On number of ignores

[FrogReaver]

For a long time after I started regularly posting here I never used the ignore/block feature. What I found from doing that is that others would become rude and abrasive - I would act in kind - and then after some back and forth they would ignore me. If I had ignored them first then it's extremely likely that they wouldn't have ignored me.

For this reason I believe that those least likely to ignore others tend to be the most likely to be ignored and so I don’t put much stock into number of ignores being a meaningful indicator about who is more abrasive. It’s instead more of an indicator of who has the thickest skin as it's quite common for 2 people on forums to strongly disagree with each other to end up being abrasive and rude toward each other and the one with the 'thinnest skin' is going to be the one to first reach for the ignore/block button.

More recently I have started to use the ignore feature more often (note: I have configured my settings to not two-way block, and to show me an alert showing there's ignored content so I can gather context - though if someone has me 2-way blocked their content still doesn't come through). I find this does help reduce the amount of 'counter escalations' I participate in - which in turn makes my time here more enjoyable. So I do see wisdom in utilizing a one-way ignore function despite starting out in a place where I previously would never have used it.

The one direct value I see in 2-way ignore is the idea that: 'if you don't want to talk to me then I don't really want to waste my time replying to you'. Meaning in a 1-way ignore environment I could reply to someone that is never going to see my post and wasting my time doing that isn't something I value - so it's not like 1-way ignore is fault free either.

I've seen it mentioned that it helps prevent stalking which is a commendable endeavor - but we already had one way blocking and moderators for issues like that - which to me makes that justification ring a little hollow. Instead 2-way blocking has been typically presented as providing 2 things:

1. A way to help deal with posters being more abrasive than they like but not necessarily rising to the level of rule breaking (one way ignore accomplishes this as well)
2. A punitive measure that other users can inflict on posters they feel are too abrasive (and that moderaters apparently agree are too abrasive simply because another user blocked them...). IMO The true benefit here is that 2-way blocking causes more users to solve their problems with it as they are more likely to use a punitive tool than they were a one-way ignore feature that only affected them - thus leading to less moderation needing to be actively done by the moderators.

If I'm right then 2 makes for a very good practical justification for 2-way blocking to exist. However, philosophically, I have to remain opposed to other users being given the power to 'punish' other users. Which is why I and others oppose 2-way blocking (or at least this implementation of it). That said I understand the practical benefit of increasing usage of ignore/block functions and how that lowers the need for moderatoin as to why it won't be changed.

 

[CapnZapp]

For this reason I believe that those least likely to ignore others tend to be the most likely to be ignored and so I don’t put much stock into number of ignores being a meaningful indicator about who is more abrasive.

Luckily that's not the number discussed here!

And I think those least likely to ignore others is... the vast majority of users who never interact with the blocking system at all.

However, philosophically, I have to remain opposed to other users being given the power to 'punish' other users.

Philosophically I remain opposed to not seeing the upside, only the downside. The system isn't there to give users the power to punish others, it's there because it is a very useful tool for users and moderators alike. That it can be construed as punitive is not the same as actually being punitive, and that a few users get annoyed is easily a cost worth paying.

 

[Maxperson]

The one direct value I see in 2-way ignore is the idea that: 'if you don't want to talk to me then I don't really want to waste my time replying to you'. Meaning in a 1-way ignore environment I could reply to someone that is never going to see my post and wasting my time doing that isn't something I value - so it's not like 1-way ignore is fault free either.

For me that doesn't apply for 2 reasons. First, a reply to someone isn't a reply only to that person. It's a reply to everyone in the thread, so even though the ignored person isn't going to know I replied, everyone else that can see my reply will and can continue the conversation with me. If something was worth replying to, it was something that I also welcomed responses from anyone in the thread. Second, I feel that almost everyone has at least some good ideas and I don't want to miss out on seeing those.

I've seen it mentioned that it helps prevent stalking which is a commendable endeavor - but we already had one way blocking and moderators for issues like that - which to me makes that justification ring a little hollow. Instead 2-way blocking has been typically presented as providing 2 things:

It doesn't help with preventing stalking at all, though. Someone who is emotional enough to engage in activity that rises to the level of stalking, is also going to be emotional enough to go through the very little effort it takes to circumvent the current set-up.

 

[FrogReaver]

Luckily that's not the number discussed here!

This thread is about those that are ignored alot. As such a comment about 'the most likely to be ignored' seems to directly fall into the discussion to me. Maybe you can elaborate on why you think it doesn't?

And I think those least likely to ignore others is... the vast majority of users who never interact with the blocking system at all.

On technicality I agree. Those users posting the least or even never are going to be the least likely to block or be blocked. I guess it's safe to phrase it this way: the intended context of my comment was only about those users that are regularly active in a variety of different threads and topics because looking at the trivial case of those that seldom post just doesn't make for an interesting discussion IMO.

Philosophically I remain opposed to not seeing the upside, only the downside. The system isn't there to give users the power to punish others, it's there because it is a very useful tool for users and moderators alike.

I didn't only post the downsides. I gave at least 1 upside that I agree with while also explaining why I don't agree with the other touted upsides. I'm curious if there's some other upside I'm missing. Do you think there is?

