AIBU to think people on MN should stop directly engaging with you once you’ve asked them to?

This. If you keep responding then you are continuing the conversation, @ThatJadeLion

... a way of getting the last word yourself in other words!

I’ve had someone on a MN thread hound me aggressively on the thread then bombarded me with private messages which became more and more personally threatening. Had to block them in the end.

This was on a thread about knife attacks on teenagers in London. This person was asserting that the victims were all gang members so the issue wasn’t anything anyone should care about and cited one particular recent victim to prove their point. That victim happened to be a close friend of a family member of my friend and I knew they were just an average college student, no involvement in crime or gangs. The poster insisted I was lying and was determined that I was going to admit that. It got quite scary and I really hoped I had not given any details that would allow them to find me IRL.

Unfortunately (specifics of your particular spat aside) internet forums do tend to attract people who are a) extremely dogged/repetitive especially on topics of special interest to them and b) with a lot of time on their hands

I can't see any forum discouraging this type of behaviour as it massively drives up their engagement

Of course not.
You don't get to control who posts on a public forum, or who quotes you or replies to you.
The only thing you control is whether you read or respond to them.

You can say 'You seem to want to have the last word so I am gifting that to you. I won't respond to you any more on this thread. Please go ahead and make your post, with my blessing' or some other PA shit.

That way, if they do respond they are doing what you've asked them to do and if they don't that's also great.

I wonder where accusing an exonerated person of being guilty of murder would fall, legally speaking? That’s why I separated meaningless opinions (takeaway preferences etc) from accusing someone of committing one of the worst possible crimes. But I suppose you’re right, I’ll add a third option: back it up, retract it or suck up the fact that posters are going to ask you (probably repeatedly) for justification of your point of view.

Love the image of a devil’s advocate duck 😂

I mean, you could just close the thread and not look at it again

Also, if your opinion is something racist or ableist or whatever, you can't really expect everyone to just agree to disagree. If your opinion is abhorrent, then you should expect it to upset people

Love the fact that initially I accidentally wrote "devil's advocate duck"

I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate dick here but...technically, you don't (need to be prepared to back up your POV or retract that statement). On a public forum, within legal boundaries, people can say what they want without evidence, however irritating that is. I'm not disagreeing that in an ideal world people would make rationale arguments online and cite their sources, I'm just saying that there aren't actually any real consequences (other than other posters getting annoyed) for people saying all kinds of bollocks. I get your frustration though.

I very rarely look when I have been quoted. I see the emails saying I’ve been quoted but don’t reply only usually to the OP.

As others have said, you can control what you want to respond to or ignore, but policing what other people do or say on the internet never ever works.

And also, as others have pointed out - what if you are wrong ?

Just had a quick search of OPs other posts this morning, and found it instructive. For those who haven't, she's seen her arse because she accused an MOJ victim of being a murderer and didn't like the response she got. Funnily enough she left that context out!

You can't stop people directly engaging, but you can choose not to engage back. Some people on MN just like to have the last word.

There is a way. Stop posting.

"Nah. You don't get to pick and choose who responds to you on a public forum when you've chosen to post something publicly."

Exactly this.

Basically this.

What too many people do is post a load of argument then tell you they're off so not to reply, because what they actually want is the last word. In which case, fuck that.

This. Stomping your feet and saying you don’t want to engage anymore is not how public forums work. You leave the conversation if you can’t ignore or skip someone’s comments.

Or, as in this case...

I'm going to make a statement that I claim is fact but then tell you to stop asking me about it when you ask for any evidence of my fact.

YABVU. People have self control, and conversations are two way.

If you’ve said you don’t want to discuss it anymore then you are in control of that - don’t reply. It really is that simple.

I think it depends how it is done.

Let's agree to disagree and stop responding to each other - fine and respectful.

You're wrong, I'm right, here's my latest arguments now stop responding to me - not fine. These people are trying to get the last word in by ordering the other person to step away.

From contentious threads I've seen the second is far more common

I think if you’re suggesting ideas for topics like colours to paint a wall or what kind of takeaway to get, then yes I agree with you. If you’re making more serious statements like, oh I don’t know, accusing someone who has been fully exonerated of murder of being guilty then you need to be prepared to back up your point of view or retract the statement.

I think of it as like a newspapers letters column.

you have absolutely no control who writes a reply to you.

i stop reading and responding if I’m pissed off.

I sometimes really enjoy having a good argument on MN though.

It’s the trans rights people that do this haranguing. They are so aggressive. I’d love to be able to block them.