| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But flagging, in some ways, actually saves work in that if we're aware a flamewar or something is getting started, it's easier to head it off if we get notified early than if we come in later and have to delete 20 posts. And if we get a heads-up early enough that something's going south, sometimes we can cool things off without having to actually remove posts (e.g. "This thread is starting to become pretty heated -- please take a moment to review the messageboard rules").That's great, but it doesn't change the fact that not being able to see the posts of people who routinely irritate me without actually breaking posting guidelines prevents me from wanting to start a flamewar in the first place.
This means less work for you guys.
Yeah, my only issue with flagging versus ignore is -- well, for example, I may not want to read the posts of someone who tries to derail a thread or silence a discussion with rapid-fire random, non-sequitur commentary, but it seems an overreaction to flag it, as technically they are doing nothing wrong. And do I flag every post that is an attempt to derail if there's like, 10 or more of them? I won't reply to them and contribute further to the derailing--but I've still got to skip past large sections of their derail efforts to get to the meaningful conversation I actually want to participate in. (Or I can put them on ignore, and boom! Then the conversation I want to be part of is there, pest-free.) (Yes, derailing really irks me, at least while the original conversation still can be meaningfully added to.)
Also, gamers are often clever and are very good at below the radar comments--I've noticed in particular, some are good about insinuating some very offensive or discriminatory ideas without being blatant about it, so that they are not "technically" breaking rules. Even when you flag stuff like that, the admins still aren't going to delete it because it's just not awful enough for them to consider removing (especially if the admin doesn't have time to read the full context of the discussion). People like that can be infuriating because they can get away with a lot of really unpleasant behavior for a very long time before admins finally decide to do something about it.
And even if the admins are willing to work more on answering flags, it doesn't mean we want to make more work for them.
|
I'd like to reiterate this. If you believe a post is inappropriate or offensive, or if you think the poster is trolling or not posting in good faith, don't respond to it. Flag it, and (assuming the post is in fact inappropriate) we'll deal with it.
I didn't realize trolling was a reason to flag a post. If that's the case, I should probably go flag most of a current thread....
But flagging, in some ways, actually saves work in that if we're aware a flamewar or something is getting started, it's easier to head it off if we get notified early than if we come in later and have to delete 20 posts. And if we get a heads-up early enough that something's going south, sometimes we can cool things off without having to actually remove posts (e.g. "This thread is starting to become pretty heated -- please take a moment to review the messageboard rules").That's great, but it doesn't change the fact that not being able to see the posts of people who routinely irritate me without actually breaking posting guidelines prevents me from wanting to start a flamewar in the first place.
This means less work for you guys.
Yeah, my only issue with flagging versus ignore is -- well, for example, I may not want to read the posts of someone who tries to derail a thread or silence a discussion with rapid-fire random, non-sequitur commentary, but it seems an overreaction to flag it, as technically they are doing nothing wrong. And do I flag every post that is an attempt to derail if there's like, 10 or more of them? I won't reply to them and contribute further to the derailing--but I've still got to skip past large sections of their derail efforts to get to the meaningful conversation I actually want to participate in. (Or I can put them on ignore, and boom! Then the conversation I want to be part of is there, pest-free.) (Yes, derailing really irks me, at least while the original conversation still can be meaningfully added to.)
Also, gamers are often clever and are very good at below the radar comments--I've noticed in particular, some are good about insinuating some very offensive or discriminatory ideas without being blatant about it, so that they are not "technically" breaking rules. Even when you flag stuff like that, the admins still aren't going to delete it because it's just not awful enough for them to consider...
The first part makes a lot of sense (although I dont share your aversion to derailment). With regard to the final comment though - its not the flaggers making the work, it's the jerkish posting. The paizo moderators still want to delete obnoxious posts, they're just easier to find once flagged.
Flagging a post actually reduces the workload (provided you don't also reply to it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thread just fascinates me. I can intellectually understand the desire some people have to ignore other people, but I can't really empathize with it because that sort of reaction is totally foreign to my own make-up. But then I enjoy a spirited dust-up now and then, and I don't mind rubbing a bit of nose in the ground on occasion. I suppose that tendency alone would end up with me being on some people's "ignore" list, and if so, (ego warning, ego warning!) I think they would miss out on some clever insights that I am prone to vomit up more or less by accident now and then. The same is true of other folks on these boards who tend to be a bit more forceful in their approach to debate. If I ignored everyone who ticked me off, I'd have learned less and been a bit less of a gamer than I am today. I guess I'm willing to put up with a fair amount of swine to get to the few pearls that are cast among them.
