Creating a "block member" feature

[phoenyx]

I myself prefer the Badlands.
The most interesting discussions, the most interesting people and frankly I like the heat and flaming that goes with it.
The place is a real hoot.

I think I've visited the place... once? Yeah, not my thing .

 

[K9Buck]

I'm guessing you missed all the whining from crazy right wingers when they were told they couldn't post on youtube and twitter.

This is the crazy leftist that claims to support the free flow of ideas while simultaneously supporting all censorship of ideas that don't goose-step to her beliefs.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm guessing you missed all the whining from crazy right wingers when they were told they couldn't post on youtube and twitter.

This is the crazy leftist that claims to support the free flow of ideas while simultaneously supporting all censorship of ideas that don't goose-step to her beliefs.

You're wrong on so many things.

 

[Hossfly]

So you want a "shadowbanning" feature. Interesting.

No, I have absolutely no problem letting the user know that they can't post in a given poster's threads. That's how it works in the site I'm at- if you can't post in a person's threads, it's because they blocked you, plain and simple. However, lenny does have a point. It has happened in this other site I'm at. We live with it, but I'm wondering if the simpler solution might be to just have different sections for different tastes. I think the Clean Debate Zone may be the right direction- I haven't created new threads anywhere else for a while now.

I'm guessing you missed all the whining from crazy right wingers when they were told they couldn't post on youtube and twitter. They were the ones who coined the word "shadowbanning" when that happened.

 

[OldLady]

So you want a "shadowbanning" feature. Interesting.

No, I have absolutely no problem letting the user know that they can't post in a given poster's threads. That's how it works in the site I'm at- if you can't post in a person's threads, it's because they blocked you, plain and simple. However, lenny does have a point. It has happened in this other site I'm at. We live with it, but I'm wondering if the simpler solution might be to just have different sections for different tastes. I think the Clean Debate Zone may be the right direction- I haven't created new threads anywhere else for a while now.

I'm guessing you missed all the whining from crazy right wingers when they were told they couldn't post on youtube and twitter. They were the ones who coined the word "shadowbanning" when that happened.

Oh, kind of. I'm left wing, but my feelings on all of that stuff was mixed. On the one hand, I think what Trump did walked a -very- fine line. I think Bernie said it best:

Sanders: 'I don't feel comfortable' about Trump's Twitter ban

There is nothing wrong with the rules as they stand now. If someone starts a thread, he is expected to defend his claims from all opposition, and it's the moderators responsibility to see that that discussion is civil. If the moderators aren't doing their job in the CDZ then the answer is new moderators, not a lot of new rules. Your desire for a change is reasonable. The OP being able to ban someone from a discussion just because you don't want to deal with them is not.

It's also an OP's responsibility to report posters that are out of line. Mods can't be helicopter moms to the CDZ, but they respond quickly if someone is reported. OP shouldn't expect posters to magically behave in the CDZ. This is USMB, remember.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So you want a "shadowbanning" feature. Interesting.

No, I have absolutely no problem letting the user know that they can't post in a given poster's threads. That's how it works in the site I'm at- if you can't post in a person's threads, it's because they blocked you, plain and simple. However, lenny does have a point. It has happened in this other site I'm at. We live with it, but I'm wondering if the simpler solution might be to just have different sections for different tastes. I think the Clean Debate Zone may be the right direction- I haven't created new threads anywhere else for a while now.

I'm guessing you missed all the whining from crazy right wingers when they were told they couldn't post on youtube and twitter. They were the ones who coined the word "shadowbanning" when that happened.

Oh, kind of. I'm left wing, but my feelings on all of that stuff was mixed. On the one hand, I think what Trump did walked a -very- fine line. I think Bernie said it best:

Sanders: 'I don't feel comfortable' about Trump's Twitter ban

There is nothing wrong with the rules as they stand now. If someone starts a thread, he is expected to defend his claims from all opposition, and it's the moderators responsibility to see that that discussion is civil. If the moderators aren't doing their job in the CDZ then the answer is new moderators, not a lot of new rules. Your desire for a change is reasonable. The OP being able to ban someone from a discussion just because you don't want to deal with them is not.

It's also an OP's responsibility to report posters that are out of line. Mods can't be helicopter moms to the CDZ, but they respond quickly if someone is reported. OP shouldn't expect posters to magically behave in the CDZ. This is USMB, remember.

I do most of my REPORTs to the moderators over the threads I start or generally in the Environment forum area, with a few exception of flagrant Clean title violations in other parts of the forum.

I hate it when trolls come around and trample's MY threads (Have started a few threads with a request that people post about the CONTENT of the article I poste) and refuse to post links especially when asked.

 

[K9Buck]

You're wrong on so many things.

You support banning people for speaking the truth while supporting those who speak lies.

 

[phoenyx]

So you want a "shadowbanning" feature. Interesting.

No, I have absolutely no problem letting the user know that they can't post in a given poster's threads. That's how it works in the site I'm at- if you can't post in a person's threads, it's because they blocked you, plain and simple. However, lenny does have a point. It has happened in this other site I'm at. We live with it, but I'm wondering if the simpler solution might be to just have different sections for different tastes. I think the Clean Debate Zone may be the right direction- I haven't created new threads anywhere else for a while now.

