The Ethics of Two Way Ignore

[CleverNickName]

"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.

There is a certain thousands-page-long thread here, where folks do this on the regular (usually in a passive-aggressive tone.) As if they think anonymity and vagueness can shield them from consequence.

I suspect that thread is just a few days away from getting locked because of this tomfoolery.

 

[Morrus]

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

You can read the rules

But rules aside, certain behaviours might make us look askance at somebody. Everything comes down to rule zero at the end of the day. When it comes down to it, if we’re that uncomfortable around somebody, somebody has to leave—us or them. It won’t be us. Sometimes if I’m uncomfortable I take an intermediate approach and block them personally for a while, which I see as a favour, because the alternative is worse.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

You can read the rules

You are right, I probably should have said rules and their interpretation. My bad.

But rules aside, certain behaviours might make us look askance at somebody. Everything comes down to rule zero at the end of the day. When it comes down to it, if we’re that uncomfortable around somebody, somebody has to leave—us or them. It won’t be us. Sometimes if I’m uncomfortable I take an intermediate approach and block them personally for a while, which I see as a favour, because the alternative is worse.

Great explanation!

 

[Maxperson]

You can read the rules

But rules aside, certain behaviours might make us look askance at somebody. Everything comes down to rule zero at the end of the day. When it comes down to it, if we’re that uncomfortable around somebody, somebody has to leave—us or them. It won’t be us. Sometimes if I’m uncomfortable I take an intermediate approach and block them personally for a while, which I see as a favour, because the alternative is worse.

Has the issue with not being able to see threads started by folks that have us on ignore been identified? I'd love to get back into a few of those discussions.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I once blocked someone for harassing me and purposefully seeking out my threads in order to threadcrap and sabotage the discussions because of their vendetta against me.

I have this particular member on 2 way ignore because I don’t want them engaging with my posts and force me to engage with them. If I start a thread, I don’t want it to be derailed and flamed by someone I blocked because of how they treated me. I have yet to have them ruin another thread of mine since I blocked them. The option to only two-way ignore specific individuals would be nice, but the system mostly works well for me now.

 

[Morrus]

Has the issue with not being able to see threads started by folks that have us on ignore been identified? I'd love to get back into a few of those discussions.

You want honesty? It’s not my priority to improve the lot of people who have alienated so many that the privacy functions are affecting their use of the site. I’ll take a look at some point when and if I have time, but it’s right at the bottom of a long list.

 

[Umbran]

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

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.

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.

 

[Gradine]

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.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

You want honesty? It’s not my priority to improve the lot of people who have alienated so many that the privacy functions are affecting their use of the site. I’ll take a look at some point when and if I have time, but it’s right at the bottom of a long list.

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.