Ignore Feature Discussion
Moderator: Moderators
Ignore Feature Discussion
[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
All discussion not specifically related to "whether or not the IGNORE feature has programming issues" will go in this thead. Having said that, read my post below regarding "What an IGNORE feature means to TGDMB".
Now then, on to Crissa's post...
[/TGFBS]
I particularly dislike when people post that they're ignoring another person. That should be an offlimits topic unless asked by someone being ignored.
-Crissa
All discussion not specifically related to "whether or not the IGNORE feature has programming issues" will go in this thead. Having said that, read my post below regarding "What an IGNORE feature means to TGDMB".
Now then, on to Crissa's post...
[/TGFBS]
I particularly dislike when people post that they're ignoring another person. That should be an offlimits topic unless asked by someone being ignored.
-Crissa
Last edited by Crissa on Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:16 am, edited 3 times in total.
Even though I might ignore someone, the proof is in the pudding around here that others have some masochistic drive to continually respond to tangents which derail the original discussion. I'd like the option of asking someone not to participate in the discussion to remain on the table, all things being equalfbmf wrote:I really don't see a reason for it now. I will amend the CoC when I get a chance.Elennsar wrote: Second, do we still have "if asked to stay out, observe this, etc."? Or does having this function overwrite that?
[/TGFBS]
The internet gave a voice to the world thus gave definitive proof that the world is mostly full of idiots.
Since it only existed as a measure in absence of an ignore command, keeping it as a way to keep a thread "free"...well, if other people want to respond, what right do you have besides the limited right of the thread creator to tell them to take it elsewhere or not do it?
Keeping it as a method of exclusiveness does not sound like it would support the probable goal of the fence builder.
Keeping it as a method of exclusiveness does not sound like it would support the probable goal of the fence builder.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
I have a right not to want to talk to you or have you interrupt the discussion I am having. I'm not asking to be allowed to bar you from the restaurant but I should have the right to ask you not to sit at my table.
I'd also point out that since the rule was invoked you are the only one to actually enact it, and have done so twice compared to everyone else using it zero times. So you are apparently the one who is the most inclined to seek the exclusion of others.
I'd also point out that since the rule was invoked you are the only one to actually enact it, and have done so twice compared to everyone else using it zero times. So you are apparently the one who is the most inclined to seek the exclusion of others.
The internet gave a voice to the world thus gave definitive proof that the world is mostly full of idiots.
Your right to not to talk to me is as simple as using the ignore command on me and not responding to my posts.
Your right to not have your discussion interupted is dependent on what others do - if you want a private conversation, then PM someone.
If you simply want to ask me to not "sit at your table", then you can ask without having any formal rule - and if you ask politely instead of being rude and offensive about it, I'll respect that. If you're going to be rude and offensive, I'm very unsorry to say that I'm going to be as respectful back.
As for the rule being invoked: I've invoked it once. What is this other time than the fantasy thread asking PL to stay out?
Doesn't mean I have any interest in there being such a rule with or without an ignore command that I used it to create a thread using that rule any more than I have any great interest in being able to type strike through text because I've used it.
So, no, I don't have an inclination to exclude others, unlike those who pressed for having "I don't want someone in my thread. How do I do this without being an obvious jackass?".
Your right to not have your discussion interupted is dependent on what others do - if you want a private conversation, then PM someone.
If you simply want to ask me to not "sit at your table", then you can ask without having any formal rule - and if you ask politely instead of being rude and offensive about it, I'll respect that. If you're going to be rude and offensive, I'm very unsorry to say that I'm going to be as respectful back.
As for the rule being invoked: I've invoked it once. What is this other time than the fantasy thread asking PL to stay out?
Doesn't mean I have any interest in there being such a rule with or without an ignore command that I used it to create a thread using that rule any more than I have any great interest in being able to type strike through text because I've used it.
So, no, I don't have an inclination to exclude others, unlike those who pressed for having "I don't want someone in my thread. How do I do this without being an obvious jackass?".
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
Avor...(who the fuck cares): people who seek old age need not apply
That was an exclusionary statement as far as I was concerned. you said if you don't agree with this design goal don't come in here. Which is fair an I at least have respected it.
And as far as you respecting people asking you not to participate; you'
re a fucking liar. You have in fact refused to not participate on every occasion you were asked not to. You were asked not to participate in the Centaur thread by the person who started the thread, you participated in my thread that indicated you were not invited and you posted in Angel's Continuity of Character thread when asked not to participate.
