Great Goddess I Love the Ignore List

About This Message Board
41

Our purpose is “Fighting Ignorance” & also looking for the Truth. If you censor out things said by people you don’t like, you can never find the Truth.

Think of what this will do to the spirit of free debate that thrives in our virtual community!

How will the newbies react to being “shut out”?

This feature is contrary to the spirit & intent of the SDMB.

Please turn it off.
Some of desparately need to hear thing we won’t enjoy listening to.
And everyone who disagrees with me has just put me on the “Ignore” list. :frowning:

42

Yes, Bosda, but this assumes that there is a truth to be found in every post - which there simply is not.

I started to link to some particularly heinous posts, but realized that that would be jerkish behavior here in this Forum. So let me speak in a general sense - the person who came into the Pit flaming Dave over his sig, and then opened a thread flaming the Staff about not having an edit function - what truth is there in that? What truth is there in the posts made by banned madmen who come back as trolls?

I also see not a single person complaining here that the SDMB Staff, in banning a multitude of people from this Board, is “censoring” people, and thus denying us from finding the truth. Haven’t we done wrong by censoring them, and thus possibly denying ourselves the truth of their words?

I feel that there is also no truth to be learned in the vast majority of MPSIMS and IMHO posts. Not that there is anything wrong with those Fora, but each post in the “Name your Zits!” thread contains no profound truths that I need to be enlightened to.

Since a few people have brought it up - may I ask as well if it is fair to refer to “fighting ignorance” in itself as the reason for not having Ignore enabled? It seems almost like saying “Because God says so”, and ironically seems not to be fighting ignorance. I’m quite certain that no one here reads every single post on this Board, and all other Boards for that matter, to try and divine the truth of the World.

Look folks. I don’t have the answers. I’m not all-knowing; in fact, I can be pretty wrong and stupid about things at times - maybe even right now. My initial comment above was that we give it time and see. It may turn out to be more trouble than it is worth, in which case, we simply must remove it. Arnold made very wise and good points above, and I respect those. I’m only trying to stand on the soapbox here a little to say that it is not nearly as destructive or even as evil a function as it is made out to be.

I also thank Arnold for allowing me to make my case here.

And if the SDMB disables it, I’m not going to complain. Not a word. And unless anyone really wants to debate some of my points here, this is also my last post in this thread.

43

I certainly agree with what you say Anthracite. I’ll only point out that you’re just coming at it from one side - that of the rational poster who wants to shut out the drivel. However such posters are almost certainly in the minority. I can see the ignore function chiefly being used the other way round - by the drivellers who will ignore those who they really ought to be listening to.

Unfortunately “ignore” is a two-way street.

pan

44

I’m a little late to this thread, but let me throw in my two cents, and present another way of looking at this… a behaviorist view.

While one could legitimately argue the validity of behaviorism, let’s, for sake of argument, assume that the following is true:
Behavior is a function of its consequences.

With this world-view, it is generally held that there are four types of consequences…
[ul]
[li] Positive Reinforcement[/li][li] Negative Reinforcement[/li][li] Punishment[/li][li] Extinction[/li][/ul]

Positive Reinforcement
Where you get something you want, which increases the likelihood of that behavior again. For example, you start a thread where the number and quality of the responses are exceptional, or you receive kudos for the OP. (“Mmmmm. Feels good to get praised.”)

Negative Reinforcement
Where you avoid something you don’t want, which increases the likelihood of that behavior again. For example, you want to avoid getting hauled into the Pit so you don’t flame the OP or the other posters. (“Hmmm. It’s kind of nice not getting roasted, maybe I should be like this more often.”)

Punishment
Where you get something you don’t want, which decreases the likelihood of that behavior again. For example, you flame someone and get hauled into the Pit and roasted. (“Ouch. That hurt. Not gonna do that again.”) This one is tricky, because in some cases, the attention-getting aspect of getting hauled into the Pit is a desirable consequence, which would make that Positive Reinforcement rather than Punishment.

Extinction
Where you don’t get something you want, which decreases the likelihood of that behavior again. For example, you place a troll post to raise the hackles of the Teeming Millions… and no one responds. (“Hello. Tap, tap, tap. Is anyone there? Doesn’t anyone care that I believe there never was a Holocaust?”)

Extinction is one possible consequence of the Ignore feature. I personally don’t think enough people will use the Ignore feature to make any noticeable difference in the SDMB. And if I’m wrong, and a lot of people do use the feature, then perhaps the end result will be Extinction of boorish/jerkish behavior, which would be a good thing.

FWIW, regardless of what the final verdict is, I’ll probably never use the Ignore feature. I enjoy looking at the “car wrecks” too much.

