've seen this site enact" goes to... when the system gave an error message when you clicked on a thread started by someone that had put you on their block list. (The thread wasn't made invisible - it was still shown in the lists, but when you clicked it, the software pretended you had entered an invalid thread number. This made it painfully clear to a stalker when you tried to shield yourself from them, practically daring them to further harass you in other ways!)

In other words, despite the moderators repeatedly claiming the mod policy is "threads have no owner, you can't complain if the thread is taken over by people wishing to discuss the exact opposite of what you started the thread to discuss", the thread starter in practice did own that thread in the sense he or she could control who could read and respond to it. Yes, he or she could prevent you from reading posts from uninvolved posters, posters neither blocking nor being blocked by you or the thread starter, just because they happened to post their thoughts in a thread started by him or her.

_*That*_ was bad.

And definitely a bug - it did not prevent harassment the way proper two-way blocking does, it just allowed people to willfully punish others. Thankfully, mercifully, that whole creaky plugin wasn't supported by Tapatalk - by accessing the site thru the app it was like the plugin wasn't there at all! 

PS. Had that plugin's practical outcome been advertised as a feature (= "now you can throw thread derailers out of your thread without involving the mod team!") I might have looked at it differently, but I never used it as such since it was clear to me that would have been considered abusive.


----------



## Morrus

Lanefan said:


> I'd prefer if ignore did not exist as a function.



You might have no personal need for it, and you're welcome not to use it, but there are plenty of people for whom privacy controls are an important part of their online experience here and elsewhere.


----------



## DammitVictor

I just checked my Ignore List and it had quite a few more people on it than I was expecting. I guess I'm developing something of a hair-trigger in regards to blocking people on forums and social media-- because, quite frankly, forums and social media are something of a professional obligation for someone trying to break back into tabletop roleplaying and genre fiction, and being able to filter out the chess pigeons is the only way I can make the experience bearable.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Shroompunk Warlord said:


> and being able to filter out the *chess pigeons*




I learned something new today!


----------



## aco175

I just wonder how someone with 130 against them has enough friends to play D&D with at someone's house.  

Asking for a friend.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> You have to accept the sole focus is protecting the person compelled to put someone on his or her ignore list.
> 
> That this might make life harder for that ignored person is just not a concern (neither for the forum software devs not the owners of the sites using that software), since "be nicer so nobody puts you on their block list" is the preferred solution.



Not being able to read their posts isn't "protecting" them.  No harm is done by my seeing what they posted.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> For the record you're talking about a pretty standard two-way ignore feature.
> 
> To me the prize for "the implementation of the block feature that was the worst one that I've seen this site enact" goes to... when the system gave an error message when you clicked on a thread started by someone that had put you on their block list. (The thread wasn't made invisible - it was still shown in the lists, but when you clicked it, the software pretended you had entered an invalid thread number. This made it painfully clear to a stalker when you tried to shield yourself from them, practically daring them to further harass you in other ways!)
> 
> In other words, despite the moderators repeatedly claiming the mod policy is "threads have no owner, you can't complain if the thread is taken over by people wishing to discuss the exact opposite of what you started the thread to discuss", the thread starter in practice did own that thread in the sense he or she could control who could read and respond to it. Yes, he or she could prevent you from reading posts from uninvolved posters, posters neither blocking nor being blocked by you or the thread starter, just because they happened to post their thoughts in a thread started by him or her.
> 
> _*That*_ was bad.
> 
> And definitely a bug - it did not prevent harassment the way proper two-way blocking does, it just allowed people to willfully punish others. Thankfully, mercifully, that whole creaky plugin wasn't supported by Tapatalk - by accessing the site thru the app it was like the plugin wasn't there at all!
> 
> PS. Had that plugin's practical outcome been advertised as a feature (= "now you can throw thread derailers out of your thread without involving the mod team!") I might have looked at it differently, but I never used it as such since it was clear to me that would have been considered abusive.



Those bugs were pretty bad, but not once did I ever feel the need to log out to see a thread.  There weren't any posts that didn't make any sense, because even if someone had blocked me, I could see what they said if someone quoted them, giving context to the response.


----------



## MNblockhead

Lanefan said:


> I will never ignore anyone.  Sooner or later everyone has something useful to say.
> 
> I can think of only one quasi-regular poster who has for sure ignored me, but there's probably others.
> 
> I'd prefer if ignore did not exist as a function.



I'm glad it is a function. It would be nice if it could be more granular, such as ignoring someone in just a single discussion thread or having the ability to filter discussion threads by user rather than having to ignore them to filter them out. 

I have rarely used ignore because I was offended by a post.  I am more likely to use it to filter out people who get into discussions that are tangential to the OP. You'll often have two or a small group of posters that will get into a side discussion with many many posts and very long posts that make it difficult to follow the original discussion and to read what other have said.  I might ignore those posters temporarily simply to have a more enjoyable reading experience. 

If someone ignores me, I don't know if I'd even notice. If I did, I wouldn't take it personally. Not everyone is going to be interested in what I have to say.


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> Not being able to read their posts isn't "protecting" them.  No harm is done by my seeing what they posted.



I was merely trying to help you understand you need to educate yourself as to why this is set up in a way contrary to your wishes. Basically, that you're looking at this from your own personal point of view - but you're not what the system is set up to protect against. (I'm suggesting you consider your troubles be an acceptable price to pay to have Xenforo help shield against harassment, something true two-way ignore does better)

Cheers


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> Those bugs were pretty bad



Thank you for agreeing that implementation was pretty bad. 


Maxperson said:


> but not once did I ever feel the need to log out to see a thread.  There weren't any posts that didn't make any sense, because even if someone had blocked me, I could see what they said if someone quoted them, giving context to the response.



Not if it was the thread starter that blocked you, you couldn't. Other than that, I never said any of those were issues.

Cheers


----------



## FitzTheRuke

MNblockhead said:


> If someone ignores me, I don't know if I'd even notice. If I did, I wouldn't take it personally. Not everyone is going to be interested in what I have to say.




That's food for thought. I've always been mortified by the idea that someone might block me - I hate the idea that I offended anyone (it would never be my intent), but I really don't mind if they just aren't interested in what I have to say (especially if I get myself involved in a tangent, which is entirely possible).

Given that I'm constantly trying to recognise that people have a very many reasons for their actions, many of which are not immediately clear (in particular in internet discussions where it is very hard to make yourself understood), you've given me yet another tool toward not judging others. Thanks!


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> No harm is done by my seeing what they posted.




If you've gotten yourself blocked, that suggests that you've already demonstrated that, for whatever reason, you haven't managed to avoid doing harm to that person.  So, maybe you aren't the best person to assess what further harm might be done.

Sorry if you find it annoying or inconvenient.  But, As CapnZapp has pointed out, the feature is not about you, the person who has been blocked.


----------



## Sacrosanct

CapnZapp said:


> I was merely trying to help you understand you need to educate yourself...



Sentences that start like this is a great way to move up the list!


----------



## CapnZapp

Sacrosanct said:


> Sentences that start like this is a great way to move up the list!



If you have a better way of explaining to Max why his issue is not and should not be a priority, the thread is yours.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> I was merely trying to help you understand you need to educate yourself as to why this is set up in a way contrary to your wishes. Basically, that you're looking at this from your own personal point of view - but you're not what the system is set up to protect against. (I'm suggesting you consider your troubles be an acceptable price to pay to have Xenforo help shield against harassment, something true two-way ignore does better)
> 
> Cheers



If that's the purpose, then it's inherently a failed purpose.  The design forces those who want to make coherent sense of threads to log out and read what they can't see.  Rather than seeing a few quoted snippets, they are now seeing everything.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

CapnZapp said:


> If you have a better way of explaining to Max why his issue is not and should not be a priority, the thread is yours.



I think you were doing a fine job, but that starting sentence, taken by itself, comes across as accusatory and pompous. I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean it that way, which is why I laughed.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> If you've gotten yourself blocked, that suggests that you've already demonstrated that, for whatever reason, you haven't managed to avoid doing harm to that person.  So, maybe you aren't the best person to assess what further harm might be done.
> 
> Sorry if you find it annoying or inconvenient.  But, As CapnZapp has pointed out, the feature is not about you, the person who has been blocked.



So "harm" to me and my experience is okay?


----------



## pogre

My ignore list has been empty for a long time. I am glad it is a feature though.

I have been tempted to use it a couple of times - particularly against individuals who ANNOUNCE they are putting someone else on ignore. That rubs me the wrong way - kind of like the GRAND EXIT.

I have a good sense of what most frequent posters are going to say - I can just scroll on by.

I have not met a lot of the posters who are frequent contributors currently. However, in earlier days I met a lot of ENWorlders at conventions and out and about - even the ones I disagreed with often turned out to be fun and neat people.


----------



## Sacrosanct

CapnZapp said:


> If you have a better way of explaining to Max why his issue is not and should not be a priority, the thread is yours.



When has the phrase "you need to educate yourself" in a disagreement ever worked well?  I'm guessing as well as telling your angry partner to calm down 

Can you think of perhaps another way of putting it?


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> So "harm" to me and my experience is okay?



The blunt answer? Yes.

As for 'harm' to you, self-inflicted wounds don't garner much sympathy.



> I'm likely on that list as well. For me, I'm indifferent. People get contentious with me and often can't handle it when I respond in kind, so they block me. I've seen it happen time and time again.




If the sheer volume of people who have blocked you is causing you difficulty... well, only you can control your own behaviour, and as you say, you're deliberately contentious, and indifferent to the consequences. So there it is.

Honestly, man, when somebody has amassed so many ignores or warnings that it affects their enjoyment of the site, their opinions on moderation or privacy tools is something I'm pretty indifferent too, too.


----------



## Gradine

Maxperson said:


> Not being able to read their posts isn't "protecting" them.  No harm is done by my seeing what they posted.



As someone who has to navigate an internet that is, by and large, very hostile to my existence (to the extent that other trans people I know have been doxxed and/or received death threats), let me be the first to inform you of exactly how much protection is afforded to me with the ability to limit who can see my own posts.


It's a lot, is what I'm saying


----------



## Maxperson

Gradine said:


> As someone who has to navigate an internet that is, by and large, very hostile to my existence (to the extent that other trans people I know have been doxxed and/or received death threats), let me be the first to inform you of exactly how much protection is afforded to me with the ability to limit who can see my own posts.
> 
> 
> It's a lot, is what I'm saying



Sure, but this isn't doing that. No real protection is being offered.  When I only saw the portions that were quoted, I understood the context of the posts that I could see and responded to those people who didn't have me blocked.  What is currently happening is creating a situation where if I want to engage in conversation with people who don't have me blocked in a coherent fashion, I have to log out and read the thread so I can see the context of their post.  That shows me all of the posts from the people blocking me, even the ones I didn't need to see in order to understand the context.  And I'm not the only one I've seen say this.


----------



## Gradine

Maxperson said:


> Sure, but this isn't doing that. No real protection is being offered.  When I only saw the portions that were quoted, I understood the context of the posts that I could see and responded to those people who didn't have me blocked.  What is currently happening is creating a situation where if I want to engage in conversation with people who don't have me blocked in a coherent fashion, I have to log out and read the thread so I can see the context of their post.  That shows me all of the posts from the people blocking me, even the ones I didn't need to see in order to understand the context.  And I'm not the only one I've seen say this.



Trust me when I say that any barrier, no matter how easily circumvented (and considering how annoying you're making it sound...) is one measure of protection greater than I would otherwise have. If I've ignored someone, I very much _*want*_ them to have difficulty reading my posts.

What upsets me, on the other hand, is how _easy_ it seems to get around an ignore. I don't know how possible it is to deal with the logging out issue (at least it seems to be a headache!) But I'd really like it if there were a way to block quotes from being read as well.

But the thing you're complaining about is very much a feature, not a bug. If someone has ignored you it is because they very specifically do not want you engaging with their conversations. 


Maybe take a hint.


----------



## CapnZapp

Sacrosanct said:


> Can you think of perhaps another way of putting it?



You're changing the subject (as so often before). (Hint: the subject matter of this thread isn't "how Zapp should phrase his posts".)


----------



## Imaculata

I don't think I've ever blocked anyone. It is not something I do easily. But if I have, it can't be more than 3.


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> Sure, but this isn't doing that. No real protection is being offered.  When I only saw the portions that were quoted, I understood the context of the posts that I could see and responded to those people who didn't have me blocked.  What is currently happening is creating a situation where if I want to engage in conversation with people who don't have me blocked in a coherent fashion, I have to log out and read the thread so I can see the context of their post.  That shows me all of the posts from the people blocking me, even the ones I didn't need to see in order to understand the context.  And I'm not the only one I've seen say this.



You're making this about yourself, despite being told repeatedly the function is not geared towards your case. You're making yourself look like an entitled fool by trying to paint your situation as a significant bug and by appearing to not even consider the real reasons the functionality is even offered. 