Now for reasons that boggle the mind, there are a few here that, god bless their generous hearts, believe there might be some way to get through to you. And that's fine and dandy except that every time they do, the whole thread gets absorbed and whatever was originally being discussed gets sidelined.
So it's not unreasonable for us to still ask at times that you take it somewhere else even if we have the option of hitting ignore. Really, if you want to address something in a topic you were asked not to participate in, start a new thread to talk about your slant on it rather than filling up another thread with your detritus.
That was an exclusionary statement as far as I was concerned. you said if you don't agree with this design goal don't come in here. Which is fair an I at least have respected it.
And as far as you respecting people asking you not to participate; you'
re a fucking liar. You have in fact refused to not participate on every occasion you were asked not to. You were asked not to participate in the Centaur thread by the person who started the thread, you participated in my thread that indicated you were not invited and you posted in Angel's Continuity of Character thread when asked not to participate.
Now for reasons that boggle the mind, there are a few here that, god bless their generous hearts, believe there might be some way to get through to you. And that's fine and dandy except that every time they do, the whole thread gets absorbed and whatever was originally being discussed gets sidelined.
So it's not unreasonable for us to still ask at times that you take it somewhere else even if we have the option of hitting ignore. Really, if you want to address something in a topic you were asked not to participate in, start a new thread to talk about your slant on it rather than filling up another thread with your detritus.
The internet gave a voice to the world thus gave definitive proof that the world is mostly full of idiots.
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
I am inclined to agree. The constant threadcrap really needs to stop, and as long as even one person is baited into replying to it, it can derail a thread, as now you have to ignore more than one person, and eventually they get another response and it snowballs until you have the entire Den ignored. Thus in the extreme case ignore may be useful, it will only stop the (unnecessary) thread derailment into massive flamewars when a sufficient critical mass of people ignore those who initiate that kind of nonsense. I have nothing against a good argument, but there are some serious flamewars that are just dragged from thread to thread without cessation. If I spent the time dissecting the threads I could probably trace them back for months. That kind of nonsense hamstrings more productive discussion, and given that it kind of affects the community more than individuals, the action should be more based on the community than individuals.
While there should be no reason the code of conduct has to instruct people to be some semblance of polite to each other, there likewise is no reason to remove such a rule.
Or something. I'm tired.
The feature is useful, regardless. With any luck, maybe enough ignores will be thrown down to achieve the desired effect.
While there should be no reason the code of conduct has to instruct people to be some semblance of polite to each other, there likewise is no reason to remove such a rule.
Or something. I'm tired.
The feature is useful, regardless. With any luck, maybe enough ignores will be thrown down to achieve the desired effect.
Last edited by TavishArtair on Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Need not apply" =/= "must stay out". If I intended people who didn't agree to stay out, I'd change it to "people who don't agree stay out"Avor...(who the fuck cares): people who seek old age need not apply
That was an exclusionary statement as far as I was concerned. you said if you don't agree with this design goal don't come in here. Which is fair an I at least have respected it.
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=49321And as far as you respecting people asking you not to participate; you're a fucking liar.
No, I'm just unwilling to stay out simply because someone asks in an offensive manner where they don't care whether what I have to say is directly in response or in regards to an issue it brings up, they just want to say "Stay out." and they don't care whether or not they're remotely respectful in asking.
Then politely ask me, if I post something you fear is derailing it, to make a new thread for it, instead of saying "Elennsar stay out you _____" and expecting me to be perfectly okay with respecting your wishes when you act in an insulting manner.So it's not unreasonable for us to still ask at times that you take it somewhere else even if we have the option of hitting ignore. Really, if you want to address something in a topic you were asked not to participate in, start a new thread to talk about your slant on it rather than filling up another thread with your detritus.
What a concept, eh? Actually expecting you to be polite instead of mocking everything I say because you can get away with it if you want me to treat you with courtesy.
The thread can only be derailed if it is off topic and other people go off topic. Otherwise, every thread that has mentioned anything not directly related to the original post has gone off topic intentionally or not.Ignore doesn't solve the problem of threads getting derailed by ignored users, or people quoting posts of an ignored poster.
If the problem is that you don't want to read what someone says, then don't read what someone says. If you're afraid that your thread will be derailed/sidetracked, then try to keep people focused on the topic.
If there's actually interest in discussing something by multiple people that's "off topic", maybe it isn't as off topic as you think it is, or maybe it is a sign that multiple people don't care whether it is off topic.
Then deal with the flamewars. Deal with the arguements.there are some serious flamewars that are just dragged from thread to thread without cessation. If I spent the time dissecting the threads I could probably trace them back for months. That kind of nonsense hamstrings more productive discussion, and given that it kind of affects the community more than individuals, the action should be more based on the community than individuals.
The Den attitude that being rude and belittling encourages anything other than return hostility contributes unpleasantly to a lack of taking any request (simply as a request from one person to another) seriously.
That's not good if you want something where people give a shit for what other people wish from other users.
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
I request that the new "please stay out of this thread" policy be kept in place.
If I know that person X is likely to take my thread in a direction I don't want it to go, then it doesn't matter if *I* have them on ignore, unless everyone else does, too.
Edit: Plus, I'm hesitant to ignore anyone without the option to read their posts when necessary. If someone I've ignored comes into my thread, even a little off-topic, I'm not going to be able to recover at all without being able to read their posts.
If I know that person X is likely to take my thread in a direction I don't want it to go, then it doesn't matter if *I* have them on ignore, unless everyone else does, too.
Edit: Plus, I'm hesitant to ignore anyone without the option to read their posts when necessary. If someone I've ignored comes into my thread, even a little off-topic, I'm not going to be able to recover at all without being able to read their posts.
Last edited by Orion on Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
What good did it do to add an IGNORE function if nobody is going to use it?
To answer a question I keep getting: It is no longer against the CoC to enter / post in a thread you were asked to stay out of. Make use of the damned IGNORE function, and if User X is as much of an asshole as y'all keep claiming he/she/it is, all the regulars should have he/she/it on IGNORE in pretty short order.
[/TGFBS]
What good did it do to add an IGNORE function if nobody is going to use it?
To answer a question I keep getting: It is no longer against the CoC to enter / post in a thread you were asked to stay out of. Make use of the damned IGNORE function, and if User X is as much of an asshole as y'all keep claiming he/she/it is, all the regulars should have he/she/it on IGNORE in pretty short order.
[/TGFBS]
- Absentminded_Wizard
- Duke
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Ohio
- Contact:
Then it might be a better idea to ask people not to restart the argument that derailed the other thread. Of course, Frank's attempt to discuss exceptional characters outside the context of D&D race didn't exactly work, either. Hopefully, at some point, people will start to ignore posters who constantly bring up heated arguments in multiple threads.Boolean wrote:If I know that person X is likely to take my thread in a direction I don't want it to go, then it doesn't matter if *I* have them on ignore, unless everyone else does, too.
It may not be official policy, but if someone puts "Talisman, please stay out" in their thread, I am likely to respect their wishes. If they put "Talisman you fucktard, keep your bullcrap out of here," I am far less likely to respect them at all.
How about (as the Wizard indicates above), if someone raises a "derail" subject in your thread, you simply ask them to knock it off. "This thread is about A, not B; please keep discussions of B out of it" sounds reasonable.
Ah, the perils of freedom of speech.
How about (as the Wizard indicates above), if someone raises a "derail" subject in your thread, you simply ask them to knock it off. "This thread is about A, not B; please keep discussions of B out of it" sounds reasonable.
Ah, the perils of freedom of speech.
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.
Little, indeed. You might recall me saying that that rule was indeed the solution, more than an Ignore function. And still, having both allows people to disagree on who's undesirable with less conflict: if it's your thread, you decide; if not, you suck it up less painfully, so both might have a place.TGFB wrote:What good did it do to add an IGNORE function if nobody is going to use it?
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
Man... the short list on that would be me, elennsar, frank, phonelobster... pretty soon there's no one left *to* listen to.Absentminded_Wizard wrote:Then it might be a better idea to ask people not to restart the argument that derailed the other thread. Of course, Frank's attempt to discuss exceptional characters outside the context of D&D race didn't exactly work, either. Hopefully, at some point, people will start to ignore posters who constantly bring up heated arguments in multiple threads.Boolean wrote:If I know that person X is likely to take my thread in a direction I don't want it to go, then it doesn't matter if *I* have them on ignore, unless everyone else does, too.
- Absentminded_Wizard
- Duke
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Ohio
- Contact:
I should have said, "people who constantly bring up heated topics in threads when specifically asked to avoid that topic."
Doom314's satirical 4e power wrote:Complete AnnihilationWar-metawarrior 1
An awesome bolt of multicolored light fires from your eyes and strikes your foe, disintegrating him into a fine dust in a nonmagical way.
At-will: Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee Weapon ("sword", range 10/20)
Target: One Creature
Attack: Con vs AC
Hit: [W] + Con, and the target is slowed.
- Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
Note to self: Josh, when you have put someone on ignore, that means you don't want to read their posts. Even if you can't remember why, it was for a good reason. Do not click here to view, that will only make you upset and nonproductive.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."