Weird. My numbering works different. I see the current correct post count but going through the thread sometimes posts jump from something like 240 to 242.And ironically, I see 246 out of 250 at this point, and he said I was way up on the list.
Mine works like that as well. Those jumps are people who have blocked you or that you have blocked. I don't have fancy tools, so I had to go back through the thread and manually count the number of jumps to determine how many I couldn't see.Weird. My numbering works different. I see the current correct post count but going through the thread sometimes posts jump from 240 to 242.
There are lots of things I can do in my house which you can't do. I can put my feet on the coffee table and I can help myself to the contents of the fridge.I mean, I'm glad that forum rules have been officially clarified, at least.
It's reassuring to know that moderators are exempt from their own provisions.
I would argue that implying that you are ignoring any members, as a moderator, sets a poor example for those who would imply that they cannot see half a thread due to their many ignored users.There are lots of things I can do in my house which you can't do. I can put my feet on the coffee table and I can help myself to the contents of the fridge.
However, at no point has anybody said that they're ignoring anybody in particular in this thread that I've seen. Nor has anybody sneered, jeered or gloated.
I did cleared my ignore list once. They mostly ended up right back on my ignore list. Wasted effort.Critics are those who watch a battle from on high and then come down and shoot the survivors.
You know, I appreciate what @Warpiglet-7 said about going back and re-doing your own ignored list periodically. But ... it also seems like a lot of effort. And having a fun conversation shouldn't be effort. If someone puts forth the hard work to get ignored, I try and honor that work.
Yes, you made that very clear. Words like "gloating", "glibly sneering", and "repulsive" are pretty clear. I got it, don't worry. You didn't hold back. Well, except for "smuggly fiddling"; I didn't quite understand that one.I would argue that implying that you are ignoring any members, as a moderator, sets a poor example
Wow, thanks for that, I'm glad you understand.Yes, you made that very clear. Words like "gloating", "glibly sneering", and "repulsive" are pretty clear. I got it, don't worry. You didn't hold back. Well, except for "smuggly fiddling"; I didn't quite understand that one.
I understand your point, but I disagree with your uncharitable portrayal of it. My goal is to set an example by encouraging the use of the feature. YMMV.
I think there’s a difference in being a jerk in general and being a jerk only to jerks. The jerk is the problem. The person being the jerk only toward the jerk isn't.
It's reassuring to know that moderators are exempt from their own provisions.