The Ethics of Two Way Ignore

Maxperson · Apr 25, 2024

Gradine said:
I'm gonna be honest, I'm struggling to see the difference between this and actively engaging with people who have you on block. If enough people have you blocked that you can't rightfully follow along with the conversation, that might be a sign that you're not invited to that conversation.

You don't see the difference between trying to understand context of an answer by someone who doesn't have you blocked, and actively engaging with someone who doesn't want to talk to you? The difference is night and day. And most of the time logging out to read the post just confirms the context I think is there, but sometimes it's very different. Plus, I am invited to the conversation because the person I'm responding to doesn't have me blocked which invites discourse on his post. I'm just not invited to converse with the person who has blocked me.

FrogReaver · Apr 25, 2024

Umbran said:
You folks say, "against the rules" as if things were set out with clear, absolute lines, to which we would always have very specific responses.

The rules themselves say otherwise. We use our judgement, and try to take context into account.

Right I don’t mean to imply otherwise. When you’ve been around a while you like to think you’ve got a grasp on how the dm, or mod in this case, is going to rule on most things.

It’s a bit of a personal shock when one is so far off the expected. Not to be mistaken as me saying your doing it wrong or hypocritical or anything negative.

Just a surprise to me that I was that far off.

Umbran said:
If the most Ignored person on the board, who may also have earned several warning points and is reported a lot for rudeness, such that there's a pattern of behavior established does a thing, they are unlikely to get as much slack in interpretation and action as someone who doesn't have those warning signs on them.

Fully understood.

Morrus · Apr 25, 2024

Maxperson said:
Understood. It's not okay for us to see the words of those who have blocked us, because they should have control over their words. But it is okay for them to have control over my words and the words of those others who I would have conversations with by not allowing us to speak to one another in some threads.

I’m not playing this game with you. I’m busy. You made your own bed.

Gradine · Apr 25, 2024

Maxperson said:
You don't see the difference between trying to understand context of an answer by someone who doesn't have you blocked, and actively engaging with someone who doesn't want to talk to you? The difference is night and day. And most of the time logging out to read the post just confirms the context I think is there, but sometimes it's very different. Plus, I am invited to the conversation because the person I'm responding to doesn't have me blocked which invites discourse on his post. I'm just not invited to converse with the person who has blocked me.

Ah, but see, if that person (let's say A) is in conversation with a person who has blocked you (B), well, by most social conventions you would not invited to that conversation. The online, asynchronous nature of the forum means that you still have access to a portion of the conversation, but a percentage of a thing, no matter what the skew or balance, is not that thing, and engaging with that conversation necessarily means engaging with all of its participants, Even the ones who have you blocked. And if you're finding engaging with the conversation difficult because you're missing important context, context that has been purposefully blocked to you, then by looking up that context you are necessarily engaging with them, even if you aren't directly replying to them.

Umbran · Apr 25, 2024

Maxperson said:
If it's not against the rules to log out and read the posts anyway, why have two way ignore? It only serves to make folks who want to read those posts jump through hoops, not stop them from reading them.

As moderators, our focus is on interactions. If you manage to read a bunch of stuff, and not bring that back into discussions, the interactions haven't changed.

Meanwhile, if you can read and publicly reply to a post under your established identity, that is an interaction, and that we care about.

Putting some hoops to jump through, to limit the number of bad interactions, is a good thing.

Maxperson said:
Agreed. I have no interest in debating someone who doesn't want to see my posts. That said, a lot of times I'm pretty much forced to log out and read these posts in order to get proper context to respond to someone who doesn't have me ignored. Early on I responded in a way that made folks do a double take since my response made no sense out of context.

Better to just let us see the posts that we will see anyway so that the context is evident.

In a word, no.

In more words - there was a time we didn't have an Ignore function. Today, the Ignore function allows folks who I would have previously banned to continue to be semi-valuable members of the community, by taking the edge off some of their worst interactions.

So, some folks who don't like the Ignore function may want to consider that they might not be here at all if it weren't doing the job it is doing now.

Maxperson · Apr 25, 2024

Gradine said:
Ah, but see, if that person (let's say A) is in conversation with a person who has blocked you (B), well, by most social conventions you would not invited to that conversation. The online, asynchronous nature of the forum means that you still have access to a portion of the conversation, but a percentage of a thing, no matter what the skew or balance, is not that thing, and engaging with that conversation necessarily means engaging with all of its participants, Even the ones who have you blocked. And if you're finding engaging with the conversation difficult because you're missing important context, context that has been purposefully blocked to you, then by looking up that context you are necessarily engaging with them, even if you aren't directly replying to them.

When I am at a party or other social function with lots of people and an interesting conversation is happening nearby, I often interject and don't have any issues. People understand that out in a social setting conversations are not private unless you walk off by yourselves somewhere.

Forums like this are the same. If they want privacy, that's what the private conversations portion of the forum is for. In a thread anyone can interject as those conversations are not private.

Lanefan · Apr 25, 2024

Maxperson said:
1. I want to see the posts, because there are often nuggets of good information there that I find interesting or helpful. I don't want to miss out on those.

This.

And for just this reason, I flatly decline to use the ignore function. If someone wants to go to war with me (in, one assumes, a mod-approved manner), I'm happy to engage.

Maxperson · Apr 25, 2024

Lanefan said:
This.

And for just this reason, I flatly decline to use the ignore function. If someone wants to go to war with me (in, one assumes, a mod-approved manner), I'm happy to engage.

Yep. The overwhelming majority of folks who have blocked me have started those "wars" and then blocked me when I stood up for myself. Having the moderators treat me like I'm in the wrong for having stood up for myself and gotten blocked leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Morrus · Apr 25, 2024

Umbran said:
So, some folks who don't like the Ignore function may want to consider that they might not be here at all if it weren't doing the job it is doing now.

This. Semi-ostracised by the community, or completely exiled by the moderators. If anybody prefers the latter, we can accommodate that request. But the answer is to change your behaviour, not perform some bizarre entitlement dance.

Lanefan · Apr 25, 2024

Umbran said:
Publishing something publicly does not make the work public domain. As far as we and the site can manage it within our mission, technological and practical constraints, we consider the poster to own their posts.

This is why "bulletin board" was a much better terminology for a discussion site than "forum"; because to me the analogy is apt: you're posting a sign on a bulletin board that anyone who passes by can read, and the only way to prevent people from reading it is to take the sign down.

The Ethics of Two Way Ignore

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)

Umbran

Mod Squad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Similar Threads