Hide Poster (again!)

[UltraBOF]

Hide me, hide me!

I think that it's time to revisit the arguments for this again: the site is much bigger and full of wankers than it used to be, and there is a lot of unnecessary conflict. Given that civilian moderators have been discounted, and that the community team's workload is practically Dickensian, don't you think that anything which will reduce personal attacks and thus the need for deletions would be a good thing?

I understand that Justine is worried that threads "won't make sense", but given that a) people mostly talk shite anyway and fly off-topic (eg Larkers in the face of Po-some OPs etc); and b) the hide button would be individually activated by choice and not compulsory, I don't think this argument really holds water.

There are many posters mature enough to never need to shield themselves from the profoundly irritating, and some folk are naturally imbued with a zen-like calm in the face of fucknuggetry, but for the rest of us, please please please give us the option to simply never have to read the posts of people we know invariably get on our last nerve.

I am convinced that spats will reduce; people will participate more widely and constructively in threads, instead of having to hide them once their nemesis appears; goading will become much less sustained; and the bill to MNHQ for gin at weekends will be slashed to pre-2005 levels.

What's not to like?

[Absy]

It would lower the collective blood pressure of FWR, that's for sure. They'd all be hiding the wank socks* all over the place, and end up having calm and reasonable discussions amongst themselves

*wank socks are MRA sock puppets

[Hullygully]

And that one?

Hmmm?

I suppose so, yes.

[UltraBOF]

Tunip- get your brother on that code IMMEDIATELY

[RubyCreakingGates]

It seems to work well enough on another site I frequent. I'm sure no-one knows, or cares that I have hidden them.

I have only had to resort to the hide option once or twice, and I don't see that it is any different from not answering calls when caller display shows someone you just don't have the energy to talk to.

And yes, the unhide post is quite useful if the thread makes no sense without the offending poster's contribution. No one seems to have been childish enough to have started an "I've got you hidden" thread there either.

[OatyBeatie]

Wouldn't it be a bit ham-fisted to add a post to a thread when you had chosen to blindfold yourself to some of the content on the thread? You wouldn't just be missing the posts of the hidden poster, you would be missing part of the context, and therefore part or all of the meaning, of other posts that might be a response to the hidden poster.

Threads here are structured by conversation. And we aren't all participating in the same conversation if we don't all see the same contributions.

A site that can be personalised by users who choose who they want to read and who they don't want to read surely needs to be one like Twitter, where there is no sense that we are all participating in the same conversations, with contributions of each available to all, because our timelines are shaped, not by conversation-topic at all but by personal affiliations.

Personal affiliation only seems workable way of shaping what you read on a site in cases where there is no aspiration to sustained conversations organised by subject matter. I'm sure the hide poster option would erode MN's ability to pursue discussions. Threads would be more likely to break up into little friendship groups each following their own fracture line.

[TunipTheVegemal]

Trouble is, BoF, he wouldn't know how to do it for IPads or mobile devices and so many people use those to access Mumsnet these days

[Absy]

I foresee that if this does happen, there will be some threads in AIBU where it will be Group A of people, who have hidden Group B talking amongst themselves, and Group B who have hidden Group A and some poor newbies coming on and going "what the JEFF?"

It will be hilarious

[SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed]

OatyBeatie There is the danger that it could fracture discussion, but on the site I mentioned above it doesn't seem to. The example I gave of the poster who hid almost everyone is a one-off. Most people only use it for the seriously egregious, and the quality of conversations has gone up.

[CelineMcBean]

I agree. I had to actually hide all posters (as in fuck off) for a while because I was finding some of the nobbishness too much. I have also hidden so much of the site that other than _chat my active convos consists of random stuff like fishnet, the doghouse and pregnancy. Which I must get round to hiding too...

Previously brilliant boards have become a no-go area and I think a hide option would help.

Besides, my shit-list is now so long I cannot afford the laminating any more.

I have started screening threads using the 'who started' and 'last post' in active convos. If I spot a good egg I might join in but more often than not it's twuntyBollocks posting some offensive shite again with nobbyMcnobberson coming on just to be vile. I am wearing out the "hide thread" button and logged out Activ Convos looks like fricking Bounty only with better grammar!

[UltraBOF]

I think it's useful to get people's experiences of how it actually works on other sites, thanks Saskia.

[D0oinMeCleanin]

Absy, that happens anyway. Haven't you ever read the "What's all this about free goatsand Pom Bears, then? And what's a Cod? And where is the river of sweetcorn, I wanna visit it?" threads?

Even what the jeff is a MNism. MN can be a foreign language until you get used to it. I first joined after reading a thread on racism and become convinced that YABU (which in my head said yarboo) was fancy term for racist scum It took me ages to work it out.

[UltraBOF]

That NobbyMcNobberson sure does get around

[Absy]

It's an MNism? Man I've been here too long. I'm brainwashed. I swear I've seen that in RL.

True. They are like that now.

[PanonOlympus]

I'd like a hide button. The recent expansion of 'punishable' offences to include 'goading' of groups or individuals hasn't been applied exactly, umm...comprehensively, or fairly, and a hide button for particular posters who get right up both nostrils would be a welcolme addition. And 'enhance the posting experience'. (vom)

[OatyBeatie]

lol at the laminating costs of a too-long shit-list. I suppose that of all documents it is particularly important that a shit-list should have a wipe-clean surface.

I don't really see anyone I want to hide, just very little that I actually want to read.

[CelineMcBean]

I need to be able to wipe the bits of spleen off Oaty

[GetOrfAKAMrsUsainBolt]

I know myself and know that I would hide a poster and then in a fit of curiosity would unhide it to read the sanctimonious posturings and get all riled up until I hide them again. What a loser I am etc.

There is only ONE person I want to hide anyway, the fucker.

[Hullygully]

Why not just tell them what an arsing fuckhead they are there and then?

Use Justine's formula: That post makes you sound like an arsing fuckhead (and here's why) TPMYSLAAF

[ShirleyRots]

[Hullygully]

Oo yes call them an arsing fuckhead and then hide them so they can't retaliate, good plan.

[Absy]

"TPMYSLAAF"

Eh?