On number of ignores

Status
Not open for further replies.

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
Honestly, I'll be controversial and say that I find the idea of a thread founded upon the basis of gloating over and smugly fiddling with the idea of blocking and ignoring people quite repulsive.

I get the practical use, but what's the purpose of glibly sneering over the matter when all that seems to arise is an overabundance of bruised egos and worsened relations?

Perhaps it's the nature of my upbringing, though, just seems a bit out of place and poor taste.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Honestly, I'll be controversial and say that I find the idea of a thread founded upon the basis of gloating over and smugly fiddling with the idea of blocking and ignoring people quite repulsive.

I get the practical use, but what's the purpose of glibly sneering over the matter when all that seems to arise is an overabundance of bruised egos and worsened relations?

Perhaps it's the nature of my upbringing, though, just seems a bit out of place and poor taste.
Yeah, I agree that a thread about gloating, smugly fiddling(?), and glibly sneering would be a terrible thread.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
Yeah, I agree that a thread about gloating, smugly fiddling(?), and glibly sneering would be a terrible thread.
Well, as condescending as your response is, I'll be brief:

What is the point of this thread other than to bring to light the idea of ignoring people to cut off their influence? I'm certain everyone's aware that there are some users whose contributions are very unpopular.

Seems like needless provocation intermingled with comments about how you "only see X messages despite there being Y counted", and from a moderator, no less.

[I seem to recall multiple moderation notes having been made on not announcing ignores and blocks in the past, so why should a Moderator gloat that multiple users in the thread are ignored?]
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Well, as condescending as your response is, I'll be brief:

What is the point of this thread other than to bring to light the idea of ignoring people to cut off their influence? I'm certain everyone's aware that there are some users whose contributions are very unpopular.

Seems like needless provocation intermingled with comments about how you "only see X messages despite there being Y counted", and from a moderator, no less.

[I seem to recall multiple moderation notes having been made on not announcing ignores and blocks in the past, so why should a Moderator gloat that multiple users in the thread are ignored?]
It has a purpose, but it’s not smugly gloating or glibly sneering. Thanks though! :)
 








FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
And ironically, I see 246 out of 250 at this point, and he said I was way up on the list.
Weird. My numbering works different. I see the current correct post count but going through the thread sometimes posts jump from something like 240 to 242.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Weird. My numbering works different. I see the current correct post count but going through the thread sometimes posts jump from 240 to 242.
Mine works like that as well. Those jumps are people who have blocked you or that you have blocked. I don't have fancy tools, so I had to go back through the thread and manually count the number of jumps to determine how many I couldn't see.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I mean, I'm glad that forum rules have been officially clarified, at least.

It's reassuring to know that moderators are exempt from their own provisions.
There are lots of things I can do in my house which you can't do. I can put my feet on the coffee table and I can help myself to the contents of the fridge.

However, at no point has anybody said that they're ignoring anybody in particular in this thread that I've seen. Nor has anybody sneered, jeered or gloated.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
There are lots of things I can do in my house which you can't do. I can put my feet on the coffee table and I can help myself to the contents of the fridge.

However, at no point has anybody said that they're ignoring anybody in particular in this thread that I've seen. Nor has anybody sneered, jeered or gloated.
I would argue that implying that you are ignoring any members, as a moderator, sets a poor example for those who would imply that they cannot see half a thread due to their many ignored users.

However, I suppose the house analogy fits as well as any, but if I leave moldy cheese out on the nightstand, it certainly might make my house unattractive to others.

Of course, you're welcome to do whatever you like, leave as much cheese on your nightstand as you please.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Critics are those who watch a battle from on high and then come down and shoot the survivors.

You know, I appreciate what @Warpiglet-7 said about going back and re-doing your own ignored list periodically. But ... it also seems like a lot of effort. And having a fun conversation shouldn't be effort. If someone puts forth the hard work to get ignored, I try and honor that work.
I did cleared my ignore list once. They mostly ended up right back on my ignore list. Wasted effort.
 


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I would argue that implying that you are ignoring any members, as a moderator, sets a poor example
Yes, you made that very clear. Words like "gloating", "glibly sneering", and "repulsive" are pretty clear. I got it, don't worry. You didn't hold back. Well, except for "smuggly fiddling"; I didn't quite understand that one.

I understand your point, but I disagree with your uncharitable portrayal of it. My goal is to set an example by encouraging the use of the feature. YMMV.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
Yes, you made that very clear. Words like "gloating", "glibly sneering", and "repulsive" are pretty clear. I got it, don't worry. You didn't hold back. Well, except for "smuggly fiddling"; I didn't quite understand that one.

I understand your point, but I disagree with your uncharitable portrayal of it. My goal is to set an example by encouraging the use of the feature. YMMV.
Wow, thanks for that, I'm glad you understand.

I suppose the policy on announcing ignores publicly must have changed, and, obviously, in light of this new system, it's only rational to promote the use of the ignore system.

I suppose my only question is, because you made such a distinction, can I announce that I cannot see half a thread without referencing names, or is that cheese reserved for the host?
 

I think there’s a difference in being a jerk in general and being a jerk only to jerks. The jerk is the problem. The person being the jerk only toward the jerk isn't.

Be the better person. Don't be a jerk. Simple.

It's reassuring to know that moderators are exempt from their own provisions.

The best way to look at this is, you are a guest at a party, and they are the host. The host can do as they like, and as a guest you have to respect their rules. If you don't like the rules, you don't have to attend the party.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top