The most amazing thing to me in this whole thread is the idea that these messageboards provide enough negative feedback to really stress people out. In my own opinion these boards are like a genteel country club compared to the rough and tumble bare-knuckle boards I was reared on.
But it's no skin off my nose either way I suppose. I think the moderation here is a bit overdone, but not egregiously so, and the moderators here do tend to have a pretty good record of maintaining a sense of fairness, I can't say that I've seen them apply their editorial biases to drive their moderation decisions outside of some of the most common PC sensitive areas. I certainly haven't seen it applied to most game preference discussions.
In the end if an ignore function is created I think the boards will generally suffer from it, but not terribly. I hope one is not implemented, but if one is, oh well.
" If I ignored everyone who ticked me off ..."
I don't believe anyone here has expressed a desire to do this.
I suppose it depends on how one interprets "ticked me off" Joe. There have certainly been those who say that certain people irritate them enough that they want to ignore them. I assume those people "ticked them off". If there was a way to quantify exactly how much off-ticking was required before an "ignore" response was considered appropriate, I'd have used that term.
"Mad enough to spit nails?"
"Making me see red?"
"Makes me want to spit?"
See, there's really no adequate euphemism to employ, so "ticked me off" seemed a reasonable one to fall back on to make my point.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, sure. But for an ignore function to deleteriously impact the quality of discussion on the site, as you fear it would, a lot of folks would have to use it indiscriminately—or at least fairly often and with a broad brush. I suspect it wouldn't get used *that* often, and looking at what everyone here has said it sounds like we're all talking about using it to ignore just those one or two bad apples. In which case, I suspect an ignore function would improve the quality of discussion on the site. And even if some folks did use the ignore function a lot, I don't believe that enough folks would use it often enough that we'd really observe any kind of negative effect. I mean, people are always ready to disagree on the internet. Those back-and-forths would still take place. A few people might miss some of it, but that's really no skin off your nose is it?
The most amazing thing to me in this whole thread is the idea that these messageboards provide enough negative feedback to really stress people out. In my own opinion these boards are like a genteel country club compared to the rough and tumble bare-knuckle boards I was reared on.
I think the moderation here is a bit overdone, but not egregiously so...
I've seen these expression a lot, and it's always baffled me, and made me wonder what kind of communities people have been spending time on, and why they'd want to stay there... or if that's simply an explanation for why they're here instead.
My experience is exactly the opposite. Every other forum I've spent any amount of appreciable time on has had much more active moderation (this part, at least, is understandable - moderation is far from the Paizo staff's top priority, and I respect that), much less tolerance for the kind of antics and trouble that gets stirred up here, and much less reluctance to deal with the troublemakers themselves. Some of the things people say and do here would have them ousted from almost every other community I've been a part of. (Admittedly, most of that's the political/religious discussions, which most sites I've been on banned outright.)
The only forum I've ever been on that was worse than here was WotC's Gleemax board.
But then I enjoy a spirited dust-up now and then, and I don't mind rubbing a bit of nose in the ground on occasion. I suppose that tendency alone would end up with me being on some people's "ignore" list, and if so, (ego warning, ego warning!) I think they would miss out on some clever insights that I am prone to vomit up more or less by accident now and then. The same is true of other folks on these boards who tend to be a bit more forceful in their approach to debate.
That's the main thing, I think. Again, I'm exactly the opposite. I don't like conflict, at all, and any potential "pearls" that might emerge out of an ensuing scuffle will be missed by me as the opening blows of the skirmish will drive me off. I don't like debate all that much - I learned that back in high school.
Again, as I told Ciretose, I tend to avoid the parts of the forums where those things happen, or hide individual threads that look like hotbeds for those sorts of arguments to crop up. Because just finding - not even participating, just reading - such an unpleasant discussion is usually enough to put a sour taste in my mouth for the day. Yet by the fact that I still have to end up making use of the clientside ignore script, it's still not enough to avoid those who tend to start or amplify them.
