There is a poster on this board who loves to take (often dishonest) potshots at me and insult me while keeping himself shielded from response by having me on his (oft-mentioned in the Pit) ignore list. This seems to me not only cowardly but somewhat against the spirit of closing threads due to bannings because the person banned is no longer in a position to defend himself. Admittedly, I stilll have the ability to respond, whereas a banned or suspended poster does not, but at the same time it deprives me of the ability to directly address the poster causing the trouble. Thus it seems to me that it should be off-limits for a poster to address or make comment about any poster he has on his ignore list.
Ah, nevermind. I posted this in haste after becoming annoyed with the offender in the Pit. Clearly a person can have you on his ignore list and no one would know unless he mentioned it. Therefore, mods would be unable to distinguish between a poster making insults toward a poster on his ignore list vs. one who merely issues insults and doesn’t respond when answered. So the thread can be closed, with my apologies.
However, an alternative just occurred to me. (I’m posting in the midst of other activities. Sorry for the segmentation.)
How about if a poster had to get mod clearance to put a poster on his ignore list, and he or she agreed in the process not to address or make reference to people on his ignore list ? Then it would be possible for the mods to know if someone was breaking the rule.
So how about that then, in addition to the rule suggested in the OP?
Sounds like a lot of work. Seems easier to me, to ignore the rude person, or just slap em on your own ignore list. Not to mention turning petty squabbles among posters into a whole spreadsheet imbroglio for the moderators.
Well, petty squables are really all we have here. I’ve never heard of anything consequential coming of any of them.
Naturally though, I wouldn’t expect a “spreadsheet imbroglio”, if that’s what it would take. I don’t know how many posters around here have people on their ignore list but I wouldn’t think it would be that many, and I don’t think it would come up as an issue all that often either.
The mods know more about it than I do though and whatever they decide is fine. I just thought I’d ask.
I can’t see why it would be legal except in the Pit, since it’s quite obvious that they have you on ignore when they do this, and saying someone is on your ignore list is a Pit-only thing.
EDIT: I mean, if it weren’t obvious, how would SA know to be asking about it?
So my question is, should we report such things? I’ve been leaving it to the person so insulted to decide.
Yeah here’s an idea - put them on your ignore list and stop friggin’ whining. If you know they’ve got you on THEIR ignore list, you know they’re not going to pay attention to any of your riposts anyway, and why would you want to see what they have to say if all it is is veiled (or not so) snipes at you?
Yeah, once I’d given the matter a little thought I pretty much expected that answer. But I think Big T might have a workable answer. How about making it off limits to comment on another poster once they’ve made it known they have that person on ignore? It doesn’t seem kosher to me that a poster should be able to broadcast that he has someone on ignore, even to the point of asking other posters not to quote the ignored poster so he won’t see that person’s comments in their post - both of which kaylasdad99 has done - and get away with it. (For one thing, isn’t it pretty much posting-by-proxy to encourage other posters not to quote an ignored poster?)
The obvious problem with putting the other poster on ignore (I’m speaking generally now) is that it deprives the originally ignored poster of the opportunity to refute lies and mischaracterizations coming from the poster who first put him on ignore. Since all we have to communicate with here are words, and wrongful words create wrongful beliefs, it would be counter-productive to put someone on ignore who may very well be spreading lies about what you’ve said or your position on certain subjects. I thought the purpose of the ignore function was simply to allow a person to avoid postings by someone who’s posts he finds annoying, rather than as a shield to hide behind while making false accusations toward the ignored poster, and which absolves the miscreant from having to answer for his wrongful behavior.
So again, can we perhaps have a rule against sniping at a poster whom you’ve announced that you are ignoring? And on asking other posters to alter their posting behavior so as to avoid the ignored person’s comments? Both of those are reportable, and I would think fairly easy to moderate.
I’m against people doing that stupid “Well, apparently BigT has a lot to say on this matter” or “BigT just keeps blabbing on” type posts. It’s clear to anyone with a brain that they are saying, “I put this guy on ignore and I’m making fun of the fact that he keeps posting.”
In my opinion, that defeats the spirit of the rule against declaring someone on your ignore list. Tell 'em in the Pit and stop following them around just to disparage them.
If you are talking about people who have announced that you are on their ignore list just disparaging you, that’s silly. They can easily have read what you wrote, and you are allowed to say crap about people until you cross an imaginary line in the sand. And, furthermore, all you have to do is get someone to quote you, and it’s definitely on their screen. (FFvB, which let you hide quote, is dead.)
If you can’t tell from the comment itself that you are on their ignore list, I really can’t see why it should be moderated differently. I’m just against people using the letter of the rules to get by the spirit.
The problem is that when you’re on the 15th page of a thread and the poster in question lies about what you said 10 pages ago, or accuses you of behavior that you’ve never engaged in, that can have an influence on how people who may have missed the original posts or not read all of the thread perceive your position on that issue. So then they pick up the ball and next thing I know I’m having to argue with them (sometimes without even knowing what set them off or where they got their erroneous information from) and/or having to go wading back through the thread to copy and quote what I actually said.
IMO, if someone is just calling you a shitbird, that’s one thing and can easily be ignored. If they’re lying about your position on an inflammatory subject however, or lying about or mischaracterizing your cites, that’s another.
In the final analysis, I guess I just don’t believe people should be allowed to engage in dishonest and underhanded behavior while using the board’s software to make themselves impervious to the fallout from it.
I’ve never had anyone on my ignore list. But I’ve had people assume that I did and a third person would post every word the unignored person was posting. I can’t remember the names of either of the persons involved. That’s how unimportant it was.
It is maybe more difficult to let a deliberate lie slide than just an insult. Report it and contradict it calmly. Or just ignore it. Or pounce in The Pit. Or you could do what I do. heh heh.
Yes, I object to deliberate lies and mischaracterizations, and especially to lies about the source of cites. And I object to not being able to engage them directly in the kind of give-and-take that shows them up. Otherwise it can appear simply to be a case of he said/she said. There are reasons why attorneys are allowed to cross-examine witnesses rather than allowing them to say whatever they want and then try to refute it later. Obviously this isn’t a court of law, but the same principle applies. IMO a person simply shouldn’t be allowed to spout bullshit and be shielded from having to answer his assertions. Especially not on a board devoted to fighting ignorance. It’s important to know where they got the basis for their false assertions, and what they’re referring to when they lie about where you got your cites. If they’re put in the position of having to answer directly or make it obvious that they’re running away from the issue, it’s easier for other posters to judge the quality of their assertions.
Now having said that, it’s good to hear from you again.
Or you ignore the toss-head, and if it comes up at all from a third party, you correct them as if they are the ones making the incorrect characterisations.
If someone is making these kinds of snipes about you anyway, who gives a fuck what people who believe them think? They’re obviously not going to think critically about the issue either way.
You don’t need the moderators to wipe up after you. Put on your big boy panties and ignore the tard.
I’ve never heard of anything consequential coming of any of them.