Hello, Beexers.
As you know, Beex has a 'total black-out' ignore policy - if you ignore someone you don't see their posts or threads, and they can't PM you. This works well, and plenty of people have mentioned that the forum became a nicer place when they put people on ignore. For the sake of clarity, we want to make it clear that we think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. We won't be going "ner ner ignoring people is silly".
However, some people who ignore others have said that they still want to see the threads these people create, as people they consider excellent still post in them. This seems legit.
However, this would probably affect everybody who uses the ignore function, so we wanted to hear your thoughts.
So - here are the main points:
Should you be able to see topics that ignored people create?
Should you be able to see the first post in that thread, regardless of who wrote it?
Also, something else we're mulling over: Should you be able to say "I'm going to ignore this person, and I want them to ignore me".
Everyone should feel free to chime in, whether they ignore people or not.
As you know, Beex has a 'total black-out' ignore policy - if you ignore someone you don't see their posts or threads, and they can't PM you. This works well, and plenty of people have mentioned that the forum became a nicer place when they put people on ignore. For the sake of clarity, we want to make it clear that we think this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. We won't be going "ner ner ignoring people is silly".
However, some people who ignore others have said that they still want to see the threads these people create, as people they consider excellent still post in them. This seems legit.
However, this would probably affect everybody who uses the ignore function, so we wanted to hear your thoughts.
So - here are the main points:
Should you be able to see topics that ignored people create?
Should you be able to see the first post in that thread, regardless of who wrote it?
Also, something else we're mulling over: Should you be able to say "I'm going to ignore this person, and I want them to ignore me".
Everyone should feel free to chime in, whether they ignore people or not.
I think it's a legit idea. Just because Person X annoys you in general doesn't mean every thread they start is crappy, or that conversation other people have in that thread is somehow rendered worthless. A thread becomes 'public domain' the instant it exists and it doesn't really matter who actually started it, so hiding the entire thing based on something as arbitrary as who the OP is does seem 'wrong'. Whether you can see the first post or not doesn't matter as much to me either way, any subsequent conversation will be useful, or not, through context.
As for 'forcing' someone to ignore you just because you're ignoring them; no, that's not on in my opinion. It's all well and good that people can curate their own experience here to a degree, but someone else being able to decide what I can or cannot read is a step waaaay to far.
As for 'forcing' someone to ignore you just because you're ignoring them; no, that's not on in my opinion. It's all well and good that people can curate their own experience here to a degree, but someone else being able to decide what I can or cannot read is a step waaaay to far.
I agree with Bamba on the former, but I don't really know on the latter. Facebook and Twitter as an example offer a block function. I do potentially see it causing conflict though as it becomes immediately obvious if someone's blocked you from seeing their posts.
Bamba wrote:
but someone else being able to decide what I can or cannot read is a step waaaay to far.
I already can
[edit] I should add that I don't, though
I don't use the ignore function, but I reckon still being able to see an ignored person's thread with only the first post visible would have merit. I imagine it's pretty weird to not be able to see, say B&B 43 just because some massive bellend started the topic.
There was a B&B 43?
Regarding the block, Seems rather daft in that a simple flick to incognito mode or whatever would be enough to defeat it. Then there's also the corresponding blanking of people who replied to you. (and if not that, then entirely pointless)
Regarding the block, Seems rather daft in that a simple flick to incognito mode or whatever would be enough to defeat it. Then there's also the corresponding blanking of people who replied to you. (and if not that, then entirely pointless)
I forgot the car thread existed for about six years because of the ignore function. But I like it in general. I don't have anyone on permanent ignore, but I do put some people on "timeout" if they sufficiently impact my enjoyment of this site. Maybe a "mute this person for 24 Hours/7 days" thing would be good.
In fact, rather than ignore, mute or block would be better. I'm undecided about a two-way block function though.
In fact, rather than ignore, mute or block would be better. I'm undecided about a two-way block function though.
Lonewolves wrote:
I forgot the car thread existed for about six years because of the ignore function.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing though (from your point of view)?
Lonewolves wrote:
In fact, rather than ignore, mute or block would be better.
You might need to clarify that for me
Grim... wrote:
Should you be able to see topics that ignored people create?
Strong yes.Quote:
Should you be able to see the first post in that thread, regardless of who wrote it?
Could go either way on this. I don't think it's a big deal.Quote:
Also, something else we're mulling over: Should you be able to say "I'm going to ignore this person, and I want them to ignore me".
Probably not much value here, I think. People can simply log out or use an incognito window to read your posts, so you're not gaining much.
You're actually considering implementing a function whereby a user can not only totally ignore everything someone else has to say (which is fair enough I guess, albeit not for me) - but can unilaterally force that person not to be able to even read anything they say either, against their will and regardless of content (up to and including calling them rotten, one imagines - on a theoretical basis at least). Wow. Get a whole bunch of your mates to do the same, and that person is black balled and de facto banned; they'll be no content for them to read.
