|
Why the exactly do you feel the need to ignore people?
Just because you read an idiotic post from one person it doesn't mean that person will always make idiotic posts.
I have seen a fair share of iditioc posts myself, but does that mean these individuals will always make idiotic posts in every thread? No. If someone always make idiotic posts, you can be sure they'll be banned.
You don't have to agree with everyone. Not everyone agree with me, and I sure as hell don't always agree with everyone. But just because I don't agree with a particular person on one particular subject does that mean I should ignore every single one of his posts in every subject from now on? I don't think so.
This is a forum. If every single person has the same exact idea then there is no need to have a forum as everyone would agree with each other. It would be really boring then would it?
To sum it up, we do NOT need ignore feature because:
1. Censorship is bad.
2. It's like a way of saying mods aren't doing their job, that we have to go moderate posts ourselves because the mods aren't doing it.
3. It's useless. If someone always make idiotic posts, you can be sure that he won't be here for long. You won't have to take it upon your own to squelch his posts. If you squelch him, you are saying that he ALWAYS write things that are stupid and useless. Again, a person like this would be banned already.
4. If you argue that it doesn't have to be an idiotic post, but just something you don't agree on, then you need to learn that not everyone agree with each other.
5. This is a FORUM. A forum where people discuss their ideas. Without the ideas and contribution of different individuals there wouldn't be too much to discuss about. There are, yes, a few individuals whose ideas are very stupid and ignorant. But you can be sure that ignoring these individuals would probably be the worst way to the solve it.
6. So what? So what if you read one idiotic post once in a while from an individual? It's not like everyone will make the most awesome posts all the time and it definitely is not true that an individual who made a stupid post at one time, or someone who disagreed with you at one time is going to disagree with your opinion every single time.
To sum it up again, I don't think the ignore feature is needed. If you do, then I'm not going to force my opinion on you. But I do have my right to state my opinion that I would not use it if it's implemented without some smart-ass individual coming up telling me to stop "flaunting my limitations"
|
tfeign i found a great response to your post already. check it out:
On September 22 2004 12:35 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote: Show nested quote +On September 21 2004 07:53 tfeign wrote:
Tell me how the hell is adding an ignore feature not like saying the mods aren't doing their job? Show nested quote +On September 11 2004 05:21 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
all those assholes who have to flame my every post could ignore me and stop posting their idiotic spam.
if ur worried about people overusing it and then ppl stop responding to eachother, why not give ignore list in a limited way? like, let everyone ignore two people max. and then show stats on it .. who is the most ignored? :-) Show nested quote +On September 11 2004 14:09 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote:
anyone with experience in other, more established means of online communication would have firsthand knowledge of how vital and necessary ignore features are. ignoring people is a common and necessary practice on IRC, usenet, and others. it is unfortunate that this web-based forum does not provide the same necessary tools.
some people, over the course of hundreds, if not thousands, of posts, have proven to me that i will never need to read any of their posts ever again. but maybe others like those very same posts! this is why you let people choose who they ignore. it will reduce the amount of spam, as spammers will receive less responses, trolls will bait less people, etc. the responses that end up being posted will be much more constructive when people are allowed to ignore those that they feel they are better off ignoring. which comes to the old "will power" argument. maybe you can ignore everything you want to with your mind. maybe you feel everyone else should. but as i pointed out, this argument hasn't held up for IRC and usenet veterans of decades. it shouldn't hold up here either. ok so basically. ignore = good for people. admins doing good = good. got it? try participating in the discourse sometime instead of changing the subject. to answer your stupid question: yes, in a perfect world, no one would need ignore. admins would stop everything that everyone doesnt need to see, and everyone wuold agree. but in a world where people have different desires and standards, providing an ignore feature fits better and doesnt force us all to agree on the same things. see also: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=13286http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=14801
|
STIMEY d okgm fish did you even read my post?
Why the exactly do you feel the need to ignore people?
Just because you read an idiotic post from one person it doesn't mean that person will always make idiotic posts.
I have seen a fair share of iditioc posts myself, but does that mean these individuals will always make idiotic posts in every thread? No. If someone always make idiotic posts, you can be sure they'll be banned.
You don't have to agree with everyone. Not everyone agree with me, and I sure as hell don't always agree with everyone. But just because I don't agree with a particular person on one particular subject does that mean I should ignore every single one of his posts in every subject from now on? I don't think so.
