# Talking through the Ignore Feature



## FrogReaver

I would like to discuss the ignore feature in detail - primarily how users are using it, why they are using it that way, mod expectations around it's use, what other users expectations are around it's use and how ignore should be treated by everyone going forward.

My first thought is that the ignore feature can be used when someone else is being rude to you that doesn't require you to simply demand them to stop.  That sounds great.  Except, using the ignore feature cuts you off from other potentially meaningful posts that another poster makes.  Now if they are rude 99% of the time and only say something meaningful 1% of the time then I think all of us would happily give up access to their few meaningful posts.  But I don't think that's the general case.  I think most of the time a far greater percentage of what someone says is meaningful and that they are only rude a small portion of the time and in those circumstance it seems that using the ignore feature is more akin to punishing myself for their bad behavior by cutting myself off from any meaningful thing they are saying.

So my expectation is that the ignore feature is a last resort toward someone that is incapable of not being rude _(of course I wonder why anyone would be allowed to stay here while being that rude but I think that's a different subject)_.  I get the impression that moderations expectation of the ignore feature is that it's a magical bullet that would solve every problem if people would just use it at the first sign of rudeness.  On top of this, most rude behavior isn't directly against the rules but calling out that rude behavior is and tends to be treated more harshly than the instigating behavior.

So what are others thoughts?  Am I missing something vitally important in this ignore debate?  Does moderation have any comments or counterpoints?  Is there an even better case for not going to the ignore feature straight away?


----------



## jmartkdr2

So I took a moment to skim the official rules page: there's no mention of the feature, so I don't think there _is _an official moderator stance. 

Page, for reference: Terms and rules


----------



## Blue

I can tell you how I used it under the old software - if myself and someone else were butting heads in multiple threads, or they took it personal, I'd ignore them.  For some it was a while for use to both cool down, for others it was bye-bye.

They dont' have to be rude to everyone (which would sooner or later be a ban-able offense), just annoying to me.

My understanding from the new software is that ignore just means I can't see their posts, but they can see mine.  Since that would allow these potential bad actors to tear apart what I am posting without me getting a chance to know about it or respond.  So I don't block anyone.


----------



## FrogReaver

jmartkdr2 said:


> So I took a moment to skim the official rules page: there's no mention of the feature, so I don't think there _is _an official moderator stance.
> 
> Page, for reference: Terms and rules




I think you are just quibbling on semantics - but would love to hear the mods take.  All I know is it's mentioned an awful lot in mod red text posts as a solution.  It's definitively possible my somewhat hyperbolic take on their position is off the mark though.


----------



## Lanefan

FrogReaver said:


> Now if they are rude 99% of the time and only say something meaningful 1% of the time then I think all of us would happily give up access to their few meaningful posts.



Not me.

I'll put up with the 99% just to get to that 1%; as everyone sooner or later has something useful to say and I want to hear it when it happens.   And I'm used to people being rude and am - if I have to, say in an unmoderated forum - perfectly capable of giving back what I get.

Thus, I never - and will never - block anyone.  In fact, I'm a bit disappointed that the option even exists.


----------



## FrogReaver

The main comments in this thread have so far centered around not wanting to use the current ignore feature, and surprisingly for vastly different reasons.  I know it's too early to call that a consensus but I find that being the direction this appears to be heading very interesting.  So exploring that paradigm a bit: if the ignore feature is either a last or no resort to these users - then what actually happens when such posters encounter rude behavior on this forum?  I think there are a few possibilities:

1.  Someone is rude so they are rude back.  This can take many forms.  But one I've seen many times is the perception that the other poster is derailing a fairly new thread.  In that instance the rudeness back manifests with please go somewhere else (at the nicest) to get the heck out of here (at the most rude).  What happens almost everytime in this kind of situation is being rude back gets the mods called on you and best case is both of you get in trouble and worst case is being rude back just got you in trouble.

2.  Okay so why not just report the post when someone is rude and leave it be till the mods respond.  Because the mods don't just respond to anything rude.  They respond when it's sufficiently rude which typically requires a few iterations of escalation.  So unless the post you reported was egregiously rude then no luck here.

