No, we can't, because I don't think the people who want an ignore function (of which I'm not one, because then people wouldn't see me doing lewd and lascivious dances) are consoled by the fact that the mean-spirited, dickish bullies they are talking to are later going to have their posts deleted.I thought strawmen were false representations of an opponent's position?Heh, let's not start arguing about that. Can we agree that your example doesn't apply since the moderators would remove it?
Yeah, that's fair. There will be a period of time the nastiness will be there to offend someone before it's deleted. Your example is valid. However, I still think it's an extreme example. I don't jump into threads and just start calling people names, but based in this thread it is clear that some of my posts still offend people in spite of the lack of name calling and overt nastiness. Which brings me back to the simple act of disagreeing seeming to be where the line is crossed for some people.
Not everyone comes to the forum to debate, Adamantine Dragon, and not every thread needs to be a spirited debate. Sometimes people want to have a discussion, where disagreement may happen but isn't the point. Some people like their discussions/debates to be more exploratory and less competitive.This sums up a great deal of the issue, I believe. I don't respond much on the forums and skip many threads because it often boils down to a few people trying desperately to prove how right they are in a repetitive fashion.
Not every conversation has to be turned into a "spirited debate", which seems to often lead to all out arguments over the slightest disagreement in opinion. And that's all most of what is being tossed around: opinion. Not the Word from on high, just one persons thoughts that don't necessarily coincide with someone else's.
I don't need an ignore feature myself; I can quite happily pick and choose who to ignore manually. What might be better is some self-policing. The policy here is to not be a jerk (I can see it listed as the most important rule, in fact, as I post this.) If that's the case, if more people self edit before they hit the submit, we'd have a lot less fighting/arguing/whatever term we want to substitute for what is actually going on.
So where do we draw the line then? If "not every thread needs to be a debate" how many threads CAN be a debate before the line is crossed? I submit that the majority of threads are NOT debates, or at least not debates that I get involved in. You might note that I have very deliberately stayed out of the most contentious debates on these boards, such as the "homosexuals in golarian" thread. So what percentage of posts can be challenged before the line is crossed and debating becomes offensive? And do you get any points for avoiding the worst ones?
Well, since you didn't like my example:
Isn't it also possible that physical proximity allows for non-verbal cues that soften the disagreement such that the same words feel less threatening? In that case the "confrontation" is avoided altogether.I'm sure that this is often the case.
Which is different than saying that one has "no problem" with physical proximity confrontations but finds non-physical-proximity confrontations to be beyond the pale.I'm not sure if saying he finds non-physical-proximity confrontation to be beyond the pale is an accurate summation of his post, unless all such confrontations are imbued with dickishness, mean-spiritedness, and, uh whatever the other one was. In fact, I suspect it's a strawman.
Either way, it still doesn't mean he's going to punch someone in the face or that he suffers from cognitive dissonance.
Doodlebug, his comment did distinguish "words" from "confrontation" in physical proximity, which I interpreted as meaning that the "confrontation" he has "no problem" with does not involve words.
I'm open for suggestions about what sort of non-verbal confrontations occur in physical proximity that are not physical. I suppose he could have meant a steely glare...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So where do we draw the line then? If "not every thread needs to be a debate" how many threads CAN be a debate before the line is crossed? I submit that the majority of threads are NOT debates, or at least not debates that I get involved in. You might note that I have very deliberately stayed out of the most contentious debates on these boards, such as the "homosexuals in golarian" thread. So what percentage of posts can be challenged before the line is crossed and debating becomes offensive? And do you get any points for avoiding the worst ones?
