A change to block/ignore

[lucusloc]

Currently if you block/ignore someone it not only hides their content from you, it also hides your content from them. It should not do this, if they do not wish to see your content they have a block/ignore button of their own. If your content is hidden from them it can make it more difficult for them to continue participating in conversations that other people are having on the topic, as they will be missing half the context of that conversation. This allows someone to fragment small sections of the community without the consent of other members by making certain conversations almost entirely opaque to the blocked member. This should not be a possible function of the block/ignore feature, and for this reason I think that that feature should be one way only. If you block/ignore someone you will not see their content, but they will still have full visibility of yours. They will still be able to quote and interact with that content in order to participate in the conversation with other members, but you will not be alerted to or see any of that content (including not being able to see their quotes by other members, just as it works now). This would reduce the power of the ignore button to fragment the community and would reduce the impact on the blocked user.

For those that like not seeing the content of those that have ignored them, there could be an "automatically ignore back" option on the user profile that would maintain the current functionality.

Read More

 

[sobo]

Maybe reach out through another fellow member who isn't blocked? "Hey Sobo. Flopsweat blocked me. I'm hoping that's an accident. Could you check for me?"

Which is what I have done when I find that people have ignored me and I think it might be by accident. See my Post #163 for further explanation, since I don't feel like typing all that out again.

 

[Xaevian]

 

[sobo]

Best way is learn to play nice and not get on somebodies Ignore list.

Pray tell, when I have not "played nice" here?

 

[Nosferatu]

we can just delete the ignore feature all together and force everyone to play nice (or, you know, face a ban).

One person's view of another not playing nice isn't necessarily due to a forum rule violation, which would require discipline.

You could block me because I don't like bananas, but I don't believe not liking bananas violates any rules of this forum.

 

[solv3nt]

Pray tell, when I have not "played nice" here?

Some people don't like being told not to complain about vendors not selling them mags. We both do it.

 

[lucusloc]

One person's view of another not playing nice isn't necessarily due to a forum rule violation, which would require discipline.

yes, which is why I never put the motivation for ignoring someone under scrutiny. They are free to ignore for whatever reason they so choose and we don't need to get mods or anyone else involved with their decision. I just cannot fathom why it is so important to people that when they ignore someone they force that someone to also ignore them.

 

[Nosferatu]

yes, which is why I never put the motivation for ignoring someone under scrutiny. They are free to ignore for whatever reason they so choose and we don't need to get mods or anyone else involved with their decision. I just cannot fathom why it is so important to people that when they ignore someone they force that someone to also ignore them.

I get it. I don't think your idea is a horrible one, it would take some work coding it unless there's already a XenForo plugin that can be installed.

It gives people more options. More options is often more better.

 

[Colt Carbine]

Pray tell, when I have not "played nice" here?

After reading your post earlier in this thread, I assumed most were on Ignore due to their own behavior, rather than by accident or other's just being people.

 

[Bobbygun]

Which is what I have done when I find that people have ignored me and I think it might be by accident. See my Post #163 for further explanation, since I don't feel like typing all that out again.

Now just where else did you think that I got the idea?

 

[orygun]

I get that a lot of people don't care to see the content from thin skinned people and trolls, and that is all well and good for them. But for me the holes in the conversation are far more irritating than anything the trolls can write. I see absolutely no reason why their preferences should be forced onto me when the solution can make everyone happy.

I understand what you are proposing and can see a side to having this position. Having the Ignore be only one way isn't a terrible idea. Then everyone can decide who to read, but can reply to all. My thought is that it's a "two way street" to avoid any further conflict.

I recently saw the "ignore" come about in a thread. The member who had been put on ignore reached out to me, as we have been acquainted long before I became a moderator. I don't have a "way" where I can see any ignore list, but from his description of these "holes" in the thread that he'd previously seen, we assumed that the ignore feature had been activated against him.
Too bad, too. It was a very trivial thing, like most are.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't even have an ignore feature.
"Play nice (enough) or take your toys and go home".

 

[lucusloc]

I get it. I don't think your idea is a horrible one, it would take some work coding it unless there's already a XenForo plugin that can be installed.

It gives people more options. More options is often more better.

Yep, Joe is the only one this idea really imposes anything on as he has to do the work to implement it. I do find the implementation odd as this is not a default configuration for most any forum I am familiar with and I think it would take a custom plugin or script to implement. But I have no admin'd a forum for ages, so maybe it is more common now?

But (and making a lot of assumptions here) I do think it would be an easy fix; take the "ignore back" section of the plugin script and stuff it behind an option box on the profile options page. That way it only runs if you have the option selected, while the rest of the (now one-way) ignore feature continues running as normal.

 

[solv3nt]

Yep, Joe is the only one this idea really imposes anything on as he has to do the work to implement it. I do find the implementation odd as this is not a default configuration for most any forum I am familiar with and I think it would take a custom plugin or script to implement. But I have no admin'd a forum for ages, so maybe it is more common now?

