The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

Utterly, mindnumbingly bored with all this repetative hairsplitting, whining and nitpicking now, and hope that Robert just gets on with what he wants to do with HIS site, and we can all move on.

My teeth were beginning to itch. Life is way too short for all this bollocks.

2 Replies

@layman,

Well, I don't want to get too in the weeds with this, but as long as it is one person choosing not to see or be seen by someone else, I don't get the problem. You can explain it if you like but I'm not going back pages to re-read your comments. I don't mean to be snippy, just stating a fact.

My concern is strictly for someone being able to silence anyone beyond their personal interactions.

I generally enjoy your contributions (although I admit to agreeing with those who find the patois tiresome) and I would not want to be deprived of them because someone else doesn't share my enjoyment. For that matter I don't want anyone deciding for me that I can't see the comments of the few people here that I genuinely despise. I'm less concerned about who gets to see what I write, but it would tick me off if one of the pissants I despise was able to silence me.

I don't think Robert is envisioning a site where anyone can, unilaterally, effectively ban anyone else from participating in any community on the entire site (except for himself of course). I think he means if you block someone, it will operate across all sub-communities (But that's my supposition) Like I wrote, if members of a sub-community are happy giving this power to their fellow members, it's a place in which I won't want to engage, and, frankly, it would be entirely untenable. All it would take is one dust up between two members and poof there goes Kokomo Joe or Dr. Gotz from everyone's screens. If that happens a few times, the sub-community will dissolve. If it's possible for it to happen, it will be interesting to see how long such experiments with excessive power last.

I wish we had the real thing to work with right now. A lot of hypothesizing has been cleared up by Robert, but, at least for me, I really won't have a idea of whether it is a huge success, a horrible failure or somewhere in between until I get behind the wheel and take it for a drive.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Every one seems to act as though I'm trying to eliminate the ignore feature, which I have never advocated. (YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO MAKE ME LISTEN TO YOU!!!).

A Christian website might choose to allow only Christians in it. Fine with me. An atheist site might allow only atheists. Again, fine with me.

But if you're trying to offer a site for open debate, then you're failing in that goal (at least potentially so) if you allow every individual the power to prevent someone from even HEARING (to some degree) what is being said.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Well, we all know that there are jerks who use the thumb feature in a petty and childish manner, and as a means to just register their dislike for someone. I wouldn't imagine that you are guilty of this even though we often disagree on most subjects... Smile

I also expect that Robert will be looking for someone who thumbs down every single post by someone in multiple threads rather than someone who thumbs down a post for the right reason and then in a sort of snit thumbs down a few that follow regardless of content, but if his statement keeps people on their toes from now on, that will be a good thing.

I confess that in the past I got ticked off seeing every post I wrote drop below zero in "thumbs" irrespective of content, because this sort of childish behavior is annoying, but eventually I realized that making any comment relative to the thumbs only encouraged the idiots. Besides a score of even -5 only means that six people didn't like your post. Now there are more than six idiots in this forum so even with a -5. I'm ahead of the game. If they don't want to see the gems I contribute to this forum, it's their loss. Very Happy

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I am referring to a situation where one person or the site can block someone from participating, irrespective of the wishes of other members.

this is already the case - and always has been. Robert and his team can block people from participating - the title of the thread reminds us of that.

That may be, but I don't have to like it do I?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

You can explain it if you like but I'm not going back pages to re-read your comments. I don't mean to be snippy, just stating a fact.

I don't blame you. This thread is far too long. If you're interested, here's a link to one post. The general discussion begins a little before, and ends a little after, this particular post.

http://able2know.org/topic/305632-11#post-6085399

0 Replies

@Lordyaswas,

Lordyaswas wrote:

Utterly, mindnumbingly bored with all this repetative hairsplitting, whining and nitpicking now, and hope that Robert just gets on with what he wants to do with HIS site, and we can all move on.

My teeth were beginning to itch. Life is way too short for all this bollocks.

Then we can count on no further posts from you?

Always laugh when someone complains about complaining.

1 Reply

@layman,

No it doesn't, right now with the current feature they get to keep following you around and speaking to/insulting you even if you ignore them right now. That is obnoxious behavior that is not tolerated in other social spaces and shouldn't be tolerated here.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

That is obnoxious behavior that is not tolerated in other social spaces and shouldn't be tolerated here.