Your convenience needs to take a back seat compared to actually protecting victims of stalking.


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> So "harm" to me and my experience is okay?



Yes! In this case, very much yes.

(The "harm" to you in "missing out on context" is easily worth the benefit to real victims, is what everybody is trying to tell you.)


----------



## Imaculata

Boy, I sure wish CapnZapp would comment in this thread. Haven't seen a post by him in ages!


----------



## Maxperson

Gradine said:


> Trust me when I say that any barrier, no matter how easily circumvented (and considering how annoying you're making it sound...) is one measure of protection greater than I would otherwise have. If I've ignored someone, I very much _*want*_ them to have difficulty reading my posts.
> 
> What upsets me, on the other hand, is how _easy_ it seems to get around an ignore. I don't know how possible it is to deal with the logging out issue (at least it seems to be a headache!) But I'd really like it if there were a way to block quotes from being read as well.



I think the only way to do that would be to stop any visitor from being able to read posts here, but that would diminish the number of new posters who join the site.


Gradine said:


> But the thing you're complaining about is very much a feature, not a bug. If someone has ignored you it is because they very specifically do not want you engaging with their conversations.
> 
> 
> Maybe take a hint.



There's no hint for me to take that I haven't already taken.  I have no interest in engaging with THEIR conversations.  If I did, I would have logged out during the time period before they moved to the new software here.  The issue is that I can't effectively engage in a good amount of conversation with those who DON'T have me blocked, because the context is hidden.  By logging out and seeing the portion quoted, I get the proper context for the response from the poster that doesn't have me blocked, so I can give a valid response.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> Yes! In this case, very much yes.
> 
> (The "harm" to you in "missing out on context" is easily worth the benefit to real victims, is what everybody is trying to tell you.)



The "harm" to me is no less than the "harm" of my reading a post of someone who blocked me and not engaging with it at all.


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> If that's the purpose, then it's inherently a failed purpose.  The design forces those who want to make coherent sense of threads to log out and read what they can't see.  Rather than seeing a few quoted snippets, they are now seeing everything.



The ignore feature is meant to lessen the friction on the board. If you don't even see that somebody has blocked you, you are much less likely to harass that person elsewhere on the internet. What you are suggesting amounts to the forum constantly reminding people they are "blocked by X" which is NOT HELPFUL.

That this causes you inconvenience is utterly beside the point. That a stalker determined enough to monitor the forum while logged out to find out who is ignoring him or her is also missing the point - most people won't bother doing that, and when they don't, the system is working as intended.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> You're making yourself look like an entitled fool by trying to paint your situation as a significant bug and by appearing to not even consider the real reasons the functionality is even offered.



No less so than you trying to make this one sided when it isn't.


CapnZapp said:


> Your convenience needs to take a back seat compared to actually protecting victims of stalking.



Nothing I'm saying even remotely comes close to stalking.  At all.  Not even a little bit.  I reject your hyperbole for what it is.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> The ignore feature is meant to lessen the friction on the board. If you don't even see that somebody has blocked you, you are much less likely to harass that person elsewhere on the internet.



That's completely untrue in my case as I don't care about where they are on the internet. I have no interest in harassing people and I can't get lower than 0%.  If someone else here is going to go through the effort to harass someone across the internet, this feature isn't going to be more than an extremely minor speedbump.


CapnZapp said:


> What you are suggesting amounts to the forum constantly reminding people they are "blocked by X" which is NOT HELPFUL.
> 
> That this causes you inconvenience is utterly beside the point. That a stalker determined enough to monitor the forum while logged out to find out who is ignoring him or her is also missing the point - most people won't bother doing that, and when they don't, the system is working as intended.



Nothing changes, though.  In fact, I'm MORE likely to be reminded about people who block me as I am going to see not just the quote I'm looking at for context, but everything and everyone else as well.


----------



## CapnZapp

Imaculata said:


> Boy, I sure wish CapnZapp would comment in this thread. Haven't seen a post by him in ages!



Then you are in luck!  Today I have made easily a dozen posts in this very thread alone!


----------



## FitzTheRuke

CapnZapp said:


> Your convenience needs to take a back seat compared to actually protecting victims of stalking.




I'm not saying this as a counterpoint, but as a curiosity: Is there a lot of "stalking" going on here on ENWorld? (I can imagine it in other places on the internet - thankfully places that I would never find myself.)


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Most people who I ignore only stay ignored until the thread where I decided to ignore them goes quiet, and then get in ignored again. Most of the permanent ignores said soemthing that would get them kicked out of my store, or my FLGS, or a party, usually along the lines of “anti-inclusion” rhetoric, or they’re people who habitually belittle people.  


I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m high on the list there. I’m okay with that, tbh. I can see most posts on the forums, anyway.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

CapnZapp said:


> You're making this about yourself, despite being told repeatedly the function is not geared towards your case. You're making yourself look like an entitled fool by trying to paint your situation as a significant bug and by appearing to not even consider the real reasons the functionality is even offered.
> 
> Your convenience needs to take a back seat compared to actually protecting victims of stalking.



Nah the feature as implemented is pretty damn annoying. No one needs to pretend otherwise just because some sort of two-way blocking is needed.  

I have several times had parts of posts misinterpreted, with difficulty figuring out why, because someone reading it had someone else blocked and was using the option to not see even the “this content is from someone you have ignored” sticker.


----------



## Sacrosanct

A while ago, I seem to recall that if someone quotes someone who had you on ignore, you saw the reply as normal, but the quoted part was "post hidden". That seemed to work because while I didn't see the quote from the person who I ignored, I knew the other person was replying to another person, which helped put everything into context.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Ironically (or coincidentally), that list has now changed by +1. 

It's not a competition to the top folks.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nah the feature as implemented is pretty damn annoying. No one needs to pretend otherwise just because some sort of two-way blocking is needed.
> 
> I have several times had parts of posts misinterpreted, with difficulty figuring out why, because someone reading it had someone else blocked and *was using the option to not see even the “this content is from someone you have ignored” sticker.*



I had no idea that option even existed.  That should just be standard I think.  A lot of posts where someone is quoted are easily mistakable for stand alone posts.  That tag would at least warn someone that there is more than it seems.


----------



## Gradine

FitzTheRuke said:


> I'm not saying this as a counterpoint, but as a curiosity: Is there a lot of "stalking" going on here on ENWorld? (I can imagine it in other places on the internet - thankfully places that I would never find myself.)



I've experienced it at other forums, definitely. Less so here, though the site has been brigaded in the past and it's those types of communities that breed doxxers and stalkers. If there ever happened to be a significant queer community here (something I'd like to think isn't that far utside the realm of possibility) that's a good way to get a target painted on us.

Its a pretty valuable thing to be able to block who can see my posts. I won't argue that the implementation could be more user friendly (or safer!) because obviously it could be better. But the two-way ignore is a very, very, good thing.

If you find yourself blocked by enough people that it's making it hard for you to engage in threads, then that is the feature working as intended, and I have zero tears to shed for you. That's the bed you've made yourself, and you're gonna have to lie on it


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Gradine said:


> I've experienced it at other forums, definitely. Less so here, though the site has been brigaded in the past and it's those types of communities that breed doxxers and stalkers. If there ever happened to be a significant queer community here (something I'd like to think isn't that far utside the realm of possibility) that's a good way to get a target painted on us.
> 
> Its a pretty valuable thing to be able to block who can see my posts. I won't argue that the implementation could be more user friendly (or safer!) because obviously it could be better. But the two-way ignore is a very, very, good thing.
> 
> If you find yourself blocked by enough people that it's making it hard for you to engage in threads, then that is the feature working as intended, and I have zero tears to shed for you. That's the bed you've made yourself, and you're gonna have to lie on it



I assume you mean the collective "you" - I hope that _I_ have not been blocked by _anyone_. As far as I know I haven't. I asked because I'm interested in learning more about your perspective. I've made mistakes when it comes to trans people (misgendering through ignorance and that sort of thing, nothing intentional) but I would try to defend someone who was being oppressed for any reason, if my help was at all welcomed or warranted. I'd like to be an ally when I can. I hope that most of the time you feel safe here on ENWorld. (All of the time would be better, but it might be too much for me to hope for.)


----------



## Maxperson

Gradine said:


> That's the bed you've made yourself, and you're gonna have to lie on it



It isn't, though.  Probably 80-90% of those who have me blocked initiated contentions interactions with me and then couldn't handle what they started and blocked me.  The other 10-20% didn't like watching those interactions and shut it down just to avoid it, which I can respect.  I can't respect the hypocrisy of the rest and those weren't a bed I made.  If I started the contentious interactions, I could agree with you on this.


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> and then couldn't handle what they started



This is a problematic attitude. Your job isn't to treat my forum like the wild west. I have no sympathy for it. Like Gradine said, your choice and your bed; you've been ignored by so many people that the forums are difficult to use for you.

I mean, since you won't let it lie - yes, you are on that list. Not the top person, but right up near the top. I imagine the forums appear pretty quiet for you.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Sacrosanct said:


> When has the phrase "you need to educate yourself" in a disagreement ever worked well?  I'm guessing as well as telling your angry partner to calm down
> 
> Can you think of perhaps another way of putting it?




“Why yes, your butt does look big in that.”


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Snarf Zagyg said:


> “Why yes, your butt does look big in that.”



That oughtta do it!


----------



## Maxperson

Morrus said:


> This is a problematic attitude. Your job isn't to treat my forum like the wild west. I have no sympathy for it. Like Gradine said, your choice and your bed; you've been ignored by so many people that the forums are difficult to use for you.



It's a character flaw which I know about and while it may not seem like it, I work on pretty hard.  I was abused pretty badly by my father and picked on a lot in school, and the way I handled it was to fight back.  It's pretty hard to overcome things ingrained like that, but I keep trying.


Morrus said:


> I mean, since you won't let it lie - yes, you are on that list. Not the top person, but right up near the top. I imagine the forums appear pretty quiet for you.



It's actually still very active, which is why I'm having these issues.  If it was quiet, I really wouldn't encountering them much.


----------



## Morrus

This, incidentally, is the warning points list. You can check your own warning point total. Note that we include 'expired' warning points (an artifact from the previous boards) as we don't consider warnings as expired.

#1, #4, #7, and #9 on this list are banned. If you're in the top 10, or have 8 or more warning points, you may be a frequent "why do we keep this person around?" subject in the moderator forum.


----------



## Asisreo

It would be fun for me if I could see exactly how many people are ignoring me, but I understand why that feature is in place. 

This forum is better than most others. I've said I make controversial discussions but I also try to be courteous. I do end up doing what I call "ping pong" posts where I have brief immediate back-and-forths then a long time of silence. I try to not do this but I also want to give everyone who gave me attention some discussion back. 

Uhm...did I already say this in a previous reply? I think I'd have found another motive for someone blocking me if I'm as repetitive as I think I am...


----------



## Alzrius

FitzTheRuke said:


> I'm not saying this as a counterpoint, but as a curiosity: Is there a lot of "stalking" going on here on ENWorld? (I can imagine it in other places on the internet - thankfully places that I would never find myself.)



I don't know about "a lot," but one of the two people I have on ignore is a cyber-stalker who's popped up on various forums I visit to badmouth or pick fights with me, apparently still upset that I once called him out for directing hate toward another poster with a history of depression (and, if I remember correctly, suicidal ideation) on another board a number of years ago.

The other one is a far-right troll whose sole activity on this forum was to stir up trouble by presenting members of a particular minority in a bad light. (I won't go any further into which minority or how, but it was pretty ugly to witness.)


----------



## Warpiglet-7

It’s a good tool for some people—including me.

I had a bunch of ignores on a previous closed account. I now have 1?  I have been removing them.

when I engage with folks and the discussion is not game related and gets personal, I block.  It helps me manage my stress and keeps me from engaging...well any more than I already have by that point.

Later when I cannot recall why I got mad or it’s just time for second chances, I unblock the person.  I use it to manage myself as much as the other person  and as such have never been warned or banned...on any website.  Maybe cautioned with a group to settle down a few times but I heed it and move on.

I think it’s a fine tool.  I have no idea how many folks have blocked me but if it helps them feel better, so be it.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Alzrius said:


> I don't know about "a lot," but one of the two people I have on ignore is a cyber-stalker who's popped up on various forums I visit to badmouth or pick fights with me, apparently still upset that I once called him out for directing hate toward another poster with a history of depression (and, if I remember correctly, suicidal ideation) on another board a number of years ago.
> 
> The other one is a far-right troll whose sole activity on this forum was to stir up trouble by presenting members of a particular minority in a bad light. (I won't go any further into which minority or how, but it was pretty ugly to witness.)



Sounds terrible. Good to have the ignore for that, I would think. 

I guess that's just it - Having what appears to be a "thick skin" is _easy_ when you (and I mean _me_ here, as well as others like me) aren't being actively oppressed. 

