If it's such a frequent request--and it is!--why won't you guys just implement it?
Edit: Because, seriously, an "ignore" feature would have saved you the trouble of having to do what you just did.
Moderators don't have the luxury of using an ignore funtion.
Banhammers, yes, but that's way permamant.
No, guys, I'm saying that if there were an ignore function, it's more likely the argument might never have happened. Because they were arguing over whether there should be an ignore function, and I'd really like to think that the person arguing in favor would have just used it, thus ending the argument.
Edit: Of course I didn't mean the moderators would just ignore people who were causing problems. What ... I mean. I recognize that I project an air of antagonism in most discourse communities, but am I coming off as just downright stupid? Because that's what I'd have to be to seriously think that moderators would just use an ignore function to not see people who were being mean to each other.
|
And they have repeatedly said the implementation would alter the structure and feel of the community they currently have in a way they do not agree with and do not want representing Paizo and Paizo's customers. They feel that cost is not worth the benefit of not having to moderate a discussion as they did here.
And they have repeatedly said the implementation would alter the structure and feel of the community they currently have in a way they do not agree with.
Option 1: Delete fights after they happen.
Option 2: Same as option one, but invest some minor effort up front to prevent many of them from happening at all.The community presents the same either way, but there's less stress for posters and moderators in Option 2.
Edit:
And they have repeatedly said the implementation would alter the structure and feel of the community they currently have in a way they do not agree with and do not want representing Paizo and Paizo's customers. They feel that cost is not worth the benefit of not having to moderate a discussion as they did here.
Okay great, but a number of their users clearly do, as evidenced by the constant requests for the feature. At what point does that start to carry some weight?
The community presents the same either way...Paizo disagrees with that view.
... but has not, to my knowledge, explained what the difference would be.
You can find more information in this thread and this thread regarding our stance on this.
If it's such a frequent request--and it is!--why won't you guys just implement it?
Some people are requesting they not implement it, of course.
Perhaps its a matter of priorities (theres certainly lots of things id rather they do - their list of things they want to do is no doubt pretty long).
Perhaps paizo want to give people a chance to behave like adults.
Perhaps they don't want to see lots of people who have each other on ignore making the same points or failing to recognise a shift in the discussion.
"It's often requested" isn't necessarily a good reason to do something.
Okay great, but a number of their users clearly do, as evidenced by the constant requests for the feature. At what point does that start to carry some weight?
A number of users have frequently requested they not. Shouldnt that carry weight?
Perhaps paizo want to give people a chance to behave like adults.
I think that ship has sailed.
A number of users have frequently requested they not. Shouldnt that carry weight?
Not in my opinion, because people who don't want to use an ignore function can just--brace yourself--ignore it.
I realise you don't think it will have an impact on the forums for those who don't use it. However that isn't a universal view (I gave a couple of possible impacts in the post you quoted).
Just like you can ignore posts from certain posters.
Perhaps paizo want to give people a chance to behave like adults.I think that ship has sailed.
I don't. In fact I've seen people here gripe and snipe at one another and then gradually learn to live together. May not happen much but it makes me feel all warm when it does.
Gary might possibly refer to me as hippie-dippy, in that regard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so do we all hug now or what
Well, if anyone's game, I'm down for an orgy.
You can find more information in this thread and this thread regarding our stance on this.
Thank you. Since both of those threads are locked, I will reply to the Paizo-stated stances of the first one here. The latter is eight pages long and will have to wait until tomorrow for perusal.
I get that you're frustrated. But we're just not going to make an ignore function. Maybe we're too touchy-feely hippy-dippie about our hopes for the quality of discourse on our boards. But the part of Paizo's culture that says we can be both good and successful, that says we can make money by being honest and straightforward with our fans, the part that says make good products and provide a place for people to talk about them, that's the same part that tells us an ignore function would send our community down a path that I don't think is very good for what we're trying to do here.
