feature request: ignore lists (usernames) for the forums

[onlooker]

If you don't like someone, why can't you just ignore their posts.

That's exactly what we're talking about. Click the button and add someone to the killfile.

I suppose I don't completely understand this and just
how it would work

What exactly do you not understand about it? Be more specific. Do you not understand the proposed implementation?

 

[onlooker]

This is madness! No, you need to develop an application to control
that for you

You are using a computer, and automation is its reason for being. Makes a lot more sense to have the list stored somewhere on the disk than to try to memorize every snide and condescending nitwit posting on a forum.

 

[mr_eddy]

If you're technically inclined you could do something like this with a Greasemonkey script. In fact there are plenty of examples out there for other websites so you could probably customize an existing script.

eBay Forum example - http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/5107

 

[Pleischner]

. . . . It seems unlikely that DPR would get 100 idiots/trolls to
agree on hitting the complaint button on any one person. There's a
lot of them for sure but 100?

Not on any one post, but just following a person and complaining on every post, regardless of the content of the post. And then there is Soenda's idea that a some people might control multiple nicks and use all the nicks to help in this regard. Even without resorting to nicks, one can think of cliques of posters communicating via email who file complaints in aggregate.

The complaint process "should" only serve to bring a post to the moderators' attention. Then, the moderators "should" act in a consistent and fair manner per the site rules. A system that works by the sheer volume of complaints is basically mob rule under the best of circumstances.

I half-jokingly suggested in a another thread to temporarily ban people (say a week) who make the "Most Active" list, right or wrong, since most of the uncivil behavior often revolves around the top posters. Naturally, a few of the top posters disagreed. : )

Another option that may be worth considering is when a thread gets uncivil is simply to move it to a "Free-for-all Forum" where anything goes. The problem with that idea, of course, is that even one out-of-control individual can destroy an otherwise perfectly good thread.

So, we're kind of back to the idea of impartial and consistent moderation as being the best way to go, but like I said, from what I've seen, that doesn't appear to be too realistic of an option, either.

 

[Mike_PEAT]

it would solve so many problems. rather than letting some troll get
on your nerves, you should be able to simply 'hide' their text and
posts. its simple and most websites that have forums have kill-files
or ignore lists.

most of us get along but for those that can't play nice, ignore lists
might be one solution.

But isn't it better to hit the COMPLAINT button and get the offending message off the site and possibly the poster banned?

 

[natureman]

You might be able to not show a user's post, but I can't see how
you'd remove or block quoted text from an ignored user in someone
else's post.

Not only that, but a lot of threads wouldn't make sense if certain posts are blocked. It would be like trying to read a book that has some pages missing.

And what about this: Someone on your block list starts a thread. Is the whole thread then blocked or just the posts by that person? Would the thread make any sense if you can't see the post that started it or any other posts in that thread by the person who started it?

 

[onlooker]

But isn't it better to hit the COMPLAINT button and get the offending
message off the site and possibly the poster banned?

Sigh. You already have that option. Why does it bother you that others might have a choice to ignore trolls? Why does choice bother so many people?

 

[Mike_PEAT]

Sigh. You already have that option. Why does it bother you that
others might have a choice to ignore trolls? Why does choice bother
so many people?

I guess it's about giving back to help keep the place clean, about picking that piece of paper off the floor at the office and throwing it in the garbage, rather than just ignoring it and hoping some one else or the janitor will come along and pick it up.

Anyway ignore lists don't work...it's like email spam...you can keep adding people to the ignore list, but there will always be another one. By at least using the complaint link, you can get rid of some!

Anyway, how would it work...say you blocked me because of something I said you didn't like...would it only block my posts when I post a new message, or every reply as well? Say you had a question and I spent the time to answer your question...is my reply blocked and thereby my time wasted? That's what I REALLY hate about this idea!

 

[Michael_J]

. . . . It seems unlikely that DPR would get 100 idiots/trolls to
agree on hitting the complaint button on any one person. There's a
lot of them for sure but 100?

Not on any one post, but just following a person and complaining on
every post, regardless of the content of the post. And then there is
Soenda's idea that a some people might control multiple nicks and use
all the nicks to help in this regard. Even without resorting to
nicks, one can think of cliques of posters communicating via email
who file complaints in aggregate.