I admit, the closest that I came to blocking someone was quite recently, and it was because the poster was actively attacking me (even going as far as to say that _I_ was the reason that the thread sucked (or whatever was said), when I had been trying to keep the peace between posters most of the time. The poster was kicked off the thread by a mod right after, which I appreciated, because I was starting to think I had done something terribly wrong (I tend to blame myself for things).

But other than that, which I assume is pretty small as far as these things go, I honestly feel for anyone who has to put up with any kind of harassment. For any of you that do, I wish you strength.


----------



## Gradine

Maxperson said:


> ...and then couldn't handle what they started...



I obviously can only speak for myself, but I'd probably find it obnoxious to find myself in a conversation with someone who approaches arguments with the same attitude as a middle school playground fight.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Warpiglet-7 said:


> It’s a good tool for some people—including me.
> 
> I had a bunch of ignores on a previous closed account. I now have 1?  I have been removing them.
> 
> when I engage with folks and the discussion is not game related and gets personal, I block.  It helps me manage my stress and keeps me from engaging...well any more than I already have by that point.
> 
> Later when I cannot recall why I got mad or it’s just time for second chances, I unblock the person.  I use it to manage myself as much as the other person  and as such have never been warned or banned...on any website.  Maybe cautioned with a group to settle down a few times but I heed it and move on.
> 
> I think it’s a fine tool.  I have no idea how many folks have blocked me but if it helps them feel better, so be it.



That's a good attitude, and food for thought. Thanks for the tip. I might consider using it that way. I tend to try to make peace - which is probably not the best use of my time.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Morrus said:


> You can check your own warning point total.



How does one do that, if it's not a bother?


----------



## PsyzhranV2

Personal anecdote: I know of at least two people who have me on Ignore, but I have no idea why. Neither of them are people I recall heavily interacting with, much less getting into fights with.

One of them happens to be a pretty prolific poster of threads, so I can see the threads they post and their first post in said thread, but none of their subsequent replies.


----------



## Morrus

FitzTheRuke said:


> How does one do that, if it's not a bother?



It’s in your profile if you have any. If you haven’t, which you haven’t, you won’t see anything.


----------



## Maxperson

Gradine said:


> I obviously can only speak for myself, but I'd probably find it obnoxious to find myself in a conversation with someone who approaches arguments with the same attitude as a middle school playground fight.



Sure, but you wouldn't start a conversation like someone in middle school trying to provoke a fight, either.  I've interacted with you enough to know that.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

I am also an active member on the Forums of D&D Beyond, and I have to say that the Ignore feature on this site works much better than that of the other site. I also have only needed to use the Ignore feature once on this site, while I've used it around a dozen times on D&D Beyond (largely because the moderation on this site is more active and quicker to deal with problem posters/posts than on those on the other site). The person I did Ignore on this site was a conspiracy nut that was harassing me and spouting Qanon BS, and they have since been banned permanently from this site, so I currently have no one Ignored. 

I appreciate that the feature exists on this site and that it works very well in comparison to my experiences with similar features on other sites, but I'm also glad that I don't really ever have to use it. I don't think anyone has Ignored me so far, as I've only been active for just over a year on this site, but I can't be sure.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Gradine said:


> .
> 
> If you find yourself blocked by enough people that it's making it hard for you to engage in threads, then that is the feature working as intended, and I have zero tears to shed for you. That's the bed you've made yourself, and you're gonna have to lie on it



Yeah, maybe, maybe not. I’ve been blocked for making a crack about Thomas Kinkaid, and I’ve been blocked for telling someone that mentioning Allah in a 1001 Nights adaptation adventure isn’t inappropriate.  

Sure, some blocks are because I was being overly aggro in an argument, but I rather doubt that everyone who is experiencing annoying issues with the feature are just massive jerks.  

Besides, some of the issues I’ve had were because I quote multiple people in one post, and the first person had the second person ignored, and so thought my second reply was also to their post. The implementation isn’t good. 


Maxperson said:


> It isn't, though.  Probably 80-90% of those who have me blocked initiated contentions interactions with me and then couldn't handle what they started and blocked me.  The other 10-20% didn't like watching those interactions and shut it down just to avoid it, which I can respect.  I can't respect the hypocrisy of the rest and those weren't a bed I made.  If I started the contentious interactions, I could agree with you on this.



Being fair, you (and I, both) do have a tendency to just not let a thing go, past the point where anyone else involved is still engaged. I’ve only ever temp-ignored you, but it was for that every time, never because I “picked a fight and couldn’t handle the response”.  

But yeah people block for all sorts of reasons, most of which don’t indicate anything significant about the blocked person.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

If someone is so annoying that I don't want to read anything they post I'll have generally learned their name and learned to stop reading when they post something. It's like I've got a block function _in my mind_. I suspect other people do the same. Sadly there are no site statistics available for mindblocks (unless it has some very advanced data harvesting powers indeed!).


----------



## Morrus

I think a simple lesson one can learn here is that if you constantly crap where you eat, eventually you'll find it's hard to eat there, and nobody will care very much, and you probably feel brave and you're giving people what they deserve or something and they can't handle the truth or whatever, or they shouldn't poke the bear or some other nonsense, but still nobody will care very much.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nah the feature as implemented is pretty damn annoying. No one needs to pretend otherwise just because some sort of two-way blocking is needed.




We don't have to pretend that the feature isn't annoying.

We should stop pretending that the root cause of the annoyance is the feature.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Umbran said:


> We don't have to pretend that the feature isn't annoying.
> 
> We should stop pretending that the root cause of the annoyance is the feature.



But it is. Again, the main times I run into it, it’s because my post gives the wrong impression because another poster has a third poster blocked.  

Even if it happens because someone blocks me, again, I’ve been blocked for poking fun at a millionaire painter. What’s the root cause there?


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> We don't have to pretend that the feature isn't annoying.
> 
> We should stop pretending that the root cause of the annoyance is the feature.



Before you implemented this feature those who blocked me didn't cause the annoyance.  After you did, the annoyance began.  The root cause of the annoyance is the feature.


----------



## Blue

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Oh, I don't know. That type of subforum would be dangerous. At least half the time I would be speculating about who amongst us plays Bard on the sly!



I play a bard.  And I'd do it again.

_hand dramatically to forehead_ Block me if you must.


----------



## billd91

Umbran said:


> We should stop pretending that the root cause of the annoyance is the feature.



Depends on what annoyance you’re referring to. Me blocking people is under my control. If I want to see their posts, possibly to clarify the context of someone else’s response, I can. Me not seeing someone’s posts because they blocked me, that I can’t control so I have no way to clarify the context of someone else’s response to them. *That’s* an annoyance with the way the feature is implemented. A different annoyance than the one at the root of needing an ignore feature, but an annoyance nonetheless.


----------



## Imaculata

doctorbadwolf said:


> But it is. Again, the main times I run into it, it’s because my post gives the wrong impression because another poster has a third poster blocked.




Then surely the problem lies in people being easily annoyed/offended?

They chose to block someone after all. So either someone was so rude or annoying, that they got blocked, or someone else is really thin skinned. Either way, the feature prevents a lot more trouble than it causes.

I never block anyone, because I'm not that easily offended or annoyed, and I don't want to miss out on the full discussion. If someone else does choose to do that, that is their problem. I consider it a minor inconvenience for the rest of us.


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> Before you implemented this feature those who blocked me didn't cause the annoyance. After you did, the annoyance began. The root cause of the annoyance is the feature.



You need to understand EN World is simply using standard functionality developed by Xenforo used by thousands (?) of discussion forums.

It is working as intended. 

I would gather your actions in this thread only reinforces the belief that it is the right implementation.


----------



## Rob Kuntz

I've tried to ignore me but it just doesn't work!


----------



## CapnZapp

FitzTheRuke said:


> How does one do that, if it's not a bother?



Click your user name in the top banner (to the right, where you get notifications). That brings down a pull-down menu with two "tabs" (your account and bookmarks). Click your user name (not where you just clicked but just below, by your account picture). Alternatively, click "your profile" (yellow text in a black bar) if you have it.

This takes you to a "latest activity" summary. In the header you'll see the number of messages you've posted, your "reaction score" and to the right "warnings" if you have any. This is expressed as something like "2/4" but the point is: you can click this. Alternatively you'll see a dark blue bar with light blue text - these are a number of "tabs" such as "profile posts" and "latest activity". The rightmost tab is "warnings". Click that.

That gets you to the log of your warnings, either in the main window or as a pop-up. You can look at each one; when and where it was given.


----------



## LongTimeLurker

Morrus said:


> Pretty sure I'd kick you out long before then!



YES! Nothing like a purge to get the juices flowing and the heart pumping, eh Comrade!


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> You need to understand EN World is simply using standard functionality developed by Xenforo used by thousands (?) of discussion forums.
> 
> It is working as intended.
> 
> I would gather your actions in this thread only reinforces the belief that it is the right implementation.



You do know that for months it didn't work that way when you ignored, right?  This is a very recent change to the ignore system.  I understand that it's working as intended.  That doesn't change that the root cause of the annoyance is the feature.


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> You do know that for months it didn't work that way when you ignored, right?



Were ignored, you mean.

And no, I don't keep track of exactly when each upgrade or improvement gets implemented on site.

And you do know the people that ignore you have to actively choose two-way blocking? So the change you were seeing might just be you finally being so annoying that it compelled whomever to upgrade their protection.



> That doesn't change that the root cause of the annoyance is the feature.



What doesn't change is that your case is not the user case Xenforo is caring about. Empowering users facing real harassment is important. Catering to sometimes-abrasive users like you or me is not.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> Were ignored, you mean.
> 
> And no, I don't keep track of exactly when each upgrade or improvement gets implemented on site.
> 
> And you do know the people that ignore you have to actively choose two-way blocking? So the change you were seeing might just be you finally being so annoying that it compelled whomever to upgrade their protection.



No, it wasn't.  I do pay attention and it is a recently announced change.


CapnZapp said:


> What doesn't change is that your case is not the user case Xenforo is caring about. Empowering users facing real harassment is important. Catering to sometimes-abrasive users like you or me is not.



If someone is actively harassing someone else, that person should be kicked off the site.  This change does virtually nothing to prevent harassment.


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> If someone is actively harassing someone else, that person should be kicked off the site. This change does virtually nothing to prevent harassment.



I engaged because I saw you were in danger of putting your foot in your mouth. Now that you have there's nothing I can help you with.

I'm sure the Xenforo developers love to waste their time on features that don't work and hinder more than they help. Also that they never thought of the idea to use manual labor-intensive solutions where automatic self-correcting measures can't. 

Oh wait, no, that's not right. I'm being sarcastic and the feature works for what it was intended to do, and you must be too entitled and self-absorbed if you can't see the value it brings, and that this value exceeds the inconvenience.

Anyway, have a nice day.


----------



## darjr

LongTimeLurker said:


> YES! Nothing like a purge to get the juices flowing and the heart pumping, eh Comrade!



Ah, well at least your taking the competition seriously. Doing well at it too.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

CapnZapp said:


> I engaged because I saw you were in danger of putting your foot in your mouth. Now that you have there's nothing I can help you with.
> 
> I'm sure the Xenforo developers love to waste their time on features that don't work and hinder more than they help. Also that they never thought of the idea to use manual labor-intensive solutions where automatic self-correcting measures can't.
> 
> Oh wait, no, that's not right. I'm being sarcastic and the feature works for what it was intended to do, and you must be too entitled and self-absorbed if you can't see the value it brings, and that this value exceeds the inconvenience.
> 
> Anyway, have a nice day.




For someone who is seemingly advocating for the side of decency, you seem to be doing a lot of work to escalate the tension level here.

You know that a person can find a feature _mildly_ annoying (say, just enough to feel like talking about it in a thread that's specifically designed to talk about it) without having so strong an opinion that they have to be "entitled and self-absorbed".

Forgive me, but it just seems a bit overly strong and personal.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> I'm sure the Xenforo developers love to waste their time on features that don't work and hinder more than they help. Also that they never thought of the idea to use manual labor-intensive solutions where automatic self-correcting measures can't.



Because no one has ever wasted their time on features before.  This feature really does next to nothing.  Someone driven to harass won't be stopped by something that literally only requires a few clicks of the mouse to get around. Heck, a harasser will probably make multiple accounts to get around it.

Harassment is something that requires much more substantial efforts in order to protect people from it.


CapnZapp said:


> Anyway, have a nice day.



You too!


----------



## Sacrosanct

FitzTheRuke said:


> For someone who is seemingly advocating for the side of decency, you seem to be doing a lot of work to escalate the tension level here.
> 
> You know that a person can find a feature _mildly_ annoying (say, just enough to feel like talking about it in a thread that's specifically designed to talk about it) without having so strong an opinion that they have to be "entitled and self-absorbed".
> 
> Forgive me, but it just seems a bit overly strong and personal.