I don't think I've encountered a touchy-feely hippy-dippie type who isn't in favor of people being able to express themselves. My mother, a counselor, styles herself a touchy-feely hippy-dippie type, and she likes When You / I Feel statements, so let's try this: When you force your readers to dredge through all of the input from other readers, including ones who experience has shown them over and over again having nothing constructive to say, but you delete responses that treat them as exactly what they are, I feel like you're protecting the right to be a jerk, but not the right to be a jerk back. I freely cop to the bias of hating censorship, but I don't understand how you can both support it and not support it at the same time--you won't let us keep our own worldviews tidy, but you'll happily swoop in and do it for us. Instead of letting us decide which people we don't want in our lives, you're telling us to put up with each other right up to the point where we can't put up with each other, then chastising us for not liking each other.
You know, I used to LOVE the OT section of the boards. That was where I met a ton of great folks over the years (some of the same damned people who egged me on to start freelancing), but with all the political b$@&~@!#, I slacked off of it. It should be noted that there are just as many antagonistic posters in the CS section and the Rules section (and seriously, the playtest forums). This is a symptom of a larger community. The ratio of positive versus negative hasn’t changed, it’s just a greater number. Think about it. It’s up to each of us to adjust our perspectives. For every person who gets on your nerves, hasn’t there been someone coming around who you genuinely enjoy? It’s just a bigger room, man…and we all want our host to be able to provide a bigger room, right?
I don't understand how this isn't an argument in favor of an ignore function. It's up to each of us to adjust our perspectives. For every person who gets on my nerves, there's someone who I genuinely enjoy. So why should I have to slog through posts from the former to get to posts from the latter?
There will be no ignore button. That's essentially inviting people to participate in discussions while encouraging them to only listen part of the time. Conversations in forums that do allow "ignore" buttons often become redundant and confusing, because not everyone is working with the same data.
Unless it's your contention that the discourse in just about every single community-based website in the world is inferior to the discourse here at Paizo's, your argument falls apart. The lack of an ignore function on this website is a statistical outlier. There's a reason it's built into most (all?) of the commonly-used bulletin board software packages, and whether you want to call it human nature or John Gabriel's Greater Internet Theory, it's prevalent.
You can find more information in this thread and this thread regarding our stance on this.
Well, again, as long as that stance doesn't change, and if/when another_mage's script breaks, then I'm outta here. Just letting you know so you can plan the celebration.
There will be no ignore button. That's essentially inviting people to participate in discussions while encouraging them to only listen part of the time. Conversations in forums that do allow "ignore" buttons often become redundant and confusing, because not everyone is working with the same data.Unless it's your contention that the discourse in just about every single community-based website in the world is inferior to the discourse here at Paizo's, your argument falls apart. The lack of an ignore function on this website is a statistical outlier. There's a reason it's built into most (all?) of the commonly-used bulletin board software packages, and whether you want to call it human nature or John Gabriel's Greater Internet Theory, it's prevalent.
Yep. I've not seen any sites--most of which have an ignore feature--that have "redundant and confusing" conversations. I would love to see some concrete, real life examples of this, with solid proof that the ignore feature was the cause.
Especially as half the time even here without an ignore feature, there are always people who just don't read the thread except for the OP and post at the bottom of it, inevitably leading to redundancy (and I'm certainly not innocent of this). In fact, I would say that's the greater contribution to "confusing and redundant" at any board, and happens here all the time already. Also, we tend to repeat ourselves all the time. Which I feel like I'm doing, so I'll stop now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not understand this
If I just see some posters posting and I know I am not fond of their work then I do not read their posts
then I move on to instead read good posts
vic wertz did not even have to code it all up, I just do it with my eyes and brain
omg
maybe I am in the matrix
Developer
|
<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.
<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.
You can find more information in this thread and this thread regarding our stance on this.Thank you. Since both of those threads are locked, I will reply to the Paizo-stated stances of the first one here. The latter is eight pages long and will have to wait until tomorrow for perusal.
