Don't ignore the 'ignore list'.

Now that I'm assistant principal I can eat all the paste I want, nap in my big chair and argue with freshmen.
 
Hachiro said:
If a poster feels that strongly about having one person or another not reading their posts then they should consider the way they are posting their material that provokes such a response.
Hachiro said:
One of the purposes of an open forum such as this is to allow people, within reason, to state their feelings, opinions, thoughts and beliefs about various topics. You defeat the purpose of a board such as this and end up creating cliques of people that view like issues in the same way. You become or create a "cult" of like-minded people and end up being narrow minded and NOT open to others opinions, like them or not.
RockLee said:
Just not posting cr@p seems better to me. That "hide" just won't work.
If you don't want a specific user to read something you wrote about him, just don't write it in the first place.
I share their views.
 
The atmosphere around here has been kinda nice for a few days now. Let's just hope it continues :cool:
 
I would echo what Hachiro said with very little to add.

How would the "hide" function differ in practice if you just put the person who offends you on "ignore"?
 
sabro said:
I would echo what Hachiro said with very little to add.
How would the "hide" function differ in practice if you just put the person who offends you on "ignore"?

If you put someone on ignore you can not see their posts, but they can see yours. With the hide function, the person that you have chosen to be "hidden" from you would not be able to see your posts as well.

It is a form of banning, person by person.
 
Tsuyoiko said:
The atmosphere around here has been kinda nice for a few days now. Let's just hope it continues :cool:
I agree - let's put it to bed!
Hachiro said:
It is a form of banning, person by person.

Of course it is!

Now .... everybody, go back to my post (#63), wherein I appeared to "agree" with the proposer of the "hide" function.

Read it carefully and read the wording well ....

Now ... read it again ....

OK!

Even the original proposer was dumb enough (or vain enough ... not surprisingly ... ) to believe that I meant what I said.

Do even you young Europeans not know the meaning of "Final Solution"
Of course it would be censorship! That was his whole thinking!

... it would also possibly be quite daunting - perhaps impossible - to program and put into effect.

It was a ridiculous, farcical suggestion! :nuts:

So .... fear it not ... it won't happen ... never ... no ... never ... !

Stop worrying about it! Wake up and smell the blasted coffee ... ! :banghead:

?W????
 
Thanks Sensuikan San... irony and sarcasm gets lost in text sometimes, even with smilies.

The whole "hide" thing seems a bit odd. Why would I post something and not want others even a specific person to read it? If I can't see their response anyway, why should I care whether they can read my post or not? What does this accomplish?
 
sabro said:
The whole "hide" thing seems a bit odd. Why would I post something and not want others even a specific person to read it? If I can't see their response anyway, why should I care whether they can read my post or not? What does this accomplish?

Absolutely nothing, my friend ... absolutely nothing!

?W????
:biggrin:
 
Sensuikan San said:
Now .... everybody, go back to my post (#63), wherein I appeared to "agree" with the proposer of the "hide" function.

Read it carefully and read the wording well ....

Now ... read it again ....

LOL!

Your humorous attempt at sarcasm seemed to have been lost on many, John.
 
Hachiro said:
If you put someone on ignore you can not see their posts, but they can see yours. With the hide function, the person that you have chosen to be "hidden" from you would not be able to see your posts as well.
It is a form of banning, person by person.

I wouldn`t call it a form of "banning". "Banning" is more complete in not letting someone access to the site.

I would call it a form of respect for the person by making it so their sensitivities on a certain topic to not hurt them. As we have seen, some can`t handle strong debate on certain topics. "Hide" would never be allowed to be used to talk about a person on the forum. Moderators could make sure of that. Just topics. And there could be a limit.

Well, I`ve talked about it in detail before and some recent posts here are trying to mischaracturize what I suggested. The suggestion still stands. However, in all probability it will not be implemented. Fine with me.
 
RockLee said:
Just not posting cr@p seems better to me.

Agreed.


That "hide" just won't work.

Has it ever been tried? How do you know?


Also , rep has been disabled because of a good reason.

To be clear, you mean "negative" rep.

If you don't want a specific user to read something you wrote about him, just don't write it in the first place.

Agreed again! People should stay on the message and not on the messenger. Can`t stop posting messages that bother people -- everybody is so different it would be impossible to have a discussion if you thought this topic and my opinion is going to bother so and so, so I had better not post it.


Come on, this isn't a kindergarden you know !

I know, but some don`t.
 
Is there something you want to tell us by highlighting the letters so you get "think" :?
 
It is possible to make strong debate without appearing insensitive or tactless.
 
Revenant said:
It is possible to make strong debate without appearing insensitive or tactless.

And those are subjective (but you might want to go up to the "whaling" thread to see some insensitive and tactless words thrown around at environmentalists or whale lovers).

Strong debate does not have to concern itself with the sensitivities of others. If that were a rule in debate, then anyone could claim their sensitivities have been insulted. Where do you lay the line in the sand?

Personally, I lay it at personal attacks, expletives, inciting hatred, violence and threats.

Witticisms and some poking fun of positions have often crept in debates throughout the ages and neither of them have lead to the charge of being totally inappropriate for debate.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Witticisms and some poking fun of positions have often crept in debates throughout the ages and neither of them have lead to the charge of being totally inappropriate for debate.
They detract from actual debate, witticism nor poking fun mean you have even made an actual point.
 
Mycernius said:
Yourself included.

Yes, John had me fooled as well. I lose nothing admitting such -- just that I or some others here don`t understand his sarcasm, or could not or did not catch it. Just boring mechanics.
 
Revenant said:
They detract from actual debate,...

That is an opinion. Others may have a different one. I sure do, and another on the WOG thread found the witticisms humorous. Sometimes a sense of entertainement creeping in from time to time holds more to attention. But, then again, that is an opinion, too -- one held by many TV stations, programming, entertainment, and news outlets etc... as well...

...witticism nor poking fun mean you have even made an actual point.

Each audience member is different now, aren`t they? I have accepted a point on witticisms before. I don`t think I am so unique. Look at George Carlin. I think his witticisms have probably touched many who are teetering on the fence of belief and skepticism. Funny stuff he writes!
 
Hilarity doesn't mean one's opinion is correct.... that includes Carlin.

Of course his routines don't mention all aspects of religion, just those that he can make fun of, and those aspects that he can make fun of don't include all within said religion.
 

This thread has been viewed 100489 times.

Back
Top