The Ethics of Two Way Ignore

[Cap'n Kobold]

Thank you. I'm mostly just relieved that it is the site that is borked and not my brain more than currently.
Given I think this is the first time it happened, I suppose I should treat it as a badge of honour. Actually, given that the post I quoted was denigrating a large chunk of the D&D demographic and their "virtue signalling" I think I definitely will.

Look for the silver lining and all that.

 

[gban007]

I can tell you that is not how I use the ignore feature most of the time. Some of the people on my list I have had relatively few interactions with. Sometimes none. AFAIK, I'm only being ignored by one person right now, and I'm pretty sure it's a person I've never directly interacted with (admittedly, it's hard to check now).

I obviously don't have you on ignore, but I think it's safe to assume that if your number is getting high, a lot of that is people who are watching your posts and deciding they just don't want to interact with you in the future. People don't need to talk with you directly to know that. The people you're butting heads with are the ones who choose not to put you on ignore.

I'm quite similar, not sure I've interacted with any of the people on my ignore list, but they are there because I don't like either how they are treating others, or their posts are often triggering a not great reaction on my part, and so I'm better off just not seeing the posts than getting angry / pouring fuel on to the fire as such.
And similar to others I don't have two way ignore on, as it is just for me to not see their posts, not worried if they see mine as such. Every now and then I do review the list, but so far only one person has moved from out of ignore for me.

On the wider point, I think the ignore function is a great function for people to be able to tailor their experience, yes it may create a bit more of an echo chamber, but that is their right as such especially when discussing hobbies as such.
While I myself have got confused sometimes by content not being available, or not able to see a reply to my post due to the ignore function, and sometimes do wonder if two people in a thread are ignoring each other due to their different posts being quite opposite in nature, I don't feel that reducing confusion on my part outweighs the right of whoever is doing the ignoring to be able to ignore without blowback as such.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

same cliques

Cliques? really?

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

noun​

1. a small, exclusive group of people; coterie; set.

Other definitions include emphasis on the "exclusive" part - suggesting active exclusion. I don't think that happens here. That would require folks to actually know each other, and then to actively exclude others from something. I'm not sure what that would be in an ENWorld context.

I bet the number of us here who actually know each other, even in virtual games is vanishingly small

I like posts I like - it's literally called the "Like" button. There's no "clique". If I haven't "liked" a poster's posts, it is probably because I haven't actively liked them. But not actively liking something is different from disliking something.

I do recognize that there are some folks whose posts more align with my inclinations, and so I tend to like their posts more than others. And contrariwise, I can see some folks whose posts I rarely like are often liked by the same people. Whose posts I also generally don't actively like.

So yes, I can see there are vague "groups" of folks with similar expressed world-views here on the site. But I don't think there's any active exclusion.

(also, reading the word "coterie" above takes me back to the 90's RPG - Vampire the Masquerade...)

 

[FrogReaver]

Cliques? really?

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

noun​

1. a small, exclusive group of people; coterie; set.

Other definitions include emphasis on the "exclusive" part - suggesting active exclusion. I don't think that happens here. That would require folks to actually know each other, and then to actively exclude others from something. I'm not sure what that would be in an ENWorld context.

I bet the number of us here who actually know each other, even in virtual games is vanishingly small

I like posts I like - it's literally called the "Like" button. There's no "clique". If I haven't "liked" a poster's posts, it is probably because I haven't actively liked them. But not actively liking something is different from disliking something.

I do recognize that there are some folks whose posts more align with my inclinations, and so I tend to like their posts more than others. And contrariwise, I can see some folks whose posts I rarely like are often liked by the same people. Whose posts I also generally don't actively like.

So yes, I can see there are vague "groups" of folks with similar expressed world-views here on the site. But I don't think there's any active exclusion.

(also, reading the word "coterie" above takes me back to the 90's RPG - Vampire the Masquerade...)

So @Umbran introduced the word clique here. You really should address your thoughts on the word to him.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

EtA: Never mind. Stupid joke.

 

[MNblockhead]

I've never blocked anyone because I was offended. I can scroll past. I've also never blocked anyone because of personal attacks or debates that turned into arguments. I can just stop responding. If someone is abusive or egregiously breaking the rules of this site--that's what the report button is for. The only time I've blocked people was because they keep making the same arguments across multiple threads, over and over and over again, to where it was getting to the point that it was hard to engage in discussion on the original topic. These were often people whose posts on other topics I enjoyed reading. But just to make the site enjoyable again, I blocked them. Generally, I unblock them some weeks or months later when whatever drama de jure set them off has calmed down.

I personally don't care whether they can see my posts or not. I just want filter out some noise. The block button isn't necessarily a judgement on whether someone is a bad actor. For me, it is just that I'm not interested in reading most of what the person is posting. It is a content-curation tool as much as, or more than, it is a safety tool.

 

[Umbran]

I believe most blocks occur because two people start butting heads and escalate it from there.

Then, if you've been blocked a hundred times, you've been in at least a hundred head-butting sessions. Quite probably more.

And, we should just ignore how often you get into head-butting sessions?

The scenario that everyone is being nice and friendly and some jerk starts being rude and nasty while everyone else remains nice and friendly is an extreme rarity in my experiences.

And are your personal experiences supposed to be used as evidence? You are aware of the issues of confusing personal observation with data, yes? Do we have to go over them here?

 

[Umbran]

Other definitions include emphasis on the "exclusive" part - suggesting active exclusion. I don't think that happens here.

Any social dynamic seen in the real world can, and generally does, happen here, at least occasionally. I can name some historical, and a few current things that probably count, but the people involved would probably not like if if I did that.

At one time, we had a "like"-based reputation system. Clique behavior was seen within it. Circles of people who always liked each other's posts drove their reputation up above the masses because of the focused shared behavior.

That would require folks to actually know each other

When you have persistent users, people get to know each other. Knowing each other "in real life" isn't required.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then, if you've been blocked a hundred times, you've been in at least a hundred head-butting sessions. Quite probably more.

Right. That’s what the implication would be.

And, we should just ignore how often you get into head-butting sessions?

Don’t ignore head butting sessions at all!

But, Even if blocks imply head-butting sessions that doesn’t mean that all head-butting sessions imply blocks.

Which means using blocks as a metric for who has the most head-butting sessions would be highly inaccurate.

And are your personal experiences supposed to be used as evidence? You are aware of the issues of confusing personal observation with data, yes? Do we have to go over them here?

Not any of that. My personal experiences were supposed to be for discussion. It did exactly that with others here and it was fruitful.

So I have a question - what is your evidence and proof for your alternative?

 

[Belen]

I very rarely ignore people. I find it easy enough to just scroll by posts that don't interest or annoy me. I can also generally ignore rude or over-aggressive responses to my posts. I've only ignored four people in the years I've been on this site. Three are still active. In all cases it was because they kept spamming gratuitous negative posts, rehashing the same points, across multiple threads, almost to the point of trolling, but never to the extent to get a mod to give them a time out or to kick them out. Ignoring them cleaned up the threads and made the entire site more enjoyable.

I just checked and I do have two-way ignore checked. But I didn't even know that was an setting until I read this thread.

I guess I don't care either way, but I lean more on the side of thinking that it is better to leave the option checked. If I'm ignoring someone, there is no need for them to see and respond to my posts.

I am the same. I rarely ignore people unless they are such an over-the-top troll that chases you around making life unpleasant. Admittedly, moderation has changed since the early 2000s so it may not be as it was.