September 27th, 2004, 04:47 PM
I think I've expressed my point of view for the most part. However, I want to be clear.
I don't think it's fair that just because 2 members are having a disagreement to punish one of the people by effectively limiting their right to participate in threads. I don't think people should be prevented from posting in the ignorers thread, simply because they pissed off the ignorer in another thread and the ignorer decided to make use of the "ignore" option. I don't know how many times I've seen people PMS'ing one night and saying something they probably shouldn't have...only to apologize later for it. So, a one time sledgehammer fix is not the answer in this case. Although I do tend to be a fan of sledgehammers...tends to make whack a mole more interesting.
Please note it's called "ignore" not "banish". Hence why I say to mark posts by the "ignored" as hidden. That way the ignorer doesn't have to read the post unless they want to, and everyone else can read at their own peril.
mnstrgrl: good to know that someone reads those
Angelicknight: Yep, Cake==ignore PITA user, eating it too==ignored user post is hidden, so they are effectively ignored to those that want them to be.
Antionline in a nutshell
\"You\'re putting the fate of the world in the hands of a bunch of idiots I wouldn\'t trust with a potato gun\"
Trust your Technolust
September 27th, 2004, 05:00 PM
Yeah, now that I've given it some more thought, just having the post hidden seems to be the best solution. That way, you don't read the posts of the jerk that bugged you, but in the event he/she actually has something useful to say, everyone else can reap the benefit of it.
I think the underlying issue here is a lack of discretion on the part of our more hotheaded members. The people I ignore (which are very few) are those who don't have anything worthwhile to say anyway, but I guess a lot of people just ignore whoever ticks them off at the moment? That's an issue none of us can fix though.
The hidden posts though -- that oughta do it.
September 28th, 2004, 03:24 AM
I kind of like it the way that it is, but I guess you would expect that. I did not expect it to lock the person that is ignored out of posting, just hide their post. For the most part I donít think itís a big deal, if I was ignored by someone why would I care if I could not answer one of their question? And how likely would it be that I would have an answer anyway? The biggest harm I could see to leaving it the way that is would be felt in forums like Cosmos. Otherwise, it just cuts back on folks sniping at each other.
September 28th, 2004, 04:21 AM
In my experience, and i havent been ignored by anyone. if i ignored a person, and went into a thread and they have posted(either started or contributed any post for that matter). the thread along one line, says: This person is on your ignore list, click to view thread.
or something along those lines? so why wouldnt it work exactly the same way REGARDLESS of who posted first. it just doesnt seem to add up because its fundamentally the same logic whether it was started by an "ignoring user" or not.
so surely they work hand in hand so how can it have different rules and then disallow a post from the ignored user?
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein
November 21st, 2004, 05:12 PM
well as a lil side note I am on 1 person's ignore list.....and that person also has me on their buddy list(!?)
November 21st, 2004, 05:35 PM
Sounds like someone can't make up threir mind on you v_Ln.
\"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Champagne in one hand - strawberries in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming WOO HOO - What a Ride!\"
December 5th, 2004, 08:54 PM
I love you Hognizzle, and JP. You're both on my christmas list.