45

Just one other quick point…

… call me a pessimist, but it seems to me that anyone who deliberately Ignores the erudite posters, is probably beyond help anyway. They are close-minded dogmatists.

46

'nother thing.

When we’re embroiled in the debates/etc., we loose sight of the fact that our audience is more than ‘the folks responding’.

with the ‘ignore’ feature turned on, especially by bright, effective debaters who’ve determined that the ‘white noise’ of a particular poster isn’t worth the bother, then those other words are still out there, unchallenged.

I’ve not seen anything here that has convinced me that it’s a good thing. YMMV

47

You know what I could never understand? Why are people sometimes so adamant to vote to take away options from other people ? If you don’t like a feature, don’t use it. But don’t be a simp and take it away from everyone because you think one peron will abuse it.

When this software was designed, a lot of input went into the features added. They’re there to enhance the message board experience. This board has just a tiny fraction of the available features enabled. If all the features that were disabled were due to bandwidth issues, I could understand, but that’s not the case.

I think we may have some control issues…

48

Please, let’s drop the “It’s for your own good” argument. I’m a grown-up, I can decide what’s ‘for my own good’ myself. And can we also drop the “you’re just avoiding people with different opinions” arguement. It’s not that I disagree with their opinions necessarily, but that I don’t enjoy reading their posts. It’s also not my duty to challenge every bit of ‘white noise’.

Here’s the thing: anyone I’d put on my “Ignore” list is someone I’d ignore anyway. There are/have always been people on the board who I don’t choose to interact with at all.

These are/were people who I would NEVER respond to, people who’s posts I’m already ignoring as well as I can. This just gives me a tool to make it easier to do so.

How does it help anyone for me to see a poster that I’ve chosen to not respond to, that I’ve chosen to ignore?
Fenris

49

I’m glad to see message boards have caught up with an old Usenet technology: The killfile.

(No, this isn’t a full implementation of a true killfile, but it’s the same spirit.)

I can’t wait to go a-plonking!

(Slashdot has a similar feature with the Friends/Foes system. You can set your Foes’ posts to have a score of -1, effectively blocking them if your threshold is 0.)

“I don’t agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” -Voltaire

I’ll also defend to the death my right to ignore it.

50

What Demo said tenfold. Just because you might not like a feature, this means it should be made unavailable to everyone? Personaly, I like the idea of ignore. There are a couple posters out there that I would like to use the feature on. Just because YOU don’t want to use it, doesn’t mean I should be restricted from it. Unlike the edit or HTML features, the ignore feature only affects MY use of the board if I use it.

Leave it on.

Oh and would someone tell me HOW to use it? I don’t see the option anywhere…

51

particlewill, click on the “profile” button for the user you want to ignore. At the bottom, in the blue-shaded area, there is a link to “Add X to Your Ignore List”.

52

Huh, I didn’t know that method. I knew about the edit ignore list feature in the User CP section. (You’d have to type in the user name of the ignoree)

Fenris

53

Anthracite, Nobody’s forcing you to participate in MPSIMS if you don’t want to!

Seriously, though. These kind of people are an occasional annoyance. However, when they, metaphorically, begin howling and barfing, they get banned.

It’s not about wasting time, either. Those who have pointed out that you can skip over posters who you don’t want to be exposed to are correct. I often skip over multi-screen posts by known wacks. I mean, life is really just too short. The ignore feature is different, it allows you to pretend the known wacks don’t even exist. That’s a very different thing than deciding not to read their spew du jour.

This is where I must disagree with Fenris, Demo & Co. The issue isn’t about restricting the freedom of others, it’s about what effect this particularl feature will have on the dynamics of the board. Anthracite for example, agrees that the ignore feature will allow people to effectively create their own, private boards populated by like-minded posters. She sees nothing wrong with that. I, on the other hand, think that would be a very serious mistake. Either way, it will dramatically affect the atmosphere and content of the SDMB. That’s why whether or not to adopt it is something that has to be discussed.

54

Fair enough. We just have different viewpoints, and I understand both sides. I’ve made my opinions and arguments, so I’m not going to belabour the issue any more.

55

But it doesn’t let you pretend that the “known wacks” don’t exist!