Interesting comments Joe. I suppose it is arguable that most people wouldn't use the function except in extreme cases, but then I read Orthos comment and it sounds like it would get used a lot of times when a poster might be a bit off-putting but still have a lot to offer.
Hard to say until you actually do it.
Orthos, I cut my teeth on BBS systems like Genie and Compuserve, then moved to the old newsgroups where I spent a lot of time in the gamer, photography, stargazing and politics communities. I still spend a lot of time on political websites (in fact I host my own).
Anyway, the bottom line is that I rarely get compared to Hitler and have not yet had my life or my family threatened on these boards.
So, yeah, tame.
...
Yeah, my only issue with flagging versus ignore is -- well, for example, I may not want to read the posts of someone who tries to derail a thread or silence a discussion with rapid-fire random, non-sequitur commentary, but it seems an overreaction to flag it, as technically they are doing nothing wrong. And do I flag every post that is an attempt to derail if there's like, 10 or more of them? I won't reply to them and contribute further to the derailing--but I've still got to skip past large sections of their derail efforts to get to the meaningful conversation I actually want to participate in. (Or I can put them on ignore, and boom! Then the conversation I want to be part of is there, pest-free.) (Yes, derailing really irks me, at least while the original conversation still can be meaningfully added to.)Also, gamers are often clever and are very good at below the radar comments--I've noticed in particular, some are good about insinuating some very offensive or discriminatory ideas without being blatant about it, so that they are not "technically" breaking rules. Even when you flag stuff like that, the admins still aren't going to delete it because it's just not awful
Good point.
Orthos, I cut my teeth on BBS systems like Genie and Compuserve, then moved to the old newsgroups where I spent a lot of time in the gamer, photography, stargazing and politics communities. I still spend a lot of time on political websites (in fact I host my own).
Anyway, the bottom line is that I rarely get compared to Hitler and have not yet had my life or my family threatened on these boards.
So, yeah, tame.
I've never had any of those either, for what it's worth. All the communities I've spent time on have either been general-purpose gaming and text-based roleplay forums, or Neverwinter Nights communities. All of them have been very well policed, generally civil, and keep disruptive discussions like religions and politics either off the forum completely or confined to a small, out-of-the-way portion of the site.
That might just mean I've gotten lucky, or managed to somehow avoid the communities that would be less pleasant to spend time on. I'm pretty sure if I had ever encountered one, I wouldn't spend time there. That's pretty much how things were for me at WotC's - I bookmarked a single thread I liked to visit and refused to go anywhere else on the rest of the forum, because I found the people by majority too vile.
Orthos, I am a pretty opinionated person, as everyone here probably knows. But as opinionated as I am, I am willing to listen to a well-presented rebuttal and have been known to change my mind about things based on good, hearty debate.
It is my opinion that good, hearty debate is something that is becoming all too rare in this world because people tend to see enthusiastic advocacy as rudeness. It has been my experience that just about any opinion presented forcefully and with rational support is perceived by many people (and more all the time) as pure rudeness. Couple this with the growing tendency for people to address nearly any subject with an attitude that there are no real boundaries to opinions, every opinion is right simply by virtue of having an opinion, and the reaction to impassioned debate is more and more becoming "you're just a jerk."
I personally think this is a very disturbing social trend. People form opinions that need to be challenged sometimes, but the very act of challenging them is perceived as a personal attack, and/or the tone of any impassioned discussion crosses some threshold of acceptable emotional investment and suddenly the discussion changes from "A is better than B" to "You're a bad person for making me justify my position."
Anyway, things were definitely different in the early days of the web. You haven't lived until you've been compared to Stalin for suggesting that film cameras were going to be phased out by digital cameras...
Did we get angry from time to time? Sure, but at least we discussed things deeply and "you're being mean" was never really a justifiable rebuttal to a well-presented argument.
fortress of solitude
[Pole dances]
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Orthos, I am a pretty opinionated person, as everyone here probably knows. But as opinionated as I am, I am willing to listen to a well-presented rebuttal and have been known to change my mind about things based on good, hearty debate.
