just wondering

I only mention such a thing as a matter of allowing people to enter into personal guaging of the antics of some... sort of like a kiddie corral for the individual. I dont think the kiddie corral is ever going to be used. What it takes to get shoved into there would be enough to be banned in 90% of the cases... and by that point so many have been turned off that people stay away in droves for a long while. Case in point, SBcanada. Another one is when Ol Man went apeshit on the Hawaii crowd causing a rather unholy terror and as I recall, the girls posting diminished for a great while because of it. They could not root through that thread to pay mind to more sober questions and observations without reading his embarrassing prattle and extreme ignorance. Such a thing should be ignored out of hand... but when one is being put down so badly, one feels the need to retaliate. I don't blame them for doing so. I would too. To not do so would be akin to allowing half truths and outright BS stand unchallenged as fact. Heated argument degenerates into 'fuck you.. no, fuck YOU' really fast. Mods dont jump on it nearly fast enough.There are no easy answers. I was just suggesting a form of control that was purely up to the self, not a blanket command to be civil that is too subjective to start with.

As an aside, I only got snitty and mentioned that I felt put off by admin because I simply didn't not know anything to the contrary. If it was being discussed in the mod hideout.. I didnt know. I had no indicator that any mod had read the request at all. If it were anywhere else on the board, I woldn't blink... after all... one cannot be expected to read and know everything that goes on with the board... except for ONE place... the Town Hall. It was supposed to be a sounding board for questions directly relating to the operation of the site and comments thereof. Anything that ends up there is supposed to have some indicator that it is being considered wether for good or for bad. There are three admins ... of which sam and gonz arent techies. That left it to fall to your lap, Dennis. You made commentary in the other current town hall thread... but none for mine. I waited for 24 more hours past that point thinking that you might be formulating a response of some kind... ANY response would be better than none at all. It could have been something as simple as : noted .. or : dont hold your breath. Answering other questions and then ignoring mine came off as a snub.
 
PuterTutor said:
Ok, I may be wrong, god knows I have been before, but... I really don't think it's going to piss people off to have an ignore feature. The ones that are going to be ignored are too arogant to even think that they may be the ones being ignored. Again, just my humble opinion.

Perhaps it's time for a vote? And I would say that even if you get more yes than no, if you get say 1/3 of the votes no, you still shouldn't do it.
Click to expand...
A vote for something that should be a straight admin decision? That just sounds wrong. Allowing a collectivist vote for an article of self governing choice? That sounds even worse. This needs to be hammered out behind closed doors as either something the board is willing to tolerate or not.
 
You made commentary in the other current town hall thread... but none for mine. I waited for 24 more hours past that point thinking that you might be formulating a response of some kind... ANY response would be better than none at all. It could have been something as simple as : noted .. or : dont hold your breath. Answering other questions and then ignoring mine came off as a snub.
Click to expand...
Sorry about that, but most people who know me know that I am just too damn nice a guy to just come into a thread and say "Not gonna answer yet" or "noted", as you suggested. It was until that remark about being ignored that I wasn't going to post about it before I made a decision. In every thread I answer in this forum, I've already either come up with a decision, or because it would have something to do with the structure of the forums, asked for the mods input. In this case with the ignore feature, it is a member-to-member thing and I felt it was best left up to me.

Yes, I used to say "I'll look into it" letting people know that I'd seen the thread and would be thinking about it. However, nowadays that'd most likely be a lie since now I usually don't want to put much effort into considering major changes anymore. Suffice it to say, though, I still read every thread in this forum.
 
In this case with the ignore feature, it is a member-to-member thing and I felt it was best left up to me.
Click to expand...
whoa.. too much conflict here. Im seeing that its a member to member decision... then its your decision... then its an open poll where the majority is deciding wether to allow the individual control over their own destiny. This is all over the place.
 
member-to-member thing
Click to expand...
as in having nothing to do with forum structure (e.g. no new forums, no forums moved or removed, no mods switched, no new mods, no mods kicked out)

The decision is ultimately up to me because it does not directly affect the forum structure, which the mods should have a say in. However, I am choosing to hear from the people about what they would like the decision to be before making it, because I haven't turned into a total asshole, yet.
 
