I’m not asking for “ignore topic”. I’m asking for “ignore this answer to this topic, and every answer which references it directly or indirectly.” In other words, I’m still grumbling that we lost true threaded discussion and I want something like it restored.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I’ve checked out that thread and can remember other similar ones and I have two caveats with this particular example:
This long-time poster is very emotional/passionate/triggered in general, so this is not a case of trolling per se;
This poster does get some likes in every thread, although not for every post of course.
Seems to me this is a perfect example of when “ignore poster” on an individual basis would be the better solution than a mod stepping in.
However, I agree that having a thread-level warning (“you’ve posted too much in this thread…step away from the keyboard”) in addition to the current too-many-posts-in-a-row warning could be useful. But maybe not absolute: there are times when a thread becomes a beneficial and interesting discussion between two or three people who clearly know what they’re talking about. We wouldn’t want to dissuade that from happening.
Or, perhaps, when people are getting into a pointless emotionally charged circle jerk one of them could just stop posting.
Why do you need a button to help you ignore someone? Just do it.
But of course…
Doesn’t matter. If you are “emotional” and “only” punch people in the face once every 3 months, that is just as unacceptable as if you punched people in the face every day.
The only thing we want to dissuade from happening is personal attacks, and other forms of incivility. See: http://boingboing.net/community
I think we’re in agreement, really. Other than the fact that I’m not a mod, so if there’s a poster who pushes “too far” for my tastes, I can just ignore them and move on.
I moved 4 posts to a new topic: Slow down yellow flag for multiple replies?
Some folks do wish to dissuade that from happening. It is the very threads where moderation is required where people are letting their egos get in the way of communication and lobbing personal attacks (overt, as well as covert).
I think the idea of an ignore tool is a terrible idea. The problem which is described in the post above is not one of technology, I don’t see technology as a fix for those problems.
No it’s not. The first case has much less face-punching going on. If you punch someone in the face once every 3 months, that’s only 4 face-punches per year. If you punch someone in the face every day, that’s 365 face-punches per year. Math!
This thread is pretty old already, but anyway… Sometimes these 2-3 people aren’t trolling or anything, but they are pushing out others who may also want to talk on the topic or they force the topic in one direction where fewer posts would allow a broader discussion. I like the trend in the last couple of months for discussions to break into two where one side issue is taking up a lot of the thread (say, MRAs vs. gun control vs. specific discussion about the actual topic). Having a second thread without an expiry date gives a third option aside from letting a comment or sub-discussion stay or deleting it. Rather than saying “go away, you’re derailing”, you get this:
You’re still welcome to talk and you aren’t being ignored; this is just basic housekeeping and allowing a discussion that usually gets derailed to keep going (this may be an unfortunate example as the conversation pretty much died shortly afterwards). I like Sun Tsu’s quote:
“When you surround the enemy
Always allow them an escape route.
They must see that there is
An alternative to death.”
—Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Cloud Hands edition
I’d interpret this statement in this context as giving someone an honourable way out - if they don’t start their own discussion, they literally have no justification for feeling bitter. If others make similar posts, they are directed to the second thread and the basic discussion can continue without interruption. The various flagging options and option to start a new topic are great for this, imho.
WRT the discussion in question, I think one of the problems was that discussions on BB usually go in all sorts of directions and usually involve quite a bit of questioning the premise of the OP. With gender, there are specific directions that these discussions always seem to go, and (here for example) some people disagree on whether DV is better explained as a result of patriarchy or in less gendered terms. It’s not necessarily off-topic, but it’s not a bad idea to nip this in the bud before it takes over the discussion. On the other hand, placing too many limits can kill a discussion, as you can end up with the statement “Men abuse women because of patriarchy. Any other opinion is off topic and will be deleted”. At that point, there’s very little left to discuss. I’m not sure what the answer is here; the relatively unmoderated and polarised threads about gun control recently don’t give me much confidence that a completely free discussion would be that helpful either.
There is a mute function on your user preferences now. But it only mutes all notifications (including PMs, if sent) generated from a given user.
What if you’re punching them back, in the face (with words, mind you, not actual fists), and you only lower yourself to that level every three months, and generally only to make a point?
I believe I agree with just about every philosophy that went into discourse, and I think a ‘mute lite’ like you have implemented fits right in.
Sometimes two people just need to cool off, but not be banned.
As much as I read that taking measures against users is reserved for actual personal abuse, it seems that quite a few people complain about my posts.
@popobawa4u You have been flagged something like 16 times today! Please don’t make us moderate at the weekends! DIAL IT BACK. And go to bed.[/quote]
The weird thing is that I try very hard to be respectful of people, their opinions. I hate to say it, but it seems that usually when my posts have been flagged (and sometimes deleted), it has been because people found my opinion disagreeable. Or rather, what they assumed about my opinion!
It’s tough that so many complain that I am too rigorous in the particularities of my writing - yet I am still quite often misunderstood. Most of the “inflammation” is usually people heatedly telling me that my views and opinions are other than what I explain them to be, which gets extremely awkward. I tend to consider the process versus contents of thought differently, and am more interested in discussing how I think about the topic, rather than what I think about it. This seems valuable to me because how is where the biases live, but it seems annoyingly low-level to some. That I call into question some things they might not have wanted to think about is not necessarily a bad thing.
As I tried explaining to one well-known user, if the problem is that you simply don’t like what I’ve said, you can ignore it. Engaging it, and then reporting it, seems a bit “echo chamber” to me.
Nice GIF. Funny thing is, that’s actually the punchline to the story about why I don’t take Greyhound buses anymore.
Noooo! Don’t tell the punchline first!
If you think you’re saying one thing, but EVERYONE ELSE is reading it as something different, then the problem is with the words you’re using, not with the people reading them. The fact that you constantly shift the blame onto others for you being “misunderstood”, despite it happening over and over and over, suggests that you may need to reevaluate how you’re trying to communicate.
@popobawa4u has a different but internally consistent way of describing things. And often they are challenging because they question things (for right or wrong) that we take for granted. But popo has never been anything but polite, intelligent, and engaging even when arguing about say the meaning of You.