It is my opinion that good, hearty debate is something that is becoming all too rare in this world because people tend to see enthusiastic advocacy as rudeness. It has been my experience that just about any opinion presented forcefully and with rational support is perceived by many people (and more all the time) as pure rudeness. Couple this with the growing tendency for people to address nearly any subject with an attitude that there are no real boundaries to opinions, every opinion is right simply by virtue of having an opinion, and the reaction to impassioned debate is more and more becoming "you're just a jerk."
I personally think this is a very disturbing social trend. People form opinions that need to be challenged sometimes, but the very act of challenging them is perceived as a personal attack, and/or the tone of any impassioned discussion crosses some threshold of acceptable emotional investment and suddenly the discussion changes from "A is better than B" to "You're a bad person for making me justify my position."
Anyway, things were definitely different in the early days of the web. You haven't lived until you've been compared to Stalin for suggesting that film cameras were going to be phased out by digital cameras...
Did we get angry from time to time? Sure, but at least we discussed things deeply and "you're being mean" was never really a justifiable rebuttal to a well-presented argument.
This is what I was trying to get at in my last post. It seems to me that you're running together two distinct reasons why you are against an "ignore" function. These are:
(1) The fear that an "ignore" function would be so widely used on the site as to negatively affect the quality of the discussions here.
(2) The belief that it is bad for individuals to choose to use an "ignore" function, that they would be better people if they would only engage in the sort of "good, hearty debate" that you enjoy.
Now, #1 is a legitimate concern. I recognize the concern but estimate that the cost-benefit of implementing an ignore function will be more benefit than cost. I don't expect that there would be any significant negative impact on the quality of discussion here if Paizo implemented an "ignore" function. On the contrary, I expect that the quality of discussion would in fact improve. Maybe you guess differently, but that's the only way we part ways on #1: we share the cause for concern but differ on what we think would actually happen if an "ignore" feature were implemented.
But I don't think #2 is a legitimate reason to oppose the implementation of an "ignore" function, and I think I can persuade you to give it up. #2 is a BADWRONGFUN reason to oppose an "ignore." If some people, like Orthos, would enjoy the forums better if they were able to ignore certain posters, what's it to you? If you think that it's bad for them to use that ignore feature, well, that's their decision to make, isn't it?
Let me be clear. When I say that I think I can persuade you to give up #2, I do not mean that I hope to persuade you to abandon the belief that it's bad for people to use an "ignore" function. You seem pretty set in that belief and I don't think I really disagree with you.** But you can hold that belief and also recognize that it's not a proper reason to deny other people an ignore function, even if you think it'd be bad for them to use it. It's not your place to make that call.
[** I would, however, add that even though I'm a bit tempted to such a line, it's entirely compatible with the belief that it's also okay to want spaces that aren't contestatory—e.g. maybe someone gets plenty of argument and disagreement in her day-to-day life and wants to make Paizo.com a place she can retreat from that. She can believe that it's "character-building" to engage in debate and at the same time not want Paizo.com to be a debating site in her life.]
Does that make sense?
[EDIT: added some nuance to #2]
#2, however, I don't think is a legitimate reason for you to oppose the implementation of an "ignore" function. This is a BADWRONGFUN reason to oppose an "ignore." If some people, like Orthos, would enjoy the forums better if they were able to ignore certain posters, what's it to you? If you think that it's bad for them to use that ignore feature, well, that's their decision to make, isn't it?
Let me use an analogy.
I don't think it's "badwrongfun" for people to enjoy a Big Mac and fries now and then.
But when people are eating Big Macs and fries all the time, there is a general decline in the health of the overall population.
To drive it home, I don't think it's "badwrongfun" for Orthos to avoid debate. But when people are avoiding debate all the time, it's bad for society.
In my opinion.
In response to your added nuance, if the position being posted was "I get into debates all the time and just don't want them here" that would be different than "I just don't like confrontation."
I said way up thread that it's no skin off my nose either way.
That' doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. My opinion (which is the purpose of this thread, supposedly) is that an ignore function is not needed and I don't want one.
This is not a democratic forum, it's run by Paizo. Should they decide by executive fiat or by taking a vote of the members and then include an ignore function that's fine by me. But if they take a vote, I vote "no".
