People following the topic might wonder why Ignorer isn’t responding to Ignoree’s good or bad point. Especially if Ignorer generally responds to such points.
A Twitter-like Block would be a clever alternate solution to explore, but as you imply it’s non-trivial to implement and should be a separate discussion.
That’s another clever solution. If person X starts riding his hobbyhorse issue in one topic they’re Ignored BBS-wide for the given duration. If possible, I’d suggest adding a 5-day Ignore duration option to track with the the standard topic lifespan.
Or maybe they don’t pay attention to usernames when faving and the same person who can’t stand that user prescribes malicious intent?
Personally I think people who violate the sitewide rules should be banned. Not time outed, not scolded. Ejected.
That being said, we should not cater to people who want to go beyond policing harassment.
Some people will not get along. Part of a “community” is the idea that anyone who follow the rules can belong. We need to be careful to not end up sounding like a bunch of college freshmen.
For example, I’ve had people ask for one of these agreements. In my opinion it was it bad faith and a response to some politely raised and valid concerns, but I listened. They then dropped into a convo six months later, insulted me again, and suffered zero punishment. During those 6 months I was effectively silenced. Under an ignore system, I could jump in if I see them being aggressive/rude and say I agree with the parent.
Again, by all means, summarily ban people who stalk comment histories and harass people.
But if someone’s complaint is “I can’t stand X, I don’t want to see X ever” and can’t summon any bad behavior to justify it - I don’t think we should cater to it. Not everything is wonderful to everyone, but if two people simply rub each other the wrong way we need to respect that sometimes happens.
Perhaps not, but an Ignorer not responding to an Ignoree at all may lead to some confusion. A notice (similar to the ones about new users and users who haven’t posted in a while) might be useful and encourage the Ignored user to spend more time responding to people who want to engage him rather than those who think he’s not worth acknowledging.
This is such a bad idea. It advertises who is ignoring whom, and makes it an implied badge of honor. Leaking info about ignores (other than to staff, who can already run the report, and also get automatically notified when someone crosses the simultaneous ignore threshold anyways) would be unbelievably toxic.
Honestly I feel like most of what you’re asking for is the twitter block system. You should start another meta topic about that.
Twitter blocks DO actively leak, and by design, because the person on the other side “sees” that they can’t view your tweets, or really even your twitter profile. They’re also a bit more punitive, so a clear step above (below?) ignore.
Unless it’s a PM, anyone can always chime in and respond to a topic here. I consider that one of Discourse’s strangths specifically versus “threaded” discussion models.
People walk away from discussions all the time now. The number of ignores in place is so low I seriously doubt this is going to suddenly drastically change the incidence of this happening, but hopefully it will cut down on the number of derailing arguments and collateral damage from these events.
I’ll leave that to you guys, when you think the time is right. I know you have your own schedule for rolling out features and would rather you determine when the time is right to discuss it. Also, doing a Twitter-style block feature wasn’t something I thought of as a way to implement this, so you deserve the credit! Thanks for your and @orenwolf’s responses here.
Will there be an Ignore button at the bottom of every post, next to the Reply button?
As long as replying “OMG shut up why are you stalking me” is simple and easy, and Ignore is a hidden feature most users won’t know about, it seems likely there will continue to be “OMG shut up why are you stalking me” replies, flaggable or not.
Yes, you and I both happen to know if I double-click on your username I’ll be transported to another page where I can Ignore you – except actually I can’t. The button is missing on your page. I guess that’s because you’re a Leader?
Not everybody will know this – hardly anybody, I imagine. They’re supposed to know they can go to this other page, click on the word “Normal,” and that will accomplish something?
It may not be hidden but I’d have never thought to look under notifications. I assume it makes sense from a programming perspective and its relation to the mute feature but it’s not where I as a user would think to look. Being able to click on a users badge to get an ignore option seems like it could increase use of the feature.
You can’t ignore staff. You must be TL2 to ignore, and TL1 to mute.
If you’re pissed off enough at another person such that you want to erase them from this particular corner of your online world, you’ll take the time to visit their user page and click the button. It ain’t rocket science, particuarly if you’re… pissed off motivated enough.
This is an ejector seat button for dire circumstances, “increasing” its use is the opposite of the goal.
Yes. Maybe based on the tag(s) the post/thread is under.
I guess we all have one or two topics that can trigger the usually dormant asshole portion of one’s personality.
(I know I have. Feel free to inform me when lines are crossed, everybody.)
expanded replies from ignored users are suppressed
dynamic real time replies inserted live from ignored users are suppressed
There are still some very small tweaks to be made, but with that, we’ll be setting the Ignore feature to default enable for all Discourse instances in the next beta. If there are any other issues you experience with Ignore here on BBS please open a new meta topic.
