26 replies to this topic

[Milkyway64]

The one good thing it's done, that is shield Dermot from biggotry, is long and gone. All it's done since then is nothing but frustrate and break up bits of the community. Example: Sabre.

Yeah, him. Resident super human inteligent poster with legendarily incompetence. He gets away with it by ignoring anyone who points out what a moron he is, leading to an end result of hard trolling. Ignore feature has really gotta go, and frankly if someone soesn't want contact with someone else THAT badly, they can either leave the forum or deal with it like someone older than 10.

[Ajc3000fox]

i have never even used it, or seen it used, why should it have to go?

It could be useful in the future if another serious problem comes up

[Xortberg]

I agree. This topic shouldn't even exist, since in my opinion, we should never have had the feature to begin with. I started out making legit arguments in the godhatesfurries topic, but once I saw Sabre still couldn't see a goddamn word I posted, I just started being a dick. Why? Because I'm sick of my arguments being ignored. Maybe not the most mature thing to do, but I'm pissed.

So yeah. I agree 120%.

EDIT: Can't wait for the new shit to come out to we have the notification system. I'm also sick of getting ninja'd

ajc3000fox, on 11 June 2011 - 02:42 AM, said:

i have never even used it, or seen it used, why should it have to go?

It could be useful in the future if another serious problem comes up

In all the time I've been here at the forum, the only time I've seen the staff recommend using the feature to avoid trouble was, as Milky said, with Dermot. Every other case of it being used (i.e. Sabre) is just someone getting upset because they disagree with a user and don't want to deal with opposing viewpoints.

It's petty and it totally stifles discussion.

[Ajc3000fox]

Xortberg, on 11 June 2011 - 02:43 AM, said:

I agree. This topic shouldn't even exist, since in my opinion, we should never have had the feature to begin with. I started out making legit arguments in the godhatesfurries topic, but once I saw Sabre still couldn't see a goddamn word I posted, I just started being a dick. Why? Because I'm sick of my arguments being ignored. Maybe not the most mature thing to do, but I'm pissed.

So yeah. I agree 120%.

EDIT: Can't wait for the new shit to come out to we have the notification system. I'm also sick of getting ninja'd



In all the time I've been here at the forum, the only time I've seen the staff recommend using the feature to avoid trouble was, as Milky said, with Dermot. Every other case of it being used (i.e. Sabre) is just someone getting upset because they disagree with a user and don't want to deal with opposing viewpoints.

It's petty and it totally stifles discussion.

my take on this : getting ninja'd is terrible so hard

[Vydrach]

Only time I've actually used it was on Dermot so I didn't have to see his signature, and Nova to avoid seeing the pictures he'd post of Krystal.

Both times I'm rather grateful for its inclusion in the system. Though I'll have to check the godhatesfurries topic to see what you're referring to with severely broken conversations.

[Xortberg]

It's not just that topic, either. I can't recall any off the top of my head, but basically look at any topic including Sabre and either Milky or me. There's discussion, and then there's Sabre, and then the discussion goes to hell because one side of the discussion is completely unaware of what the other side is even saying.

[LoneWolf]

Wait, we have an ignore feature? That would have been good to know around Dermot

[Drasiana]

I agree, it needs to be canned.

If someone is harassing you to the extent of you NEEDING to enforce an ignore feature then someone is breaking a rule and staff intervention is necessary. And, alternatively, if someone is too much of a blubbering toddler to handle the fact that people disagree with them, they can put on their big boy panties and deal with it. ESPECIALLY in something like the debate forum, where the forum's entire purpose is broken if some users can't even see half the posts.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I've never used it... I do see your point in wanting it removed, however. I'm sure it is very frustrating if you post a comment towards someone, but the person "ignoring" you wouldn't be able to see it.

I did use a similar feature on a vBulletin board. The topics I would post in were kind of jumbled after that...

[Sabre]

LoneWolf, on 11 June 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:

Wait, we have an ignore feature? That would have been good to know around Dermot

That's why it was put on the forum.

TheDras, on 11 June 2011 - 04:58 AM, said:

I agree, it needs to be canned.

If someone is harassing you to the extent of you NEEDING to enforce an ignore feature then someone is breaking a rule and staff intervention is necessary. And, alternatively, if someone is too much of a blubbering toddler to handle the fact that people disagree with them, they can put on their big boy panties and deal with it. ESPECIALLY in something like the debate forum, where the forum's entire purpose is broken if some users can't even see half the posts.

Or the staff aren't willing/are sick of getting involved. It also stops people from using image spams and stops people defacing your profile and filling your inbox on purpose.

[Xortberg]

Sabre, on 11 June 2011 - 06:31 AM, said:

Or the staff aren't willing/are sick of getting involved. It also stops people from using image spams and stops people defacing your profile and filling your inbox on purpose.

Nobody in the debate boards image spam in the first place, or really anywhere else for that matter outside of the Rec Room. Sure, you'll see a macro here and there, but rarely without a substantial post backing them. Also, though I rarely check my own profile, let alone everyone else's, I doubt any of our members are so immature they'd deface someone's and if they did it would most certainly be against the rules in some way.