Is that OK? Or is opposing the concept of an ignore in and of itself "badwrongfun?"
We don't count anymore, we escaped.For now, I consider you two to be on a probation period of detexanization, potentially fit to be reunited with the rest of human civilization once you get those yee-haws out of your system.
I suppose this is the wrong time to confess that I'm a natural born Texan... (or as we say it "Texican")
But I live in Colorado now. That's gotta be a mitigating factor, doesn't it?
|
|
#2, however, I don't think is a legitimate reason for you to oppose the implementation of an "ignore" function. This is a BADWRONGFUN reason to oppose an "ignore." If some people, like Orthos, would enjoy the forums better if they were able to ignore certain posters, what's it to you? If you think that it's bad for them to use that ignore feature, well, that's their decision to make, isn't it?Let me use an analogy.
I don't think it's "badwrongfun" for people to enjoy a Big Mac and fries now and then.
But when people are eating Big Macs and fries all the time, there is a general decline in the health of the overall population.
To drive it home, I don't think it's "badwrongfun" for Orthos to avoid debate. But when people are avoiding debate all the time, it's bad for society.
In my opinion.
That's my reason #1. I agree with you that this is something to be concerned about but I don't expect that implementing an "ignore" function would turn out to have a harmful impact on the community here.
I said way up thread that it's no skin off my nose either way.
Yep. Great. Good to hear it again.
That' doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. My opinion (which is the purpose of this thread, supposedly) is that an ignore function is not needed and I don't want one.
This is not a democratic forum, it's run by Paizo. Should they decide by executive fiat or by taking a vote of the members and then include an ignore function that's fine by me. But if they take a vote, I vote "no".
Is that OK? Or is opposing the concept of an ignore in and of itself "badwrongfun?"
Of course it's okay for you to have an opinion. And of course it's okay for you to voice that opinion.
But I think it's important, here or in any other discussion, to clarify the reasons that support our opinions, especially when it comes to disputed "should we or shouldn't we" questions. You've given two reasons why you think we shouldn't in this case. I've argued that when we consider one of your reasons, it turns out that it isn't actually a good reason to oppose an "ignore" function. Because it's not really your place to care for the characters of people here by denying them a choice that you think they would abuse. (This is distinct from #1 or your public-health Big Macs example.)
*If* my argument is correct, then you and anyone else who is tempted toward something like #2 ought to abandon it as a reason for opposing an "ignore" function (though of course you're still welcome to disapprove of people who use an ignore function to avoid disagreement they find unpleasant; I'm not trying to revoke your license to have moral opinions, or anything like that!). You may disagree with me, of course, and think that #2 is in fact a legitimate reason. And even if we do give #2 up we could still oppose an "ignore" function on other grounds: for example, the reason #1 I called out.
But I find it helpful to clarify reasons and see if they support the opinions we think they support. In this case I don't think the reason "goes through" to result in the verdict you think it does (that we should not have an "ignore" function). If we reach that verdict it will have to be on other grounds (e.g. #1).
Joe, I have not, and do not, concede that your #2 above is an accurate restatement of my opposition to an ignore function. That is something you created out of whole cloth based on your interpretation of what I said.
What I said is that people need to have their opinions challenged from time to time. I stand by that statement and you have stated the same thing.
Your restatement of #2 is suggesting that I have said that Orthos (and by extension others) would be "a better person" if they did not want an ignore button.
I have not said that. That is your statement, not mine. As far as it goes "you would be a better person" is not a valid argument for opposing an ignore button.
But that is not my position. My position is summed up neatly in #1, with the added societal observation that society as a whole should be more accepting of debate.
|
|
Joe, I have not, and do not, concede that your #2 above is an accurate restatement of my opposition to an ignore function. That is something you created out of whole cloth based on your interpretation of what I said.
What I said is that people need to have their opinions challenged from time to time. I stand by that statement and you have stated the same thing.
Your restatement of #2 is suggesting that I have said that Orthos would be "a better person" if they did not want an ignore button.
I have not said that. That is your statement, not mine. As far as it goes "you would be a better person" is not a valid argument for opposing an ignore button.
