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

But if someone posts:
yourtoastmildred you are a fucking idiot
followed by
grow up yourtoast
followed by
so you don't even have an argument blah blah blah yourtoast

and on and on
nothing to engage with, but I personally find each little comment winds me up just that little bit more, I know it's happening, I know theyre not saying anything useful, I just want not to see the bloody stuff

Exactly Mildred

The problem isn't reading the goady fuckers posts, it's that they have written them and have not been deleted!

I don't think that it's that Justine who wont consider it either, I think that it is that she has listened every single time this has been debated and heard the vast majority of posters saying they Do Not Want It.

I agree with Northern I think.
As much as I worry about my blood pressure, I think hiding posters risks their posting shit without any counter argument.

I would prefer to be able to block a poster, facebook style, so they can't read what I am posting.

octopus, that is a really good point. Pearls before swine! (joke)

That would only work if they're logged in. Posts on boards like this are public. You can only control what you see, not what everyone else sees.

That script is actually rather exciting

Can Mumsnet be read if you are not logged in then? [dense]

Yes of course. MN is a fully public site

But just ignore the posters that annoy you. I don't agree with a lot of what is said but I still think folk have the right to say it.

I really, really, really want a hide poster option. It would make no difference to anyone else if I don't read all the posts and it would make me enjoy MNing a lot more.

I don't know why people can't formulate an ignore poster button in their own mind. Just ignore trolls, goady fuckers etc.

If you can't not ignore people on the interweb who you KNOW are being deliberately goady then you need to take a look at yourself tbh. Maybe step away from the computer for a while.

I did outranged. But actually being able to hide their posts would hgave made it a lot easier.

Well it's just great that you are so mature and sensible and are always able to do that Outraged. Other people can be more easily upset.
Personally I am self-aware enough to know that it's not worth being upset so I tend to hide the thread and I know a lot of other people who do that, but that means that they are effectively hiding whole topics where they might have a lot to contribute.
The problem is it can mean that the people with the biggest personal stake in an issue (eg people who have actually experienced DV, on a discussion about it) can be forced off discussions by one goady fucker who doesn't have a personal stake in it and hence doesn't get upset.
A poster-hiding facility lessens the power of those goady posters without MNHQ having to do anything.

I honestly think it's a bad idea. For all the reasons others against the idea have stated. And I do wonder how much even people keen on the idea would actually use it once they got their way, when the novelty wore off.

Surely it's better to do as one would faced with a person one found unlikeable in a social situation - total disinterest, undramatic refusal to engage.

Don't hide the thread, don't hide the topic, just ignore (and report if necessary) the poster. The more you do it, the easier it gets.

Would anyone really use an ignore option?

Imagine I say something you don't like and you ignore me. For the rest of the thread and presumably on all the other threads I could be talking about you and you wouldn't know. You might get hints by what others are saying and bits they might quote. Maybe everyone is agreeing with me and you don't know what I said. Wouldn't that be uncomfortable?

You'd never get the chance to report me or even deny what I said.

I'm betting most people would hide a poster then sneak back to unhide them and see what they said.

'I'm betting most people would hide a poster then sneak back to unhide them and see what they said'

Definitely. If you're the sort of person who can't ignore goady comments, you're not going to be able to resist having a little look. You'll know they're being goady, you might get snippets of what they've said from quotes, you'll see responses, but it's all fine because you can't see their actual post?

Often when one poster is goading another specific poster the others do not engage. So that would not be an issue.

'I'm betting most people would hide a poster then sneak back to unhide them and see what they said'

Yes, having actually used an ignore button I can confirm that that DOES happen. But, the point is, it puts you in control so you can look at the comment only when you know you're feeling up to doing that.

That's not true bear. If it was we wouldn't need an ignore poster button. If everyone ignored them, they'd get bored and go. They stay because people engage with them.

Well that's exactly how it was on the thread I was on recently. I was actually hoping for some support! But people were doing exactly what they were supposed to do - ignoring!

Maybe it happens sometimes, but it's not the general pattern. If it was they wouldn't stay and troll threads wouldn't be at the top of the boards. Some people can't resist posting a biscuit, or a 'reported' or a 'fuck off'. They wouldn't be able to resist looking either.

Rather you mean when I said she wouldn't have been suspense if she hadn't broken the rules over and over? Where's the irony? It's just the truth and I haven't broken the rules over and over recently and when I've been warned by HQ in the past, and I have, I've stopped.

If you mean something else I said, you'll have to tell me what it was.

I just don't want it.

On top of what Northern and Mildred said, it's just daft to have a conversation with holes in it. It gets on my wick when there are deletions, actually, though I appreciate they are needed.

It's like a convo on real life, isn't it? When a member of your party keeps talking arrant shite, you have several options: try to bring them round to your pov; pretend they didn't speak; ask them to tone it down; leave the group. Same on here. Nobody's forcing you to read posts you find offensive.