Creating a "block member" feature

[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.

 

[lennypartiv]

This NOT a good idea. I've been on sites like that and the person who is blocked almost always creates a duplicate thread. We will have even more threads discussing the same thing.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

that wouldnt be the best way to insure honest debate and would create a bubble world,,,

 

[BULLDOG]

So you want a "shadowbanning" feature. Interesting.

 

[phoenyx]

This NOT a good idea. I've been on sites like that and the person who is blocked almost always creates a duplicate thread. We will have even more threads discussing the same thing.

You may have a point there. I think the idea of expanding the Clean Debate Zone might be better.

 

[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.

 

[Slade3200]

This NOT a good idea. I've been on sites like that and the person who is blocked almost always creates a duplicate thread. We will have even more threads discussing the same thing.

Whats wrong with duplicate threads? I hate how often mods merge similar threads that have different lines of discussions going on

 

[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.

 

[phoenyx]

This NOT a good idea. I've been on sites like that and the person who is blocked almost always creates a duplicate thread. We will have even more threads discussing the same thing.

Whats wrong with duplicate threads? I hate how often mods merge similar threads that have different lines of discussions going on

It's one thing if there are similar threads, but threads that are basically the same topic and only made because one of the thread creators is blocked from the other thread, I can see issues with that. Better to just have different sections, such as an expanded Clean Debate Zone where people who don't like all the usual flaming can get some respite.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

I come here for the acrimonious discussions..and I guess I assumed everyone else did also!

My suggestion, the one the that would involve the least effort on all parts..is for you to consider posting in the structured debate forum..you choose the topic and set the rules--and the rest of us can fight to our heart's content!

BTW..some very good threads down there..if you're inclined.

 

[petro]

What's wrong with just ignoring content by sheer will? Personally I have never used iggy. Scrolling is just as effective and sometimes a comment is just so stupid it begs to be mocked. I don't want to miss any of the circus.

 

[MadChemist]

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.

I come here for the acrimonious discussions..and I guess I assumed everyone else did also!

My suggestion, the one the that would involve the least effort on all parts..is for you to consider posting in the structured debate forum..you choose the topic and set the rules--and the rest of us can fight to our heart's content!

BTW..some very good threads down there..if you're inclined.

Even in the bullring, the rules are violated like crazy.

 

[petro]

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.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

 

[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.

After what someone said here, I'm thinking that perhaps the ability to block isn't so good- anyone who is blocked would still be able to create their own thread, but that could lead to redundancy of subjects. So yeah, I think beefing up the Clean Debate Zone makes more sense.

 

[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.

I come here for the acrimonious discussions..and I guess I assumed everyone else did also!

My suggestion, the one the that would involve the least effort on all parts..is for you to consider posting in the structured debate forum..you choose the topic and set the rules--and the rest of us can fight to our heart's content!

BTW..some very good threads down there..if you're inclined.

Maybe. It sounds a little too complicated, but I may feel differently about it if I actually tried it.

 

[phoenyx]

What's wrong with just ignoring content by sheer will? Personally I have never used iggy. Scrolling is just as effective and sometimes a comment is just so stupid it begs to be mocked. I don't want to miss any of the circus.

I kind of do that, but with threads. If there's a thread I've taken an interest in, I tend to want to respond to any attacks on points I've made or even attacks on others where I think it's unwarranted.

 

[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.

I come here for the acrimonious discussions..and I guess I assumed everyone else did also!

My suggestion, the one the that would involve the least effort on all parts..is for you to consider posting in the structured debate forum..you choose the topic and set the rules--and the rest of us can fight to our heart's content!

BTW..some very good threads down there..if you're inclined.

Even in the bullring, the rules are violated like crazy.

That doesn't sound encouraging -.-