3.  So do nothing about what anyone does that's rude to you.  That definitely makes the forum "appear" to be running smoother and makes the mods lives easier but I doubt that's the way any of us would want the forum to be ran.

IMO.  None of these are good outcomes.


----------



## SkidAce

Lanefan said:


> Thus, I never - and will never - block anyone.  In fact, I'm a bit disappointed that the option even exists.



Truth.


----------



## prabe

SkidAce said:


> Truth.




Seconded. I don't think there's anyone here I can't learn from--even if what I learn is why I think the way I do.


----------



## The Crimson Binome

If someone is being obviously disingenuous, or their opinions are so heinously offensive that a reasonable person would not be able to let it stand unchallenged, I'll just block the person. Because calling someone out for their stupidity is considered a worse infraction than posting that stupidity in the first place. (Which is a bad policy, and not remotely fair, but this isn't a democracy and I don't pay the bills.)

And yes, that means the worst people will always get the last word in any debate, because I can't see what they say; but the first rule of internet forums is, "Don't feed the trolls".


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> Seconded. I don't think there's anyone here I can't learn from--even if what I learn is why I think the way I do.




I think most of us here are still trying to learn why we think the way we do


----------



## FrogReaver

Saelorn said:


> If someone is being obviously disingenuous, or their opinions are so heinously offensive that a reasonable person would not be able to let it stand unchallenged, I'll just block the person. Because calling someone out for their stupidity is considered a worse infraction than posting that stupidity in the first place. (Which is a bad policy, and not remotely fair, but this isn't a democracy and I don't pay the bills.)
> 
> And yes, that means the worst people will always get the last word in any debate, because I can't see what they say; but the first rule of internet forums is, "Don't feed the trolls".




I fully agree with this and please don't let this next comment take away from that.  I think that sometimes in our search for trolls we find some where there aren't any.


----------



## FrogReaver

Saelorn said:


> Because calling someone out for their stupidity is considered a worse infraction than posting that stupidity in the first place. (Which is a bad policy, and not remotely fair, but this isn't a democracy and I don't pay the bills.)




I really wanted to touch on this point because it's something that I think you've articulated better than I and it's something until recently I hadn't begun to be able to articulate at all.  I think understanding your point above on some level and taking it to heart is the biggest thing separating posters that avoid "mod wrath" and those that see it a great deal.


----------



## MNblockhead

My brain comes equipped with an ignore feature that does a better job than the software of filtering out--well, at least skipping over--posts that don't interest or offend me.


----------



## Li Shenron

Lanefan said:


> Not me.
> 
> I'll put up with the 99% just to get to that 1%; as everyone sooner or later has something useful to say and I want to hear it when it happens.   And I'm used to people being rude and am - if I have to, say in an unmoderated forum - perfectly capable of giving back what I get.
> 
> Thus, I never - and will never - block anyone.  In fact, I'm a bit disappointed that the option even exists.




Fair enough. 

Personally I have "ignored" a lot of people, primarily when they reveal themselves to indulge in hate ideologies. Others because they responded in a rude manner to my posts. Usually I remove everyone from my ignore list a couple of times a year, because I can understand people might be rude on a bad day without being bad people outright, and I know I am myself guilty sometimes (who knows how many ignore lists I belong to...). 

If anything, I would like there was an option for me to set how long someone should be on my ignore list, at least a choices between temporary and permanently. Because those belonging to hate groups I would like to remember NOT to un-ignore them. I am tired of giving second chances to people who CHOOSE to not giving chances to others based on what they ARE and therefore cannot choose. 

Honestly, I absolutely do not care whether they have something useful to say to the hobby.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> My first thought is that the ignore feature can be used when someone else is being rude to you that doesn't require you to simply demand them to stop.  That sounds great.  Except, using the ignore feature cuts you off from other potentially meaningful posts that another poster makes.




Yep, it does that.  



> So my expectation is that the ignore feature is a last resort toward someone that is incapable of not being rude _(of course I wonder why anyone would be allowed to stay here while being that rude but I think that's a different subject)_.