My, how far we have traveled, huh.
My, how far we have traveled, huh.
The question is... has Grim... done this already and there's actually 2 forums running in parallel, with Gnomes, Shin and CUS holding court in the alternate dimension?
I think it's really, really sad. 
DavPaz wrote:
The question is... has Grim... done this already and there's actually 2 forums running in parallel, with Gnomes, Shin and CUS holding court in the alternate dimension?
He's already done that to a forum once
Cavey wrote:
You're actually considering implementing a function whereby a user can not only totally ignore everything someone else has to say (which is fair enough I guess, albeit not for me) - but can unilaterally force that person not to be able to even read anything they say either, against their will and regardless of content (up to and including calling them rotten, one imagines - on a theoretical basis at least). Wow. Get a whole bunch of your mates to do the same, and that person is black balled and de facto banned; they'll be no content for them to read.
My, how far we have traveled, huh.
My, how far we have traveled, huh.
It is important to discuss it through as an option, though, so we can discount it witH reasoning rather than out of hand.
Cavey wrote:
You're actually considering implementing a function whereby a user can not only totally ignore everything someone else has to say (which is fair enough I guess, albeit not for me) - but can unilaterally force that person not to be able to even read anything they say either, against their will and regardless of content (up to and including calling them rotten, one imagines - on a theoretical basis at least). Wow. Get a whole bunch of your mates to do the same, and that person is black balled and de facto banned.
My, how far we have traveled, huh.
My, how far we have traveled, huh.
If someone wants to use an ignore function then that's up to them, I guess. I've never invoked it myself and never will, (even when a certain member here routinely just referred to me as 'the cunt'), but each to their own.
Quote:
Should you be able to see topics that ignored people create?
Should you be able to see the first post in that thread, regardless of who wrote it?
Should you be able to see the first post in that thread, regardless of who wrote it?
Both seem reasonable for those who want the functionality.
Quote:
Also, something else we're mulling over: Should you be able to say "I'm going to ignore this person, and I want them to ignore me".
Absolutely not.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
The question is... has Grim... done this already and there's actually 2 forums running in parallel, with Gnomes, Shin and CUS holding court in the alternate dimension?
He's already done that to a forum once
Is that so...
DavPaz wrote:
The question is... has Grim... done this already and there's actually 2 forums running in parallel, with Gnomes, Shin and CUS holding court in the alternate dimension?
*wibble noise*
Shut the fuck up! We don't want you over there, you hear me!? Stay in your own world. We're happy without you
*wibble noise*
Why not just remove the ignore function totally?
MaliA wrote:
Why not just remove the ignore function totally?
Um... Why?
First!
Surprised no one else has an opinion on this.
Surprised no one else has an opinion on this.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
The question is... has Grim... done this already and there's actually 2 forums running in parallel, with Gnomes, Shin and CUS holding court in the alternate dimension?
He's already done that to a forum once
Indeed, on the Little Savages 2 forum, where I invented Hellbanning.
Eventually so many people were banned that I was basically running two forums, and I had people Hellbanned from the Hellbanned forum (they were on Layer 2) although only about three of them.
[edit] Oh wait, what that a STAG joke?
Satsuma wrote:
First!
Surprised no one else has an opinion on this.
Surprised no one else has an opinion on this.
I am enlarging the discussion space.
Grim... wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
The question is... has Grim... done this already and there's actually 2 forums running in parallel, with Gnomes, Shin and CUS holding court in the alternate dimension?
He's already done that to a forum once
Indeed, on the Little Savages 2 forum, where I invented Hellbanning.
Eventually so many people were banned that I was basically running two forums, and I had people Hellbanned from the Hellbanned forum (they were on Layer 2) although only about three of them.
[edit] Oh wait, what that a STAG joke?
So when they were banned they were banished to a subforum with the other troublemakers? Sweet!
Satsuma wrote:
First!
Surprised no one else has an opinion on this.
Surprised no one else has an opinion on this.
I lolled.
Grim... wrote:
Indeed, on the Little Savages 2 forum, where I invented Hellbanning.
Eventually so many people were banned that I was basically running two forums, and I had people Hellbanned from the Hellbanned forum (they were on Layer 2) although only about three of them.
[edit] Oh wait, what that a STAG joke?
Eventually so many people were banned that I was basically running two forums, and I had people Hellbanned from the Hellbanned forum (they were on Layer 2) although only about three of them.
[edit] Oh wait, what that a STAG joke?
No, it was a reference to LSav, although sure, let's pretend it deliberately worked on two levels.
DavPaz wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
The question is... has Grim... done this already and there's actually 2 forums running in parallel, with Gnomes, Shin and CUS holding court in the alternate dimension?