And, once again, I've never experienced it, but as far as I know nobody here's immature enough to deliberately fill an inbox. And no offense to our staff, since I know it doesn't apply to you, but if the staff aren't willing to get involved they shouldn't be staff in the first place. Just saying.

[Drasiana]

Sabre, on 11 June 2011 - 06:31 AM, said:

Or the staff aren't willing/are sick of getting involved. It also stops people from using image spams and stops people defacing your profile and filling your inbox on purpose.

That's their job. And if they're "sick of getting involved" they can kindly step down, because they're not doing anyone any favours by sitting around with power they aren't using. And anyone who does either of those things are *also* breaking some kind of rule and need to be reprimanded.

[LoneWolf]

Sabre, on 11 June 2011 - 06:31 AM, said:

That's why it was put on the forum.

OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHH...

[GameMasterGuy]

Why don't we just ignore the troll that's ignoring us?

["User"]

Completely axing the ignore feature which blocks posts, PM's and other forums of communication between forum members due to the actions of one person is kind of pre-mature don't you think? I can see there being a new rule in the Counter Point board when it comes to using repetitive illogical tactics in debating and end up causing drama as a result, but if it's one person maybe some of you could be the better man and just...not even respond to said arguments by certain people in the first place?

I'm just trying to see it from both sides here...

[Xortberg]

"User", on 11 June 2011 - 06:50 PM, said:

Completely axing the ignore feature which blocks posts, PM's and other forums of communication between forum members due to the actions of one person is kind of pre-mature don't you think? I can see there being a new rule in the Counter Point board when it comes to using repetitive illogical tactics in debating and end up causing drama as a result, but if it's one person maybe some of you could be the better man and just...not even respond to said arguments by certain people in the first place?

I'm just trying to see it from both sides here...

The problem with not responding is that Sabre tends to be pretty active in the debate board, and whether that rule gets made or not he'll still be there only seeing his half of the discussion and there will be no progress made in any threads.

And this is a problem that's been here for a while, and it's not just because we have a problem with Sabre. Sabre is just a good example of how it blocks communication and stifles any sort of good discussion.

However, I suppose I do agree with you. Completely axing it would possibly present problems in the future, in the case of some sort of Dermot situation coming up again. Maybe the ignore feature could be controlled by the mods, and users would have to 'apply' for it? Along with their reasoning and such, the staff would decide if the reason for ignoring was legit.

[DZComposer]

Well, this is a no-win.

I enabled it because people were getting tired of other people and flooding my PM inbox with "So and So said something I don't like and won't shut up." So, I enabled ignore so that people could solve the problem if them not liking what someone posts when those posts are fine by the rules.

And now, it's "I can't respond to someone because they're ignoring me, and they just keep talking."



There really isn't a compromise here, as I can't partially disable it. It is all or nothing.

So, we need to decide which issue we'd rather have. I personally prefer having it turned-on. If you can't respond to someone because they're ignoring you, ignore them back and you won't see their posts.

[Xortberg]

DZComposer, on 11 June 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

There really isn't a compromise here, as I can't partially disable it. It is all or nothing.

So, we need to decide which issue we'd rather have. I personally prefer having it turned-on. If you can't respond to someone because they're ignoring you, ignore them back and you won't see their posts.

That's a shame. And the problem with ignoring the guy who's ignoring me is that other people won't have them ignored, so I'll see only half of the discussion myself. Plus, I'd feel pretty hypocritical. Gah.

Well, my vote personally goes to turning it off, but I can also see how much crap that would cause for you and the staff... Dammit. I can be a big boy and get over it if it makes it easier.

[Milkyway64]

I'm with Xort. If I ignore them back, then I'm gonna waltz right in to a topic and see people arguing with the air, and because people like to quote posts I'll still end up with bits and pieces anyway so what's even the point.

Quote

I enabled it because people were getting tired of other people and flooding my PM inbox with "So and So said something I don't like and won't shut up." So, I enabled ignore so that people could solve the problem if them not liking what someone posts when those posts are fine by the rules.

So why not just ignore them? Or better yet, have warn repeat offenders that they are spamming, amend the rules, and/or remind them that we have a full staff lineup for a reason and to get off your ass.

[DZComposer]

Hmm... Looks like I can't disable it outright. I can make certain groups unable to be ignored, though.

EDIT: I set it for all groups.

Please be mindful that just because someone says something you don't like does not make them in violation of the rules and requiring staff attention.

Some of you need to grow up and realize that other people have different opinions.

["User"]

However just an FYI for everyone, the people who you've ignored previously before this change will still be on your ignore list. It hasn't been cleaned out as a result.

[DZComposer]

If people already ignored still are, there is nothing I can do about it. I cannot edit people's ignore lists to clear them.

[Xortberg]

That sucks.

[DZComposer]

Now, I don't know if that is the case, but if it is I felt that was worth saying.

[Ajc3000fox]

Emperor DZ has spoken! Now back to your place commeners!