The complaint process "should" only serve to bring a post to the
moderators' attention. Then, the moderators "should" act in a
consistent and fair manner per the site rules. A system that works
by the sheer volume of complaints is basically mob rule under the
best of circumstances.

I half-jokingly suggested in a another thread to temporarily ban
people (say a week) who make the "Most Active" list, right or wrong,
since most of the uncivil behavior often revolves around the top
posters. Naturally, a few of the top posters disagreed. : )

The current "Most Active" member, Brian M, (343 posts!) must be the most uncivil, misbehaved person on the forum. \;-)

Another option that may be worth considering is when a thread gets
uncivil is simply to move it to a "Free-for-all Forum" where anything
goes. The problem with that idea, of course, is that even one
out-of-control individual can destroy an otherwise perfectly good
thread.

They seem to have a pretty good working solution right now. They give permanent or temporary bans, they move or delete threads, they delete posts, and they lock threads.

The things that seem to work best are deletions and locking threads.... and of course, permanent bans.

So, we're kind of back to the idea of impartial and consistent
moderation as being the best way to go, but like I said, from what
I've seen, that doesn't appear to be too realistic of an option,
either.

I guess the world still isn't perfect yet.

--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.

 

[Michael_J]

I think it would help a lot of people here if they would start one of their own.

If you don't like someone, why can't you just ignore their posts.
Other folks might want to see all the responses. I suppose you would
only be blocking their responses from your personally viewed version.
If other's responses to your posts were not visible to others it
would be pretty useless to those that want to be open minded and see
both sides of the story. I suppose I don't completely understand
this and just how it would work, so I'll just go merrily on my way.

--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.

 

[Michael_J]

But isn't it better to hit the COMPLAINT button and get the offending
message off the site and possibly the poster banned?

Sigh. You already have that option. Why does it bother you that
others might have a choice to ignore trolls? Why does choice bother
so many people?

I guess you could also ask; why do you let other people bother you?
You already have an ignore option. It just needs to be exercised.

Ignoring someone here is more empowering than hiding from them with technology.

--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.

 

[onlooker]

I guess you could also ask; why do you let other people bother you?
You already have an ignore option. It just needs to be exercised.

It has been asked and answered before. Here is another thread on the same subject:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=32093758

 

[onlooker]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=32194083

 

[igb]

What about a 'Talk to the hand, 'cause the face doesn't give a damn' list?

If a poster included in the list replies to any of you post, an automatic reply is generated with that sentence.

It would allow not only the poster but the whole class-sorry whole forum-, that he, or she or it is not your friend.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html

 

[igb]

This is madness! No, you need to develop an application to control
that for you

You are using a computer, and automation is its reason for being.
Makes a lot more sense to have the list stored somewhere on the disk
than to try to memorize every snide and condescending nitwit posting
on a forum.

God forbid you were forced to memorize anything or that snide remarks make you cry.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html

 

[igb]

That's a potential problem for sure. Judging by the diversity of opinions and skills, sometimes I get the feeling that there are only six or seven actual posters in the forums.

Anyway I'm not talking to you. I'm still waiting for an apology

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=31794789

Aargh! If only I had an 'Ignore' list!
--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html

 

[Phil Askey]

This is the risk of relying on ignore lists, that people stop reporting the real troublemakers.

But isn't it better to hit the COMPLAINT button and get the offending
message off the site and possibly the poster banned?

--
Phil Askey
Editor, dpreview.com

 

[onlooker]

God forbid you were forced to memorize anything or that snide remarks
make you cry.

You see - this is exactly what I am talking about. Thank you for proving my point. It would be much easier to just click on a button and make you go away for the rest of eternity. After your post above I know I am not interested in any of your "contributions".

 

[onlooker]

This is the risk of relying on ignore lists, that people stop
reporting the real troublemakers.

Folks can still report the troublemaker for the first time, before they hit the "ignore" button. However, the ignore list is ultimately effective as well, since troublemakers tend to go away without an audience.

Also, if reporting troublemakers was truly effective we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

 

[igb]

It would be much easier to just click on a button
and make you go away for the rest of eternity.

This kind of thoughts is characteristic of passive-aggressive types. Ignore lists would attract your ilk to the forums in detriment of sane people. Q.e.d.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html