I'm guessing you missed all the whining from crazy right wingers when they were told they couldn't post on youtube and twitter. They were the ones who coined the word "shadowbanning" when that happened.

Oh, kind of. I'm left wing, but my feelings on all of that stuff was mixed. On the one hand, I think what Trump did walked a -very- fine line. I think Bernie said it best:

Sanders: 'I don't feel comfortable' about Trump's Twitter ban

There is nothing wrong with the rules as they stand now. If someone starts a thread, he is expected to defend his claims from all opposition, and it's the moderators responsibility to see that that discussion is civil. If the moderators aren't doing their job in the CDZ then the answer is new moderators, not a lot of new rules. Your desire for a change is reasonable. The OP being able to ban someone from a discussion just because you don't want to deal with them is not.

It's also an OP's responsibility to report posters that are out of line. Mods can't be helicopter moms to the CDZ, but they respond quickly if someone is reported. OP shouldn't expect posters to magically behave in the CDZ. This is USMB, remember.

I do most of my REPORTs to the moderators over the threads I start or generally in the Environment forum area, with a few exception of flagrant Clean title violations in other parts of the forum.

I hate it when trolls come around and trample's MY threads (Have started a few threads with a request that people post about the CONTENT of the article I poste) and refuse to post links especially when asked.

I think I mainly do my reports in my own threads too. As to posters not providing links, that can be mildly irritating, but the insults is what really gets me.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you want a "shadowbanning" feature. Interesting.

No, I have absolutely no problem letting the user know that they can't post in a given poster's threads. That's how it works in the site I'm at- if you can't post in a person's threads, it's because they blocked you, plain and simple. However, lenny does have a point. It has happened in this other site I'm at. We live with it, but I'm wondering if the simpler solution might be to just have different sections for different tastes. I think the Clean Debate Zone may be the right direction- I haven't created new threads anywhere else for a while now.

I'm guessing you missed all the whining from crazy right wingers when they were told they couldn't post on youtube and twitter. They were the ones who coined the word "shadowbanning" when that happened.

Wouldn't be the first time. I've been to banned camp a few times.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you want a "shadowbanning" feature. Interesting.

No, I have absolutely no problem letting the user know that they can't post in a given poster's threads. That's how it works in the site I'm at- if you can't post in a person's threads, it's because they blocked you, plain and simple. However, lenny does have a point. It has happened in this other site I'm at. We live with it, but I'm wondering if the simpler solution might be to just have different sections for different tastes. I think the Clean Debate Zone may be the right direction- I haven't created new threads anywhere else for a while now.

I'm guessing you missed all the whining from crazy right wingers when they were told they couldn't post on youtube and twitter. They were the ones who coined the word "shadowbanning" when that happened.

Oh, kind of. I'm left wing, but my feelings on all of that stuff was mixed. On the one hand, I think what Trump did walked a -very- fine line. I think Bernie said it best:

Sanders: 'I don't feel comfortable' about Trump's Twitter ban

There is nothing wrong with the rules as they stand now. If someone starts a thread, he is expected to defend his claims from all opposition, and it's the moderators responsibility to see that that discussion is civil. If the moderators aren't doing their job in the CDZ then the answer is new moderators, not a lot of new rules. Your desire for a change is reasonable. The OP being able to ban someone from a discussion just because you don't want to deal with them is not.

It's also an OP's responsibility to report posters that are out of line. Mods can't be helicopter moms to the CDZ, but they respond quickly if someone is reported. OP shouldn't expect posters to magically behave in the CDZ. This is USMB, remember.

Yes, and we all know how much good it does to report infractions.

 

[flacaltenn]

In another site I'm on, people have the ability to block other members. This is not like ignore- with ignore, you just don't see what an ignored member posts. With this block, they wouldn't be able to post on threads that the blocker creates, as well as not be able to message the blocker.

I have thought of a variation- that is, that this feature would only work in the Clean Debate Zone.

The goal is to separate personalities that clash too much, in the hopes of having less acrimonious discussions.

We experimented with a concept of "Invite Only" threads, where the OPoster gets to SPECIFY a participant list and everyone "not invited" has to obey that. Not many takers, because folks didn't like being driven to discussion by invite or because too many USMB are here to "bait and rumble"..

Concept STILL is part of Structure Debate forum. But, like I said -- it was awkward for an open forum like ours. The Structured Debate forum also has a feature where the OPoster can specify ADDITIONAL RULES to the debate (within reason) above and beyond the USMB rules and policies.

If you are OPoster and trolls are obviously IN NEED of being blocked and violating specific rules as posted in "Posting Guidelines" on the HomePage, file reports.. Mods can push a button and exclude them from thread. If it's chronic offenders in an open thread-- contact a mod VIA PM -- to make the case that they should be thread banned..

 

[phoenyx]

In another site I'm on, people have the ability to block other members. This is not like ignore- with ignore, you just don't see what an ignored member posts. With this block, they wouldn't be able to post on threads that the blocker creates, as well as not be able to message the blocker.

