The Ethics of Two Way Ignore

[Ruin Explorer]

One thing that strikes me is that if we couldn't see/post in threads created by users who have us on ignore, there would be a significant number of "double threads" or "triple threads" or the like.

And it would make it extremely hard for the moderators to consolidate threads like that, because necessarily, to one of the people involved, their thread would inexplicably have vanished - and they might well create it again. The only way to avoid it would be to have the mods personally create every consolidated thread (presuming they have no-one on ignore), then consolidate to it, which seems like a whole bunch of extra work for them. I notice this particularly because Reynard, who started this thread, has me on ignore for some long ago reason (probably my being generally annoying, fair enough), and has several times started threads which I would otherwise have started on various topics.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I was worried about the other direction: if I have 2 way ignore on, I thought it locked people out of threads I start. And since a) I probably start too many threads, but b) want people to be able to talk about stuff in them, I would feel bad if I locked someone for no good reason.

I want to reiterate that I use the ignore list for my own mental health as much as I use it to block jerks. Some folks do nothing wrong yet still manage to rub me the wrong way.

I humbly submit this is good insight.

I have reblocked a few people that get me to engage in unproductive not fun discussions

I am the one who chooses to respond. The feature helps me to not respond in ways that are not helpful. It’s not all the other person all the time…

 

[TheSword]

Everyone should have the choice to step away from folks whenever they want. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I only do it when healthy disagreement steps over into belligerence or personal attacks. At that point I don’t think either person owes the other anything other than respectful distance.

It’s not right for people to be able to respond to you and comment on your words without you knowing what they’re saying. It’s pretty gross. You can’t even report posts you find objectionable. I’m not sure why you would want to engage with someone that has you on block but nonetheless some people do. Two way block doesn’t make it impossible but at least it stops it being easy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It’s not right for people to be able to respond to you and comment on your words without you knowing what they’re saying. It’s pretty gross. You can’t even report posts you find objectionable. I’m not sure why you would want to engage with someone that has you on block but nonetheless some people do. Two way block doesn’t make it impossible but at least it stops it being easy.

To make it clear, I'm not objecting to this response--you feel the way you feel about it--but not everyone cares. If someone wants to snipe at me and I don't have to see it, I'm good. And I figure if its truly over the line, someone else will report it (I've certainly reported excessive responses directed at third parties more than once).

 

[CleverNickName]

I've only ever put one person on Ignore, and it was because they were going all Eumetopias jubatus on me about 4th Edition and forced my hand. I hadn't considered whether or not they would be able to see any of my other threads or posts after I ignored them...but if I had, I would have considered that a bonus. (This was the sort of person who would follow me into other threads, baiting me and trying to get me to respond. They just couldn't let it go.)

Generally speaking: if I put someone on Ignore, it's because I want them to leave me alone. So for me, this is a good feature.

 

[Bagpuss]

So, I am curious what others think: is it "okay" to make it so people on your ignore list cannot see your posts or (more importantly) your threads?

Only people on my ignore lists are the occasion spammers that get through. So I don't really think to much about it. I've ended up on some peoples list, and they have enabled that feature, then oddly continued to respond to stuff I've said, so it looks like they "win". If someone is being civil and you disagree I don't see the point in ignoring them gives you a very myopic, one sided view of the world if you keep blocking people you disagree with.

 

[TheSword]

Only people on my ignore lists are the occasion spammers that get through. So I don't really think to much about it. I've ended up on some peoples list, and they have enabled that feature, then oddly continued to respond to stuff I've said, so it looks like they "win". If someone is being civil and you disagree I don't see the point in ignoring them gives you a very myopic, one sided view of the world if you keep blocking people you disagree with.

I’m not sure ignoring is about looking for an echo chamber for most people. It’s about not spending your leisure time engaged in something you feel is toxic. Sure some people may block because they don’t like an opinion but that’s on then. I only block when the interaction goes beyond the debate into something dirty guts’d as my nan would say.

 

[Bagpuss]

I’m not sure ignoring is about looking for an echo chamber for most people. It’s about not spending your leisure time engaged in something you feel is toxic. Sure some people may block because they don’t like an opinion but that’s on then. I only block when the interaction goes beyond the debate into something dirty guts’d as my nan would say.

At that point I would say the discourse has gone beyond civil, but normally (at least on this site) you shouldn't need to block as the moderators do a pretty good job of keeping things civil here, and most of the community follow "Granma's rules" anyway.

I don't think it is usually a question of looking for an echo chamber, but I do think it is an easy thing to fall into if you are too ready to block people you just disagree with. It doesn't apply so much with hobbies, but politics wise you see it a lot. Especially those folks that use "block lists" and block folks just because they follow a particular person they really don't like. I follow a lot of people I really don't like the views of because you need to know what the opposition is up to and also you need to challenge your own beliefs every now and again.

At least in Hobbies I don't think there are block lists for folks that "like 4E" for example, but I suspect there are ones floating about from the gamergate and other "...gates" that kicked off back in the day.

But yeah get you about not wanting a toxic environment for your hobby/leisure time, I just don't think just disagreement is enough, to qualify as toxic.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I've only ever put one person on Ignore, and it was because they were going all Eumetopias jubatus on me about 4th Edition and forced my hand.

I had to Google that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

At that point I would say the discourse has gone beyond civil, but normally (at least on this site) you shouldn't need to block as the moderators do a pretty good job of keeping things civil here, and most of the community follow "Granma's rules" anyway.

i suspect your definition--and even sometimes the moderators (which, keep in mind, there's only a small number of, so there can be a considerable lag between someone heading over lines and one of them being online and responding to it)--of "beyond civil" is not the same as every poster.