That’s not what Maxperson was saying though. At least I don’t think so


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Sacrosanct said:


> That’s not what Maxperson was saying though. At least I don’t think so



Perhaps. Does it matter? My point is that it is better to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Seeing as it is impossible to determine either way just _how_ emotionally invested another poster actually _is_, it seems to me to be best to assume that they are _not_. (If you understand what I mean). 

It just makes interacting here a much more pleasant experience. And it has the added benefit of stopping _yourself_ from being the "problem" by escalating tensions, as CZ is doing here.


----------



## Sacrosanct

FitzTheRuke said:


> Perhaps. Does it matter? My point is that it is better to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Seeing as it is impossible to determine either way just _how_ emotionally invested another poster actually _is_, it seems to me to be best to assume that they are _not_. (If you understand what I mean).
> 
> It just makes interacting here a much more pleasant experience. And it has the added benefit of stopping _yourself_ from being the "problem" by escalating tensions, as CZ is doing here.



Ah, I see what happened.  It took me a second.  I was confused by your post, because I thought you were replying to Maxperson. Fittingly enough for this thread, I put CZ on ignore when it seemed like he was begging for a fight with me.

So on my end of the screen, I didn’t know you quoted him and thought you were replying to MP’s last post.


----------



## Maxperson

Sacrosanct said:


> Ah, I see what happened.  It took me a second.  I was confused by your post, because I thought you were replying to Maxperson. Fittingly enough for this thread, I put CZ on ignore when it seemed like he was begging for a fight with me.
> 
> So on my end of the screen, I didn’t know you quoted him and thought you were replying to MP’s last post.



Which...........................is just what I have been talking about.


----------



## Gradine

Meanwhile, I'm still here, singing the many praises of two-way blocking


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Maxperson said:


> Which...........................is just what I have been talking about.




Huh. Yeah, I can see how that very brief, very civil misunderstanding actually makes your case. That said, I can also see why Gradine finds it very useful. 

I think the overall lesson to be learned (if there is one) is that two-way blocking is probably a good feature, but the one we have might not have the best overall design. Perhaps the best way to do it would be to show (both sides) that there is a post there, with maybe a button (similar to a spoiler, I suppose) that one can press if they want to read what is being said, but that they can easily ignore if they notice "oh, THAT person is speaking." (Though then you would have to remember who they are and why you ignored them). Or something like that.

I dunno. I always assume that things can be better than they are, even if they work well enough as is.


----------



## CapnZapp

FitzTheRuke said:


> For someone who is seemingly advocating for the side of decency, you seem to be doing a lot of work to escalate the tension level here.
> 
> You know that a person can find a feature _mildly_ annoying (say, just enough to feel like talking about it in a thread that's specifically designed to talk about it) without having so strong an opinion that they have to be "entitled and self-absorbed".
> 
> Forgive me, but it just seems a bit overly strong and personal.



I would generally agree with you, but please realize you're not talking about my first and most friendly attempt to give Max the realization "psst... you know that feature you feel is annoying; it's actually purposeful and if you just think about it, you'll realize why it's worth the inconvenience..."


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> Because no one has ever wasted their time on features before.  This feature really does next to nothing.  Someone driven to harass won't be stopped by something that literally only requires a few clicks of the mouse to get around. Heck, a harasser will probably make multiple accounts to get around it.



You never let up, do you? It is getting increasingly easier to understand why you apparently are on the receiving end of so many ignores...

That there are some who let nothing stop them is no argument against not providing the two-block service. You see, _most_ people won't go to the lengths of logging out, sockpuppeteering, comparing post counts etc etc, and it is these people who the system "helps" be nicer simply by them never seeing the posts that trigger them.

(Of course, our concern is with the victims and not the perpetrators, which is why I put "help" in quotes)

If the system really did nothing, nobody would use it, and you would not experience any problems. Since you do, your argument falls flat. 

It is time for you to realize the system isn't about you, and the bumpy ride when you're getting ignored is definitely a price worth paying.


----------



## CapnZapp

FitzTheRuke said:


> I think the overall lesson to be learned (if there is one) is that two-way blocking is probably a good feature, but the one we have might not have the best overall design. Perhaps the best way to do it would be to show (both sides) that there is a post there, with maybe a button (similar to a spoiler, I suppose) that one can press if they want to read what is being said, but that they can easily ignore if they notice "oh, THAT person is speaking." (Though then you would have to remember who they are and why you ignored them).



If you want that, access the site through the EN World app. There it works *literally *_*exactly* _as you have described. (Do keep in mind you're talking about people you have ignored while this thread is about people who have ignored you)

I explored the various differences between the standard Xenforo web interface and the Tapatalk app back in post #65.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> That there are some who let nothing stop them is no argument against not providing the two-block service. *You see, most people won't go to the lengths of logging out, sockpuppeteering, comparing post counts etc etc,* and it is these people who the system "helps" be nicer simply by them never seeing the posts that trigger them.



Yes, and those are the people who also are not harassing anyone.  The few who feel strongly enough to harass aren't going to be stopped by this feature or any feature of the current block system.


CapnZapp said:


> (Of course, our concern is with the victims and not the perpetrators, which is why I put "help" in quotes)



There are no victims or perpetrators by those people who aren't going to go through the above lengths to harass people.  Being in a disagreement or whatever reason and deciding to block someone or become blocked isn't enough make for victims and perpetrators.  There has to be much more and at that point, the mods are going to step in hard.  Nobody who has blocked me has ever been a victim of mine and I have never been a perpetrator.


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> Yes, and those are the people who also are not harassing anyone.  The few who feel strongly enough to harass aren't going to be stopped by this feature or any feature of the current block system.



Now you presume to talk for other people. You are getting uncomfortably insensitive. Stop minimizing the value people see in proper functioning two-way blocking.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> Now you presume to talk for other people. You are getting uncomfortably insensitive. Stop minimizing the value people see in proper functioning two-way blocking.



I haven't.  From your response and the responses of others, it's clear that I have done nothing to minimize the value they see in the feature.  Only they can do that.


----------



## ccs

Could you add a line in our profiles "Members ignoring you: #" or similar?

That might be of interest/use.  Even if you don't have a bunch of warning points, if you realize that x amount of people don't like what you're posting....


----------



## CapnZapp

Maxperson said:


> I haven't.  From your response and the responses of others, it's clear that I have done nothing to minimize the value they see in the feature.  Only they can do that.



I am explaining to you that while you see little value in the feature, the value is there. By falsely claiming the feature lacks value, and asking it be removed based on limited and incomplete reasoning, you come across as invalidating the experiences of people that are truly helped by the efforts of Xenforo to strengthen the privacy and integrity of the system. I tried to make you see how insensitive you come across when you refuse to acknowledge this value, but you have doubled down on sticking only to your own - limited - viewpoint. This does nothing to help your argument.

At this point, there is nothing more to say. If you persist in making this feature about you, I might test the feature on you. Using your own logic, I should expect to be harassed elsewhere. Yet, I predict it will work - and work _beautifully_


----------



## CapnZapp

ccs said:


> Could you add a line in our profiles "Members ignoring you: #" or similar?
> 
> That might be of interest/use.  Even if you don't have a bunch of warning points, if you realize that x amount of people don't like what you're posting....



Well, the point is to be able to ignore someone as silently as possible, giving no indication the person isn't seeing your posts. So I would guess the answer from the mods will be "no".


----------



## Umbran

So, let us put it this way...

@CapnZapp, I commend how respectful you have kept this discussion.  You've patiently laid out the points well.  However, he's not going to change his mind, and that's okay.  He doesn't have to agree.  I think you can let it go at this point. 

@Maxperson, Your complaints have been heard, but we just don't agree with your assessments.  We will not be changing the feature at this time.  We'd recommend you move on to something more constructive.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> So, let us put it this way...
> 
> @CapnZapp, I commend how respectful you have kept this discussion.  You've patiently laid out the points well.  However, he's not going to change his mind, and that's okay.  He doesn't have to agree.  I think you can let it go at this point.



He's "respectfully" said things to me like,

"I was merely trying to help you understand you need to educate yourself as to why this is set up in a way contrary to your wishes."

"You're making yourself look like an entitled fool...

"I engaged because I saw you were in danger of putting your foot in your mouth. Now that you have there's nothing I can help you with."

I'll let it go, but it would be nice if you didn't gloss over his statements by calling them respectful.


----------



## Morrus

Maxperson said:


> He's "respectfully" said things to me like,
> 
> "I was merely trying to help you understand you need to educate yourself as to why this is set up in a way contrary to your wishes."
> 
> "You're making yourself look like an entitled fool...
> 
> "I engaged because I saw you were in danger of putting your foot in your mouth. Now that you have there's nothing I can help you with."
> 
> I'll let it go, but it would be nice if you didn't gloss over his statements by calling them respectful.



Maybe you should block him.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

My only gripe is that I did not know it was bidirectional!  Oh well.  I unblocked the last one I had...

I think it’s a good feature.  I got sick of political posts on Facebook and hid people.  I saw less of their garbage...works well here too.

90+ percent of people are decent enough.  There is a percentage though that have issues that routinely effect others.  Blocking is the only really good option.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

CapnZapp said:


> I would generally agree with you, but please realize you're not talking about my first and most friendly attempt to give Max the realization "psst... you know that feature you feel is annoying; it's actually purposeful and if you just think about it, you'll realize why it's worth the inconvenience..."



I understand that. I think he did too, though I'll not speak for him. I just felt like you were making your point rather aggressively. (I'm not really meaning to defend Max here, exactly - Gradine made it very clear why they find the feature useful, and it answered any questions I have as to its worth:  It's needed.)



CapnZapp said:


> If you want that, access the site through the EN World app. There it works *literally *_*exactly* _as you have described. (Do keep in mind you're talking about people you have ignored while this thread is about people who have ignored you)
> 
> I explored the various differences between the standard Xenforo web interface and the Tapatalk app back in post #65.



I was only spitballing possible ways that it might work to stop from causing misunderstandings, which happened upthread. (Though I was able to work that one out, anyway). I wasn't talking about any particular side of the ignore feature, though. I meant for it to work both ways.

But it doesn't matter what I think - again, _I_ don't need it to do anything in particular. I haven't ignored anyone and I don't think anyone has ignored me. I have no skin in this game. It's probably past time that I leave it alone.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FitzTheRuke said:


> Huh. Yeah, I can see how that very brief, very civil misunderstanding actually makes your case. That said, I can also see why Gradine finds it very useful.
> 
> I think the overall lesson to be learned (if there is one) is that two-way blocking is probably a good feature, but the one we have might not have the best overall design. Perhaps the best way to do it would be to show (both sides) that there is a post there, with maybe a button (similar to a spoiler, I suppose) that one can press if they want to read what is being said, but that they can easily ignore if they notice "oh, THAT person is speaking." (Though then you would have to remember who they are and why you ignored them). Or something like that.
> 
> I dunno. I always assume that things can be better than they are, even if they work well enough as is.



If possible, the ideal solution would be a “sticker” showing where a post or quote you can’t see is, that only allows you to click and see the text if it’s someone you have blocked. You shouldn’t be able to circumvent someone blocking you without logging out.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

doctorbadwolf said:


> If possible, the ideal solution would be a “sticker” showing where a post or quote you can’t see is, that only allows you to click and see the text if it’s someone you have blocked. You shouldn’t be able to circumvent someone blocking you without logging out.



That makes sense, though I'm not sure I understand why one would care if a blocked person can read their posts as long as they can't respond to them. (I mean, if that's what people want  out of it, more power to them, but it's not something that I can imagine myself caring about. What do I know? Clearly not much.)


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Umbran said:


> So, let us put it this way...
> 
> @CapnZapp, I commend how respectful you have kept this discussion.  You've patiently laid out the points well.  However, he's not going to change his mind, and that's okay.  He doesn't have to agree.  I think you can let it go at this point.
> 
> @Maxperson, Your complaints have been heard, but we just don't agree with your assessments.  We will not be changing the feature at this time.  We'd recommend you move on to something more constructive.



Cap has not been respectful to Max, at all.


----------



## Imaculata

Maxperson said:


> Yes, and those are the people who also are not harassing anyone.  The few who feel strongly enough to harass aren't going to be stopped by this feature or any feature of the current block system.




And since burglars exist, I guess we shouldn't have locks on our frontdoors either.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

TIL (or maybe was reminded - if i've blocked anyone, that was probably some time ago) that you can block people on ENWorld. Good to know.


----------



## Gradine

doctorbadwolf said:


> Cap has not been respectful to Max, at all.



I mean, I'm very definitely on Cap's side here, and even I would agree with this. That this conversation in particular has generated no small amount of acrimony across both sides is one life's more regrettable ironies. 

Or amusing, depending upon your level of investment, I guess.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> Cap has not been respectful to Max, at all.




