Not true; please see your direct messages.
4 Likes
If you do that then that makes the ignore list public to a degree. Not sure if you want people to be able to test other people’s ignore lists by just using the @popups. (Same goes for DMing - messages to someone who has a user on ignore can just go to a blackhole rather than saying “User has you on ignore” - kind of like how one treats SPAM emails, you don’t want to give the SPAMers feedback.)
Only to the Ignoree, which I’m quite fine with – it’s not like the knowledge that one is being Ignored by another user is helpful to a bad actor. I’m not sure if I follow how a 3rd user could discern things by using @ calls (I guess if the Ignoree quotes a comment from User3 that @calls the Ignored it could cause a problem, but I think that would be an edge case that would allow for an exception). I don’t think most people here would care enough to find out who’s Ignoring whom even if they could – especially if the Ignoree and Ignored don’t interact in any way in the comments because of the “Reply Block” and the existing Ignore feature.
1 Like
I wonder as to why this is an issue in your mind?
I had you on ignore for a spell. We disagreed enough that I needed a time out from replies from you. Why would I have cared if you knew I was ignoring you? It’s kind of the point of ignore, mute, or a block feature…you do not want to interact right?
What would be the worst case in that scenario? You suddenly flame me non stop “OMG Q is ignoring me!!! WTF” That would merely validate the action, no?
I’m not sure why you think I’d do something hostile knowing who’s on ignore. It’s not me I’m trying to protect ignore list users from, rather I’m thinking of advice from Gavin de Becker when it comes to harassers, which is to never respond to them. I think that could include not letting them know you have them on ignore. Of course, someone with an ignore list is still free to say who’s on their ignore list, but the system can still keep that as an unknowable setting to make it harder to be gamed.
That really doesn’t help, as they can go after you in other ways. If someone is really in stalker mode, they don’t give a shit about that, they will find a way to go after you.
9 Likes
In this case, though, the Ignorer isn’t responding to the Ignoree anyhow (because he can’t see the Ignoree’s comments). Making it a two-way street (by preventing the Ignoree from responding to the Ignorer) only cements that advice by preventing any direct interaction.
If the Ignoree is a bad actor, he likely already knows he’s Ignored but continues replying to the Ignorer anyhow, knowing he won’t get a response. Which looks odd to third parties, especially if the Ignorer is known to be opinionated.
3 Likes
I’m going to be frank here, based on actions I’ve seen here and other places. Never underestimate the anger of a misogynistic man who thinks a woman isn’t listening to him. It doesn’t matter if he knows or doesn’t know, he’ll keep going until he’s certain that she’s listened to him. I’d rather not care about what he can do and more about how we protect the target from having to deal with the bullshit.
6 Likes
If it gets to that level I’d hope that they’d be permabanned. The ignore list isn’t sufficient to deal with such behavior.
Precisely; there are all sorts of ways to try to gain someone’s attention even if they have you on “Ignore.”
Merely ‘closing the blinds’ doesn’t make the creeper lurking outside your window go away; it just means that you can’t see them.
6 Likes
Oh absolutely, but this gets the person to show his ass in front of everyone, instead of committing aggression after aggression in secret by stalking around someone’s activity page.
5 Likes
What I’m proposing effectively puts up a fence that makes sure the stalker won’t come near (and effectively notifies the stalker that a restraining order is in effect). If the stalker is truly a bad actor (instead of a clueless nitwit who doesn’t understand he’s doing wrong) and tries to find a workaround, it makes it easier for him to be identified to the mods by others as someone who needs to be permabanned.
3 Likes
I just want a block feature that actually works and disallows unwanted direct contact. That we hold ourselves to a higher standard than Twitter and FB on every level except this very important one is kind of galling.
6 Likes
Just this. Really. That’s it.
7 Likes
yes, but a lot can happen before some are convinced that it needs to happen.
7 Likes
Well. I was using you and I as an illustrative point. Not accusing you. Please don’t internalize it.
My point still stands. When person A blocks or ignores Person B they really shouldn’t care of Person B knows it or not.
No?
2 Likes
No. This flies in the face of human nature.
One of the reasons twitter added mute is the very act of blocking some people rages them out. We don’t need posts derailed with ”Well since person X blocked me…” type responses.
IMHO, ignore should really, truly make that user not appear to you, period. Their actions should not trigger notifications, or otherwise indicate they’ve taken any action. The current ignore system doesn’t do this - you still know they reached out or replied, you just can’t see the response. And while I get why the system was made this way, I think it was done without the realization that the act of making contact itself can affect people in a similar way to knowing you were blocked can.
5 Likes
These would be your warning flags that something bad is going on.
2 Likes
That’s their problem; not the site admins’ and not the other users’ commenting in good faith.
This community is self-sustaining enough that whiny complaints about being blocked would be unlikely to stand.
7 Likes
We don’t, but I’ve found that those kinds of personal attack comments get flagged and hidden pretty quickly. Still, the point of the system should be to ease your workload.
5 Likes