Then don't tolerate it. Suspend them. Ban them. You don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Quote:

No it doesn't, right now with the current feature they get to keep following you around and speaking to/insulting you even if you ignore them right now

How, pray-tell, can you "speak to" them if they won't listen. Would the blocking feature prevent someone from "insulting" someone who has blocked them? I can't see how it would.

1 Reply

@layman,

The ignore feature doesn't work. There are people here who know a user is ignoring them an go out of their way to goad them and insult them anyway. All it does is collapse the posts for you but you still know that beneath that is someone badmouthing or goading you and many have left the site because of users who refurse to accept when someone else no longer wants to hold converse with them and harasses them anyway.

The notion that debate falls apart if people get to choose who they block is really silly, in every social space there are ways to do this. Even here if someone wants to talk in private messages you don't get to see them.

People being able to block others from seeing only their own posts is no different than what they can already do (they can always just leave the community to deprive you of their posts for example) but it just allows them to do so in a more nuanced way.

And it will benefit us all because the pettiness that often occurs when enemies can't break away from each other ruins the discussions of other people.

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

The ignore feature doesn't work. There are people here who know a user is ignoring them an go out of their way to goad them and insult them anyway. All it does is collapse the posts for you but you still know that beneath that is someone badmouthing or goading you and many have left the site because of users who refurse to accept when someone else no longer wants to hold converse with them and harasses them anyway.

I added some to my last post, which may have been after you looked at it. Again, I can't see how blocking eliminates this problem: "There are people here who know a user is ignoring them an go out of their way to goad them and insult them anyway."

0 Replies

Somehow "I don't have to listen to you" gets translated into "I have the right to limit your interaction with any of my friends."

I have on some, even many, occasions posted a response to what someone who is ignoring me has said.

My purpose is NOT to talk to them (how could it be?). My response is intended for the consideration of OTHERS, not the ignoring person. Often my response is designed to correct errors that might otherwise mislead people, if left unattended.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Then don't tolerate it. Suspend them. Ban them. You don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

If you think about it what you are advocating is the throwing the baby out with the bath water scenario. Just because one member can't tolerate another member doesn't mean that the whole community should block that member.

In the block scenario we'll have to use site-wide bans less because if someone has a problem with someone else being an ass to them we won't need to get involved (unless it is harming the entire community) and we can just tell them to block the user.

One man's asshole is another man's friend, the block feature is a much more nuanced way to handle conflicts versus expecting the site to get involved every time.

Right now I suspect that all of the recently suspended members would not be if the site had a blocking feature because the users could have either ended the petty bullshit at any time themselves.

Blocking is a much more nuanced tool that will provide a much more vibrant community. We will no longer have to meditate as much and will be able to be more hands off about things, allowing the community to be more inclusive.

Quote:

How, pray-tell, can you "speak to" them if they won't listen.

If someone plugs their ears (not listening) it doesn't prevent the other guy from shouting at them anyway to be annoying, from following them around and speaking ill of them (so that now the only thing they accomplished is not being able to defend themselves from the insults that are still being posted about them to others).

Quote:

Would the blocking feature prevent someone from "insulting" someone who has blocked them? I can't see how it would.

It would require the asshat to do so without being able to reply directly to them and it would be much more obvious to the community what is happening when it's random and out of context (i.e. having to start their own threads and conversations about the person to initiate the insult) and by being deprived of using the person's own words against them to formulate the insults it will severely reduce them (after all they can only come up with so many insults if they are deprived of more posts to mock).

And many times the problem are two people who just can't help but get the last word but don't want to talk anyway, with the one-way ignore the last word often never happens and one will try to ignore and the other will pull them back into the conflict and so on.

With blocking these silly train wrecks will be much less common.

1 Reply

@layman,

No, only their own conversations. Their friends will still see people they block everywhere that person can post, which is everywhere but the conversations that that person initiates. The posts their friends make will still be visible to the blocked user and the blocked user can still talk to them, just not jumping into conversations with the person blocking them.

I don't think the people complaining about it will actually notice a single negative aspect about it when it launches, despite all the angst about not being able to join conversations with people who do not want to talk to you.

And I think the site will see a marked improvement in the level of discourse. Anyway, we'll see. I happen to think I understand the dynamics of this much better than you but I'm not going to blindly trust my gut, I'm going to see what happens and if it harms the community I'll reverse the decision.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Gotcha. I might have done that once, seeing the name and thumbing, and I might have done that for a few days in a row. Many here would have agreed with me. I was really pissed off. The solution was to resume ignore.