It turns out the second thread is not, in fact, locked. My bad. That said, it doesn't seem logical to necro it while this thread is active. Setting aside Adam's posts, since he apparently wasn't staff at the time, the only real staff opinions in the second thread are from Gary. I'll respond to them here:
Also, re: the original topic of this thread: We've stated in the past that we don't like the idea of ignore lists because they fragment conversation. I'd prefer that everybody remain civil and open to others' ideas.
That's a great ideal to aspire to but it is not ever going to happen. Forcing me to read the opinion of someone I hate isn't going to make me open to it, it's just going to give me something to rail against that I might otherwise not see.
I'm imagining a bunch of drunks at a party all talking past each other trying to make their point while ignoring what everybody else is saying. Maybe that's a bad analogy but it's reasonably close to what I think could happen (perhaps without the drunkeness).
How is that different from this thread, where on basically every single page someone would stumble in, refuse to read all the posts that had come before, and demand that the examples be re-stated for them pics-or-it-didn't-happen-style, all without an ignore function being in play?
What you have described in this quote is not "the Internet with an ignore feature," it is "the Internet."
If I just see some posters posting and I know I am not fond of their work then I do not read their posts
then I move on to instead read good posts
vic wertz did not even have to code it all up, I just do it with my eyes and brain
I do this too, when I'm reading from my iPad, because the third-party ignore script only works on my laptop.
You know what I find? I find that I skip a lot more than I mean to. Any posts with a fish-head icon gets skipped, and, most of the time, I skim unless I see the name/icon of a poster that I generally enjoy.
The experience is significantly less enjoyable--to the point where half the time I just don't bother unless I have something specific I'm following--and I miss things I might otherwise see.
Yeah, I can just refuse to read people's posts. But the ignore script lets me do that with precision, thus making sure I do read other posts.
Not giving me ignore functionality doesn't make me read more, it makes me read less.
Patrik, I have two comments on your statement about Paizo "forcing you to read the opinions of someone you hate."
1. How are you forced to read anything? Can't you see the poster and skip forward?
2. Do you actually "hate" people based on their anonymous posts on a messageboard? Seriously?
I've gotten into some significant dustups with people on these boards, but the most I've ever registered in terms of personal animosity is a mild annoyance at someone's comprehension limitations.
"Hate?" Really?
I'm just really thankful for the ignore script that was created by...I forgot the d00d's name but THANK YOU whoever you are.
I agree with Patrick Harris, if I didn't have this ignore script I'd definitely frequent these boards alot less than I do.
I don't care if someone disagrees with me. I do care if their being a d**K about it. There's nowhere, NOWHERE where it says that I have to tolerate someone elses mean spiritedness. Bottom line if this were meatspace they'd probably be more polite and if not there would be words and a confrontation, which is something I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with.
Basically what I'm saying is, I have no problem listening to another viewpoint. But don't give me a reason NOT to want to listen to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ShinHakkaider, so you are saying that you oppose anonymous text confrontations but if you were present you have no problem getting physical with someone?
Is there any sort of cognitive dissonance involved in this position you've stated? Or do you think punching someone in the face is a superior moral position to forcefully stating an opinion?
By the way, I am very intrigued by this constant notion that the ignore list is used to ignore people who are being "d**ks* or "bullies" or "mean-spirited."
Isn't this a moderated forum? Don't the moderators routinely delete posts that violate the rules? Isn't it self-evident that being a 'd**k', 'bully' or 'mean-spirited' violates forum rules?
If that's true, then the ignore function isn't needed for those purposes. Or else there is a significant disagreement about what qualifies for "offensive" behavior.
Based on my own experience on this thread and others, some people actually do seem to consider it offensive simply to have their opinions challenged AT ALL.