Your opinion on the matter has been noted, and will be given due consideration.


----------



## ccs

CapnZapp said:


> Well, the point is to be able to ignore someone as silently as possible, giving no indication the person isn't seeing your posts. So I would guess the answer from the mods will be "no".



Oh I don't care who's ignoring me, or why.  I just think it'd be interesting to know the # of them.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

ccs said:


> Oh I don't care who's ignoring me, or why.  I just think it'd be interesting to know the # of them.



By virtue of closely monitoring your number of blockers and seeing the number increment you can make a fairly accurate assessment of just who has blocked you. Not that I would bother, much too lazy, but the internet  seems full of obsessive that do just that thing.


----------



## TheSword

CapnZapp said:


> Well, the point is to be able to ignore someone as silently as possible, giving no indication the person isn't seeing your posts. So I would guess the answer from the mods will be "no".



Yeah definitely the number would be helpful. The same way we have the number of warnings listed.

Incidentally it’s really obvious when someone blocks you, if they are a regular poster. For instance, I no longer see endless numbers of rambling threads about Greyhawk.


----------



## Aldarc

It's kind of nice to discover that some of the people that had been on my ignore list have since been either banned, disabled their profiles, or no longer appear to be active posters. That truncated my ignore list to a small handful.



CapnZapp said:


> The ignore feature is meant to lessen the friction on the board. If you don't even see that somebody has blocked you, you are much less likely to harass that person elsewhere on the internet. What you are suggesting amounts to the forum constantly reminding people they are "blocked by X" which is NOT HELPFUL.
> 
> That this causes you inconvenience is utterly beside the point. That a stalker determined enough to monitor the forum while logged out to find out who is ignoring him or her is also missing the point - most people won't bother doing that, and when they don't, the system is working as intended.



I know for a fact that I put one person on my ignore list precisely to reduce the friction that we can collectively cause the forums. If I can't see their posts, then it removes any inclination that they have to either respond to me or for me to respond back. And on the whole, it makes life easier for the Mods and people reading the forums.


----------



## Asisreo

Question about the Ignore Feature: 

If you set someone on Ignore and tried to search their profile, would it show up? 

More important question: 

If you've been ignored by someone, would it be obvious by looking at the profile of the person that blocked you?


----------



## TheSword

Asisreo said:


> Question about the Ignore Feature:
> 
> If you set someone on Ignore and tried to search their profile, would it show up?
> 
> More important question:
> 
> If you've been ignored by someone, would it be obvious by looking at the profile of the person that blocked you?



I believe you can search for the profile in both cases but if you try and click on details you just get an oops reading.


----------



## amethal

I just checked, and I have 5 users on ignore. (Although I'm pretty sure two of those accounts were the same person.) I put them all on ignore after a very contentious thread in which the opinions they expressed were so distasteful to me I didn't want to read anything else they had written.

In true internet style, I have now completely forgotten what that thread was about! So I'm taking them all off ignore.


----------



## AnotherGuy

FitzTheRuke said:


> I've never ignored anyone.




Oh, you sweet summer child!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Speaking from my own experience, I can say that AFAIK, I've only been "ignored," once*- right after I joined enworld, an individual got really annoyed that I made fun of Return of the Jedi (?!?) and blocked me ... with an extreme flourish!

Which taught me a few valuable lessons:
1. People take Star Wars really seriously!
2. If you're going to ignore someone, just do it. Leveraging it or threatening it or (worst of all) saying "Ima ignore you now!" and then doing it? Kind of weird. Especially because the person won't see your grand performative statement.  

All that said, I appreciate the ignore function, and use it freely. This is an amazingly-well moderated forum, but something about the format of forums and threads can lend itself to heated exchanges ... and I'm too old for that stuff. The world is already too angry and too divisive and too argumentative, and sometimes it's nice to have fun, make some jokes, and talk about dragons and wizards. 

*I'm sure it's happened a lot more! That's the only one I've actually noticed.


----------



## Asisreo

TheSword said:


> I believe you can search for the profile in both cases but if you try and click on details you just get an oops reading.



So wouldn't that mean that you could likely sniff out if the user ignored you and, if you're a troll, bypass that filter?


----------



## TheSword

Asisreo said:


> So wouldn't that mean that you could likely sniff out if the user ignored you and, if you're a troll, bypass that filter?




If by bypass the filter you mean go through an external social media source then I’m not sure how any solution solves that problem. No platform can stop someone operating on a different platform and it’s not possible to eliminate the recognition that someone’s been blocked if they really want to know.


----------



## Asisreo

TheSword said:


> If by bypass the filter you mean go through an external social media source then I’m not sure how any solution solves that problem. No platform can stop someone operating on a different platform and it’s not possible to eliminate the recognition that someone’s been blocked if they really want to know.



Can someone not also harass on this site merely by making an alt account?


----------



## Rob Kuntz

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Speaking from my own experience, I can say that AFAIK, I've only been "ignored," once*- right after I joined enworld, an individual got really annoyed that I made fun of Return of the Jedi (?!?) and blocked me ... with an extreme flourish!
> 
> Which taught me a few valuable lessons:
> 1. People take Star Wars really seriously!
> 2. If you're going to ignore someone, just do it. Leveraging it or threatening it or (worst of all) saying "Ima ignore you now!" and then doing it? Kind of weird. Especially because the person won't see your grand performative statement.
> 
> All that said, I appreciate the ignore function, and use it freely. This is an amazingly-well moderated forum, but something about the format of forums and threads can lend itself to heated exchanges ... and I'm too old for that stuff. The world is already too angry and too divisive and too argumentative, and sometimes it's nice to have fun, make some jokes, and talk about dragons and wizards.
> 
> *I'm sure it's happened a lot more! That's the only one I've actually noticed.



I view it like this:  I was taught to be respectful in all cases and *especially* when you are an invited guest.  I consider this *Morrus's House.*  He has invited us here to share pleasantries.  Respect the invite just as you would do elsewhere in life.  BTW:  Thanks to @Morrus and his House-Tenders all!


----------



## aco175

I wonder how many people start a new account to get around being blocked or kicked off due to warnings or such.


----------



## Gradine

My understanding (an anecdotal memory) is that the Mod Team are pretty good at sussing that stuff out fairly quickly.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

aco175 said:


> I wonder how many people start a new account to get around being blocked or kicked off due to warnings or such.




Past is prologue.

Seems pointless; if you can't change your behavior to avoid getting kicked off (or can't take the hint from being blocked by 130+ people!), then a new and different account is only delaying the inevitable.


----------



## Maxperson

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Past is prologue.
> 
> Seems pointless; if you can't change your behavior to avoid getting kicked off (or can't take the hint from being blocked by 130+ people!), then a new and different account is only delaying the inevitable.



I think if they can successfully do it once, they can do it 2, 3 or 10 times.  It's not really a delay of the inevitable, but it is likely to repeat itself a lot.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Maxperson said:


> I think if they can successfully do it once, they can do it 2, 3 or 10 times.  It's not really a delay of the inevitable, but it is likely to repeat itself a lot.




_shrug_ That's true on any forum. That's what moderators are for (eventually). 

Again, if someone gets blocked continually, and is unable to conform their behavior, then they are unlikely to change. Which just means ... they will get blocked a lot again. Eventually, either they will get modded out, or the amount of effort won't be worth the diminishing returns.

I think @Rob Kuntz put it nicely above- it's not our house. We are guests here, and if we don't like the rules, there are other places to express ourselves. I would just point out that the forums here are (happily) devoid of a lot of the divisiveness and outside issues that I find elsewhere, which I think is a feature, and not a bug. The implementation of ignore (which is a common way of doing it) is also one of the things I think of as a benefit. YMMV.


----------



## Deset Gled

Maxperson said:


> I think if they can successfully do it once, they can do it 2, 3 or 10 times.  It's not really a delay of the inevitable, but it is likely to repeat itself a lot.




I think it still helps weed out the trolls.  Trolling, after all, is about maximizing annoyance of others with minimal effort.  If someone has to go through multiple accounts (with multiple email addresses, minimum post counts to gain credibility, etc) to annoy someone who only has to report them once as a suspected alt account to start the process over, they're really trolling themselves more than the rest of the board.


----------



## TheSword

Deset Gled said:


> I think it still helps weed out the trolls.  Trolling, after all, is about maximizing annoyance of others with minimal effort.  If someone has to go through multiple accounts (with multiple email addresses, minimum post counts to gain credibility, etc) to annoy someone who only has to report them once as a suspected alt account to start the process over, they're really trolling themselves more than the rest of the board.



It is painfully obvious when some Villager joins a conversation as if they’ve been here for years. Talking with familiarity with people on the same topics.


----------



## Morrus

Deset Gled said:


> I think it still helps weed out the trolls.



It does.


----------



## DammitVictor

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Past is prologue.
> 
> Seems pointless; if you can't change your behavior to avoid getting kicked off (or can't take the hint from being blocked by 130+ people!), then a new and different account is only delaying the inevitable.




You don't get blocked by 130 people by believing that _your problem_ is actually _your problem, _or that you actually have a problem at all. You get blocked by 130 people by believing that, if 130 people have blocked you, they all have a problem and the problem is all of them.

It's... much the same with being permabanned, except sometimes that person being removed is _actually right_ about the moderators being the problem, but they're so confident in their superiority and their entitlement that they _honestly believe_ that if they just double down hard enough that... _somehow_, everyone else involved will just acknowledge their worth and give them their own way.


----------



## Maxperson

Deset Gled said:


> I think it still helps weed out the trolls.  Trolling, after all, is about maximizing annoyance of others with minimal effort.  If someone has to go through multiple accounts (with multiple email addresses, minimum post counts to gain credibility, etc) to annoy someone who only has to report them once as a suspected alt account to start the process over, they're really trolling themselves more than the rest of the board.



I would think, though, that a true troll would be kicked off of the site long before reaching that many ignores.  The ones that stay around and get ignored to that degree would probably be non-trolls that are perhaps a bit abrasive.


----------



## Gradine

Maxperson said:


> I would think, though, that a true troll would be kicked off of the site long before reaching that many ignores.  The ones that stay around and get ignored to that degree would probably be non-trolls that are perhaps a bit abrasive.



To bring this back full circle, once again; the point here is that being abrasive is an unwelcome character trait, and the consequence for being abrasive is getting ignored and having to put up with the consequences that follow.

You are asking to get to be abrasive without consequence, which doesn't appear like it's going to be happen.


----------



## Maxperson

Gradine said:


> To bring this back full circle, once again; the point here is that being abrasive is an unwelcome character trait, and the consequence for being abrasive is getting ignored and having to put up with the consequences that follow.
> 
> You are asking to get to be abrasive without consequence, which doesn't appear like it's going to be happen.



That isn't what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying that those who aren't trolls, but are a just little abrasive will be more likely that a troll to go through the effort to make another account and will last a lot longer.  They're more invested in the site.  I wasn't saying that it's okay.


----------



## the Jester

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I would just point out that the forums here are (happily) devoid of a lot of the divisiveness and outside issues that I find elsewhere, which I think is a feature, and not a bug.



It is the result of years of learning and hard work on the parts of Moruss and the various mods.

Which, by the way, thanks, you guys. You're not perfect and I don't always agree with every call you make, but this site is a great deal better than it would otherwise be thanks to your collective efforts.


----------



## the Jester

All this talk about trolls makes me really miss Bugaboo. Now that guy was the best ever.


----------



## Morrus

the Jester said:


> It is the result of years of learning and hard work on the parts of Moruss and the various mods.
> 
> Which, by the way, thanks, you guys. You're not perfect and I don't always agree with every call you make, but this site is a great deal better than it would otherwise be thanks to your collective efforts.



The weird thing is that I might be one of the most experienced internet community administrators in the world. 20 years now! Yikes!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

the Jester said:


> All this talk about trolls makes me really miss Bugaboo. Now that guy was the best ever.




Bugaboo? Story time!


----------



## Umbran

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Bugaboo? Story time!




Bugaboo was a user who acted as... a perpetual gaming April Fool's joke.  He hasn't been seen around since 2008, but his account's still there, and you can look up posts if you wish.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Umbran said:


> Bugaboo was a user who acted as... a perpetual gaming April Fool's joke.  He hasn't been seen around since 2008, but his account's still there, and you can look up posts if you wish.




1. Interestingly, he doesn't come up in the auto-select list of users, but you can search for the posts, which I found, and ....

2.  "_I only recently realized how handy it could be to have an Animal Companion around when the adventuring party runs out of food. I figure that the Cosmic Force That Is Nature wouldn't mind too much because the world is all about survival of the fittest, predator-prey, eh?

So as long as you perform the act with due respect to the animal's spirit, there's no good reason not to slaughter one of your critters for lunch every so often. You've probably trained them to answer your commands anyway; it's just one step away from "Jump in this stew pot.""_

I think I might be reading these for a while!