This is a forum. If every single person has the same exact idea then there is no need to have a forum as everyone would agree with each other. It would be really boring then would it?
To sum it up, we do NOT need ignore feature because:
1. Censorship is bad.
2. It's like a way of saying mods aren't doing their job, that we have to go moderate posts ourselves because the mods aren't doing it.
3. It's useless. If someone always make idiotic posts, you can be sure that he won't be here for long. You won't have to take it upon your own to squelch his posts. If you squelch him, you are saying that he ALWAYS write things that are stupid and useless. Again, a person like this would be banned already.
4. If you argue that it doesn't have to be an idiotic post, but just something you don't agree on, then you need to learn that not everyone agree with each other.
5. This is a FORUM. A forum where people discuss their ideas. Without the ideas and contribution of different individuals there wouldn't be too much to discuss about. There are, yes, a few individuals whose ideas are very stupid and ignorant. But you can be sure that ignoring these individuals would probably be the worst way to the solve it.
6. So what? So what if you read one idiotic post once in a while from an individual? It's not like everyone will make the most awesome posts all the time and it definitely is not true that an individual who made a stupid post at one time, or someone who disagreed with you at one time is going to disagree with your opinion every single time.
To sum it up again, I don't think the ignore feature is needed. If you do, then I'm not going to force my opinion on you. But I do have my right to state my opinion that I would not use it if it's implemented without some smart-ass individual coming up telling me to stop "flaunting my limitations"
|
On September 22 2004 15:03 tfeign wrote:
Why the exactly do you feel the need to ignore people?
Just because you read an idiotic post from one person it doesn't mean that person will always make idiotic posts.
what about people who have made hundreds of consecutive horrible posts like you?
I have seen a fair share of iditioc posts myself, but does that mean these individuals will always make idiotic posts in every thread? No. If someone always make idiotic posts, you can be sure they'll be banned.
different people have different standards. you can have plenty of good reasons to conveniently skip the posts of some people even if others can have fine reasons to read it. furthermore, sometimes an idiot doesn't deserve a ban, and some people want to read their posts. why force everyone to though? giving people a way to choose is bad?
You don't have to agree with everyone. Not everyone agree with me, and I sure as hell don't always agree with everyone. But just because I don't agree with a particular person on one particular subject does that mean I should ignore every single one of his posts in every subject from now on? I don't think so.
no one said that we should ignore people because we disagree with them. if someone wants to do that though, what is the harm? let people make their own choices when it doesn't hurt others? imagine if i could ignore you, i would stop responding to your posts. who would be hurt? imo, only others who don't ignore you. but for those who disagree, they get to read your posts! see, that's great isn't it!?
1. Censorship is bad.
giving people choice to hear who they choose when they choose to is not the same as censorship.
2. It's like a way of saying mods aren't doing their job, that we have to go moderate posts ourselves because the mods aren't doing it.
or it's just giving people a way to co-exist with mods who have different standards than them.
3. It's useless. If someone always make idiotic posts, you can be sure that he won't be here for long. You won't have to take it upon your own to squelch his posts. If you squelch him, you are saying that he ALWAYS write things that are stupid and useless. Again, a person like this would be banned already.
wrong. it's useful. if someone shows you that they make posts you'd rather skip, then you can actually skip them. even if admins dont want to ban them, rightly or wrongly. just because one person wants to ignore another, that doesnt mean that someone needs to be banned.
4. If you argue that it doesn't have to be an idiotic post, but just something you don't agree on, then you need to learn that not everyone agree with each other.
it doesn't have to be a disagreement, just something that someone would rather not see over and over and over again. it's a personal decision. if you allow an ignore feature, then people who want to see the posts can, and the other ones are spared from any temptation to respond in an unconstructive way, and they can more easily see the posts that they wish to respond to. there are too many posts in most threads as it is. giving people some power to prioritize their reading would enhance the quality of responses.
5. This is a FORUM. A forum where people discuss their ideas. Without the ideas and contribution of different individuals there wouldn't be too much to discuss about. There are, yes, a few individuals whose ideas are very stupid and ignorant. But you can be sure that ignoring these individuals would probably be the worst way to the solve it.
countless public communications media throughout history have been great while having an ignore feature, particularly usenet and irc.