There are a significant number of posters (and, outside this virtual place, just people in the world) who are fine with most other people in the world, but who find a few individuals who, for whatever reason - something in their manner, tone, word choice, approach to the world, whatever - they just rub the wrong way.  Much of their irritation may not be anything that's explicitly against the site rules, but they end up wrangling with these folks or annoyed repeatedly.  The ignore function is very useful in those cases.  

We provide it as a tool to help you control your own experience.



> I get the impression that moderations expectation of the ignore feature is that it's a magical bullet that would solve every problem if people would just use it at the first sign of rudeness.




We don't have any overall expectations of the feature.  We suggest it when we think it may aid someone's experience of the site, but we don't generally count on its use.  



> On top of this, most rude behavior isn't directly against the rules but calling out that rude behavior is and tends to be treated more harshly than the instigating behavior.




If you'd like me to go into an extended discussion of escalating behaviors, and why "calling out" generally doesn't work on the internet, I can do so.


----------



## TwoSix

FrogReaver said:


> 3.  So do nothing about what anyone does that's rude to you.  That definitely makes the forum "appear" to be running smoother and makes the mods lives easier but I doubt that's the way any of us would want the forum to be ran.



This is what I _try_ to do. (I'm better than I used to be, and I still have days where I backslide.) Ultimately, getting you to show any sort of response to their provocations is how a lot of people define "winning the internet", I'm not going to waste my valuable time giving anyone the satisfaction. Slide into a thread, make your point, and walk away.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

TwoSix said:


> This is what I _try_ to do. (I'm better than I used to be, and I still have days where I backslide.) Ultimately, getting you to show any sort of response to their provocations is how a lot of people define "winning the internet", I'm not going to waste my valuable time giving anyone the satisfaction. Slide into a thread, make your point, and walk away.




_Try _is the key word. There's something about the dopamine of the internet (forum, social media, etc.) that makes fools us of all.

"But this time it will be different! I just know that if I explain it one more time, they will get it."

Having a well-functioning ignore/block feature is really important. The best way to avoid temptation, is to not put yourself in situations where you are tempted.


----------



## Deset Gled

Saelorn said:


> Because calling someone out for their stupidity is considered a worse infraction than posting that stupidity in the first place. (Which is a bad policy, and not remotely fair, but this isn't a democracy and I don't pay the bills.)




Posting something "stupid" has never been against the rules.  Challenging an opinion has never been against the rules.  But personal insults are.  If you can argue that a point is stupid (and can come up with better terminology and reasons than just "stupid") you will rarely get in trouble.  But "calling out someone for their stupidity" is pretty much always going to a personal attack, and you'll get nailed every time.



FrogReaver said:


> 2.  Okay so why not just report the post when someone is rude and leave it be till the mods respond.  Because the mods don't just respond to anything rude.  They respond when it's sufficiently rude which typically requires a few iterations of escalation.  So unless the post you reported was egregiously rude then no luck here.




This is exactly the response you should take.  First, just because you think something is rude doesn't necessarily mean it's against the rules.  Second, if you take part in a "a few iterations of escalation", you are straight up being the problem - not the solution.

Most importantly, the mods don't necessarily respond to every individual report, but that doesn't mean they're not listening.  The mods pay attention to the number of reports an individual generates, and people's behavior over time.  A person who continually puts their toes over the line will eventually be called out for it, while someone who accidentally steps over it for the first time is likely to be given the benefit of the doubt.  Just because a response is not immediate doesn't mean you're being ignored.


----------



## Bawylie

FrogReaver said:


> The main comments in this thread have so far centered around not wanting to use the current ignore feature, and surprisingly for vastly different reasons.  I know it's too early to call that a consensus but I find that being the direction this appears to be heading very interesting.  So exploring that paradigm a bit: if the ignore feature is either a last or no resort to these users - then what actually happens when such posters encounter rude behavior on this forum?  I think there are a few possibilities:
> 
> 1.  Someone is rude so they are rude back.  This can take many forms.  But one I've seen many times is the perception that the other poster is derailing a fairly new thread.  In that instance the rudeness back manifests with please go somewhere else (at the nicest) to get the heck out of here (at the most rude).  What happens almost everytime in this kind of situation is being rude back gets the mods called on you and best case is both of you get in trouble and worst case is being rude back just got you in trouble.
> 
> 2.  Okay so why not just report the post when someone is rude and leave it be till the mods respond.  Because the mods don't just respond to anything rude.  They respond when it's sufficiently rude which typically requires a few iterations of escalation.  So unless the post you reported was egregiously rude then no luck here.
> 
> 3.  So do nothing about what anyone does that's rude to you.  That definitely makes the forum "appear" to be running smoother and makes the mods lives easier but I doubt that's the way any of us would want the forum to be ran.
> 
> IMO.  None of these are good outcomes.



I have a personal system I use to try to govern my own behavior. It’s a 3-peat. In any conversation, if we’ve gone 3 posts without any productive discussion, I disengage and don’t respond. This prevents me from needlessly continuing bad conversations or side-tracking good conversations too far from the main point. 

The last word isn’t important to me. If I’m right, I’m right, regardless of who spoke last. Same if I’m wrong.


----------



## MNblockhead

Bawylie said:


> I have a personal system I use to try to govern my own behavior. It’s a 3-peat. In any conversation, if we’ve gone 3 posts without any productive discussion, I disengage and don’t respond. This prevents me from needlessly continuing bad conversations or side-tracking good conversations too far from the main point.
> 
> The last word isn’t important to me. If I’m right, I’m right, regardless of who spoke last. Same if I’m wrong.




Seems like a good rule for life in general. Three strikes and you're out.


----------



## Lanefan

Bawylie said:


> I have a personal system I use to try to govern my own behavior. It’s a 3-peat. In any conversation, if we’ve gone 3 posts without any productive discussion, I disengage and don’t respond. This prevents me from needlessly continuing bad conversations or side-tracking good conversations too far from the main point.
> 
> The last word isn’t important to me. If I’m right, I’m right, regardless of who spoke last. Same if I’m wrong.



So _that_ explains why you haven't spoken to me in years...







I kid, of course.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Lanefan said:


> Thus, I never - and will never - block anyone.




From before I was asked to help moderate here, I took a similar position, for similar reasons.  I also feel that I’d rather know what someone who dislikes me or things, places & people I like are saying about all that.  That knowledge gives me the option of engagement or not, and makes my chosen method an informed choice.

And truthfully, sometimes the people I don't want to hear are the ones I need to hear from the most..._for my sake or theirs._

That doesn’t mean I always handled it well.  Some things were sure to get me motivated to respond.  It was negatively affecting my health.  Then I saw this:





That’s when I started really learning the power of letting things go.


----------



## rredmond

I don't personally use the Ignore feature, but as a Mod on a couple other forums I would definitely suggest it as a tool. Not necessarily a recommendation as a tool to make your experience on the boards what you want it to be. Some people have a lower tolerance for "rude" (or whatever) than others, if they just want to flat out ignore someone to make browsing the forums more enjoyable for them, have at it! It also decreases arguments between users honeslty. Pretty much as the Mods up-thread have said


----------



## Eltab

I commented in the "new features" thread that _Ignore Other Poster_ is not, and should not become, a synonym for _Banish Other Poster_.  Some of the complaints about Ignore being ineffective may be rooted in that misconception.  Ignore works entirely on your end, it does not affect anybody else - neither third parties nor the Ignored person.
I've never used Ignore, because I can keep track on my own if somebody is generally contentious or non-constructive, and just not step into the inevitable arguments.


----------



## Asisreo

Personally, I'm not too opposed to attacks on me because nobody here actually knows me. 

If someone disagrees with me, I try to listen as best as I can and try to understand them. However, I usually don't change my mind on a subject until I'm wholly convinced, most likely from quantitative evidence. It can be difficult to convince me with how something feels or how someone thinks, but I'm willing to listen. 

Even when things get heated, I try to actually get their point. If, for some reason, I feel things are getting way too negative, I'll usually stay off the site for a couple of days. If what is being discussed is still ongoing at the time, I'll weigh in again. If not, I'll let it pass. 