----------



## BookTenTiger

Umbran said:


> Bugaboo was a user who acted as... a perpetual gaming April Fool's joke.  He hasn't been seen around since 2008, but his account's still there, and you can look up posts if you wish.



I feel like back in the day there were more posters playing characters, often in a trollish way.

I remember someone like Little Bear or something to the effect who would post long angry rants, then quickly edit them, but with enough time for other people to quote or copy. I always figure it was more performance art than anything.


----------



## Umbran

BookTenTiger said:


> I feel like back in the day there were more posters playing characters, often in a trollish way.




For a typical internet troll, the idea is to actually make people upset.  That's the goal.  

Bugaboo, at least, was more to be funny - yes, people would be upset if they fell for it, but... it was _in his name_ for goodness' sake.


----------



## Lanefan

TheSword said:


> It is painfully obvious when some Villager joins a conversation as if they’ve been here for years. Talking with familiarity with people on the same topics.



Except wouldn't someone that experienced be savvy enough to quickly change their title from Villager to something - anything! - else?


----------



## Lanefan

BookTenTiger said:


> I feel like back in the day there were more posters playing characters ...



Gads - if I posted as Lanefan-the-character my lifespan here would be measured in minutes; the same minutes that Eric's Grandma would spend running for the hills while trying at the same time to wash out her highly-offended ears...


----------



## Lanefan

Blue said:


> I play a bard.  And I'd do it again.
> 
> _hand dramatically to forehead_ Block me if you must.



Nah, I won't block you.

But rocks do fall; and oops, look at that: somehow only the Bard got squashed.  What a pity.  Now roll up a real character...


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> Except wouldn't someone that experienced be savvy enough to quickly change their title from Villager to something - anything! - else?




Now that you've told them, sure!

Sheesh.  It is like you folks want to write a manual on how to fool your fellow posters.  Good job!


----------



## BookTenTiger

Lanefan said:


> Gads - if I posted as Lanefan-the-character my lifespan here would be measured in minutes; the same minutes that Eric's Grandma would spend running for the hills while trying at the same time to wash out her highly-offended ears...



I basically stole Eric's Grandma (hm, I should rephrase that) for my 3rd Grade classroom. Whenever I see the kids writing or drawing, let's say "PG-13" stuff, I ask "Would you show that to my sweet old granny?"

It's a lot easier than having a list of things they can't write or draw!


----------



## FrogReaver

For a long time after I started regularly posting here I never used the ignore/block feature.  What I found from doing that is that others would become rude and abrasive - I would act in kind - and then after some back and forth they would ignore me.  If I had ignored them first then it's extremely likely that they wouldn't have ignored me.

For this reason I believe that those least likely to ignore others tend to be the most likely to be ignored and so I don’t put much stock into number of ignores being a meaningful indicator about who is more abrasive. It’s instead more of an indicator of who has the thickest skin as it's quite common for 2 people on forums to strongly disagree with each other to end up being abrasive and rude toward each other and the one with the 'thinnest skin' is going to be the one to first reach for the ignore/block button.

More recently I have started to use the ignore feature more often (note: I have configured my settings to not two-way block, and to show me an alert showing there's ignored content so I can gather context - though if someone has me 2-way blocked their content still doesn't come through).  I find this does help reduce the amount of 'counter escalations' I participate in - which in turn makes my time here more enjoyable.  So I do see wisdom in utilizing a one-way ignore function despite starting out in a place where I previously would never have used it.

The one direct value I see in 2-way ignore is the idea that: 'if you don't want to talk to me then I don't really want to waste my time replying to you'.  Meaning in a 1-way ignore environment I could reply to someone that is never going to see my post and wasting my time doing that isn't something I value - so it's not like 1-way ignore is fault free either.

I've seen it mentioned that it helps prevent stalking which is a commendable endeavor - but we already had one way blocking and moderators for issues like that - which to me makes that justification ring a little hollow.  Instead 2-way blocking has been typically presented as providing 2 things:

1.  A way to help deal with posters being more abrasive than they like but not necessarily rising to the level of rule breaking (one way ignore accomplishes this as well)
2.  A punitive measure that other users can inflict on posters they feel are too abrasive (and that moderaters apparently agree are too abrasive simply because another user blocked them...).  IMO The true benefit here is that 2-way blocking causes more users to solve their problems with it as they are more likely to use a punitive tool than they were a one-way ignore feature that only affected them - thus leading to less moderation needing to be actively done by the moderators.

If I'm right then 2 makes for a very good practical justification for 2-way blocking to exist.  However, philosophically, I have to remain opposed to other users being given the power to 'punish' other users.  Which is why I and others oppose 2-way blocking (or at least this implementation of it).  That said I understand the practical benefit of increasing usage of ignore/block functions and how that lowers the need for moderatoin as to why it won't be changed.


----------



## CapnZapp

FrogReaver said:


> For this reason I believe that those least likely to ignore others tend to be the most likely to be ignored and so I don’t put much stock into number of ignores being a meaningful indicator about who is more abrasive.



Luckily that's not the number discussed here!

And I think those least likely to ignore others is... the vast majority of users who never interact with the blocking system at all.



> However, philosophically, I have to remain opposed to other users being given the power to 'punish' other users.



Philosophically I remain opposed to not seeing the upside, only the downside. The system isn't there to give users the power to punish others, it's there because it is a very useful tool for users and moderators alike. That it can be construed as punitive is not the same as actually being punitive, and that a few users get annoyed is easily a cost worth paying.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> The one direct value I see in 2-way ignore is the idea that: 'if you don't want to talk to me then I don't really want to waste my time replying to you'.  Meaning in a 1-way ignore environment I could reply to someone that is never going to see my post and wasting my time doing that isn't something I value - so it's not like 1-way ignore is fault free either.



For me that doesn't apply for 2 reasons.  First, a reply to someone isn't a reply only to that person.  It's a reply to everyone in the thread, so even though the ignored person isn't going to know I replied, everyone else that can see my reply will and can continue the conversation with me.  If something was worth replying to, it was something that I also welcomed responses from anyone in the thread.  Second, I feel that almost everyone has at least some good ideas and I don't want to miss out on seeing those. 


FrogReaver said:


> I've seen it mentioned that it helps prevent stalking which is a commendable endeavor - but we already had one way blocking and moderators for issues like that - which to me makes that justification ring a little hollow.  Instead 2-way blocking has been typically presented as providing 2 things:



It doesn't help with preventing stalking at all, though.  Someone who is emotional enough to engage in activity that rises to the level of stalking, is also going to be emotional enough to go through the very little effort it takes to circumvent the current set-up.


----------



## FrogReaver

CapnZapp said:


> Luckily that's not the number discussed here!



This thread is about those that are ignored alot.  As such a comment about 'the most likely to be ignored' seems to directly fall into the discussion to me.  Maybe you can elaborate on why you think it doesn't?



CapnZapp said:


> And I think those least likely to ignore others is... the vast majority of users who never interact with the blocking system at all.



On technicality I agree.  Those users posting the least or even never are going to be the least likely to block or be blocked.  I guess it's safe to phrase it this way:  the intended context of my comment was only about those users that are regularly active in a variety of different threads and topics because looking at the trivial case of those that seldom post just doesn't make for an interesting discussion IMO.



CapnZapp said:


> Philosophically I remain opposed to not seeing the upside, only the downside. The system isn't there to give users the power to punish others, it's there because it is a very useful tool for users and moderators alike.



I didn't only post the downsides.  I gave at least 1 upside that I agree with while also explaining why I don't agree with the other touted upsides.  I'm curious if there's some other upside I'm missing.  Do you think there is?



CapnZapp said:


> That it can be construed as punitive is not the same as actually being punitive,



So I have to ask:  How exactly does it benefit the blocker for the blocked to no longer be able to see their posts?  Punitiveness is the only answer I have for that.  I'm opening to there being something more I'm missing but it's not readily apparent to me.



CapnZapp said:


> and that a few users get annoyed is easily a cost worth paying.



It depends on what that 'cost' is paying for.  I'm just not seeing a good explanation for what paying that cost is actually buying us (outside the ability to punish others without the mods).  It would be very nice if you would elaborate on what you view as the benefits and how this feature actually accomplishes providing those benefits.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> For me that doesn't apply for 2 reasons.  First, a reply to someone isn't a reply only to that person.



I think there's a few different types of posts and the following is by no means an exhaustive list:
1.  A reply primarily to the user that you are quoting - but that others are free to comment on.
2.  A reply only to the user that you are quoting
3.  A reply to all others in the thread using the user being quoted to reply to some generic idea they posted.

If your reply is for the purposes of 3 then I'm with you.  But for 1 and 2, i'd personally prefer not to waste my time if the other user has me ignored.



Maxperson said:


> Second, I feel that almost everyone has at least some good ideas and I don't want to miss out on seeing those.



I fully agree there.  But for practical purposes - if there idea is really good then at some point they won't be the only one to adopt it.  So I'm not very likely to miss out either way.  I think at some point it becomes about maximizing the good ideas you find.  Sometimes ignoring certain people - while it may cause you to miss out on some of their good ideas - you may actually find that you find more good ideas due to the extra time and investment you get by not having to deal with them.



Maxperson said:


> It doesn't help with preventing stalking at all, though.  Someone who is emotional enough to engage in activity that rises to the level of stalking, is also going to be emotional enough to go through the very little effort it takes to circumvent the current set-up.



I agree with the conclusion but not the argument.  Something can still be a deterrent despite not being full proof.  I think the better argument is that everyone already had better tools to prevent stalking on this site than what adding a 2-way blocking function provides.  To me it's alot like saying I bought this sharp kitchen knife to protect myself from burglars when you already have a gun in every room of your house.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> What I found from doing that is that others would become rude and abrasive - I would act in kind - and then after some back and forth they would ignore me.  If I had ignored them first then it's extremely likely that they wouldn't have ignored me.
> 
> For this reason I believe that those least likely to ignore others tend to be the most likely to be ignored and so I don’t put much stock into number of ignores being a meaningful indicator about who is more abrasive.




So, there is one element missing from your analysis that may impact how we view this:

Everyone says, and seems to believe, that the other person is the one who started being abrasive.  Almost universally, both sides of conflicts say it was started by _the other guy_.

If we include this information, and your description, what we get is that people who are more stubborn and/or less self aware of their impact get ignored more.


----------



## BookTenTiger

FrogReaver said:


> For a long time after I started regularly posting here I never used the ignore/block feature.  What I found from doing that is that others would become rude and abrasive - I would act in kind - and then after some back and forth they would ignore me.  If I had ignored them first then it's extremely likely that they wouldn't have ignored me.



One solution would be to de-escalate instead of acting in kind. That would solve a lot of the problems you see in the Ignore system.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> So, there is one element missing from your analysis that may impact how we view this:
> 
> Everyone says, and seems to believe, that the other person is the one who started being abrasive.  Almost universally, both sides of conflicts say it was started by _the other guy_.



Then why am I having so many calm and enjoyable conversations now that the others have blocked me?  This site is still very active for me, but now I'm not running into the contentious people that blocked me, so my experience is much more enjoyable.  

I'm not goin to say that I have never started anything, but for me it has primarily been the other guy.


----------



## Morrus

Umbran said:


> So, there is one element missing from your analysis that may impact how we view this:
> 
> Everyone says, and seems to believe, that the other person is the one who started being abrasive.  Almost universally, both sides of conflicts say it was started by _the other guy_.



Or playground blaming, as we like to say. Plus "He started it!" isn't an excuse, even in the rare cases it actually is true.


----------



## FrogReaver

Umbran said:


> So, there is one element missing from your analysis that may impact how we view this:
> 
> Everyone says, and seems to believe, that the other person is the one who started being abrasive.  Almost universally, both sides of conflicts say it was started by _the other guy_.



I fully agree with the sentiment, except that I wouldn't call it missing from my analysis.  It's unstated for sure, but that's because to me it's such a trivial truth that it didn't need stated in the first place.



Umbran said:


> If we include this information, and your description, what we get is that people who are more stubborn and/or less self aware of their impact get ignored more.



I don't think this follows from that premise.  We would need to look at the 'Use Cases' where the ignore function is utilized.

Use Cases would be something like:
1.  User A and User B are discussing with no issues and then User A does something User B perceives as rude.  User B then ignores user A.
2.  User A and User B are discussing with no issues and then User A does something User B perceives as rude.  User B lets it go and continues discussing without rudeness the first few times before finally ignoring User A.
3.  User A and User B are discussing with no issues and then User A does something User B perceives as rude.  User B responds in kind.  User A responds in kind and there is an increasing escalation until 1 User ignores the other.

**I'm sure there's some other use cases, but in my experiences 3 tends to be what most often occurs, while even 1 and 2 are pretty rare out in the wild.