6. So what? So what if you read one idiotic post once in a while from an individual? It's not like everyone will make the most awesome posts all the time and it definitely is not true that an individual who made a stupid post at one time, or someone who disagreed with you at one time is going to disagree with your opinion every single time.
again, there are more times where ignoring can be useful than simply the most idiotic. and who is to say how much idiocy is "acceptable" or "too much"?
On May 04 2004 18:49 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote: i just found out that 3 people i would have squelched were all blackjack anyways. every once in a while you see people on irc who pretend they can mentally block out everything they dont care to see, they refuse to use /ignore. they are in the minority, of course :| they like to look down on people who use /ignore, too. i guess that's one of the perks of having super powers is that you get to blame everyone else for not having them; you can call them childish, for instance. and u think it doesnt apply to msg boards? i dont know about you but ive read a post before and not realized who wrote it until getting a ways into it and then going "wtf, this is shit", i look at who posted it, and sure enough, i shoulda checked the name. it's a mistake i make, now and then, and it would be nice if there was a feature to help me decrease this.  sometimes i just know i'm better off if i never see some people's posts ever again, it's for the best, and the best way to let me do this is with some forum option. sure, "in theory", with rekrul/fakesteve-like super powers, i can magically not respond to anything written by certain people, but now and then, it just doesn't work out that way. calling me childish might give u the moral high ground but it doesnt help me any less to be tempted to respond to the consistently horrible posts by certain people
i would definitely use it. despite that they haven't been banned yet, i know 100% some people's posts i will never need to see. pm me if you want an example.
repeating myself for tfeign: it is a personal option because different people have different needs. while i might not ever need to see an amat post again, others might. this doesn't mean amat deserves a ban in any way. if you give people the choice, less spam is generated and people can more easily see the posts that they will productively respond to. it's giving people a choice, not taking it away.
|
what about people who have made hundreds of consecutive horrible posts like you?
Oh my Stimey, You really need to think before you make such a horrible stupid comment. I'm going to assume that you're saying this to make my posts seem to be inferior to yours.
different people have different standards. you can have plenty of good reasons to conveniently skip the posts of some people even if others can have fine reasons to read it. furthermore, sometimes an idiot doesn't deserve a ban, and some people want to read their posts. why force everyone to though? giving people a way to choose is bad?
If you find a particular post that you do not like, then so be it. Why do you need to ignore EVERY post from this particular person? This person may have had a few posts that you found offensive, but that does not mean every single post that he will make will be crap. Ignoring someone is like saying he ALWAYS write crap, which isn't true to almost all individuals.
giving people choice to hear who they choose when they choose to is not the same as censorship.
I'll agree with you on this one
wrong. it's useful. if someone shows you that they make posts you'd rather skip, then you can actually skip them. even if admins dont want to ban them, rightly or wrongly. just because one person wants to ignore another, that doesnt mean that someone needs to be banned.
It's okay for you to skip a post. If you don't like it and would rather not continue on the argument with it, then just don't respond to it. There's not a need to ignore every single one of his post in the future
it doesn't have to be a disagreement, just something that someone would rather not see over and over and over again. it's a personal decision. if you allow an ignore feature, then people who want to see the posts can, and the other ones are spared from any temptation to respond in an unconstructive way, and they can more easily see the posts that they wish to respond to. there are too many posts in most threads as it is. giving people some power to prioritize their reading would enhance the quality of responses.
Want to know a personal decision? If you see an "ignorable" post then decide that it's not worth it to argue and then don't reply to it. There doesn't have to be an ignore feature for you to decide to not respond to something constructively.
countless public communications media throughout history have been great while having an ignore feature, particularly usenet and irc.
There's a difference between real-time chatting and a forum. In real time chatting people can spam to their hearts desires and act like idiots. That's why a squelch feature is included -- mainly because of spamming and secondly because if there are no mods (like bnet). In a forum, and especially here, people don't spam and there are mods.
repeating myself for tfeign: it is a personal option because different people have different needs. while i might not ever need to see an amat post again, others might. this doesn't mean amat deserves a ban in any way. if you give people the choice, less spam is generated and people can more easily see the posts that they will productively respond to. it's giving people a choice, not taking it away.