I have thought of a variation- that is, that this feature would only work in the Clean Debate Zone.

The goal is to separate personalities that clash too much, in the hopes of having less acrimonious discussions.

We experimented with a concept of "Invite Only" threads, where the OPoster gets to SPECIFY a participant list and everyone "not invited" has to obey that. Not many takers, because folks didn't like being driven to discussion by invite or because too many USMB are here to "bait and rumble"..

Concept STILL is part of Structure Debate forum. But, like I said -- it was awkward for an open forum like ours. The Structured Debate forum also has a feature where the OPoster can specify ADDITIONAL RULES to the debate (within reason) above and beyond the USMB rules and policies.

If you are OPoster and trolls are obviously IN NEED of being blocked and violating specific rules as posted in "Posting Guidelines" on the HomePage, file reports.. Mods can push a button and exclude them from thread. If it's chronic offenders in an open thread-- contact a mod VIA PM -- to make the case that they should be thread banned..

Alright, you persuaded me.

 

[fncceo]

In another site I'm on, people have the ability to block other members. This is not like ignore- with ignore, you just don't see what an ignored member posts. With this block, they wouldn't be able to post on threads that the blocker creates, as well as not be able to message the blocker.

I have thought of a variation- that is, that this feature would only work in the Clean Debate Zone.

The goal is to separate personalities that clash too much, in the hopes of having less acrimonious discussions.

The echo chamber has already been patented.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you want a "shadowbanning" feature. Interesting.

No, I have absolutely no problem letting the user know that they can't post in a given poster's threads. That's how it works in the site I'm at- if you can't post in a person's threads, it's because they blocked you, plain and simple. However, lenny does have a point. It has happened in this other site I'm at. We live with it, but I'm wondering if the simpler solution might be to just have different sections for different tastes. I think the Clean Debate Zone may be the right direction- I haven't created new threads anywhere else for a while now.

I'm guessing you missed all the whining from crazy right wingers when they were told they couldn't post on youtube and twitter. They were the ones who coined the word "shadowbanning" when that happened.

Oh, kind of. I'm left wing, but my feelings on all of that stuff was mixed. On the one hand, I think what Trump did walked a -very- fine line. I think Bernie said it best:

Sanders: 'I don't feel comfortable' about Trump's Twitter ban

There is nothing wrong with the rules as they stand now. If someone starts a thread, he is expected to defend his claims from all opposition, and it's the moderators responsibility to see that that discussion is civil. If the moderators aren't doing their job in the CDZ then the answer is new moderators, not a lot of new rules. Your desire for a change is reasonable. The OP being able to ban someone from a discussion just because you don't want to deal with them is not.

It's also an OP's responsibility to report posters that are out of line. Mods can't be helicopter moms to the CDZ, but they respond quickly if someone is reported. OP shouldn't expect posters to magically behave in the CDZ. This is USMB, remember.

Yes, and we all know how much good it does to report infractions.

It does good.. But what often is the case is mod responds and finds "a bigger mess" in that thread than the post that gets reported -- and/or the issue didnt start at the REPORTED post..

What would be nice is for posters to pick OBVIOUS worst examples of what's going on.. And also to put in the report note more info about who is involved and how widespread the thread damage is..

 

[flacaltenn]

In another site I'm on, people have the ability to block other members. This is not like ignore- with ignore, you just don't see what an ignored member posts. With this block, they wouldn't be able to post on threads that the blocker creates, as well as not be able to message the blocker.

I have thought of a variation- that is, that this feature would only work in the Clean Debate Zone.

The goal is to separate personalities that clash too much, in the hopes of having less acrimonious discussions.

The echo chamber has already been patented.

View attachment 482930

I think you pulled a picture of the future mandatory "distancing bubble" that restaurants will be required to have.. No more food sharing either..

 

[deannalw]

I myself prefer the Badlands.
The most interesting discussions, the most interesting people and frankly I like the heat and flaming that goes with it.
The place is a real hoot.

I think I've visited the place... once? Yeah, not my thing .

Hebben hulp me

 

[Rocko]

In another site I'm on, people have the ability to block other members. This is not like ignore- with ignore, you just don't see what an ignored member posts. With this block, they wouldn't be able to post on threads that the blocker creates, as well as not be able to message the blocker.

I have thought of a variation- that is, that this feature would only work in the Clean Debate Zone.

The goal is to separate personalities that clash too much, in the hopes of having less acrimonious discussions.

If you have a person on ignore then you’re already not interacting with them. If you’re clashing with someone you have on ignore you need to learn how to use the ignore feature correctly

 

[Trinnity]

I know the site phoenyx mentioned. It's not a good idea. People tend to bully and play wanna-be mod. People just end up angry about to.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I just wanted to go on record here as being fully in support of a "block members" feature that would allow me to prevent the lock step idiot woke from posting their drivel.

It may not be as good as a "neuter members before they get a chance to breed" feature, but it's a start.

 

[Trinnity]

I just wanted to go on record here as being fully in support of a "block members" feature

It's the mods' job to deal with rule breakers and bullies. Let them do their job.