The Ethics of Two Way Ignore

[FrogReaver]

Funnily enough, I find the desire to continue interacting with someone who has clearly demonstrated they no longer wish to interact with you "repugnant". It is, in fact, one of the hallmarks of sealioning, a tactic of trolls that occasionally pop up in this forum to disrupt conversation and discomfort specific groups of people.

As mentioned a few posts up, I was the ignorer in the recent "conservation-by-proxy", and to say that it made me deeply uncomfortable is an understatement. Which, I would have to assume, was the point. The ability to have two-way ignore solves as much of this issue as is possible with the aid of technology, for which I am extremely grateful.

Of course, not even I, passionate proponent of two-way ignore that I am, think people should be entirely locked out of whole threads over it. If there are people I don't want posting in the threads I create, I've found that a "+" symbol serves well enough as a disincentive. And it seems like this functionality wasn't intended, I'll be as glad as anyone to see it fixed.

In the meantime, my advice to anyone who finds it onerous or upsetting to be placed on two-way ignore would be to modify your behavior such that people no longer feel the need to ignore you.

I’m not speaking about you, but in general I find that those who place others on block tend to be just as nasty to those they are blocking (before the block), they just pulled the block trigger first.

 

[Reynard]

I’m not speaking about you, but in general I find that those who place others on block tend to be just as nasty to those they are blocking (before the block), they just pulled the block trigger first.

Sometimes it is best to ignore people not because there is anything wrong with them, but because for some reason they bring out the worst in you.

 

[Cadence]

I’m not speaking about you, but in general I find that those who place others on block tend to be just as nasty to those they are blocking (before the block), they just pulled the block trigger first.

Many of those I've put on block for nastiness are shortly thereafter no longer on the site.

For me the big use is that there are some views/ways of discussing selected topics (gaming and not) that just annoy me. And when they are repeatedly brought up across multiple threads in the same way over a long time span it makes it hard for me to enjoy the site. Including in regards to what @Reynard says. I do periodically revisit my decisions to see if that aspect has changed for the particular blockee (usually not).

 

[Reynard]

Many of those I've put on block for nastiness are shortly thereafter no longer on the site.

For me the big use is that there are some views/ways of discussing selected topics that just annoy me, and by making sure they aren't repeatedly brought seemingly all the time in what I read I have a much better experience on here. Including in regards to what @Reynard says. I do periodically revisit my decisions to see if that aspect has changed for the particular blockee (usually not).

I tend to do semi regular total unblockings. Invariably, a couple posters end up right back on ignore soon, while others I had ignored in a huff remind that it was me, not them, and they stay off the ignore list.

 

[Maxperson]

Funnily enough, I find the desire to continue interacting with someone who has clearly demonstrated they no longer wish to interact with you "repugnant". It is, in fact, one of the hallmarks of sealioning, a tactic of trolls that occasionally pop up in this forum to disrupt conversation and discomfort specific groups of people.

As mentioned a few posts up, I was the ignorer in the recent "conservation-by-proxy", and to say that it made me deeply uncomfortable is an understatement. Which, I would have to assume, was the point. The ability to have two-way ignore solves as much of this issue as is possible with the aid of technology, for which I am extremely grateful.

Of course, not even I, passionate proponent of two-way ignore that I am, think people should be entirely locked out of whole threads over it. If there are people I don't want posting in the threads I create, I've found that a "+" symbol serves well enough as a disincentive. And it seems like this functionality wasn't intended, I'll be as glad as anyone to see it fixed.

In the meantime, my advice to anyone who finds it onerous or upsetting to be placed on two-way ignore would be to modify your behavior such that people no longer feel the need to ignore you.

So I never said I wanted to continue to interact with them. You're assuming things not said or indicated. I said that...

1. I want to see the posts, because there are often nuggets of good information there that I find interesting or helpful. I don't want to miss out on those.

2. I find it offensive to effectively be forced to block someone else, which is what happens when their posts are hidden.

3. People have the right and should be able to make it so that they can't see my posts.

As for modifying my behavior, the overwhelming majority of those who blocked me did so when I mirrored their own behavior back at them. Most folks who dish it out can't take it.

I remember one fellow(not his name) who hates metagaming and loves to tell others that they are engaging in it. One thread he said he did something in his games and when I politely pointed that what he did there was metagaming, he screamed back, "How dare you accused me of metagaming!!!1!!11!" and blocked me. That after accusing me of it a page earlier.

No. Most of those who have blocked me aren't missed. My discussions as a whole are much more peaceful now. Some posters I miss, but those are rare.

 

[Maxperson]

I tend to do semi regular total unblockings. Invariably, a couple posters end up right back on ignore soon, while others I had ignored in a huff remind that it was me, not them, and they stay off the ignore list.

And I would except then I would miss out on those nuggets that pop up from time to time.

 

[Cadence]

1. I want to see the posts, because there are often nuggets of good information there that I find interesting or helpful. I don't want to miss out on those.

2. I find it offensive to effectively be forced to block someone else, which is what happens when their posts are hidden.

I would find it annoying to have folks I don't want to generally deal with being able to comment back on things I write... and force me to either interact with them or let people whose posts often annoy me comment on my things with no rejoinder.

What are the odds of them having a particularly memorable nugget and it not be commented on or reformulated by someone else later in the thread and the value of that nugget vs. the value of my not being annoyed into spending time on them that I could be using to read other nuggest?

 

[Maxperson]

I would find it annoying to have folks I don't want to generally deal with being able to comment back on things I write... and force me to either interact with them or let people whose posts often annoy me comment on my things with no rejoinder.

Even if that happened, you would never know about it because you can't see their posts.

What are the odds of them having a particularly memorable nugget and it not be commented on or reformulated by someone else later in the thread and the value of that nugget vs. the value of my not being annoyed?

Pretty high. Going based on posts I can see, I often see someone say something that I like that people don't respond to for whatever reason. Sometimes I just click like and other times I respond. If I couldn't sew those posts, though, I'd miss them entirely.

I think the better way to handle it is to maybe automatically color or mark the post in a unique way to let the reader know that he is blocked by the poster. Then make a hard fast rule that commenting even once to a blocked poster will get you thread banned and warned. Enough times and you get removed from the site.

 

[Umbran]

So I never said I wanted to continue to interact with them. You're assuming things not said or indicated. I said that...

1. I want to see the posts, because there are often nuggets of good information there that I find interesting or helpful. I don't want to miss out on those.

So, you want....

2. I find it offensive to effectively be forced to block someone else, which is what happens when their posts are hidden.

3. People have the right and should be able to make it so that they can't see my posts.

But, they apparently shouldn't have the right to control their own words, is that it? It is offensive for them to hold their ideas back from you? If you WANT, they MUST provide them to you, no matter how much of a nozzle you may have been to them?

Do you not see how entitled that is? Who the heck do you think you are that you feel folks owe you their ideas?

 

[FrogReaver]

I would find it annoying to have folks I don't want to generally deal with being able to comment back on things I write...

So what about what they want and find annoying? Why should what you want be privileged?