Again, I will have to say that an ignore feature is not required for you to not respond to people. If you don't want to discuss anything with amat, for example, then just don't reply to his posts. If he posts something that's offensive to you, ignore it. The main thing here I argue is that you CAN ignore posts without an ignore feature. It's not like you need an ignore feature in order to stop responding to posts from people that you like/agree with.
|
whats sad is ive already answered every one of your comments.. so im just gonna point this out so u can go back and re-read the answers to your own comments that i already posted
|
My main argument is that:
An ignore feature is not required for you to not respond to people. If you don't want to discuss anything with amat, for example, then just don't reply to his posts. If he posts something that's offensive to you, ignore it. The main thing here I argue is that you CAN ignore posts without an ignore feature. It's not like you need an ignore feature in order to stop responding to posts from people that you like/agree with.
I didn't find any answers you have that counteracts to my main point. Just respond to this one.
|
how about when i posted this:
On May 04 2004 18:49 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote: i just found out that 3 people i would have squelched were all blackjack anyways. every once in a while you see people on irc who pretend they can mentally block out everything they dont care to see, they refuse to use /ignore. they are in the minority, of course :| they like to look down on people who use /ignore, too. i guess that's one of the perks of having super powers is that you get to blame everyone else for not having them; you can call them childish, for instance. and u think it doesnt apply to msg boards? i dont know about you but ive read a post before and not realized who wrote it until getting a ways into it and then going "wtf, this is shit", i look at who posted it, and sure enough, i shoulda checked the name. it's a mistake i make, now and then, and it would be nice if there was a feature to help me decrease this. sometimes i just know i'm better off if i never see some people's posts ever again, it's for the best, and the best way to let me do this is with some forum option. sure, "in theory", with rekrul/fakesteve-like super powers, i can magically not respond to anything written by certain people, but now and then, it just doesn't work out that way. calling me childish might give u the moral high ground but it doesnt help me any less to be tempted to respond to the consistently horrible posts by certain people
also fyi usenet can have moderated boards and it is not a chat.. it's boards...
|
But that doesn't make any difference if you knew someone you marked is about to post. You're saying:
i dont know about you but ive read a post before and not realized who wrote it until getting a ways into it and then going "wtf, this is shit", i look at who posted it, and sure enough, i shoulda checked the name. it's a mistake i make, now and then, and it would be nice if there was a feature to help me decrease this.
Well, how does it matter if you had checked the name before reading the post, or after? The result will most likely be the same
In fact, the result would be worse. Because if you had checked the name, you would be biased and think that this post is going to suck. Well, it could very well be a good opinion but you were biased from the beginning because you were thinking the post is going to suck just because it's from this individual. If you didn't check the name, you wouldn't have that bias where you think the post is going to suck, resulting in you being able to form a much fairer and of higher quality opinion.
As I've said again, if someone says something you don't like one time, it doesn't mean you will disagree all the time. Even if you disagree with most of his ideas, it is still not right to just ignore them by blocking them out. It's okay if you read them and decide it's not worth it to respond to, and that's basically the same as ignoring. A feature doesn't need to be implemented for you to do that.
|
to repeat myself again, as a luxury to you that you don't deserve, it would be better for everyone if they were given the option to ignore people who have, in their opinion, made N consecutive posts that they wished they never saw, where N is.. whatever number you think is right. i would say 200 is enough. but maybe you think 200 is too low. how about 500, 1000, 1500 etc.? maybe ignores could have a limited timespan, or postspan. maybe people could be limitted to how many ignores they can have going at once. but in some way, such an option would do more good than harm.
maybe you dont need the feature, but that doesnt mean other people wouldn't be helped by it. what's all this "one time" shit?
On September 22 2004 15:49 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +what about people who have made hundreds of consecutive horrible posts like you?
pay attention!
|
Why did you bolden the full sentence? Saying that I have made hundreds of consecutive horrible posts? Seriously I have no idea where you got that from. I do feel I am intelligent and I do put thinking into my posts. My only logic here is that you're trying to insert a random statement that would allow your posts to sound like you are superior to me. Don't do it. Every person has their own idea.
How is adding an ignore feature give more good than harm? What if you post in a topic where the ignored person gave away some pertinent information, only to have you blocked his info so in the end you end up asking some question in the thread, in which has actually already been answered or discussed about already by the person you happen to have ignored?
What if the ignored person reply to one of your posts in a way that would need a response from you? You blocked his message so you wouldn't have a way to defend yourself or counteract his message.
