Is The Forum Getting More Antagonistic?

[beancounter]

Oh, sure, you view must be the correct way that you are explaining, whereas I am rationalizing it some other way. Even though you have no idea if the old functionality (which was a plug in) was a bug, and you don't recognize that the old way was actually mirroring blocking (as used on other social media platforms) while the new way is an upgrade to the old "ignore" ability from the prior Xenforo platform.



Of course not! I mean, this is just about the first thread in a series, right? So if I ignore you, I can no longer see any of the threads that you start (you knew that ... didn't you?). But you can still see all of my threads, and comment in them.

But as you just pointed out, that can't be an issue. Because the programmers can't be wrong. That's why software never changes.

It's not about harassment. At least not in my case. One of the people blocking me assumes I'm some sort of red hat wearing racist...yet they have never talked to me.

They are creating a "safe space" where they can take digs at me, without my knowledge.( Of course due to the forum software quirks, I've seen what they posted.

Imho, unless someone is actively harassing you ( in the traditional definition of the word), blocking them because you disagree with their post... Is cowardly.

Just my opinion. Others may disagree


.

 

[Lanefan]

More simply- we tend to confuse the rules that work well in real life interactions with those that work on-line. In real life, if you bug someone badly enough that they walk away and eventually seek a protective order, you do not continually demand the right to keep engaging with them (or if you do, others will view it for what it is).

Thing is, in real life you (usually!) know you've been walked away from, and by who. Here we don't, as there's no simple way of knowing who has you ignored.

 

[Morrus]

Imho, unless someone is actively harassing you ( in the traditional definition of the word), blocking them because you disagree with their post... Is cowardly.

No it’s but. It’s curation. It basic common sense. I stay away from people both online and in real life if I don’t like them. Subjecting yourself to unpleasant social interactions is not brave, and avoiding them is not ‘cowardly’.

 

[Lanefan]

On the other hand, I dislike equally people who respond to a carefully constructed, fact-backed and illustrated argument with a 1 line dismissive answer. Equally frustrating are people who make 40 posts to reply to different posters when they could have made a single post, adressing sub-points of their argument in a single, cohesive answer if they had taken the time to gather their thoughts in an argumented and solid post (which would be strengthened by a a limit on the number of post per day in a given thread).

One of those people would be me. In my defense, the way I approach a thread is that I read through it, and if somehting catches my eye that I want to respond to I'll stop there and post a reply. Then, I'll continue reading the thread from where I left off.

That, and the few times I've ever tried multi-quote in here have ended in such a mess that I just give up and go back to single-quoting (or, occasionally, using 'quote' tags and copy-paste).

 

[beancounter]

No it’s but. It’s curation. It basic common sense. I stay away from people both online and in real life if I don’t like them. Subjecting yourself to unpleasant social interactions is not brave, and avoiding them is not ‘cowardly’.

I've never conversed with them. There was never any social interaction.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

One of those people would be me. In my defense, the way I approach a thread is that I read through it, and if somehting catches my eye that I want to respond to I'll stop there and post a reply. Then, I'll continue reading the thread from where I left off.

That, and the few times I've ever tried multi-quote in here have ended in such a mess that I just give up and go back to single-quoting (or, occasionally, using 'quote' tags and copy-paste).

Objectively, the multi-quote option is a pain in the... to use. I usually prefer to quote manually when I need to.

 

[Blue Orange]

I've never conversed with them. There was never any social interaction.

You know, I hear you, and I have been in the same situation sometimes. Some people are not going to like you. Some people don't like me. It's just a fact of life.

If it keeps happening, it is possible you may be too conservative for the site, in which case you could try RPGPub. But...some people are just not going to like you whatever your views.

 

[Morrus]

I've never conversed with them. There was never any social interaction.

Sure there was. When you post here you are talking to everybody who can read what you say. Just like when you talk in a room, you are talking to everybody who can hear what you say. That’s how forums work. And anybody has the right to not have to listen to you, and we provide them with the tools to do that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Thing is, in real life you (usually!) know you've been walked away from, and by who. Here we don't, as there's no simple way of knowing who has you ignored.

Do you? Just curious.

Thing is ... if someone actually walks away from you, you see that. But unless you're Mr. Rogers, at some point in your life there has probably been a person (or two, or more) who just decided that you weren't worth being around. And you may not have noticed ... because they weren't around.

I'm not saying it is always the case, but the Venn Diagram of "People who anger a lot of people," and "People who are really self aware and pay attention to the people around them," doesn't have a whole lot of overlap.

 

[Morrus]

I'm not saying it is always the case, but the Venn Diagram of "People who anger a lot of people," and "People who are really self aware and pay attention to the people around them," doesn't have a whole lot of overlap.

You should see the Venn diagram between people participating in these types of threads and people with high numbers of warning points or ignores. It’s uncanny!