But that is not my position. My position is summed up neatly in #1, with the added societal observation that society as a whole should be more accepting of debate.
Interesting. It has not been my intention, of course, to mischaracterize your reasons or to create anything "out of whole cloth." I must have misunderstood you. In any case, I'm glad to get your agreement that "'you would be a better person' is not a valid argument for opposing an ignore button."
That's enough for me, I think. Just wanted to get that clarified: even if I misunderstood what you were getting at, the sentiment has come up upthread (and even if I'm misremembering *that*, then it's a sentiment that I would expect to come up soon!), so I think it's helpful to call it out and identify it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen ignore options in action on a lot of other boards. In my experience, they tend to elevate the conversation, because people who cause one to go into apopletic rage mode (mostly) disappear and so one can have better discussions with reasonable people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love a region-wide ignore, so I could disable any posts from Texas, Australia and Finland.
Remember all citizens of afore mentioned regions: most of what the toothy bag says should be taken with about a pound of salt. ;)
I'm enjoying the fact that this debate is being run in a civil manner, unlike the posts which have birthed this discussion. Myself, I am in favor of an ignore button. I will never use it as I feel the flagging system works quite well. I also agree with Adamantine Dragon that healthy debate and challenging opinions is good for society and for the people whose attitudes are being challenged—should they be willing to think about what is being said.
It is this last point that makes me agree with this buttons inclusion. The people who have inspired this idea are acting like bullies or are being perceived as such by those they are confronting. They are not listening to what is being said back to them; they are using a few lines here and there which can be misinterpreted to dismiss arguments against their position. They seem to just want to make the other people feel small or wrong. Everyone should have a place where they can go to get away from bullies and feel safe. With social networking at the level it now is, being on the internet is a large part of many peoples' social lives. If you are just trying to hang out with some friends and shoot the breeze it could be quite distressing when someone gets in your face on an issue and tries to make you feel small or worthless simply because you hold a different view than them. The ignore button would give them this shelter.
But as I said I won't use it. I have no problem standing up for myself and like to gauge just how far from others my views are and what the arguments for both sides say. I have been persuaded to change my views from time to time based on a well placed bit of logic. I also think long and hard about everything I type before I hit send so as to be as inoffensive as possible.* I want good, clean, reasoned debate without undue emotion. You want to persuade me? Talk to me; not down to me or yell at me, talk. I will listen and consider. And I'm OK with that happening for myself on these boards. It is a part of why I am here.
Others aren't here for debate. They just want to hang out with friends. Since the ignore button would be optional, they could stay out of the debates. If they try and participate in a debate and use the ignore button on some within that discussion...well I certainly will think far less of them. They would loose my respect in that case for not wanting their views challenged in a discussion they are taking part in. Bad form.
TL;DR: I'm in favor of the button, but would never use it myself. Especially on Gorbacz because he is a bit of riot!
*I've already edited myself three times in this post and haven't even finished yet! :)
{EDIT} Clarified a point I was trying to make in the second paragraph. See? What did I tell you! ;)
*shrug* I can't find myself all that enthused over the merits and/or lack thereof of a debate-heavy society, as I make a point of avoiding them. That's no less true offline than on. I find debates and arguments stressful, frustrating, and alienating the vast majority of the time. I'm more of an advocate of the "these subjects should not be discussed among friends you wish to keep" approach to conversation when such subjects arise.
And as this conversation is starting to get a bit much in that department, and the usual debate-induced headache is starting to arise, I'm going to bow out. I've said more than my piece on this subject anyway. (The majority of which was really "I agree with DQ" anyway, she's better than I am at wording these things it seems.)
If Paizo decides to implement one, I'll find out shortly enough when the new mechanism pops up; if they don't, I'll find out the next time this thread gets posted.
Later.
I've seen ignore options in action on a lot of other boards. In my experience, they tend to elevate the conversation, because people who cause one to go into apopletic rage mode (mostly) disappear and so one can have better discussions with reasonable people.
And I have seen exactly the opposite. I've seen entire conversations shut down because someone who is making a good case has a bad tone and gets shut out of the conversation.
I've also seen heavy moderation tear productive discussions apart as the moderators routinely throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Sure, I suppose that for some people the rough and tumble approach where people are allowed to be, well, people, might be a bit hard for them to take. Oh well, I wonder how they deal with politics then.