I don't like to block/ignore anyone, though. It doesn't seem worth it until someone says "@Asisreo1 is an idiot and needs to burn." Or something really bonkers like that.


----------



## Lanefan

Asisreo said:


> I don't like to block/ignore anyone, though. It doesn't seem worth it until someone says "@Asisreo1 is an idiot and needs to burn."



Hell, now and then someone says "Lanefan is an idiot and needs to burn." or words to that effect; it's water off a duck's back, and there's times when I'm almost ready to admit they have a point...


----------



## FrogReaver

Lanefan said:


> Hell, now and then someone says "Lanefan is an idiot and needs to burn." or words to that effect; it's water off a duck's back, and there's times when I'm almost ready to admit they have a point...




If we burned all the idiots there wouldn't be any people left.


----------



## Xenonnonex

Good to use to ignore racists.


----------



## Lem23

Xenonnonex said:


> Good to use to ignore racists.




That's what I've been using if for lately too.


----------



## cbwjm

There's a small handful of people I've ignored. Their posts just seem to create so much drama and the attitude that comes across when reading their posts just seemed to keep getting to me so I ignored them. Can't recall if it is on the site or just the app but I can view the ignored content if I want to, and sometimes I do to see if maybe I should take them off ignore. I think I've only undone ignore for 1 person since I've started using it, everyone else I've kept ignored and my view of the forums has been far nicer because of it.


----------



## Sadras

Lanefan said:


> Not me.
> 
> I'll put up with the 99% just to get to that 1%; as everyone sooner or later has something useful to say and I want to hear it when it happens.   And I'm used to people being rude and am - if I have to, say in an unmoderated forum - perfectly capable of giving back what I get.
> 
> Thus, I never - and will never - block anyone.  In fact, I'm a bit disappointed that the option even exists.




This is 100% my feelings on the issue and that is another reason why I also do not report posts. I'd rather thrash things out over discussion than have a thread or issue come to a grinding halt.


----------



## Raduin711

The people I have ignored... I am not worried about them coming up with some brilliant observation that would make up for the dreck that they have shown. I see enough of it in my daily life, tyvm.


----------



## Dausuul

I find that good moderation makes the Ignore feature redundant. If a poster is so obnoxious, and their posts so devoid of interesting content, that I want to nuke them from orbit with a blanket Ignore, they usually run afoul of the mods in short order. (In unmoderated or poorly-moderated forums, I use Ignore very liberally.)

I wish that we had thread-specific Ignore, though. It's common for two posters to get into a fight about who said what 15 pages ago, and then we have 10 pages of "you said X" and "no, I said Y," and I. Do. Not. Care. Those same people often have plenty of interesting things to say in other threads, and I don't want to put them on blanket Ignore, but I would really really like to be able to filter out just that one exchange.

Likewise, in threads devoted to more sensitive topics, I want to be able to step away from certain folks that I'm happy to engage with in other areas. It's like the family member that you're happy to chat with but everyone knows to keep the conversation away from That One Topic.


----------



## glass

If I find I am arguing with a poster and I feel myself getting angry with them, I put them on IL for a few days, to allow myself some time to calm down. This generally avoids issues escalating to far.

I not not have anyone on permanent ignore, and do not expect ever do so, but I would not judge anyone who does so.

_
glass.


----------



## CapnZapp

I don't think it has been said (in this thread), but previously the ignore feature also made your posts invisible to the ignored party.

(That implementation also had it's fair share of bugs, notably that you were entirely shut out of any thread started by someone who you had ignored (or someone who had ignored you).

You didn't just not see their posts. The fact the very first post was hidden made the entire thread inaccessible.)

I also believe the current stance of the admin team is "our ignore feature works in a certain way because that's how it works in the underlying forum software", that is, the time for special site customizations has passed. (The previous implementation discussed above was such a custom mod).


----------



## CapnZapp

That said, there is real value in an Ignore feature that works both ways (not only are the ignored party's posts blocked for you, but your posts are also blocked for them).

It is no coincidence other major forums offer this form of Ignore/Block functionality.

Seeing how popular and well-used Xenforo is, it surprises me they don't offer two-way Ignore as an easily implemented official function.