As you’re reading a thread, if you get to an ignored person, the ignored person’s name is listed on the left, where the poster’s name is always listed. Where their text would be, however, is a message saying “This person is on your ignore list. If you wish to read their post, click >here<”

You know they’re there, you know they’ve posted and you can chose to read their message or not with just the click of a button. and you see their “Spew du jour” in quotes and followups, I believe. And while that’s a GREAT term (Spew du jour) :D, it’s not always accurate: I’m not necessarily talking trolls. Trolls are dealt with swiftly and and strongly by the Admins. But what of that person who, though not a troll is a one-note wonder and EVERY thread returns to their obsession (imagine a JDT without the abusiveness: remember he was around for weeks before he became vicious), or someone who’s posting style is just annoying as hell to you? Not banworthy, not even worthy of bringing to the Mod’s attention. But not someone you’d ever want to read or respond to.

**

I have no problem at all with discussing it. (In fact, it’s obvious you’d have trouble shutting me up! :wink: )

The one point that I’d really like to see discussed is that many of us ( I believe) already have people we ignore: see their name in the Poster field, scroll past their posts. I won’t respond to anything they say, so how does it change anythng if a tool is provided to make it a bit easier to scroll past them? (Again, I don’t accept the “Reading Spew du jour is for your own good” argument). How would this in any way change the board dynamic?

Fenris

56

Well, well. I haven’t been around much the last few months (lucky me, I didn’t lose too much from my post count because of the December 7th thing), and things sure have changed in the meantime. I don’t know if we are “taking votes” here, or if my post count is high enough such that my vote will count but, for what it’s worth, I agree completely with this:

Of course I will likely never use the function myself, and would be miffed if someone ignored me, but that doesn’t lead me to want to take the option away from other people.

57

Ah, I do love this board. This discussion is case in point: Both sides make their arguments so effectively and persuasively that I can’t decide between them. Honestly, I see the merit of both positions, and I can’t nail myself down to one or the other.

“Ignore is bad because it will be used by twerps like seethruart who would benefit most from having their worldview questioned.” Yes, true.

“But seethruart is the prime example of somebody whose worldview is immune to questioning, so it doesn’t matter who he ignores or doesn’t ignore. So that’s not a reason to remove it.” Yes, also true.

“But if everyone ignores seethruart, which seems likely, then his posts will sit out there unanswered and unchallenged. So we should dump it.” I can go along with that.

“Even if that’s the case, isn’t it rather patronizing to enable or disable features based on what The Powers That Be think will be healthiest for these people, and not let them choose?” Quite so.

“But the SDMB is not a public forum in the strictest sense of the word; it’s maintained by a private organization, and they can and do set and enforce rules to guide and shape the experience.” Without question.

And round and round she goes…

58

Well, except I think this part:

is not really valid. I’m sure there are people who would put seethruart on their ignore list, but those people would never have responded to him anyway, ignore list or not.

I don’t really see the harm in an ignore list. I’m willing to bet that most people (including me) will never use it, and those that do use it would never listen/respond to the other posters on their list, anyway. And I would be honestly surprised if anyone winds up with more than eight or ten entries on their list anyway.

59

I don’t really have a preference one way or the other on the ignore feature.

About the “people should be able to just skip over posts without needing the feature” theory: yes, absolutely they should. There’s a difference between should and is, though.

People should also be able, when they need a vacation from the boards, to simply not log in, without needing to have an admin temporarily lock them. Yet, the latter is employed, because of the is-ness of some, without clinging to theoretical shoulds–doing so, overall, probably helps the boards operate a little more smoothly.

I think there’s a parallel there.

Just something to keep in mind as the mod-types deliberate on a verdict.

60

If we’re polling, I’m all for Ignore. I’ve started my list, and I won’t get into who’s on it, but I will reinforce the point that it’s a damned sight easier to ignore them when their text isn’t there, than to scroll on past, when it is. And like Zyada, I just read, and then if something’s particularly interesting, or awful, I’ll look to the left and see who’s responsible.

Would I use Ignore to avoid a debater with views different than mine? Not if they’re any good. I need my debate adversaries, if they’ve got any brain cells, in order to find out whether my ideas are any good or not. If Libertarian or erislover can do damage to one of my arguments, then it’s back to the drawing board, and necessarily so.

But then there are the GDers who have proven, over the years, that they really don’t belong there, but they stay anyway. They never add anything useful to any debate, they just take up space and time and energy. There comes a time when I’d rather it be someone else’s time and energy. And there are plenty of others here who can tackle them.

Also, too often I give in to the temptation to swat down posters of this sort, rather than mixing it up with people who can trade punches with me, giving as good as they get. That’s bad for me, and I don’t see how it does the board any good, either.

So I’d encourage the Powers That Be to let us choose individually whether to use this function, and to not get rid of it unless there’s visible evidence of its not working out.

I concur with Una and all the others that no mention of who’s on one’s Ignore list should be made on the board.

I think you mean ‘Juan Peron’. And look what that guy did to Argentina, anyway. :wink: