Results 1 to 14 of 14

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Ignore User: also ignore threads started by them

  1. #1

    Ignore User: also ignore threads started by them

    A holy grail of ignorage would be that when a user is ignored, the threads that they start would cease to be listed. For example, viewing the Dangerous Discussion or New Posts pages would no-longer include in the list any threads started by that user.

    Alternatively, could users be allowed to start no more than (say) 2 threads per day? This might have a significant effect in cutting out the clutter produced by a small subset of members.

  2. This is the last staff post in this thread. #2
    It should already be doing what you describe. If not, will see what addon or lines of code are not playing nice.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by Brett C View Post (Source)
    It should already be doing what you describe. If not, will see what addon or lines of code are not playing nice.
    Thank you! I'll PM a couple of images showing this happening.

  4. #4
    Yes, it definitely doesn't ignore threads made by ignored users. It just doesn't show the OP.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by Brett C View Post (Source)
    It should already be doing what you describe. If not, will see what addon or lines of code are not playing nice.
    Just to agree with others, I can still see threads with no post #1, would be great to never see their threads.

  6. #6
    wait I am thinking of the color green, now no one will know, note to self read read

  7. #7
    While on the topic of ignore, currently the ignored person can read my posts and respond to them, they should be hidden from that person. Because it creates a situation where for example ignored user ridicules my posts and I can only see that when someone other quotes the ignored user. Ignoring a person should automatically cause that person not to see my posts.

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by StarLightPL View Post (Source)
    While on the topic of ignore, currently the ignored person can read my posts and respond to them, they should be hidden from that person. Because it creates a situation where for example ignored user ridicules my posts and I can only see that when someone other quotes the ignored user. Ignoring a person should automatically cause that person not to see my posts.
    It could be handy if the ignore worked both ways. Now, I do occasionally reply to people I know are ignoring me, because despite that, they sometimes have something interesting to say. I only use that to ridicule someone once and it was because the reason why they put me on their ignore list was ridiculous, and I've never carried it out of the original thread.
    But in general, I wouldn't mind if I a person who's ignoring me would disappear from my radar, as well. After all, it's a discussion forum and the ignore button means "end of discussion", so why not for both protagonists.

    The question is if it's something Brett can code into the forum.

  9. #9
    i'm ok with threads started by ignored posters being visible, since there will be other responses that might catch my interest. when i ignore a poster it's usually because some threshold of awkwardness has been surpassed consistently, but that has nothing to do with other's opinions.

    Originally Posted by StarLightPL View Post (Source)
    While on the topic of ignore, currently the ignored person can read my posts and respond to them, they should be hidden from that person. Because it creates a situation where for example ignored user ridicules my posts and I can only see that when someone other quotes the ignored user. Ignoring a person should automatically cause that person not to see my posts.
    i'm honestly surprised to read this precisely from you. i disagree, although i understand the desire, but imo that's just not good nor fair. i think that's how twitter works (not a twitter expert at all) but then twitter is nothing like a forum, which is the closest massively available substitute for good old usenet. i mean, good old 'people really talking', just telematically. my point is that ignoring noise (aka, some user) is one thing, while censoring what others can see is completely different and there's definitely a red line inbetween. i think it's also just the minimal acceptable fairness that if you write publicly, you are publicly readable. you might ignore what you want, but you should stand for your words, whoever might read them, and whatever they could say about it. it's their right, just like yours. i wouldn't like to be in a community that doesn't have this minimal respect for these rights.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by zn˘rt View Post (Source)
    good old usenet. i mean, good old 'people really talking', just telematically. my point is that ignoring noise (aka, some user) is one thing, while censoring what others can see is completely different and there's definitely a red line inbetween. i think it's also just the minimal acceptable fairness that if you write publicly, you are publicly readable. you might ignore what you want, but you should stand for your words, whoever might read them, and whatever they could say about it. it's their right, just like yours. i wouldn't like to be in a community that doesn't have this minimal respect for these rights.
    No no no no no that was not my point at all. My point being, someone that I ignored can still have a bashing party at my posts - which other people read - and I am "defenseless". Unless that someone gets quoted, I can only read strange, seemingly out of context responses either agreeing with the person or not. Therefore in more heated discussions what I sometimes require to do after spotting an "anomaly" in the thread is to "unban" possible culprit(s), read what they wrote and then ban them again.

    PS: I'm more of an IRC-raised guy myself ;-)

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by StarLightPL View Post (Source)
    No no no no no that was not my point at all. My point being, someone that I ignored can still have a bashing party at my posts - which other people read - and I am "defenseless". Unless that someone gets quoted, I can only read strange, seemingly out of context responses either agreeing with the person or not. Therefore in more heated discussions what I sometimes require to do after spotting an "anomaly" in the thread is to "unban" possible culprit(s), read what they wrote and then ban them again.

    PS: I'm more of an IRC-raised guy myself ;-)
    I think in this context, the major issue is the so-called "internet freedom" - applied to this special case as "You can't choose who will read YOUR posts (e.g force your choice on somebody), you can only choose whose posts YOU won't read ( your own choice)"

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by StarLightPL View Post (Source)
    No no no no no that was not my point at all. My point being, someone that I ignored can still have a bashing party at my posts - which other people read - and I am "defenseless". Unless that someone gets quoted, I can only read strange, seemingly out of context responses either agreeing with the person or not. Therefore in more heated discussions what I sometimes require to do after spotting an "anomaly" in the thread is to "unban" possible culprit(s), read what they wrote and then ban them again.

    PS: I'm more of an IRC-raised guy myself ;-)
    that's balance, imo. you choose to ignore, but you have to take the cost, like you have to take the cost of your own words. YOU ignore. OTHERS do whatever they feel like doing. that's fair.

    if the problem is harassment, well that's what tos and moderators are for. you should expect good judgement from them, else complain, live with it or dismiss the forum. maybe the latter might have been having too little real stuff to worry about on this forum by what i have seen (but i guess going into that would just engross my already blooming collection of assorted advisories ) but, otoh, ... harassment is a thing around here? i don't read everything, but it surely isn't common (or is being correctly dealt with by moderators, yay!) since i've barely seen any.

  13. #13
    Harrasment? Naaaah, I think it's rather my way of overthinking things. Work related quirk. Like you mentioned, twitter works that way. It might not be USA-bill-of-rights-compliant in this regard, but it certainly helps to calm things down, like you separate two fighting kids and place them in different rooms to cool down:-)

  14. #14
    Originally Posted by StarLightPL View Post (Source)
    Harrasment? Naaaah, I think it's rather my way of overthinking things. Work related quirk. Like you mentioned, twitter works that way. It might not be USA-bill-of-rights-compliant in this regard, but it certainly helps to calm things down, like you separate two fighting kids and place them in different rooms to cool down:-)
    yeah, well, i'm just a romantic. that's life!