To answer this question: Debates on paizo.com aren't inherently considered offensive or undesired by our moderation staff. However, when posts start including more sarcasm than content and personal insults (this is not to say that a thread will be immediately locked), the discussion is less than productive. There is no desire on our end to stifle opinions or feedback. However, if posts are phrased in a way that bends the rules or are attacks at another community member (or any combination of things outlined in the rules), they are removed. Some threads that have a higher volume and frequency of removed posts or threads where the discussion becomes toxic (frequent personal attacks or obvious breaking for our messageboard rules) get locked. There is not a hard and fast formula for this kind of thing, because there will be circumstances where we need to step in and make a judgement call. This isn't to say we're 100% on target, because after all, we're people. If you have concerns about specific moderation decisions, you can post in Website Feedback or email websmaster@paizo.com
So where do we draw the line then? If "not every thread needs to be a debate" how many threads CAN be a debate before the line is crossed? I submit that the majority of threads are NOT debates, or at least not debates that I get involved in. You might note that I have very deliberately stayed out of the most contentious debates on these boards, such as the "homosexuals in golarian" thread. So what percentage of posts can be challenged before the line is crossed and debating becomes offensive? And do you get any points for avoiding the worst ones?
The problem I've found with drawing lines on message boards and associated areas is that many people (and especially gamers) are very keen on knowing where these lines are so they can skate just at the razor's edge, giving offense as much as possible while staying in the gray area so they don't get wacked with a banhammer.
As far as the majority being or not being debates, mileage varies. Given that there are people ready to walk away from the community unless there is a way to filter out said arguments and debates, it seems that either there are more than we think or that those that exist are very influential.
How many posts can be challenged? I leave that to the mods and people who want to take tallies; my initial reaction is 1. People, we're all smart folks here. For the most part, I'd have a hard time believing people are unaware what gives offense to others in text, when talking, and so on. Instead of looking for the line or the post count until one gets in trouble, why not just avoid the trouble at all?
There are tons of places on the Internet to go and scream and rave and use whatever language one wills and argue until everyone is in a frothing rage. This board doesn't have to be one of those.
hells yeah Chris Lambertz
Another Mage's ignore thingy seems to work. Just update it and firefox together, and when firefox updates look for a new one.
But why is Daigle talking to himself?
:)
Chris, I appreciate that and more or less assumed that was the situation.
I concede that I tend to get involved in debates more than the average poster. I do believe that I tend to avoid getting personal until someone first starts throwing insults my way. However, I also acknowledge that I tend to be rather quick on the draw to return fire.
But the more compelling issue to me isn't the situation where the discussion has crossed the line into personal attack, questioning motivations, sarcasm or insults, the compelling issue to me is why so many threads dissolve into that behavior when I'm still thinking the discussion is productive. Like this thread for example.
I was very, very careful in this thread to repeatedly explicitly state my position on the ignore function and to also explicitly state that I did not consider those who held an opposing position to be wrong. However, both Jessica and Magnuskn responded to my posts as if I came right out and said "Ah, you're a bunch of pansies." I don't think that and never said that, but my comments were read that way not only in spite of me NOT saying that but repeatedly asserting the opposite. It's as if the idea that I could state my position without automatically judging any other position as inferior is some sort of impossibility.
Quite honestly I have a lot of respect for people who manage to avoid confrontation. As I said above (which was, again, ignored and discounted) it is quite possible that such people have a superior approach to life than I do. I dunno. I don't judge. But just stating my opinion is received as judgment and once that happens the sparks start flying.
Oh well. I suppose I'll just have to work harder to state my views without triggering the automatic "you must think we're wrong" responses. I'll allow this thread to settle back down to the level of interaction that does not cross the thresholds people have that just happen to be different (not better, not worse, just different) than mine.
One final time. I have pretty much exactly the same position on an ignore function as Paizo has officially stated. That is all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jessica, believe it or not, I don't come to the forum to "debate" either. I just don't shy away from it when people start saying things that I feel should be challenged. I participate in lots of threads without debating with people. And in my own mind I tend to remain quite civil until, as Magnuskn did on this thread before those posts were deleted, someone starts attacking me personally because they disagree with my position on an issue.
As I said, just pointing out the ultimate conclusions of your stated desire to verbally rub peoples faces into the ground and your bewilderement that some people might not even like to discuss with someone who espouses such desires. And to reiterate, I personally don't mind some modicum of aggressiveness while discussing, but I do understand that some people want to avoid this completely and I don't begrudge their desire to get an official ignore function to achieve their peace of mind.