Anyways, the point is that the most common Use Case for ignore function utilization is one where the conversation has already evolved to significant rudeness from both sides.  In this Use Case there's nothing that stops a very stubborn person from being the first to ignore.  There's also nothing that stops someone with very little self awareness from ignoring first.  IMO how people choose to ignore or not ignore involves much more nuanced and complex processes than this rather simplistic view of yours.


----------



## FrogReaver

BookTenTiger said:


> One solution would be to de-escalate instead of acting in kind. That would solve a lot of the problems you see in the Ignore system.



I think that's the ideal solution but there's many reasons it doesn't always work as well as it should.  One reason being that we are all human and there's only so much de-escalation attempts we have in us.  I believe that most of us initially try to avoid escalation but when someone keeps being rude despite those attempts it's fairly difficult (though not impossible) not to be rude in kind.  Couple that with the fact that the medium makes it easier write something more offensive than intended or to take something more offensive than intended and it's not surprising these issues repeatedly crop up IMO.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> Then why am I having so many calm and enjoyable conversations now that the others have blocked me?



I think that's a great point.  Though it may be a better point to bring up in support that some posters styles just don't mix.  I imagine those other posters that blocked you are having more calm and enjoyable conversations now that they have blocked you as well.



Maxperson said:


> This site is still very active for me, but now I'm not running into the contentious people that blocked me, so my experience is much more enjoyable.
> 
> I'm not goin to say that I have never started anything, but for me it has primarily been the other guy.



I think the most we can say is that we didn't consciously intend to start anything.  I'm sure the other side didn't consciously intend to either.  But at some point the way either them or us phrased something came across as rude/overly dismissive/etc and responses like that tend to 'start something' even if we didn't consciously intend them to. 

I find that I have a bad habit of adding things to the beginning of my responses that are short witty-or-not-so-witty retorts that will only really inflame and so I'm much more careful about reading over my posts and deleting out such comments before I hit submit.  Examples:  "That's wrong"  "Incorrect"  "No that's you"  "No one did that".  I find dropping those phrases and focusing on my explanation instead helps the conversation along alot more.  I also find it helps alot to not simply focus on your disagreements with someone but also to commend them on their good points and the places you agree.


----------



## Lanefan

CapnZapp said:


> Philosophically I remain opposed to not seeing the upside, only the downside. The system isn't there to give users the power to punish others, it's there because it is a very useful tool for users and moderators alike.



How is it a tool for moderators, though?  Does the forum software even allow the mods to use it as a moderation tool?  For example if you and I were fighting like cats over something could the mods force each of us on the other's ignore list?


----------



## Morrus

Lanefan said:


> How is it a tool for moderators, though?  Does the forum software even allow the mods to use it as a moderation tool?  For example if you and I were fighting like cats over something could the mods force each of us on the other's ignore list?



We haven't done that, but the software has the functionality.

It's a tool in the sense that we can look at the numbers and see if anything needs a second look.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Then why am I having so many calm and enjoyable conversations now that the others have blocked me?




Using the generic "you" here, and using slightly descriptive language to make the point...

If you are a borderline jerk, some people will have more tolerance for your jerkitude than others.  When the ones with less tolerance opt out, your field of view becomes more quiet.

It does _not_ mean that you aren't the cause of the problem.  It means that folks who do have the problem have a solution they can use on their own, without us having to boot your sorry tuchus.


----------



## Li Shenron

I am definitely too harsh with ignoring, my tolerance threshold is too low and I tend to click ignore at the first sight of rudeness or if I get the feeling that someone is picking on me or wants to start a feud. It's hard to voluntarily ignore what you see written in front of you, so making them disappear is easier. 

However I wish there was a sort of "quarantine" feature like on social networks, that would make you ignore someone for 30 days (or whatever) rather than permanently. My current ignore list is unfairly wrong because I don't remember often to go and un-ignore at least those who I don't even remember why they offended me.


----------



## FrogReaver

Lanefan said:


> How is it a tool for moderators, though?  Does the forum software even allow the mods to use it as a moderation tool?  For example if you and I were fighting like cats over something could the mods force each of us on the other's ignore list?



That would be a feature id support.


----------



## FrogReaver

Umbran said:


> Using the generic "you" here, and using slightly descriptive language to make the point...
> 
> If you are a borderline jerk, some people will have more tolerance for your jerkitude than others.  When the ones with less tolerance opt out, your field of view becomes more quiet.



I think there’s a difference in being a jerk in general and being a jerk only to jerks.  The jerk is the problem.  The person being the jerk only toward the jerk isn't.



Umbran said:


> It does _not_ mean that you aren't the cause of the problem.  It means that folks who do have the problem have a solution they can use on their own, without us having to boot your sorry tuchus.



I don't think a jerk blocking you indicates you are the problem.

Also it seems 1 way ignore would also have been a solution to that situation that they could use on their own, so I'm curious why you think 2-way block is a better solution to such situations than 1 way ignore?


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Li Shenron said:


> I am definitely too harsh with ignoring, my tolerance threshold is too low and I tend to click ignore at the first sight of rudeness or if I get the feeling that someone is picking on me or wants to start a feud. It's hard to voluntarily ignore what you see written in front of you, so making them disappear is easier.
> 
> However I wish there was a sort of "quarantine" feature like on social networks, that would make you ignore someone for 30 days (or whatever) rather than permanently. My current ignore list is unfairly wrong because I don't remember often to go and un-ignore at least those who I don't even remember why they offended me.



Yeah.  I had some folks ignored for long enough I did not realize it anymore.

no longer mad, I Unignored them.  It was time to let them out of quarantine.

that is how I use ignore....but without a reminder, I left them ignored longer than needed.

I would say there are few who I would permanently ignore.  Of them, they often take care of it with their own behavior.  Some are not around anymore


----------



## Blue

FrogReaver said:


> For this reason I believe that those least likely to ignore others tend to be the most likely to be ignored and so I don’t put much stock into number of ignores being a meaningful indicator about who is more abrasive. It’s instead more of an indicator of who has the thickest skin as it's quite common for 2 people on forums to strongly disagree with each other to end up being abrasive and rude toward each other and the one with the 'thinnest skin' is going to be the one to first reach for the ignore/block button.



Yes - but the point is that with two habitually abusive posters it's not a ranking of which is worse.  If we can identify either of them and get them to clean up, we've made the boards a better place.  So it's not really a ranking of "who is worse" - if someone gets in arguments with many others and gets blocked a lot, that's is an indicator about them.  And when you're looking at 130 blocks, that's a large range of people.  Even if that one person never blocked, those 130 - if they are repeat offenders - will have been blocked by some of the other 130, whom we do know do block people.


----------



## FrogReaver

Blue said:


> Yes - but the point is that with two habitually abusive posters it's not a ranking of which is worse.  If we can identify either of them and get them to clean up, we've made the boards a better place.



Let's say we have 2 users that other both total jerks to everyone.  I fully agree in that case.  But there's another common use case of users that are only jerks to those that are being jerks to them.  And it's that use case that is being ignored in this.



Blue said:


> So it's not really a ranking of "who is worse" - if someone gets in arguments with many others and gets blocked a lot, that's is an indicator about them.



Anything someone does or even how others react to them is an indicator about them.  The question is what does that indicate.  I'm suggesting it doesn't indicate what is being claimed.  That alot of blocks can be but isn't necessarily an indicator of a jerk.



Blue said:


> And when you're looking at 130 blocks, that's a large range of people.  Even if that one person never blocked, those 130 - if they are repeat offenders - will have been blocked by some of the other 130, whom we do know do block people.



Consider this scenario.  The person with 130 blocks may never block other users but will reply in kind to them up to a certain extent.  If those 130 people that blocked him are jerks and the guy that was blocked that many times was never a jerk to anyone else, then I wouldn't call him a jerk or a problem that needs cleaned up.  Cleaning up the actual jerks will resolve any hint of jerkness from him as he's just being a 'counter jerk'.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> Consider this scenario.  The person with 130 blocks may never block other users but will reply in kind to them up to a certain extent.  If those 130 people that blocked him are jerks




That is a huge IF, though.  You pile a whole lot of dependency into that unfounded supposition.

But hey, if it helps you sleep at night to believe that folks who get blocked a lot are somehow remarkably innocent, and they are blocked because _everyone else_ is the jerk, well, you can do so.  Nobody here can stop you.  Have fun and pleasant dreams.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> Consider this scenario.  The person with 130 blocks may never block other users but will reply in kind to them up to a certain extent.  If those 130 people that blocked him are jerks and the guy that was blocked that many times was never a jerk to anyone else, then I wouldn't call him a jerk or a problem that needs cleaned up.  Cleaning up the actual jerks will resolve any hint of jerkness from him as he's just being a 'counter jerk'.



Speaking for myself, I'm not 100% innocent.  There are times that I'm irritated, often due to lack of sleep or real life, and I cross into abrasiveness first.  It happens on occasion.  The vast majority of the time, though, someone else does it to me first, I try to re-explain, they do it again, etc.  After the 4th-6th time, I get annoyed and treat them like they're treating me.


----------



## FrogReaver

Umbran said:


> That is a huge IF, though.  You pile a whole lot of dependency into that unfounded supposition.
> 
> But hey, if it helps you sleep at night to believe that folks who get blocked a lot are somehow remarkably innocent, and they are blocked because _everyone else_ is the jerk, well, you can do so.  Nobody here can stop you.  Have fun and pleasant dreams.



I’m not saying they are in general just that it’s possible some are.

I also get the impression it’s time for this conversation to end so that’s the last I’m going to say on it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FrogReaver said:


> But there's another common use case of users that are only jerks to those that are being jerks to them. And it's that use case that is being ignored in this.



I have come around to disagreeing with the idea that there is a meaningful difference. I am 100% someone who is a jerk to people when they are a jerk to me. That is a bad habit that I need better control of.  

In real life, I’m privileged to live in a state that doesn’t allow prospective employers to ask why you left your last job, or whether it was voluntary, and to have bosses that have so far supported me in standing up to people. This means that when I indulge my big mouth in the presence of jerks, I’m unlikely to be fired and even less likely to have trouble finding a new job because of it. Which is great because when someone is being a jerk IRL, I am going to say something. Customers get abusive and I tell them to shut the hell up and get out.    

But I can’t stare a jerk down, here. I can’t bully someone w with basic decency. As @Umbran has told me multiple  times, the other guy has no reason to call down, so he probably won’t. The best way to deal with it is to report and ignore.  

And 2-way ignore makes it so they can’t read your posts and “subtweet” you, they 
 are cut off from interacting with you in general.


----------



## Morrus

Ironically, I see that the post numbers are in the 200+ range in this thread, but I can only see 120 or so!


----------



## generic

Personally, I've never ignored any posters, and hope to have never offended anyone enough to be ignored. 

But, hey, it's better to disengage than continue pointless internet feuds, get upset over words online, and spend less time enjoying the forums than you should.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Critics are those who watch a battle from on high and then come down and shoot the survivors.

You know, I appreciate what @Warpiglet-7 said about going back and re-doing your own ignored list periodically. But ... it also seems like a lot of effort. And having a fun conversation shouldn't be effort. If someone puts forth the hard work to get ignored, I try and honor that work.


----------



## Blue

FrogReaver said:


> Let's say we have 2 users that other both total jerks to everyone.  I fully agree in that case.  But there's another common use case of users that are only jerks to those that are being jerks to them.  And it's that use case that is being ignored in this.
> 
> 
> Anything someone does or even how others react to them is an indicator about them.  The question is what does that indicate.  I'm suggesting it doesn't indicate what is being claimed.  That alot of blocks can be but isn't necessarily an indicator of a jerk.
> 
> 
> Consider this scenario.  The person with 130 blocks may never block other users but will reply in kind to them up to a certain extent.  If those 130 people that blocked him are jerks and the guy that was blocked that many times was never a jerk to anyone else, then I wouldn't call him a jerk or a problem that needs cleaned up.  Cleaning up the actual jerks will resolve any hint of jerkness from him as he's just being a 'counter jerk'.



No, at that quantity it doesn't work like that.  For a few blocks I agree with what you are saying as a possibility.  But when you get up to 130 blocks, if everyone else was really "the jerks" they would have similar or more blocks.

Think like this - a jerk will get blocked by people who don't want to deal with them.  If they are as active, they will both have a similar number of blocks from "gives back", but the jerk will also have additional blocks from starting things.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

I just unblocked two posters from God-knows-when, whom I had apparently blocked for God-knows-what.

Otherwise, I haven't used the ignore feature for years. I'm curmudgeony and opinionated, and tend to have a high tolerance for people behaving the same way. And even posters who can be really annoying occasionally let some gem slip.


----------



## generic

Honestly, I'll be controversial and say that I find the idea of a thread founded upon the basis of gloating over and smugly fiddling with the idea of blocking and ignoring people quite repulsive.

I get the practical use, but what's the purpose of glibly sneering over the matter when all that seems to arise is an overabundance of bruised egos and worsened relations?