That it can be construed as punitive is not the same as actually being punitive,

So I have to ask: How exactly does it benefit the blocker for the blocked to no longer be able to see their posts? Punitiveness is the only answer I have for that. I'm opening to there being something more I'm missing but it's not readily apparent to me.

and that a few users get annoyed is easily a cost worth paying.

It depends on what that 'cost' is paying for. I'm just not seeing a good explanation for what paying that cost is actually buying us (outside the ability to punish others without the mods). It would be very nice if you would elaborate on what you view as the benefits and how this feature actually accomplishes providing those benefits.

 

[FrogReaver]

For me that doesn't apply for 2 reasons. First, a reply to someone isn't a reply only to that person.

I think there's a few different types of posts and the following is by no means an exhaustive list:
1. A reply primarily to the user that you are quoting - but that others are free to comment on.
2. A reply only to the user that you are quoting
3. A reply to all others in the thread using the user being quoted to reply to some generic idea they posted.

If your reply is for the purposes of 3 then I'm with you. But for 1 and 2, i'd personally prefer not to waste my time if the other user has me ignored.

Second, I feel that almost everyone has at least some good ideas and I don't want to miss out on seeing those.

I fully agree there. But for practical purposes - if there idea is really good then at some point they won't be the only one to adopt it. So I'm not very likely to miss out either way. I think at some point it becomes about maximizing the good ideas you find. Sometimes ignoring certain people - while it may cause you to miss out on some of their good ideas - you may actually find that you find more good ideas due to the extra time and investment you get by not having to deal with them.

It doesn't help with preventing stalking at all, though. Someone who is emotional enough to engage in activity that rises to the level of stalking, is also going to be emotional enough to go through the very little effort it takes to circumvent the current set-up.

I agree with the conclusion but not the argument. Something can still be a deterrent despite not being full proof. I think the better argument is that everyone already had better tools to prevent stalking on this site than what adding a 2-way blocking function provides. To me it's alot like saying I bought this sharp kitchen knife to protect myself from burglars when you already have a gun in every room of your house.

 

[Umbran]

What I found from doing that is that others would become rude and abrasive - I would act in kind - and then after some back and forth they would ignore me. If I had ignored them first then it's extremely likely that they wouldn't have ignored me.

For this reason I believe that those least likely to ignore others tend to be the most likely to be ignored and so I don’t put much stock into number of ignores being a meaningful indicator about who is more abrasive.

So, there is one element missing from your analysis that may impact how we view this:

Everyone says, and seems to believe, that the other person is the one who started being abrasive. Almost universally, both sides of conflicts say it was started by the other guy.

If we include this information, and your description, what we get is that people who are more stubborn and/or less self aware of their impact get ignored more.

 

[BookTenTiger]

For a long time after I started regularly posting here I never used the ignore/block feature. What I found from doing that is that others would become rude and abrasive - I would act in kind - and then after some back and forth they would ignore me. If I had ignored them first then it's extremely likely that they wouldn't have ignored me.

One solution would be to de-escalate instead of acting in kind. That would solve a lot of the problems you see in the Ignore system.

 

[Maxperson]

So, there is one element missing from your analysis that may impact how we view this:

Everyone says, and seems to believe, that the other person is the one who started being abrasive. Almost universally, both sides of conflicts say it was started by the other guy.

Then why am I having so many calm and enjoyable conversations now that the others have blocked me? This site is still very active for me, but now I'm not running into the contentious people that blocked me, so my experience is much more enjoyable.

I'm not goin to say that I have never started anything, but for me it has primarily been the other guy.

 

[Morrus]

So, there is one element missing from your analysis that may impact how we view this:

Everyone says, and seems to believe, that the other person is the one who started being abrasive. Almost universally, both sides of conflicts say it was started by the other guy.

Or playground blaming, as we like to say. Plus "He started it!" isn't an excuse, even in the rare cases it actually is true.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, there is one element missing from your analysis that may impact how we view this:

Everyone says, and seems to believe, that the other person is the one who started being abrasive. Almost universally, both sides of conflicts say it was started by the other guy.

I fully agree with the sentiment, except that I wouldn't call it missing from my analysis. It's unstated for sure, but that's because to me it's such a trivial truth that it didn't need stated in the first place.

If we include this information, and your description, what we get is that people who are more stubborn and/or less self aware of their impact get ignored more.

I don't think this follows from that premise. We would need to look at the 'Use Cases' where the ignore function is utilized.

Use Cases would be something like:
1. User A and User B are discussing with no issues and then User A does something User B perceives as rude. User B then ignores user A.
2. User A and User B are discussing with no issues and then User A does something User B perceives as rude. User B lets it go and continues discussing without rudeness the first few times before finally ignoring User A.
3. User A and User B are discussing with no issues and then User A does something User B perceives as rude. User B responds in kind. User A responds in kind and there is an increasing escalation until 1 User ignores the other.

**I'm sure there's some other use cases, but in my experiences 3 tends to be what most often occurs, while even 1 and 2 are pretty rare out in the wild.

Anyways, the point is that the most common Use Case for ignore function utilization is one where the conversation has already evolved to significant rudeness from both sides. In this Use Case there's nothing that stops a very stubborn person from being the first to ignore. There's also nothing that stops someone with very little self awareness from ignoring first. IMO how people choose to ignore or not ignore involves much more nuanced and complex processes than this rather simplistic view of yours.