Jessica, believe it or not, I don't come to the forum to "debate" either. I just don't shy away from it when people start saying things that I feel should be challenged. I participate in lots of threads without debating with people. And in my own mind I tend to remain quite civil until, as Magnuskn did on this thread before those posts were deleted, someone starts attacking me personally because they disagree with my position on an issue.As I said, just pointing out the ultimate conclusions of your stated desire to verbally rub peoples faces into the ground and your bewilderement that some people might not even like to discuss with someone who espouses such desires. And to reiterate, I personally don't mind some modicum of aggressiveness while discussing, but I do understand that some people want to avoid this completely and I don't begrudge their desire to get an official ignore function to achieve their peace of mind.
Magnuskn, at the risk of this devolving into yet another set of deleted posts, you are once again assuming that I START these rumbles. I don't think I do, just as I don't think I started the one yesterday. My position is that if you want to rumble, I'm OK with rumbling back. In other words, my rumbling is retaliatory rumbling against the bullies that start it. Or that's how I view it.
Also, once again, I not only didn't begrudge anyone their desire to have an ignore function I have stated repeatedly that I'm OK if one is implemented. I just don't want it myself.
Doodlebug, his comment did distinguish "words" from "confrontation" in physical proximity, which I interpreted as meaning that the "confrontation" he has "no problem" with does not involve words.
I'm open for suggestions about what sort of non-verbal confrontations occur in physical proximity that are not physical. I suppose he could have meant a steely glare...
I don't receive many private messages but I did receive one from Citizen Hakkaider. I don't know if he intends to return to this thread, but in it he stated: "Anyway, of course I didn't mean a physical confrontation."
Maybe you called him on shiznit and he backed off. Or maybe your interpretation wasn't correct. I know it wasn't mine, but maybe I lack critical thinking skills.
Doodlebug, his comment did distinguish "words" from "confrontation" in physical proximity, which I interpreted as meaning that the "confrontation" he has "no problem" with does not involve words.
I'm open for suggestions about what sort of non-verbal confrontations occur in physical proximity that are not physical. I suppose he could have meant a steely glare...
I don't receive many private messages but I did receive one from Citizen Hakkaider. I don't know if he intends to return to this thread, but in it he stated: "Anyway, of course I didn't mean a physical confrontation."
Maybe you called him on shiznit and he backed off. Or maybe your interpretation wasn't correct. I know it wasn't mine, but maybe I lack critical thinking skills.
Or maybe it was just oddly worded and I interpreted it wrongly as I have asserted Magnuskn and Jessica did my own posts.
I can accept that I could have misinterpreted his post and apologize if I did.
Or maybe it was just oddly worded and I interpreted it wrongly as I have asserted Magnuskn and Jessica did my own posts.
I can accept that I could have misinterpreted his post and apologize if I did.
Hee hee!
I was trying to compose a nasty* line about the first paragraph, but, in the end I cut it.
*I, for one, revel in my troll-like tendencies.
---
Anyway, it's been hawt and heavy in here for most of the day and I know that most people aren't in here for a debate. They're here to see me in provocative poses.
[Strips down to tassels and thong]
Oh yeah, you know you love it.
Or maybe it was just oddly worded and I interpreted it wrongly as I have asserted Magnuskn and Jessica did my own posts.
I can accept that I could have misinterpreted his post and apologize if I did.
Hee hee!
I was trying to compose a nasty* line about the first paragraph, but, in the end I cut it.
*I, for one, revel in my troll-like tendencies.
---
Anyway, it's been hawt and heavy in here for most of the day and I know that most people aren't in here for a debate. They're here to see me in provocative poses.
[Strips down to tassels and thong]
Oh yeah, you know you love it.
Heh, if you are implying that Magnuskn and Jessica were reacting to my own "oddly worded" post I am afraid I'll have to accept that as a possibility too.
