Is The Forum Getting More Antagonistic?

[Blue Orange]

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.

Yeah, I used to be the first and tried to be the second and just wound up being 'person who is obsessed with believing everyone secretly hates them'. But I made fewer enemies, so it kind of worked. YMMV.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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

Does there have to be?

Someone pulled out nazi in a convo about D&D when referencing traditional ASI preferences. They never talked directly to me. That is an insta block by me. They too may think “why can’t I see all of the responses?”

Why should I tell them?

I get a lot of entertainment value from this site. It has improved my game. No need for drama.

Ever get cornered at a party? You don’t want to leave the party but you are done with the person who made you uncomfortable?

It’s not always going to be a love connection. Delve into what you like here and move on. Totally friendly advice that works for me at least.

Over time I have unblocked most and Re blocked a few. They may have done nothing wrong but I don’t like debates they tempt me to join. No thanks and no offense. Wishing others the best but being here for fun means not always hanging out with everyone. It’s a big membership.

 

[Morrus]

Someone pulled out nazi in a convo about D&D when referencing traditional ASI preferences. They never talked directly to me. That is an insta block by me. They too may think “why can’t I see all of the responses?”

Why should I tell them?

Exactly. The belief that everybody is obligated to listen to your broadcasts has a word… ‘entitlement’. Nobody has to listen to you in real life or online. And neither is anybody owed a debate about it — that also has a word: ‘sealioning’. You want to block somebody, just do it and move on.

 

[beancounter]

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.

Ok then, here's a question.

IYO, how does it speak to the chacter of the person who takes digs at another person while hiding behind the ignore feature?

 

[CapnZapp]

There is something profoundly weird about viewing this as the ability to "eject others." That happens once (if ever).

Instead, what I see if the idea that someone believes that they are entitled to continue harassing people that want nothing to do with them. In other scenarios, this would be unthinkable. "Oh, I know the girl says she doesn't want to talk to me and has a protective order ... but I think that since she is throwing a party, I have a right to show up!"

Other social media platforms that implement the blocking feature do it differently for this reason. I respect that they don't want to use a third-party plugin to have true blocking (instead using the default upgrade to ignore), but this isn't how it is always implemented.

To the extent "you can't accept" that people who do not want to talk to you have the right to choose to not have you engage with them, I will respectfully say that I do not agree with this position, and I think that this approach leads to the toxicity that marks a lot of internet discourse.

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).

Snarf, just stop.

You're convinced there's something wrong with the system. No matter what I tell you, you come across as completely convinced it can't be for completely legitimate reasons. The more we talk, the more I see you trying to paint me as some protector of a shady implementation, when I only engaged to give you my version of a technical explanation.

I did not use the phrase "you can't accept" to refer to anything more than my message. You're setting up a straw man here, by "respectfully" saying you don't agree with a position I don't have and haven't stated. The only approach leading to toxicity here is yours. Stop alluding that I might confuse rules that work well in real life interactions with those that work on-line. It's a cheap argumentative trick, and it derails from the topic.

The topic is: what you see isn't there. It's just you. There's nothing suspect with the way XenForo works.

But if you refuse to listen to me, perhaps you'll listen to Morrus instead. Here's his post introducing the functionality:

That said, there is one exception. If you start a thread, your initial post is not ignored. This allows people to block each other but doesn't give them the ability to kick them out of threads in which they may be engaged in conversation with other people (plus also the people I block can still read the news page).

Now please drop your suspicion that there's somehow something questionable with the way you can't keep people you've ignored out of threads you start. The function has been deliberately set up this way by people that do care. Not "programmers". It is set up this way to protect you - not "those who wish to wade in". Other platforms might do things differently, but EN World isn't different for the suss reasons you try to allude to.

 

[billd91]

Ok then, here's a question.

IYO, how does it speak to the chacter of the person who takes digs at another person while hiding behind the ignore feature?

Mmmm, perhaps not as badly as how razzing on pronouns in their custom title on a message board that touts inclusivity might.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok then, here's a question.

IYO, how does it speak to the chacter of the person who takes digs at another person while hiding behind the ignore feature?

it's an interesting question, but the follow up would be why would YOU want to talk to someone talking bad behind your back?

I will say I have a bigger issue with being unable to respond to arguments of logic with logic than I do the ability to respond to insults behind my back.

 

[Morrus]

Ok then, here's a question.

IYO, how does it speak to the chacter of the person who takes digs at another person while hiding behind the ignore feature?

I dunno, man. You make your own judgments about the character of other people, just like they do about you. Then you can keep your conclusions to yourself. It’s not my job to help you with that, nor am I qualified to or interested in doing so. I provide the tools; I’ll leave your social education to you.

 

[beancounter]

Mmmm, perhaps not as badly as how razzing on pronouns in their custom title on a message board that touts inclusivity might.

I and Me are pronouns.

Pronouns: personal ( I, me, you, him, it, they, etc.)

Pronouns: personal ( I, me, you, him, it, they, etc.) - English Grammar Today - a reference to written and spoken English grammar and usage - Cambridge Dictionary

dictionary.cambridge.org

Besides, this is where the idea came from:

I Me Mine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[beancounter]

Deleted