He's already done that to a forum once
Indeed, on the Little Savages 2 forum, where I invented Hellbanning.
Eventually so many people were banned that I was basically running two forums, and I had people Hellbanned from the Hellbanned forum (they were on Layer 2) although only about three of them.
[edit] Oh wait, what that a STAG joke?
So when they were banned they were banished to a subforum with the other troublemakers? Sweet!
No, once they were banned no-one could see their posts or topics except for other people that were banned.
Well, Gaywood seems to be enjoying himself at least. 
Grim... wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
So when they were banned they were banished to a subforum with the other troublemakers? Sweet!
No, once they were banned no-one could see their posts or topics except for other people that were banned.
So... yes?
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
I forgot the car thread existed for about six years because of the ignore function.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing though (from your point of view)?
Bad thing, I guess. I like talking about cars.
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
In fact, rather than ignore, mute or block would be better.
You might need to clarify that for me
Muting is where you can't see what the offender posts anymore but they don't know you can't see it (much like the current function); blocking would be much like you discussed earlier where they can't see your posts either. It would give a granularity to it. Blocking is quite extreme, but would be nice to have the option. Muting for x hours/days would be great.
I think I'd also like a 'mute topic' button. It irks me a bit when a topic doesn't interest me but I can't leave it unread. So I either have to click 'mark topics read' or click into it and back to general discussion. That might just be me being weird though.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Also, something else we're mulling over: Should you be able to say "I'm going to ignore this person, and I want them to ignore me".
Probably not much value here, I think. People can simply log out or use an incognito window to read your posts, so you're not gaining much.
Hmm. I'm reconsidering this. Perhaps there is value in, quite explicitly, Alice telling Bob that "I don't want you to interact with me." If Alice mutes [1] Bob, Bob doesn't know -- resulting in scenarios where Bob replies to Alice then wonders why he's being ignored. If Alice blocks [2] Bob, Bob knows about it, and can take action on that knowledge -- like modifying his behaviour in the future, perhaps, if we assume Alice is acting in good faith and Bob was being a dick.
On the other hand, Bob might go thermonuclear at the insult and cause drama, of course. Swings and roundabouts.
Grim..., can you pull some anonymised statistics of current block functionality usage? Product decisions are better with data.
[1] Using this in the modern social network meaning ie. Alice doesn't see Bob's posts. phpbb calls this "Foe" or "ignore."
[2] Again, using modern terminology ie. now Bob doesn't see Alice's posts. phpbb doesn't have this currently, I think.
"anonymised statistics of current block functionality usage"
About 20-odd people post to the forum and only a fraction of them will use the ignore function... so that's quite the data sample you've got there.
About 20-odd people post to the forum and only a fraction of them will use the ignore function... so that's quite the data sample you've got there.
So, you've blocked person a, thet can't see your posts.
Person B quotes you, but has not blocked person a, thereby getting around the block. Not a good look.
Or...
You've blocked person a, they can't see your posts, or anyone quoting you. With said people being unaware that not everyone can see their posts.
Basically at this point, you're being a dick.
Just doesn't work.
Person B quotes you, but has not blocked person a, thereby getting around the block. Not a good look.
Or...
You've blocked person a, they can't see your posts, or anyone quoting you. With said people being unaware that not everyone can see their posts.
Basically at this point, you're being a dick.
Just doesn't work.
I think you should be able to see the topics started by someone you have as a Foe, but the content of the post is removed and replaced by "This topic was started by someone currently on your Foe list".
All other posts by that person in the thread are removed as currently happens.
This mirrors as closely as possible the current functionality, whilst also bringing back full threads of content that are not currently accessible if you Foe the topic starter.
All other posts by that person in the thread are removed as currently happens.
This mirrors as closely as possible the current functionality, whilst also bringing back full threads of content that are not currently accessible if you Foe the topic starter.
Cavey wrote:
"anonymised statistics of current block functionality usage"
About 20-odd people post to the forum and only a fraction of them will use the ignore function... so that's quite the data sample you've got there.
About 20-odd people post to the forum and only a fraction of them will use the ignore function... so that's quite the data sample you've got there.
To be used on exactly that sample of people, so it's 100% relevant. It's not like the forum is being used as a test bed to scale up to anywhere else, so your point is moot.
Lonewolves wrote:
It irks me a bit when a topic doesn't interest me but I can't leave it unread. So I either have to click 'mark topics read' or click into it and back to general discussion. That might just be me being weird though.
I'm the same. I've no interest in cars for instance, but I always click into the thread so that it's marked as read.
I think topic muting is a discussion for another thread, and probably a lot of work for Grim... to implement (it would need interfaces for you to be able to unmute for example), but a discussion that would be worth having nonetheless.
Mr Dave wrote:
So, you've blocked person a, thet can't see your posts.