[starts to hug doodlebug, then is horrified by the visual and falls backwards]
Also, try to not squash that goblin, Dragon. He might be large for his kind but you... You are still a dragon.
[starts to hug doodlebug, then is horrified by the visual and falls backwards]
[Wiggles provocatively]
You love it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
oh sorry I see I have walked in on Naughty Time
Just try and ignore this!
[redacted redacted redacted]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there not an "ignore" function in our brains?
One more thing occurred to me that I just want to make clear:
I see an ignore function as an aid to self-policing.
I do NOT see it as an aid to punishing others or disabling the ability to have a clean, comprehensible debate.
If there's someone out there I KNOW will press my buttons and they are participating in a debate that I myself want to engage in, and bearing in mind the way MY brain tends to suck in words on a page is "all or none", then, without an ignore function, I have two choices:
- Participate in the thread and likely get baited by the person who presses my buttons and start getting shriller and shriller on my own part while possibly also feeding a troll
- Leave the thread entirely, which means I lose out on the enjoying rest of the conversation
An ignore feature lets me participate while still avoiding the thing that would bait ME into misbehavior. That's why I want it. Rather selfish, yes, but it's a tool--and that's all it is, a tool--not a ostracisation button or a confusion creator--to help me behave.
I don't have the gift of being good at skipping past posts by people while still being able to read others -- I can do it to an extent but my right brained self likes to scan everything first and catch patterns and keywords before I properly kick in and read things left to right, top to bottom. And as the saying goes, "Once you see it, you can't unsee it"--so I catch something that throws me, the damage has been done. (So Bruunwald, no, not in mine; it's not a very good one, at least.)
Some people's minds can compartmentalize that information more easily. Mine cannot. Not everybody processes information the same way, and assuming otherwise can lead to some very deep miscommunication.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at the fan-made ignore script, it looks to be:
a) distributed through GNU GPL, and
b) very well commented and clearly written
This means that, in the instance the code breaks, it shouldn't be too hard for a third party to come in and fix it later on.
I'd rather puzzle my way through the Javascript than lose the contributions of posters like DQ, personally.
I'd rather you do that too. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at the fan-made ignore script, it looks to be:
a) distributed through GNU GPL, and
b) very well commented and clearly writtenThis means that, in the instance the code breaks, it shouldn't be too hard for a third party to come in and fix it later on.
Good catch. I've never actually read through the script myself. If it's GNU licensed that makes a lot of things easier.
I'd rather puzzle my way through the Javascript than lose the contributions of posters like DQ, personally.
Thank you both for the callout and the general interest in helping make the board a safe and pleasant place to be for people like me. As always, you are awesome, Alice.
I can understand why DQ and others would like an ignore function and support the idea of implementing it for them.
For me though I like the boards warts and all.... and yelling at my monitor can be very cathartic.
So I would be happy to support that kind of function.
You are up late AM... Election eve and all.
So are you! :P
I've been studying (and/or playing video games)...
(Besides, I don't want to know what happens tomorrow.)
I am an election junkie... I have been reading stuff...
My biggest wish for what happens tomorrow would take a miracle, because I don't think there is any way there could be a Prime Minister Natasha Sott Despoja and Deputy PM Bob Brown on a Democrat/Green ticket considering both have retired from politics.
I'm not tedious, I'm sexy!!!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your mother.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has gone a long way towards persuading me to use an ignore function if such a thing were ever to come to pass - not because I might be offended, but because some posters are so tedious it makes my teeth hurt.
Sorry I'm boring you. :)
<old quotes and responses>It looks like you went through that thread to find employee posts. I just want to be clear that my post was about a year and a half before I was hired on here. (You can also see posts by Ross Byers when he *was* an employee [and directly worked on the website], but it doesn't look like it because he no longer has the golem icon.) Also, my post was more about consoling a friend of mine that arguing for or against an ignore feature. But, if you go further back on other threads on the topic you can find that I wasn't for it then.Heh. So at least my interpretation was not entirely inaccurate.
