The Ethics of Two Way Ignore

[Gradine]

What kind of a question is this?

The value of two-way ignore is worthless if people go out of their way to read your posts anyway, which is exactly why doing so is against the policy of this forum. Those who are unwilling to abide by those terms should not be members of this forum.

 

[FrogReaver]

The value of two-way ignore is worthless if people go out of their way to read your posts anyway, which is exactly why doing so is against the policy of this forum. Those who are unwilling to abide by those terms should not be members of this forum.

K. Then might I suggest making a report if you think someone is breaking the rules instead of trying to goad them into it or into confessing they are?

 

[Gradine]

K. Then might I suggest making a report if you think someone is breaking the rules instead of trying to goad them into it or into confessing they are?

I'm doing no such thing. I don't intend to get anyone in trouble., such as it is. My only goal is to discourage behavior that is (a) against board policy, (b) personally extremely discomforting, and (c) to borrow a turn of phrase, repugnant.

 

[Umbran]

I don’t really think it’s entitlement to see posts on a public facing forum that allows the whole world to read every post made there.

Access to EN World is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege can be lost to varying degrees. We generally go with, "innocent and worthy of the privilege until proven otherwise," approach, but it is still a privilege. Thinking that what is a privilege is really your right, is textbook entitlement.

So what about what they want and find annoying? Why should what you want be privileged?

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.

What the author wants is privileged because they are the author. Now, we can only offer so much control, and if an author needs more than what we can provide, they may need to take their works elsewhere, but we do offer some minor control.

It's a conversational forum. They don't have to come here and post in a discussion where there are lots of people.

But, the issue isn't "lots of people", is it? The issue is specific individuals, who, in the author's eyes, due to their chosen behavior have lost the privilege of seeing those thoughts.

I'm all for them opting not to see me, but forcing me to be blind to their posts is akin to a schoolyard bully forcing me to give up my lunch money.

No, it really isn't. That post wasn't in your pocket, given to you by your parent or guardian, or intended to pay for something you really needed. No direct interaction with you is taken to relieve you of the post. You are not harassed, assaulted, bullied, or so much as spoken to, and unless you choose to mention it, nobody else would even know it happened.

There are sometimes consequences to how some of your treat each other.

In both cases I'm being forced to do something that is against my will.

No, you are not. You aren't forced to take any action. You are relieved of the privilege of taking the action of reading some posts.

 

[Umbran]

The value of two-way ignore is worthless if people go out of their way to read your posts anyway, which is exactly why doing so is against the policy of this forum. Those who are unwilling to abide by those terms should not be members of this forum.

We cannot stop folks from logging out and reading. That, in and of itself, is not against the rules, because such a rule would be futile.

Logging back in, and engaging in a discussion you really shouldn't be having is what gets your a talking to in red text.

 

[FrogReaver]

Access to EN World is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege can be lost to varying degrees. We generally go with, "innocent and worthy of the privilege until proven otherwise," approach, but it is still a privilege.



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.

What the author wants is privileged because they are the author. Now, we can only offer so much control, and if an author needs more than what we can provide, they may need to take their works elsewhere, but we do offer some minor control.

I don’t fully agree, but the perspective makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.

And in general, most of the time you (enworld) sides way more on the side of leniency when it comes to having that privilege. I think that is absolutely great!

 

[Gradine]

We cannot stop folks from logging out and reading. That, in and of itself, is not against the rules, because such a rule would be futile.

Logging back in, and engaging in a discussion you really shouldn't be having, is what gets your a talking to in red text.

Fair. I would've imagined, however, that openly declaring the intent to circumvent two-way ignore would run afoul of you all.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm doing no such thing. I don't intend to get anyone in trouble., such as it is. My only goal is to discourage behavior that is (a) against board policy, (b) personally extremely discomforting, and (c) to borrow a turn of phrase, repugnant.

Sorry. I must have misunderstood your intentions.

 

[Umbran]

Fair. I would've imagined, however, that openly declaring the intent to circumvent two-way ignore would run afoul of you all.

That's probably a matter of degrees.

"Hm, that sounds really interesting, but I can't read it right now. I'll have to look it up later," may not raise moderation eyebrows much.

"Oh, you blocked ME, did you?!? Well, just for spite, I'm gonna log out, read everything you ever wrote, then come back and post disparaging references to all of it!" would be a problem.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's probably a matter of degrees.

"Hm, that sounds really interesting, but I can't read it right now. I'll have to look it up later," may not raise moderation eyebrows much.

"Oh, you blocked ME, did you?!? Well, just for spite, I'm gonna log out, read everything you ever wrote, then come back and post disparaging references to all of it!" would be a problem.

Interesting. I always thought the first was against the rules as well.