Person B quotes you, but has not blocked person a, thereby getting around the block. Not a good look.
Or...
You've blocked person a, they can't see your posts, or anyone quoting you. With said people being unaware that not everyone can see their posts.
Basically at this point, you're being a dick.
Just doesn't work.
Person B quotes you, but has not blocked person a, thereby getting around the block. Not a good look.
Or...
You've blocked person a, they can't see your posts, or anyone quoting you. With said people being unaware that not everyone can see their posts.
Basically at this point, you're being a dick.
Just doesn't work.
You can't see quotes of people you've put on ignore, either. But yeah, I agree it's not a great idea.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
phpbb doesn't have this currently, I think.
Imagine that.
Cavey wrote:
"anonymised statistics of current block functionality usage"
About 20-odd people post to the forum and only a fraction of them will use the ignore function... so that's quite the data sample you've got there.
About 20-odd people post to the forum and only a fraction of them will use the ignore function... so that's quite the data sample you've got there.
There's a point, how many unique posters does BEEX have in the average week these days?
I'm sure we have had stats for such things in the past.
It's a bit of a shame really that even in its now somewhat diminished form, folks here still feel the urge/need to ignore each other.
Grim... wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
phpbb doesn't have this currently, I think.
Imagine that.
I mean, this ancient and decrepit fork doesn't. I guess we should concede that the phpbb team might have added some features since you stood Beex up.
Quote:
It's a bit of a shame really that even in its now somewhat diminished form, folks here still feel the urge/need to ignore each other.
Ermergehd victerm blamahmung!
Mr Russell wrote:
Cavey wrote:
"anonymised statistics of current block functionality usage"
About 20-odd people post to the forum and only a fraction of them will use the ignore function... so that's quite the data sample you've got there.
About 20-odd people post to the forum and only a fraction of them will use the ignore function... so that's quite the data sample you've got there.
To be used on exactly that sample of people, so it's 100% relevant. It's not like the forum is being used as a test bed to scale up to anywhere else, so your point is moot.
I don't agree; how is knowing how a tiny data sample of people use a current function that is being used in a way entirely differently to that now being proposed going to help you make "product decisions" about whether or not to add this hitherto never-considered function? That said, though, I don't actually care; the issue for me is that such a thing is even being considered in the first place.
I just wish people could be more honest. If Grim... or whomever just wishes people like me would simply quietly feck off and let him enjoy his forum with like-minded mates, and sent me a PM along those lines (or, hell, rang me up), then I'd be sad but would entirely understand, and would comply. Just save all this nasty bullshit; I find it all so dishonest, apart from anything else.
Cavey wrote:
I just wish people could be more honest. If Grim... or whomever just wishes people like me would simply quietly feck off and let him enjoy his forum with like-minded mates, and sent me a PM along those lines (or, hell, rang me up), then I'd be sad but would entirely understand, and would comply. Just save all this nasty bullshit; I find it all so dishonest, apart from anything else.
What nasty bullshit? No one, aside from you right now, has attempted to bring any drama to this conversation; it's all been perfectly polite constructive chat about forum functionality. It's also possibly worth noting that not a single person has mentioned you here so maybe assuming everything is about you is a touch premature.
So, stats.
In the last month, 56 individual posters wrote something.
Of those people, 8 ignore at least one other person.
Of those people, 12 are ignored by at least one other person.
In the last month, 56 individual posters wrote something.
Of those people, 8 ignore at least one other person.
Of those people, 12 are ignored by at least one other person.
An argument!
Bamba and Cavey must ignore each other IMMEDIATELY to resolve the conflict.
Bamba and Cavey must ignore each other IMMEDIATELY to resolve the conflict.
Quick privacy note: I can see (with some database join gubbins) who ignores whom. I very rarely do though, unless something is going wrong.
DavPaz wrote:
Grim... wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
So when they were banned they were banished to a subforum with the other troublemakers? Sweet!
No, once they were banned no-one could see their posts or topics except for other people that were banned.
So... yes?
Not really. Banned people can still see all the posts and threads of unbanned people, and often join in with the discussion.
I think you're missing the point, Cavey. There's an ignore function that people use today, for whatever personal wide and varied reasons, to improve their personal experience of the forum. That's perfectly valid and entirely up to them to do so. The only question under consideration is whether there are ways to improve how that works. You can't always expect people to get along or want to read everything that other people post when it's a public forum open to all.
I'm still genuinely amazed that anyone gets sufficiently wound up by anything on here that they need to put anyone on ignore. It's a bit safe spacey snowflake to be honest. The block function you're talking about is a step far too far and it's beyond comprehension that anyone could feel the need to prevent another user here seeing their posts. It could also ruin the forum for people just because someone else has decided they don't like the other person.
Page 1 of 3 [ 111 posts ]