What if the ignored person posts a thread, only to have it blocked by you. So in the end you may end up making another thread exactly the same to the thread that was created by the ignored person? That means you create a topic that's already been discussed about, yet you didn't know about it because you had blocked out this person who created this topic, resulting in a duplicate topic?
What are the harms? Costing you about 10 seconds to read a post? If you don't like it, don't respond to it. Why do you need an ignore feature to do that? If there aren't any drawbacks to the feature, then it can be considered, but in the end there is alot more harms then goods if ignore feature is added.
|
the word was "people" .. what about PEOPLE WHO ... is english not a good language for you? E.G. "people who dont know how to read are gay.. LIKE YOU" says much more than just "you are gay". it says much more. likewise, .. blah you totally ignored what was an obvious point and then tried to invent some new subjects. wtf is u.
10 seconds to read thousands of posts is not insignificant ... either. surprised i had to point this out to you.
creating threads shouldnt ignore the whole thread, just the posts made by the ignored obviously. why did you claim to only have 1 issue, then change the subject after i show you how it's already answered? and then repeat this process 3 times? whut the hell are you doing? are you trolling?
On September 22 2004 17:31 tfeign wrote:
Why did you bolden the full sentence? to point out the part that you were ignoring and STILL managed to ignore.
How is adding an ignore feature give more good than harm? already answered
What if the ignored person reply to one of your posts in a way that would need a response from you? You blocked his message so you wouldn't have a way to defend yourself or counteract his message. thats the point. so i can stop seeing their posts. period. even if others want to see them, i dont have to. would be nice. (already said this)
What if the ignored person posts a thread, only to have it blocked by you. would have to let ppl see the posts of others who they didnt ignore i guess. kind of off topic point. this is no reason to not have an ignore feature.
What are the harms? Costing you about 10 seconds to read a post? could be more than 10 seconds. could be.. say 30 posts i dont want to read per 1 i want to read. makes it more likely i'll miss a good post or have less time to reply to good ones. where "good" is whatever i want to see and reply to. some people convince me that i dont need to read their posts, and some people convince me that i need to read their posts. pretty simple, i thought i already made this clear.
If you don't like it, don't respond to it. already answered this, even though i didnt like it. please pay attention or stop replying.
at this point i would ignore you. why shouldnt i be able to?
|
If you're going to ignore the person making the topic, then how the hell are you going to know what he's talking about? If you do then you must have some ghostly sixth sense. Want me to give you a bunch of replies to a random topic and make you guess what the original topic was meant to say? I bet you would fail to do it at least half of the time. Go ahead and ask me to do this if you want it.
You wouldn't want to bring up something that has already been brought up before in the topic, or create a new topic that has already been made just because you had a few people on your ignored list don't you?
|
im gonna try real hard to annoy you on the grounds that u
-keep changing the subject when ur points are addressed
-keep raising new random points that are already answered in this thread
find someone else to spam pls
|
This, again is a FORUM. If you hate reading then you shouldn't really participate in it. I have explained to you various times how any sort of ignore feature would do more harm than good. Regardless of that, you still believe that a mere few seconds of reading a post would serve more good than the list of harms I've discussed.
For me, I find a feature of this sort is not something that is needed or should be implemented. I will end it here leave it up to the admins to see what's right and what's wrong. What idea should be implemented and what should not be.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On September 22 2004 15:03 tfeign wrote:
It's not like everyone will make the most awesome posts all the time
ahem
|
tfeign.. u havent explained shit.. but u have demonstrated many times that u dont read what u claim u did, and change the subject over and over to keep .. bullshitting forever
if someone can ignore someone they might miss something good? let them take the risk! u didnt prove shit .. wtf
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
but yeah what kind of whiny little child has a tantrum over a few stupid posts
just laugh at them and move on
i could see this in a place without moderation, but we have moderators who take out the trash for us
|
the fact is.. i would have more time and would make less bad posts if i could just /ignore a few ppl. i dont know who should be banned or whatever but i know who i am willing to risk not reading ever again and i dont think i'm the only one.
repeating myself for the fuck of it: allowing ignore provides a middle ground. when some ppl want to never see someone again, but others do.. then ignore settles things. when a ban would be worse in some cases.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
its also alot of work for meat/saro just to compensate a few whiny little children
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