Sometimes managers have to be assholes. They arent there to be loved. They are there to make the trains run on time.
 
This isn't a corporation, hence there is no corporate organization such as managers, CEOs, employees, etc.
 
It doesnt matter that there isnt a financial statement involved. The human animal still responds much in the same way.
 
If the management has an obligation to be an asshole, how did God or Jesus ever get so well-liked? :D
 
unclehobart said:
I only mention such a thing as a matter of allowing people to enter into personal guaging of the antics of some... sort of like a kiddie corral for the individual. I dont think the kiddie corral is ever going to be used. What it takes to get shoved into there would be enough to be banned in 90% of the cases... and by that point so many have been turned off that people stay away in droves for a long while. Case in point, SBcanada. Another one is when Ol Man went apeshit on the Hawaii crowd causing a rather unholy terror and as I recall, the girls posting diminished for a great while because of it. They could not root through that thread to pay mind to more sober questions and observations without reading his embarrassing prattle and extreme ignorance. Such a thing should be ignored out of hand... but when one is being put down so badly, one feels the need to retaliate. I don't blame them for doing so. I would too. To not do so would be akin to allowing half truths and outright BS stand unchallenged as fact. Heated argument degenerates into 'fuck you.. no, fuck YOU' really fast. Mods dont jump on it nearly fast enough.There are no easy answers. I was just suggesting a form of control that was purely up to the self, not a blanket command to be civil that is too subjective to start with.
Click to expand...
One word: More moderators. Or replace existing ones. Having a thread go out of countrol like the one you mention is just sloppy moderation. Moderators should not feel bad about just deleting off a thread or locking it. If they think, in their judgment that it is better that way, by all means. It would be nice of them to send an explanation to the owner, but that is just a nice thing IMHO.
 
I don't think a total ignore option should be considered. If you have a problem with a certain member, go talk to them. That might not help, I know, but it's easy to ignore someone... hell, I haven't even read half of unc's posts in this thread, it's that easy (no offense unc)... it's a public forum for crying out loud...


On the other hand, an option which does show the member's posts but with a "this post is ignored, click here to read" message would not be a problem in my opinion. It does not wreck a thread (no disappearing posts), it just does what you normally have to do yourself: skip the text and only read it if it's interesting... but for me personally, I have seen the ignore option on many forums, but never used it, even though I didn't like each member as much as I'd wish...
 
On the other hand, an option which does show the member's posts but with a "this post is ignored, click here to read" message would not be a problem in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think that's what they are talking about.

It does not wreck a thread (no disappearing posts)
Click to expand...

It's only for the person who chooses to ignore it. Not everyone. :confuse3:
 
The Real World is there to voice opinions on world events. As long as something of thought is posted, let it get out of hand. When it becomes "you're an asshole, well you're a bigger asshole", then it's time to step in, for the mods. If someone doesn't want to read anothers college dissertation of the working theories of communism, then they can skip it. I have severtal times, usually to read later. Ignoring is east enough, you guys do it to me all the time :D

The other forums however, need a little more care.
 
Scanty said:
It's only for the person who chooses to ignore it. Not everyone. :confuse3:
Click to expand...


Yes, I know, but I can imagine someone blocking a person and getting all confused when a conversation seems to pop out of nowhere...



...oh wait, we don't need an ignore feature for that :D
 
It wouldn't work that way. If a thread is generated by an ignored person, it would still appear on the overall list. When you would go into it, it would still have the persons name and a big blank block where their words would have been. You would still have the option to click a link within the blank area to bypass the ignore function and read whatever it was that was throwing off your continuity. Nothing would be popping up out of nowhere.
 
fury said:
If the management has an obligation to be an asshole, how did God or Jesus ever get so well-liked? :D
Click to expand...

Jesus is loved because he told everyone to go out and have a good time, on him. Just so long as they feel really crappy about it afterwards, he'll foot the bill.

God isn't well-liked. He's feared.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top