This no name person is an easy target for me or anyone else, others by truckloads would agree, but I had a Fix It Wish, which is rare for me but happens with most of us, at least in our minds.

So, is there a limit to individual rages? Well, that will be worked out.

I get Robert isn't all for this twidlely stuff, just that it is interesting to the rest of us.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

And I think the site will see a marked improvement in the level of discourse. Anyway, we'll see....but I'm not going to blindly trust my gut, I'm going to see what happens and if it harms the community I'll reverse the decision.

Fair enough. And needless to say, you're free to do whatever you want. I'm just saying that I think you are looking at some problems that you hope will get solved "automatically" (without need for your intervention). I can understand the motiviation. But I'm not sure you given much attention to the problems that could be created. Like I said:

Quote:

My purpose is NOT to talk to them (how could it be?). My response is intended for the consideration of OTHERS, not the ignoring person. Often my response is designed to correct errors that might otherwise mislead people, if left unattended.

What's further implied here (although not my main concern) is that it gives ME license to block someone, and then tell a million lies about them, all while depriving them of the ability to detect my lies.

3 Replies

@layman,

...but what your not addressing is the role/roles that Moderators will play to impede such bad behavior.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

What's further implied here (although not my main concern) is that it gives ME license to block someone, and then tell a million lies about them, all while depriving them of the ability to detect my lies.

You'll have to be starting your own one-way insult conversations and that kind of thing is easy for communities to prevent (e.g. this community does not allow starting threads to insult others and would react to it swiftly).

So that leaves the real concern that many have, that somewhere someone will be wrong on the Internet and THEY won't be able to refute it.

I get it, I have felt that way and for that reason the block feature doesn't exist yet, but we all need to get over ourselves. We are not super unique in our viewpoints and others will be able to debunk bullshit too, and things that foster a greater vibrancy of community (more people) will mean bullshit will have more people to debunk it anyway.

Given that there will be limits to blocking lists (primarily because it is each additional block adds computational expense so there must be a limit to ensure pages load quickly) users won't be able to block all the people with opposing viewpoints anyway, so it really is going to be 99.99% just about personal conflicts and the impact it may have from disallowing one person with a good viewpoint from responding to someone with a bad one will be vastly outweighed by the fact that the better user experience will mean we have more people to talk to and represent the viewpoints in the first place.

And I'm not looking to "automate" this, I'm looking to federate it. Instead of there being one single tone that can't please everyone each user will have more power to shape their own experience. That is the bigger goal than not having to deal with the problems on the site level. Letting users deal with more of it on the user level will mean a better experience for all.

2 Replies

@Ragman,

Quote:

but what your not addressing is the role/roles that Moderators will play to impede such bad behavior.

I think I have addressed it, Rags. I've said the mods will always have the option to address abuses, with or without the blocking function. Only the type of abuse might vary, not the possibility for it.

Let me give a more concrete example of what I'm worried about:

There is a still-active thread here about free will. I participated in a long, genuine, insult-free discussion there. A certain party (who has me on ignore) would periodically pop in and SELECTIVELY quote some part of a scientific paper, and then offer up an unsubstantiated conclusion based on the putative contents of that scientific paper.

I actually read each paper, and showed some things the poster left out that undermined his claims. Again, this was not for HIS benefit.

Since I did that, no one else needed to. But this poster would still keep boasting that NO ONE had questioned any of the "science" he had offered, and declared victory on that basis.

That's his problem, but I think my responses to his posts were appreciated by many, even though HE didn't see them.

If I could not see his posts, then I couldn't have done that if he'd blocked me.

If he'd blocked me, and the others responded to his articles, I would have been totally lost. I would have NO IDEA of what was being talked about.

In short, I would have effectively been deprived of the right to participate in the discussion.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

That's true, I've long tried not to thumb down for disagreement. Probably that has been confused by myself on occasion with something I took as worse than disagreement, let's say not often. Again, this isn't a saint posting.

I also have done repair work, when I see fine enough posts slammed,.

On the matter of thumbs, yes or no, I'm mixed.
I think people like to be listened to, and writing a tome for everything we agree on is a pain in the ass, so an upthumb can be accepting, relaxing, to the writer.

0 Replies

The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know