_Edit:_ I went back and checked the earlier thread. Apparently Xenforo does support two-way blocking. However, apparently there's a compatibility issue with the app (Tapatalk) that at least then prevented Morrus from enabling the feature.

_Edit II:_ I accept that there's value in the current implementation as well, especially the way ignored people can't know they are being ignored. With two-way ignore, obviously the ignored party can find out they're being ignored (such as when a third party replies to a post you can't see). Allowing each user to choose how their personal ignore list works (switching between one-way and two-way ignores) is the best way to handle this.


----------



## ART!

Bawylie said:


> I have a personal system I use to try to govern my own behavior. It’s a 3-peat. In any conversation, if we’ve gone 3 posts without any productive discussion, I disengage and don’t respond. This prevents me from needlessly continuing bad conversations or side-tracking good conversations too far from the main point.
> 
> The last word isn’t important to me. If I’m right, I’m right, regardless of who spoke last. Same if I’m wrong.



Yeah, I use Ignore on users who as far as I can tell just want to fight, even if it's not with me. What I might miss in good content is not worth the anxiety of the bad content.


----------



## Sabathius42

I have been here a very long time (came here to learn about the soon to be released 3e everyone was buzzing about) and I don't believe I have ever ignored another poster.  I would find it frustrating if they were a prolific contributor and I kept getting gaps in discussions that made them  hard to follow.

That being said, I do have a 10-20 user ignore list in my head, and when one of those posters says something that I might engage in discussion about I just move along and don't interact with them by choice.  This way I can properly follow the thread of discussion they are involved with but be choosy with who I reply to and discuss with.

I have a similar "Don't talk to PosterX about certain topic Y" list in my head for those that are good contributors to discussion but are just a little too strongly opinionated when it comes to certain topics.


----------



## CapnZapp

I should add that the Tapatalk app is already way behind in feature support.

To just take a single examples: it doesn't recognize polls. But this hasn't stopped EN World from allowing polls and generally adding new features (through Xenforo upgrades or otherwise). And rightly so - if I want to participate in a poll, I simply have to access the site in a browser.

So I'm curious: in what way doesn't the app handle two-way ignores?

If the app crashes, or threads become inaccessible, I understand the reluctance. But if two-way ignores are handled the way regular ignores are handled (=the app treats ignored posts like spoilers) or even aren't recognized at all (=the app displays posts from members who have ignored you like normal) then I'd say that's a price not unreasonable to pay.


----------



## Thomas Shey

I've very rarely uses Ignore functionality over the years (and I've been a forum user one place or another for a long, long time) but when I did do so I was very glad it was there.  There are simply people who've demonstrated to me that either they're very unlikely to say something I feel I really need to hear, or alternatively just irritate me enough that the net benefit is to small for the aggravation.

Regarding the fact that people can still comment on what you've said--eh.  That's a variation of not being able to stand other people having the last word, and while I'm not immune to that pathology, I recognize its a pathology, and if anything its something I strive to deal with (as I've commented to others a few times who accused me in threads of insisting on the last word "If I'm done talking I stop.  If I'm not I don't.  I don't expect other people to do it first.")


----------



## MNblockhead

Normally I use the ignore feature that comes with my brain. But some threads get so hijacked by two or so people arguing some tangent that it makes the thread hard to follow without removing their posts from it. Wish I could ignore people for just a specific thread.


----------



## cbwjm

MNblockhead said:


> Normally I use the ignore feature that comes with my brain. But some threads get so hijacked by two or so people arguing some tangent that it makes the thread hard to follow without removing their posts from it. Wish I could ignore people for just a specific thread.



Normally when a thread reaches that point I end up ignoring the thread and remove it from watched.


----------



## ccs

I think I've used it to ignore more Chinese (?) spam than on actual posters.
Sure, it gets cleaned up fairly quick.  But until it does it beats having screens full of trash.  Especially when viewed on my phone.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Once, ever I put people on ignore. It was on this site when two people started feuding and continuing it on every thread that one or the other was on. I eventually put them on ignore to make the threads readable. I took them of after a few months.


----------