But (and making a lot of assumptions here) I do think it would be an easy fix; take the "ignore back" section of the plugin script and stuff it behind an option box on the profile options page. That way it only runs if you have the option selected, while the rest of the (now one-way) ignore feature continues running as normal.

Instead of complaining about holes in a thread, the complaint would be that such and such is ignoring your posts and not responding. I could see that being equally confusing.

 

[Flopsweat]

Yep, Joe is the only one this idea really imposes anything on as he has to do the work to implement it. I do find the implementation odd as this is not a default configuration for most any forum I am familiar with and I think it would take a custom plugin or script to implement. But I have no admin'd a forum for ages, so maybe it is more common now?

But (and making a lot of assumptions here) I do think it would be an easy fix; take the "ignore back" section of the plugin script and stuff it behind an option box on the profile options page. That way it only runs if you have the option selected, while the rest of the (now one-way) ignore feature continues running as normal.

It's not a matter of how easy to implement it may be or how well you argue; Most of us simply don't want the blocked person to see our posts.

 

[IndyPrepper]

I think the only change that needs to be made is to the UI. Relabel the ignore button "You're dead to me". May need a smaller font for that.

Otherwise, leave it all alone..works as it should. Downvote cast.

 

[lucusloc]

I understand what you are proposing and can see a side to having this position. Having the Ignore be only one way isn't a terrible idea. Then everyone can decide who to read, but can reply to all. My thought is that it's a "two way street" to avoid any further conflict.

I recently saw the "ignore" come about in a thread. The member who had been put on ignore reached out to me, as we have been acquainted long before I became a moderator. I don't have a "way" where I can see any ignore list, but from his description of these "holes" in the thread that he'd previously seen, we assumed that the ignore feature had been activated against him.
Too bad, too. It was a very trivial thing, like most are.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't even have an ignore feature.
"Play nice (enough) or take your toys and go home".

Yes, but a lot of people like to hide content (er, users) they find annoying, and I get why they would want to do that. Not my thing, but if it makes their user experience better then have at it. My only gripe is the current implementation forces me to ignore too, and I find "ignored" content annoying because I don't like missing context in my threads (even if that content is written by an annoying troll, as the case may be).

But there seem to be a lot of people who see this imposed ignore to be. . . part of the point? And that is the bit I cannot understand. The only reason to prefer the imposed ignore (that I can see) is because you want to impact (for lack of a better term) the person you ignored in some small way. "You annoyed me, not I am going to hide all my content from you ". I have not seen any explanation in all these pages yet that refutes that impression.

(note we are not talking about the "automatically ignore back" bit, I get that sentiment; "This person does not want to talk to me? might as well make it mutual." Fair enough, but as I stated above it seems like it would be fairly trivial to make it a profile option to automatically ignore back, assuming my assumptions about the code base are even remotely correct).

 

[Flopsweat]

I think the only change that needs to be made is to the UI. Relabel the ignore button "You're dead to me". May need a smaller font for that.

Otherwise, leave it all alone..works as it should. Downvote cast.

It really is more of a Block than an Ignore. Different labeling might alter expectations, but it won't slow Luc down any.

 

[lucusloc]

It's not a matter of how easy to implement it may be or how well you argue; Most of us simply don't want the blocked person to see our posts.

But, as stated ad nauseam, they already can. Just log out or use a different account. No content is actually hidden, all it does is hole a specific user's feed.

If this were a site where content was protected and could only be seen by invited users this argument would make sense. You block someone they cannot see your content, and they cannot circumvent the block but just changing accounts (because they would still need an invite on that account to see it). But this site only hosts public content; everyone can see everything by default (with only a few minor exceptions). I showed this in this very thread when we had out little ignore test. It was a simple right-click to see the content, but it is annoying and breaks other features of the site when you do that.

 

[IndyPrepper]

It really is more of a Block than an Ignore. Different labeling might alter expectations, but it won't slow Luc down any.

Yeah..I guess really what it comes down to, for me at least, would be..why would someone ignore me? I guess, in my mind, that would tell me I need to do some self-reflection.

 

[Flopsweat]

But, as stated ad nauseam, they already can. Just log out or use a different account. No content is actually hidden, all it does is hole a specific user's feed.

If this were a site where content was protected and could only be seen by invited users this argument would make sense. You block someone they cannot see your content, and they cannot circumvent the block but just changing accounts (because they would still need an invite on that account to see it). But this site only hosts public content; everyone can see everything by default (with only a few minor exceptions). I showed this in this very thread when we had out little ignore test. It was a simple right-click to see the content, but it is annoying and breaks other features of the site when you do that.

Yeahbut hardly anybody does that but you and sobo. The votes don't lie, and you're back to -3 today.

 

[Bobbygun]

In fairness to @lucusloc, his position has morphed somewhat form the original post that is being downvoted. Rather than the Ignore feature being one-way only, he wants the option to let the individual user decide. If that were the case, I would change my downvote to a non vote because I wouldn't really care.

(I will add that expecting everyone to read the entire 13 (so far) page thread before voting might be a stretch.)