Ignore List of Thread Starter keeps Ignored from Posting in Thread

[Aeson]

I'm not ignoring anyone I don't think, so this thread can be used by everyone for discussion of the new Ignore List/Post Restriction mod. This is a mod being tested out temporarily and we will see if it's worth keeping or not. Feel free to voice your concerns with it.

My main concern would be for on topic threads where people ignored in the OT may not be able to participate as they would like to, but since virtually no one posts on topic and those who do I don't think it will affect anyone.

Another concern is it would be best if this were optional per thread. I will look into if that is possible to do.

[ZEE]

Counterglow is the future of this site.

[Aeson]

I'm banned from counterglow.

[ZEE]

A small site with a tight niche of poasters half of whom talk to each other on other social medias and/or real life. The forum itself becomes slowly irrelevant. This happened at Forumwarz too, where everybody hung out on Skype... ignoring and blocking all those that didn't fall into their little "groups." Eventually nobody used the forum or the embedded chat feature. Henceforth the forum died.

You are starting a process that will eventually kill this site, simply because Gribbler asked you to because he is trying to be one of the "Hate Ben Kenobi" cool kids.

[Aeson]

We can try it out. I'm not doing it because Gribbler asked, but because I think it might be a decent solution for those who really don't like specific posters messing up their threads.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have a couple problems with this.

One - how is the poster supposed to respond to personal attacks in threads where they are 'blacklisted'? Are you going to lock these threads since the poster can't post in them?

First thing that's going to come up is an "I hate poster X" that will generate about 20 posts and then die. Maybe a couple "I hate poster Y", "I hate poster Z".

Two, Apolyton used to have a rule against club threads. Club threads sound like a great idea until... People realize that they already have that elsewhere.

This happened at Forumwarz too, where everybody hung out on Skype... ignoring and blocking all those that didn't fall into their little "groups."

AAHZ is right. The people who want this won't like it when they get it because they still won't be happy. The fundamental issue is that most people don't like reading opinions that they disagree with. The fundamental issue for Apolyton is that it's all about discussion, heated or no, between people that disagree.

A healthy Apolyton has a roster of opinions. An unhealthy Apolyton has one opinion and then maybe a handful of folks on the other side.

Finally, I could start a "talk about the Catholic church thread", rebump it whenever I liked, and block anyone from commenting in it but me. In effect, I now have an advertisement thread on Apolyton. Is this really what you want, Aeson?

As for me, I don't really see the point. I come here to get the liberal opinion on things. I can usually count on posters coming up with ideas that have been useful down the line to predict what other folks will do or think, to get their ideas out. That's the value in Apolyton's OT for me, that opinion.

Now whenever a threadstarter gets a reply they don't like? Boom. Banned. And then the thread dies a slow death.

You need interaction if you want a thread to continue. That means people who disagree get to discuss stuff.

[SlowwHand]

Let people be pussies and put people on Ignore.
We wouldn't want to force people into simply ignoring by sheer force of will.

[Ben Kenobi]

those who really don't like specific posters messing up their threads.

Specific poster A's thread dies.

Specific poster B, who's allowing discussion thread runs to 500 posts, continues the discussion while specific poster A's thread dies.

Poster A is pissed, wants the people commenting in Poster B's thread banned because they are 'sucking up all the discussion" away from Poster A. This is what's essentially happened to Mr. Fun's threads.

The only threads with significant numbers of replies come from disagreement, usually either Kid or me or other posters.

That is what will be the result of this policy.

People *think* they want to ban the folks who disagree with them. We all saw what happened to Civilized OT.

Why repeat that mistake and failure with Poly OT?

Also, this essentially bans the Poly Art of threadjacking. For many it turns, dry and dusty and boring threads into amazing works of art.

[Aeson]

One - how is the poster supposed to respond to personal attacks in threads where they are 'blacklisted'? Are you going to lock these threads since the poster can't post in them?

I agree it's an issue. To a large extent it already works that way because people are insulting people they can't see the replies from. You can of course start your own thread to refute anything said about you to the general non-ignoring-you populace.

Two, Apolyton used to have a rule against club threads. Club threads sound like a great idea until... People realize that they already have that elsewhere.

I think one of the general complaints is that every thread ends up a club thread ... that being the [ignored by most] vs the responders threads. As one of trhe responders who has fun in those threads I don't mind them, but can see how having every thread end up that way kills off a lot of other types of discussions.

AAHZ is right. The people who want this won't like it when they get it because they still won't be happy. The fundamental issue is that most people don't like reading opinions that they disagree with. The fundamental issue for Apolyton is that it's all about discussion, heated or no, between people that disagree.

I think it's not an accurate depiction of people who ignore. Most of the posters here are fine arguing against people with an opposing viewpoint. It's when that viewpoint is so redundant/vile/plastered everywhere in every thread that they get fed up with it.

Finally, I could start a "talk about the Catholic church thread", rebump it whenever I liked, and block anyone from commenting in it but me. In effect, I now have an advertisement thread on Apolyton. Is this really what you want, Aeson?

That's fine by me. Of course you'd have to ignore everyone to achieve it. (Mods and Admins can't be ignored of course.)

[Aeson]

Specific poster A's thread dies.

Specific poster B, who's allowing discussion thread runs to 500 posts, continues the discussion while specific poster A's thread dies.

Poster A is pissed, wants the people commenting in Poster B's thread banned because they are 'sucking up all the discussion" away from Poster A. This is what's essentially happened to Mr. Fun's threads.

Seems like a self-correcting problem if it's a problem. If poster A kills their thread, poster B's thread picks up the slack. The people have spoken. Poster A can join in or sulk on their own. No worries.

[loinburger]

An alternate implementation that might be more "fair" / cause less dissent would be to allow posters to post in any thread, but if a poster is restricted from posting in a thread due to being on the thread starter's ignore list (or whatever the criteria is) then all of their posts in the thread would be masked as though they were on everybody's ignore list - so the thread starter can discourage but not forbid the poster's participation. I know that there's a hell-ban mod, but that's global - I'm assuming that somebody's made a thread-local implementation of it though.

[Ben Kenobi]

Seems like a self-correcting problem if it's a problem. If poster A kills their thread, poster B's thread picks up the slack. The people have spoken. Poster A can join in or sulk on their own. No worries.

We already have this, Aeson. People are unhappy because, "posters other than them are having their opinion out there where people are reading them. They might be influenced". Then their copy paste from Daily Kos dies.

Threads die all the time - what's more interesting is why they continue on.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's fine by me. Of course you'd have to ignore everyone to achieve it. (Mods and Admins can't be ignored of course.)

Well, I've tried to respect that by not starting threads on Apolyton. If the policy changes, I will be starting political threads again. Something I've not done in years.

[Aeson]

Well, I've tried to respect that by not starting threads on Apolyton. If the policy changes, I will be starting political threads again. Something I've not done in years.

You can start whatever threads you want so long as they are within the rules.

[SlowwHand]

Mr Fun threads are destined for thread jacking right away.
A statement of utter crap, followed by pasting in a novel.