You guys should really consider locking in the Golem icon for posts made when people are employees, and not showing it from when they weren't. It gets pretty confusing when I'm looking at old stuff--like posts from Mark Moreland complaining that there wasn't a blog post on any given day.
Good idea! I've created a new thread here specifically to request this.
I just installed the Ignore script that Another_Mage has written. This little thing is amazing. Thanks for pointing that out everyone. And thanks Mage for writing it!
The script by another_mage is great, no question. Great for the forum, great for my blood pressure. But the fact that so many people are so delighted to discover its existence demonstrates to me that an ignore feature is something that should be implemented by the site.
There aren't any statistics about how many people use / like the ignore script vs. not using it vs. not liking it (and not using it). The vocal minority who post on these threads certainly like and use it. I don't, but I don't feel the need. I do think an integrated ignore function would be a problem for a board set up to facilitate the open communication of ideas / information. Iirc, Paizo has pretty much said "no" to an ignore feature for just this reason a number of times. If the ignore script of Another_Mage is that important and he has abandoned development of it then someone else who wants / needs it with the requisite programming skill needs to take over maintenance / development of it. Because I don't see Paizo reversing their stated position / philosophical stance on it. My 2 cp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... Even if every one of the 237 posts on this thread were someone saying "Yay ignore script!", that's still less than the total number of people who have some avatars. I for one would never ignore anyone. I even expand the auto-hidden posts on some other forums, just because I hate reading responses to posts I didn't read.
Yes, but I decline to be silenced on this matter.
... except by an ignore function.
(See what I did there?)
If the ignore script of Another_Mage is that important and he has abandoned development of it then someone else who wants / needs it with the requisite programming skill needs to take over maintenance / development of it.
I don't want to get caught up in the debate about an official ignore function.
I just want to clarify that I am still willing to maintain the community's Ignore script. True, I don't have much time for Role-Playing Games these days and don't visit the Paizo forums as often, but I am still writing JavaScript (in particular, Node.js). So, I may not have quite the same turn-around time that I did in the past, but I am still willing to maintain the Ignore script.
With that community service announcement aside, I return you to your regularly scheduled debate...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the ignore script of Another_Mage is that important and he has abandoned development of it then someone else who wants / needs it with the requisite programming skill needs to take over maintenance / development of it.I don't want to get caught up in the debate about an official ignore function.
I just want to clarify that I am still willing to maintain the community's Ignore script. True, I don't have much time for Role-Playing Games these days and don't visit the Paizo forums as often, but I am still writing JavaScript (in particular, Node.js). So, I may not have quite the same turn-around time that I did in the past, but I am still willing to maintain the Ignore script.
With that community service announcement aside, I return you to your regularly scheduled debate...
That's really good to hear, dude. If we're ever at the same con, I owe you a beer. Or maybe several: one for each person on my ignore list. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see a new "how do I block someone" thread I am saddened because for whatever reason you guys just won't implement this simple, basic function that makes Internet communication so delightful.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should try Human 1.0, it has an integrated ignore function.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an idea... instead of an "ignore" function, maybe a "hide this post" function could be added to the boards? I have found (on many boards), that often there will be one (or more) posters who will make posts that can range from thought provoking to inflammatory. In such cases, I would flag the inflammatory posts, but read (and perhaps respond to) the others.
Perhaps flagging a post could hide it? Or give the option to hide it (in case the flag was a mistake)?
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see a new "how do I block someone" thread I am saddened because for whatever reason you guys just won't implement this simple, basic function that makes Internet communication so delightful.
And whenever I see one I am saddened that people want one.
AND TROLL POINTS!?!?!?!? Please! Mr. Fishy needs the attention! The favored post helps...but Mr. Fishy the wors..er..um.
Every time I see a new "how do I block someone" thread I am saddened because for whatever reason you guys just won't implement this simple, basic function that makes Internet communication so delightful.
FWIW, it will sadden me if they ever decide to implement one.