As for me, my attitude is really pretty well expressed with "bring it on." I can generally separate the personal attacks from the reasoned points and I've found that calling out the difference in the two can help lurkers determine who is making the better argument. I also don't mind rolling around in the mud and the blood and the beer sometimes. I've found that a thick skin, a sharp retort and a quick left jab are all pretty solid life skills to have for different situations.
Oh, and I have seen cliques form that use "ignore" as a weapon, very effectively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thread just fascinates me. I can intellectually understand the desire some people have to ignore other people, but I can't really empathize with it because that sort of reaction is totally foreign to my own make-up. But then I enjoy a spirited dust-up now and then, and I don't mind rubbing a bit of nose in the ground on occasion. I suppose that tendency alone would end up with me being on some people's "ignore" list, and if so, (ego warning, ego warning!) I think they would miss out on some clever insights that I am prone to vomit up more or less by accident now and then. The same is true of other folks on these boards who tend to be a bit more forceful in their approach to debate. If I ignored everyone who ticked me off, I'd have learned less and been a bit less of a gamer than I am today. I guess I'm willing to put up with a fair amount of swine to get to the few pearls that are cast among them.
The most amazing thing to me in this whole thread is the idea that these messageboards provide enough negative feedback to really stress people out. In my own opinion these boards are like a genteel country club compared to the rough and tumble bare-knuckle boards I was reared on.
But it's no skin off my nose either way I suppose. I think the moderation here is a bit overdone, but not egregiously so, and the moderators here do tend to have a pretty good record of maintaining a sense of fairness, I can't say that I've seen them apply their editorial biases to drive their moderation decisions outside of some of the most common PC sensitive areas. I certainly haven't seen it applied to most game preference discussions.
In the end if an ignore function is created I think the boards will generally suffer from it, but not terribly. I hope one is not implemented, but if one is, oh well.
The problem for me isn't the trolls, or the people who just want to spout opinions I consider asinine. The problem for me is that some of those people are venture officers in organized play, and that means their opinions are given legitimacy. They're allowed to go off on thread after thread spouting complete gibberish, advocating on multiple occasions deliberately ignoring the rules of the campaign--which is explicitly against the rules of the messageboards, or at least the PFS section, and has gotten my own posts deleted for evening hinting at the possibility--and nothing. Ever. Comes of it. In fact, when I call them on it, I get told to settle down.
If this conduct is going to be allowed--or winked at, as might be a more accurate description--it would be nice if they could just give me a simple function to not have to see it.
I'd love a region-wide ignore, so I could disable any posts from , Australia and Finland.Hey!
I'm okay with Gorbacz ignoring myself and the rest of the Australians. It just makes it that much easier for us to prepare for the day when our armies of attack kangaroos and dropbears are ready to be used against him.
I'd love a region-wide ignore, so I could disable any posts from Texas, Australia and Finland.
I thought you loved me, Gorbacz! ;A;
Funny enough, I wouldn't probably even use the Ignore function if we get one.
I guess that makes sense, considering Shelyn and Zon-Kuthon are siblings...
*shrug* I can't find myself all that enthused over the merits and/or lack thereof of a debate-heavy society, as I make a point of avoiding them. That's no less true offline than on. I find debates and arguments stressful, frustrating, and alienating the vast majority of the time. I'm more of an advocate of the "these subjects should not be discussed among friends you wish to keep" approach to conversation when such subjects arise.
I enjoy healthy debate, even if they get intense. Bullies are not healthy and do not contribute to healthy debate. If I can easily ignore the bullies, then I can participate in the debate. If I can't ignore them, then the only sanest choice for me personally is to avoid the debate, and then I end up not being able to participate in something I would enjoy, were it not for a few rotten apples who spoil the bunch.
And as this conversation is starting to get a bit much in that department, and the usual debate-induced headache is starting to arise, I'm going to bow out. I've said more than my piece on this subject anyway. (The majority of which was really "I agree with DQ" anyway, she's better than I am at wording these things it seems.)
Well, shucks.
Sorry you're stressed out. :( But do what you need to, of course.
EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY
C'MON
