Is The Forum Getting More Antagonistic?

[Snarf Zagyg]

In the old days that was a real problem. Mind you, the ignore functionality back then wasn't integrated into the forum software, but was an extension purchased by the site. So I guess it was hard to implement in a seamless fashion.

In Xenforo the functionality is implemented without that bug: you can't effectively shut out people from an entire thread (including all the posts made by others) by being the thread starter and then ignoring someone.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is with the current implementation, if you choose to ignore someone, then you cannot see their threads (which is fine), but they can see your threads.

So let's imagine that you have chosen to ignore someone(s) because they constantly crash your threads in an unproductive way (say it's your thread, and you'd like to have a "Magic Item Shoppe" conversation, and the same group of people show up to each time to derail the conversation into why Magic Items Shoppes are terrible, and any game that has them are bad).

Well, in the future, they still will crash the threads you create. The only difference is that now the thread is unreadable ... for you. Which may have an influence as to whether you want to create threads.

Again, there is no perfect implementation. But there is definitely a difference in perspective. The old default was more protective of the people who blocked; the new default is more protective of the people who are getting blocked- because when you block, that makes the experience worse (as you will not see their threads not a bad thing but they will see your thread and can make them unreadable and/or continue the conversation about you knowing that you will never see it.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Again, there is no perfect implementation. But there is definitely a difference in perspective. The old default was more protective of the people who blocked; the new default is more protective of the people who are getting blocked

The old way likely was an unintentional bug in the system. The new way is how Xenforo is intentionally created to function.

So no, I don't think that interpretation holds water. Yes, you can say the old way blocked a stalker in a way the new way doesn't, but I wouldn't phrase it in a way that suggests anyone wants to protect ignored posters.

More likely the old way is giving unsustainable power to people and promotes thread ownership ideas. But you don't own a thread you start, so you should not have the ability to effectively boot people from it. That's a modlike (godlike ?) power that the developer of that old extension likely never intended to give out.

But kudos for your on-point example. That's much better solved by the site actually moderating posts that basically amount to "that idea you have, let's turn the thread into its exact opposite." If you want to discuss how bad the idea started by a thread is, you need to be told (in red text if needed) to start a separate thread. Otherwise even a small number of very vocal forumists can effectively prevent you from having any given discussion.

A site set up to encourage users to (mis?) use the ignore function to achieve that only encourages splintering the fan base.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

A site set up to encourage users to (mis?) use the ignore function to achieve that only encourages splintering the fan base.

I think you have an interesting take on this. I don't think that's the function at all. But I'm not going to rehash the issue of blocking in general- I tend to think it promotes civility, while others disagree. I don't think people ignore to "punish" or to have god-like powers - I think people do it to preserve a little sanity and dignity on the internet, and if you find that you are blocked by a lot of people, it might be best to worry about yourself than be too concerned about other people's god-like powers that they apparently require to avoid discussions with you.

I am going to say that design comes with tradeoffs. The number of people who are willing to wade into threads is much greater than the number of people that are willing to create them. Eventually, the issue becomes one of a heckler's veto.

But that's an issue with the defaults. Nothing is costless, and this protects those who wish to wade in and comment more. That's a preference.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

(Honestly I often joke about the long days without new posts on this board, but I really make extensive use of the blocking function, as Snarf put it to preserve sanity, and I don't have trouble reading threads. The only slight problem is when people answers the post just above without quoting, so sometimes a post seems to be aimed at someone saying something else, but it's far from unreadable)

 

[Blue Orange]

Ignoring seems pretty harmless. They're ignoring you, you go your separate ways.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think you have an interesting take on this. I don't think that's the function at all. But I'm not going to rehash the issue of blocking in general- I tend to think it promotes civility, while others disagree. I don't think people ignore to "punish" or to have god-like powers - I think people do it to preserve a little sanity and dignity on the internet, and if you find that you are blocked by a lot of people, it might be best to worry about yourself than be too concerned about other people's god-like powers that they apparently require to avoid discussions with you.

I am going to say that design comes with tradeoffs. The number of people who are willing to wade into threads is much greater than the number of people that are willing to create them. Eventually, the issue becomes one of a heckler's veto.

But that's an issue with the defaults. Nothing is costless, and this protects those who wish to wade in and comment more. That's a preference.

As I see it, the old functionality was a bug. But if you don't agree with how I'm trying to explain it, feel free to rationalize it any other way.

But no matter how you choose to look at it, please don't think the way the first post of a thread is exempt from the ignore functionality is a mistake, or something "unfortunate" in the sense it could have been done better, or that it reflects a technological limitation.

The forum software could easily have been programmed to give you what you want, and yet, it wasn't created that way. There likely is a good reason for that, and that reason, I think, is that people simply find it a bad idea for their forum platforms to give extra powers to thread starters. They want civility, sanity and dignity just as much as you do, they just think blocked-off threads aren't the right way to achieve that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

As I see it, the old functionality was a bug. But if you don't agree with how I'm trying to explain it, feel free to rationalize it any other way.

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.

But no matter how you choose to look at it, please don't think the way the first post of a thread is exempt from the ignore functionality is a mistake, or something "unfortunate" in the sense it could have been done better, or that it reflects a technological limitation.

The forum software could easily have been programmed to give you what you want, and yet, it wasn't created that way. There likely is a good reason for that, and that reason, I think, is that people simply find it a bad idea for their forum platforms to give extra powers to thread starters. They want civility, sanity and dignity just as much as you do, they just think blocked-off threads aren't the right way to achieve that.

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

Now you're losing me.

What I see is that the idea thread starters being able to eject others is problematic enough for it to be rejected in practice. If you can't accept that, you'll have to find someone else to convince.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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).

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

As a general rule I don’t block people for what they say. I block them for how they say it. Usually posting exhaustively and continually - particularly when they respond to a 6 line comment by dismantling each line with a 10 line rebuttal. Discussing things with people that way is very tiring. Equally frustrating is where people address 20 different posters with their one post, quoting each one individually in some super essay.

Brevity is the soul of wit, I want to read what you think - not an amicus brief. I sometimes wonder whether a word limit would be a good thing and as was suggested earlier - a maximum number of posts per thread per day while not good for the site would definitely make people think harder about what they said.

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). Brevity isn't using few words, it's using no unnecessary word. Few quality discussions happens on twitter for a reason, especially on serious topic (I can imagine a 1-line answer to "do you prefer to use a mat to roll your dice on, or the table?" but not to "is it ethical not to cast Plant Growth over the field of the village where the inn you're sleeping in before getting your long rest?"). To each his own, I guess.