Okay, can we talk about this rationally? Hide Poster Option

[Tee2072]

Without bringing up anyone's banning, who we want to hide or anything other than the possibility of Justine changing her mind and the feasibility of Tech being able to do it?

Main argument: will make holes in threads.
Counter argument: no more than a thread of a thousand deletions

Supplemental argument: You will still be able to see what others are saying to the hidden poster which could be even more annoying or confusing.
Counter argument: Take a look at how Delphi Forums does it. You have the option of seeing a hidden person's post if you want to.

Final argument: Total paranoia from people thinking people have hidden them.
Counter argument: there isn't one. nothing can be done about personal paranoia

For definition of 'adult'. Which does not match mine.

I'm a well educated, intelligent adult who fucking swears all the cunting time.

And sometimes a cunt is a cunt and needs to be called a cunt. Or a goady fucker. Or a moron. Or any myriad of so called insulting things.

And we used to be able to do that on here. When it was all fields.

Awful idea. For all the reasons already given.

Do not degrade the female parts Tee!

I agree Pan.
I am surprised you all remember who you want to hide, I am very bad with names.

Someone pisses you off with their inability to be anything but goady? You remember their name.

At least I do.

Why do youhave to 'deal' with people you disagree with? You don't. You can dismiss the people's opinions in your own head and move along. You know like you might if you were with a group of friends in RL.

Is this you?

There are posters I disagree with entirely, I don't engage. But I do sometimes read their posts, and occasionally surprise myself when they say something sensible! I don't think there should be a hide tge poster option.

Yes, impty, sometimes that is me.

And other times I couldn't give a flying fuck.

I would just like the option to hide a person.

It wouldn't be required or anything, but why can't those of us who want to have the option have it?

I can't name one! They must have failed with me. There is one irritating one at the moment but I will have forgotten the name next week. She isn't a troll, she just holds views that are opposed to mine. I like MN because you get odd views, in RL I find people much more sensible and predictable.

I rarely used the ignore function but did actively ignore. It was liberating to do that.

I sometimes wish I had a button to hide posters from each other. You know when a thread is being horrifically derailed because two posters are having a private spat?

I'd disagree Tee. No need to call people cunts. IF they are breaking TGs report them. If they are being sly and carefully insulting, exercise the ability to ignore them, or 'take them on' appropriately - they are v probably unhappy individuals who want to blight others and you'd be giving them that capacity.
< I've become embroiled with particular posters in the past, but you live and learn...>

Now that would be useful TiredDog!

I can't think of a single poster who I would ignore. There are brief 'visitors' to the site who target specific areas to goad. The ignore button might help but I doubt would get used because people would have been drawn in to the argument before they used it...even if they then deployed, there would be a new turn over of posters drawn in ...so the goaders wouldn't get bored.

[Grin] Tee I think we all have the potential to feel the rage and be that person! I know I can. But to me it would be like I was censoring other peoples opinions. I don't want to be that person.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, and in some cases personalities, and I don't have to like them. But I don't have to engage or read or respond either. I don't need a button to do that. I just need a bit of self control.

I don't have any desire to understand why a person is being horrible to others and don't car if they are unhappy or just a horrible person.

I'm not their therapist.

I like to do searches on the goaders. If they have a past, they usually have a vested interest which gives them a particular outlook. If there is no past, (so mysterious!) I wonder why they have chosen to comment on this one issue. Then the name of the game is to weedle out their experiences, through very clever, polite questioning, so you can ponder why they are like what they are. An advanced form of people watching.

I am so going to have to name change after this! .

If it works as Tunip described, I really can't see the issue?! I think most people would use it on a thread by thread basis rather than a blanket hide for one poster across the whole site. And surely if someone is goading you, or saying stupid things, or deliberately misunderstanding things then it's better to ignore them than risk replying and causing a bunfight.

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 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?

Okay I didn't start this thread to be about more anyone's way of using MN or any other site so let's get back to the matter at hand.

If the consensus is no, it's no.

But I think by the end of the day it might not be.

If course it might not matter what any of us think anyway. Justine has been fairly adamant about not allowing it.

' I sometimes wish I had a button to hide posters from each other. You know when a thread is being horrifically derailed because two posters are having a private spat?'

See, my brother reported that one of the best things about the ignore button for the site he originally made it for was that people who put each other's backs up could now ignore each other so the annoying arguments between two posters with issues with each other decreased.

I'm going to stop posting now and just say "what BOF said".

Presumably it will only work on the name not the identity, so anyone who thinks they've been hidden and doesn't like it could just change their name to an obvious variant (or by adding the dreaded numerals at the end) and be unhidden again. I can see that being even more blood-pressure-threatening than being goaded in the first place. OTOH you might think that anyone prepared to do that sort of thing should just be banned.

Everyone has a right to their opinions, and in some cases personalities, and I don't have to like them. But I don't have to engage or read or respond either. I don't need a button to do that. I just need a bit of self control.

Yep, succinctly put. It's the infantilising that's so unattractive about 'hide'. We aren't toddlers.

It doesn't leave holes in threads, except ones that you actually want. I don't mind engaging with anyone who disagrees with me. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be better for my blood pressure to let my eyes easily glide past the, what, two or three posters (?) out of thousands whom I know make me want to claw my eyes out