Perhaps it's the nature of my upbringing, though, just seems a bit out of place and poor taste.


----------



## Morrus

Aebir-Toril said:


> Honestly, I'll be controversial and say that I find the idea of a thread founded upon the basis of gloating over and smugly fiddling with the idea of blocking and ignoring people quite repulsive.
> 
> I get the practical use, but what's the purpose of glibly sneering over the matter when all that seems to arise is an overabundance of bruised egos and worsened relations?
> 
> Perhaps it's the nature of my upbringing, though, just seems a bit out of place and poor taste.



Yeah, I agree that a thread about gloating, smugly fiddling(?), and glibly sneering would be a terrible thread.


----------



## generic

Morrus said:


> Yeah, I agree that a thread about gloating, smugly fiddling(?), and glibly sneering would be a terrible thread.



Well, as condescending as your response is, I'll be brief:

What is the point of this thread other than to bring to light the idea of ignoring people to cut off their influence?  I'm certain everyone's aware that there are some users whose contributions are very unpopular.

Seems like needless provocation intermingled with comments about how you "only see X messages despite there being Y counted", and from a moderator, no less.

[I seem to recall multiple moderation notes having been made on not announcing ignores and blocks in the past, so why should a Moderator gloat that multiple users in the thread are ignored?]


----------



## Morrus

Aebir-Toril said:


> Well, as condescending as your response is, I'll be brief:
> 
> What is the point of this thread other than to bring to light the idea of ignoring people to cut off their influence?  I'm certain everyone's aware that there are some users whose contributions are very unpopular.
> 
> Seems like needless provocation intermingled with comments about how you "only see X messages despite there being Y counted", and from a moderator, no less.
> 
> [I seem to recall multiple moderation notes having been made on not announcing ignores and blocks in the past, so why should a Moderator gloat that multiple users in the thread are ignored?]



It has a purpose, but it’s not smugly gloating or glibly sneering. Thanks though!


----------



## generic

Morrus said:


> It has a purpose, but it’s not smugly gloating or glibly sneering. Thanks though!



And that purpose would, in your opinion, be?

And do you have any response to the difference between moderator expectations of not announcing ignores and the moderator behavior of announcing that there are ignored users?


----------



## Morrus

Aebir-Toril said:


> And do you have any response



No.


----------



## generic

Morrus said:


> No.



That's awfully disappointing, considering past moderation principles.  Am I to assume that the example thus set is that I can now announce my ignores publicly without fear of retribution?


----------



## Morrus

Aebir-Toril said:


> Am I to assume that the example thus set is that I can now announce my ignores publicly without fear of retribution?



You can assume anything you want, but the policy remains the same.


----------



## generic

Morrus said:


> You can assume anything you want, but the policy remains the same.



Alright, glad that's cleared up.

I feel, however, that moderators should set an example and follow it, though you're, of course, welcome to believe otherwise.


----------



## Maxperson

Aebir-Toril said:


> Seems like needless provocation intermingled with comments about how you "only see X messages despite there being Y counted", and from a moderator, no less.



And ironically, I see 246 out of 250 at this point, and he said I was way up on the list.


----------



## generic

I mean, I'm glad that forum rules have been officially clarified, at least.

It's reassuring to know that moderators are exempt from their own provisions.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> And ironically, I see 246 out of 250 at this point, and he said I was way up on the list.



Weird. My numbering works different. I see the current correct post count but going through the thread sometimes posts jump from something like 240 to 242.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> Weird. My numbering works different. I see the current correct post count but going through the thread sometimes posts jump from 240 to 242.



Mine works like that as well.  Those jumps are people who have blocked you or that you have blocked.  I don't have fancy tools, so I had to go back through the thread and manually count the number of jumps to determine how many I couldn't see.


----------



## Morrus

Aebir-Toril said:


> I mean, I'm glad that forum rules have been officially clarified, at least.
> 
> It's reassuring to know that moderators are exempt from their own provisions.



There are lots of things I can do in my house which you can't do. I can put my feet on the coffee table and I can help myself to the contents of the fridge. 

However, at no point has anybody said that they're ignoring anybody in particular in this thread that I've seen. Nor has anybody sneered, jeered or gloated.


----------



## generic

Morrus said:


> There are lots of things I can do in my house which you can't do. I can put my feet on the coffee table and I can help myself to the contents of the fridge.
> 
> However, at no point has anybody said that they're ignoring anybody in particular in this thread that I've seen. Nor has anybody sneered, jeered or gloated.



I would argue that implying that you are ignoring _any _members, as a moderator, sets a poor example for those who would imply that they cannot see half a thread due to their many ignored users.

However, I suppose the house analogy fits as well as any, but if I leave moldy cheese out on the nightstand, it certainly might make my house unattractive to others.

Of course, you're welcome to do whatever you like, leave as much cheese on your nightstand as you please.


----------



## billd91

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Critics are those who watch a battle from on high and then come down and shoot the survivors.
> 
> You know, I appreciate what @Warpiglet-7 said about going back and re-doing your own ignored list periodically. But ... it also seems like a lot of effort. And having a fun conversation shouldn't be effort. If someone puts forth the hard work to get ignored, I try and honor that work.



I did cleared my ignore list once. They mostly ended up right back on my ignore list. Wasted effort.


----------



## Asisreo

Man, all these replies seem to be referencing Morrus, but...I can't see them. Weird...



Spoiler



I'm just making a joke, lol


----------



## Morrus

Aebir-Toril said:


> I would argue that implying that you are ignoring _any _members, as a moderator, sets a poor example



Yes, you made that _very_ clear. Words like "gloating", "glibly sneering", and "repulsive" are pretty clear. I got it, don't worry. You didn't hold back. Well, except for "smuggly fiddling"; I didn't quite understand that one.

I understand your point, but I disagree with your uncharitable portrayal of it. My goal is to set an example by encouraging the use of the feature. YMMV.


----------



## generic

Morrus said:


> Yes, you made that _very_ clear. Words like "gloating", "glibly sneering", and "repulsive" are pretty clear. I got it, don't worry. You didn't hold back. Well, except for "smuggly fiddling"; I didn't quite understand that one.
> 
> I understand your point, but I disagree with your uncharitable portrayal of it. My goal is to set an example by encouraging the use of the feature. YMMV.



Wow, thanks for that, I'm glad you understand.

I suppose the policy on announcing ignores publicly must have changed, and, obviously, in light of this new system, it's only rational to promote the use of the ignore system.

I suppose my only question is, because you made such a distinction, can I announce that I cannot see half a thread without referencing names, or is that cheese reserved for the host?


----------



## Imaculata

FrogReaver said:


> I think there’s a difference in being a jerk in general and being a jerk only to jerks.  The jerk is the problem.  The person being the jerk only toward the jerk isn't.




Be the better person. Don't be a jerk. Simple.



Aebir-Toril said:


> It's reassuring to know that moderators are exempt from their own provisions.




The best way to look at this is, you are a guest at a party, and they are the host. The host can do as they like, and as a guest you have to respect their rules. If you don't like the rules, you don't have to attend the party.


----------



## CapnZapp

My observation:

There is a small number of posters that insist they don't see the advantages of two-way blocking, or that the system doesn't do what they have told themselves what the system is there to do, or that the disadvantages generally outweigh the advantages, and basically keep complaining so this thread never ends.

These are the posters that unwittingly demonstrate the usefulness of the system, and unintentionally proves the decision to implement and enable it correct.

Tl;dr: if you can't understand and empathize with the decision to offer two-way blocking you need to do what probably is new and unfamiliar to you: self-reflection.


----------



## generic

CapnZapp said:


> My observation:
> 
> There is a small number of posters that insist they don't see the advantages of two-way blocking, or that the system doesn't do what they have told themselves what the system is there to do, or that the disadvantages generally outweigh the advantages, and basically keep complaining so this thread never ends.
> 
> These are the posters that unwittingly demonstrate the usefulness of the system, and unintentionally proves the decision to implement and enable it correct.
> 
> Tl;dr: if you can't understand and empathize with the decision to offer two-way blocking you need to do what probably is new and unfamiliar to you: self-reflection.



Well, for my part, I'd like to assert, given that my position has been one of contention, that I wholeheartedly support the blocking feature, it's essential to any forum, and saves people from interactions they'd rather avoid.

My complaint was only with the presentation of the thread and the actions of moderation, on the topic of the need for blocks, I agree completely.


----------



## FrogReaver

CapnZapp said:


> My observation:
> 
> There is a small number of posters that insist they don't see the advantages of two-way blocking, or that the system doesn't do what they have told themselves what the system is there to do, or that the disadvantages generally outweigh the advantages, and basically keep complaining so this thread never ends.
> 
> These are the posters that unwittingly demonstrate the usefulness of the system, and unintentionally proves the decision to implement and enable it correct.
> 
> Tl;dr: if you can't understand and empathize with the decision to offer two-way blocking you need to do what probably is new and unfamiliar to you: self-reflection.



Seemed to me the thread was about to die till you went and posted something like this.

Making slights about other posters by calling them 'endless complainers' and 'unfamiliar of self reflection' is almost certainly a sure fire way to inflame those posters and turn your post into a self-fulfilling prophecy.  I'm not going to do that though.

Instead I'll leave it at this: until your rhetoric tones down a bit, don't expect any more engagement from me on this topic.  You are welcome to have the last word though.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Aebir-Toril said:


> Well, for my part, I'd like to assert, given that my position has been one of contention, that I wholeheartedly support the blocking feature, it's essential to any forum, and saves people from interactions they'd rather avoid.
> 
> My complaint was only with the presentation of the thread and the actions of moderation, on the topic of the need for blocks, I agree completely.



If you don't like the way someone is posting on the forum you can always ignore them!


----------



## Cadence

Morrus said:


> Ironically, I see that the post numbers are in the 200+ range in this thread, but I can only see 120 or so!




So, if someone ignores all of the moderators, that means moderation of them only occurs if others report them, and not just if a mod happens to see it first?   Do mods moderate much that wasn't reported by other users anyway?


----------



## FrogReaver

Cadence said:


> So, if someone ignores all of the moderators, that means moderation of them only occurs if others report them, and not just if a mod happens to see it first?   Do mods moderate much that wasn't reported by other users anyway?



My understanding is that we cannot block mods but that they can technically block us.  To my knowledge the only one that has done this is Morrus. I suppose he could ban individuals instead of blocking them and so I’d say they should be glad for his mercy in having only blocked them given he’s the site owner and all.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Cadence said:


> So, if someone ignores all of the moderators, that means moderation of them only occurs if others report them, and not just if a mod happens to see it first?   Do mods moderate much that wasn't reported by other users anyway?




It was a joke. You can't ignore moderators, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Asisreo

Is it possible to see a reaction from someone blocked? Let's say Cadence 2-way blocked me, would I be able to see their like from Snarf's most recent reply above me?


----------



## the Jester

Aebir-Toril said:


> I suppose the policy on announcing ignores publicly must have changed, and, obviously, in light of this new system, it's only rational to promote the use of the ignore system.



Moruss posted above that the policy remains the same, in case you missed it.


----------



## Umbran

Aebir-Toril said:


> I would argue that implying that you are ignoring _any _members, as a moderator




So, let us be clear - Morrus is not a moderator.  He's _the site owner_, which means he can pretty much do what he likes, including moderate the discussion as he sees fit.

I, on the other hand, have nobody on ignore - if I did, I could not see problematic posts, and I cannot block anyone from seeing my posts, because then they could not see moderation posts.


----------



## Maxperson

CapnZapp said:


> My observation:
> 
> There is a small number of posters that insist they don't see the advantages of two-way blocking, or that the system doesn't do what they have told themselves what the system is there to do, or that the disadvantages generally outweigh the advantages, and basically keep complaining so this thread never ends.
> 
> These are the posters that unwittingly demonstrate the usefulness of the system, and unintentionally proves the decision to implement and enable it correct.
> 
> Tl;dr: if you can't understand and empathize with the decision to offer two-way blocking you need to do what probably is new and unfamiliar to you: self-reflection.



So you have an opinion, and if anyone steps a toe outside of your opinion, well then that just proves your opinion to be right.  There's no way anyone else can have a valid opinion that differs from yours.  Must be nice to have such a certain view of how life works.


----------



## Deset Gled

CapnZapp said:


> Tl;dr: if you can't understand and empathize with the decision to offer two-way blocking you need to do what probably is new and unfamiliar to you: self-reflection.




It is entirely possible to understand and empathize with an alternative point of view, but still disagree with it.    

There is a difference between educating and convincing.  Confusing the two is often a barrier to both.


----------



## Umbran

It seems to me that this thread has boiled down to a small bunch of folks who are well-entrenched in their positions arguing at each other.  I don't see any real new insight coming out of the last few pages, but I do see continuing trend of it getting personal.

So, thread closed.


----------