Update: By the way, I have some advice for people who feel that any debate of their stated opinions is offensive to them. If you don't want your opinions debated by others, don't post them in a public place specifically intended for public discussion.
Problem solved.
ShinHakkaider, so you are saying that you oppose anonymous text confrontations but if you were present you have no problem getting physical with someone?
Is there any sort of cognitive dissonance involved in this position you've stated? Or do you think punching someone in the face is a superior moral position to forcefully stating an opinion?
Hmm. Is it just me, or did you assume he meant a physical confrontation when he didn't actually write that? (Assuming things haven't been edited.)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
And while there are people who get offended at any disagreement, and I agree that being unable to distinguish between disagreement and insult is a problem if you want to participate in any community, let alone an online one, there are also people who insist on trying to turn every single thread into a debate to "win," and not wanting to engage with them isn't the same thing as feeling that any disagreement is offensive.
While I don't personally feel that's equivalent to a pressing need for an ignore script (I just don't read the posts of people who I don't think are posting in good faith, without feeling the need to use a script to hide them), I don't think it's fair to dismiss people who come to this forum because they want to hang out with and talk to other Pathfinder fans, and sometimes have rules questions/etc. they want to ask about, and would like to do that fairly peacefully.
Hmm. Is it just me, or did you assume he meant a physical confrontation when he didn't actually write that? (Assuming things haven't been edited.)ShinHakkaider, so you are saying that you oppose anonymous text confrontations but if you were present you have no problem getting physical with someone?
Is there any sort of cognitive dissonance involved in this position you've stated? Or do you think punching someone in the face is a superior moral position to forcefully stating an opinion?
Doodlebug, yes, I did assume that, since it makes no sense to say that someone is fine with non-physical confrontations in physical proximity but non-physical confrontations are not acceptable in a virtual context.
If the intent was to say that physical proximity makes non-physical confrontation more acceptable, I'd like to know why that would be the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because some posters (not all) are less prone to be verbal dicks in physical proximity.
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.
And while there are people who get offended at any disagreement, and I agree that being unable to distinguish between disagreement and insult is a problem if you want to participate in any community, let alone an online one, there are also people who insist on trying to turn every single thread into a debate to "win," and not wanting to engage with them isn't the same thing as feeling that any disagreement is offensive.
While I don't personally feel that's equivalent to a pressing need for an ignore script (I just don't read the posts of people who I don't think are posting in good faith, without feeling the need to use a script to hide them), I don't think it's fair to dismiss people who come to this forum because they want to hang out with and talk to other Pathfinder fans, and sometimes have rules questions/etc. they want to ask about, and would like to do that fairly peacefully.
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.
I don't think I "dismiss" people who want to hang out and talk. However, I have to say that I've never yet encountered a place where someone can "hang out and talk" without the possibility of a debate breaking out. People disagree about things.
What I see happen is as Orthos suggests, a subject starts to become testy when people's motivations are slyly criticized and there is a tendency to defend oneself. Which has happened on this thread, and I would submit you are doing yourself right here.
I don't believe I was criticizing your motivations -- I was disagreeing with what you said. The basic gist of your posts has seemed to be "We don't need an ignore function because if you can't handle debate, you shouldn't be participating here." I don't need to infer any sort of secret motivation on your part, and I don't think there's anything "sly" on my part, to disagree with that position.
Because some posters (not all) are less prone to be verbal dicks in physical proximity.
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. 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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really have no idea what you people argue about outside of the OTD, so please forgive the ridiculousness of the profferred example:
On the Internet:
Troll: Rogues suck. If you play a rogue, you're a ninny.
Responding Poster: I like to play rogues.
Troll: You're so stupid, why don't you man up and play a real class.
In the Flesh:
Troll: Rogues suck. If you play a rogue, you're a ninny.
Person To His Left: I like to play rogues.
Troll: Oh, um...the weather's nice today, huh?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe I was criticizing your motivations -- I was disagreeing with what you said. The basic gist of your posts has seemed to be "We don't need an ignore function because if you can't handle debate, you shouldn't be participating here." I don't need to infer any sort of secret motivation on your part, and I don't think there's anything "sly" on my part, to disagree with that position.
Heh, well at least this time you came right out and said what you implied above.
So, assuming it is not being a 'd**k' to respond to the charges you have leveled at me, let me respond.
My position on the ignore function has been quite clearly and deliberately stated multiple times. If you are thinking it is anything other than what I have said, then you are INFERRING motivations that I have not stated Jessica. And those motivations you have listed are not very flattering ones I have to say.
To repeat AGAIN: I oppose an ignore function for exactly the same reasons that Paizo has stated. It breaks up the conversation flow. It can create confusion when people who ignore each other respond without seeing the others response. It can be abused to punish posters that are singled out for targeting.
I have specifically stated that I do not have any issue with someone who doesn't want to debate. But I have never used anything like the terms "can't handle debate". That has come from people misrepresenting my position, as I believe you have done here.
I see this a lot in discussions. I say something like "I like A" and that is repeated back to me as "why do you hate B?" When I say that I am fine with a spirited debate you might INFER that means I look down my nose on people who don't like spirited debate, but I have gone out of my way to state the opposite. Just because I like spirited debate doesn't mean I can't accept that other people don't like it. As I said, if an ignore function is created, it's no skin off my nose. I won't use it, and I won't judge people who do. But my OPINION is that I prefer one not exist.
That's all. Stick to rebutting my actual stated position on the ignore button and we'll be fine Jessica. Infer improper motivations and then assert that your inference is accurate and respond to that inference is not fine.
My position on the ignore button is the same as Paizo's.
I really have no idea what you people argue about outside of the OTD, so please forgive the ridiculousness of the profferred example:
On the Internet:
Troll: Rogues suck. If you play a rogue, you're a ninny.
Responding Poster: I like to play rogues.
Troll: You're so stupid, why don't you man up and play a real class.
In the Flesh:
Troll: Rogues suck. If you play a rogue, you're a ninny.
Person To His Left: I like to play rogues.
Troll: Oh, um...the weather's nice today, huh?
The example you have posted would violate posting rules and be deleted. Or should be deleted. So it is a straw man that does not apply to the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Infer improper motivations and then assert that your inference is accurate and respond to that inference is not fine.
I think you're confusing my understanding of the actual text of what you're saying -- and paraphrasing it to respond -- with "inferring motivations." They're two very different things.
But I'm not interested in going any further in this meta debate with you. I don't see a pressing need for an ignore function, but I also don't think that the people who want one are oversensitive.
I thought strawmen were false representations of an opponent's position?
That's why I come to argue to the Internet - IRL nobody is much into debating anything against my 194cm tall 100kg heavy 120cm chest circumference temple of destruction I built my body into. ;-)
Isn't that the reason why you picked law as a topic of your studies? :D
Infer improper motivations and then assert that your inference is accurate and respond to that inference is not fine.
I think you're confusing my understanding of the actual text of what you're saying -- and paraphrasing it to respond -- with "inferring motivations." They're two very different things.
But I'm not interested in going any further in this meta debate with you. I don't see a pressing need for an ignore function, but I also don't think that the people who want one are oversensitive.
Here again you misrepresent my position as you try to disengage. I have not stated that people who want an ignore button are oversensitive.
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. They are more sensitive than I am for sure. And since my preferences are based on my own sensitivity, it stands to reason that I would argue for a result that fits in my comfort zone.
Asserting that stating my own comfort zone means I have judged someone else's comfort zone as lacking is an inference you continue to make Jessica, not a position I have stated.
Honestly, at the end of the day it is quite possible that I am too INSENSITIVE and those who are more sensitive have the better approach to life. I don't know, this isn't (for me) a discussion of who is right or wrong, just what I prefer.
Understand?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.