A possible solution to an ongoing problem.

[BuckyXTC]

Various posters have stated their dismay with decent threads being hijacked by persons they deem to be obnoxious. I am well aware of the fact that some would surely count me as fitting in that group, even though that has never been my intent.

 

I haven't been on AOL for many years, but I do remember a nifty feature in chat rooms that allowed participants to block the messages of disrupters via an "ignore" button. Imagine the feeling of satisfaction one would achieve by adding certain folks to the ignore list, and not having to see what they write. Granted, it might cause a few gaps here and there, but no more so than if a moderator or Hooboy decides to delete a post. Imagine what a pleasure it would be for participants to have the choice of turning off the posts of those whose rantings have become wearisome.

 

Any thoughts on this?

[phage]

I’m sure there are some people who would love to have this feature, but I can’t imagine why anyone would participate in a message board and only want to mingle with people who say the things they want to hear. That just seems really pointless. “I’m so vapid and insecure that I can only handle communicating with people who are going to agree with me or say the things that I want to hear. I don’t want to grow or be challenged. I’ll just swim in a stagnate pool of likeminded, pathetic non-individuals.” Sad. Very, very sad.

 

I’ve gotten some of my biggest laughs from people who I probably would have put on that ‘do-not-call’ list. What if I would have added dear, sweet Taylor to that list and missed some of his jewels? Even Auntie S., who is pretty much a one-trick pony and a very likely candidate for such a list, comes up with something good now and then.

[+ Hoover42]

If your suggestion were implemented, what would happen to a sub-thread started by a filtered user?

 

Would the entire sub-thread and all of it's children vanish?

 

...Hoover

[bluenix]

I agree with phage.

 

The people on my ignore list would be the empty-headed chatterboxes making the heh-heh type sexual jokes they think pass for innuendo. Middle-aged men behaving like smirking schoolboys just don't do it for me.

 

Still, even they sometimes amuse. And, anyhow, as Woodlawn says (where is he, anyway?), you don't have to read what you don't like.

 

Plus, I confess, I'm nigh onto addicted to Ethan's posts. Hypnotized, if I may exaggerate for effect, by a youthful intelligence untempered by ... well, never mind.

[KY_TOP]

We each already have an "ignore button", ourselves. If you feel the thread has been hijacked or something inappropiate said, offensive, baited comment, or whatever, just ignore it with NO RESPONSE. If you respond, you just feed the comments already made. If you think the person wants attention, then you just gave it to them by responding. So if we want to use our "ignore bottons" then we should develop the will power to not respond.

[KY_TOP]

> So if we want to useour "ignore bottons" then we should develop the >will power to not respond.

 

Oops...Was I trying to type ignore buttons or bottoms.

[Trixie]

"...a youthful intelligence untempered by..."

What? Wisdom? Decency? Good Taste? A modicum of restraint? A mute button?

Trix

[bluenix]

>"...a youthful intelligence untempered by..."

>What? Wisdom? Decency? Good Taste? A modicum of restraint?

> A mute button?

>Trix

 

Feeling better, I see.

 

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-41.gif

[BuckyXTC]

>We each already have an "ignore button", ourselves. If you

>feel the thread has been hijacked or something inappropiate

>said, offensive, baited comment, or whatever, just ignore it

>with NO RESPONSE. If you respond, you just feed the comments

>already made. If you think the person wants attention, then

>you just gave it to them by responding. So if we want to use

>our "ignore bottons" then we should develop the will power to

>not respond.

 

KY:

 

You're correct.

[BuckyXTC]

>If your suggestion were implemented, what would happen to a

>sub-thread started by a filtered user?

>

>Would the entire sub-thread and all of it's children vanish?

>

>...Hoover

 

I suspect there would be a glaring gap.

[theDCeBOY]

this thread belongs in daddy's section

[BuckyXTC]

>I’m sure there are some people who would love to have this

>feature, but I can’t imagine why anyone would participate in a

>message board and only want to mingle with people who say the

>things they want to hear.

 

Phage: It's not a matter of only wanting to mingle with people who say what you want to hear. I welcome opinions different from my own. What I grow weary of is the incessant need of a few to take every opportunity to hijack threads for the purpose of saying, "Look at me, I need attention", especially when what they post has essentially nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

 

>“I’m so vapid and insecure that I can only handle

>communicating with people who are going to agree with me or

>say the things that I want to hear. I don’t want to grow or

>be challenged. I’ll just swim in a stagnate pool of

>likeminded, pathetic non-individuals.” Sad. Very, very sad.

 

If that happened to be the case, it would be sad. Frankly, I don't find much growth or challenge in endless mockery, insults and namecalling. And yes, I admit that I've allowed myself to be drawn into that at times, tit for tat.

>

>I’ve gotten some of my biggest laughs from people who I

>probably would have put on that ‘do-not-call’ list. What if I

>would have added dear, sweet Taylor to that list and missed

>some of his jewels? Even Auntie S., who is pretty much a

>one-trick pony and a very likely candidate for such a list,

>comes up with something good now and then.

 

True enough.

>

[BuckyXTC]

>this thread belongs in daddy's section

 

Not really. It's intended for general discussion and not a specific request for a new feature to be implemented.

[JamesK840]

I think it would be a nice option to have, though I have to admit that the people who most piss me off occasionally post something I find really interesting.

 

Not sure it's at all likely though, this forum software doesn't seem all that advanced and I'm sure it'd be a pain in the ass to change, even if Daddy wanted to.

[+ Lucky]

If we had an ignore function, after a while we'd all be just posting to ourselves!

[+ Charlie]

I agree with KY TOP. I simply don't open threads when I see that they are only conversations between certain people, whose endless (and usually ad hominem)arguments with one another are easy to predict. But some of those same people occasionally post interesting comments, and I wouldn't want a function that automatically suppressed my ability to pick and choose what I read.

[+ deej]

>Not sure it's at all likely though, this forum software

>doesn't seem all that advanced and I'm sure it'd be a pain in

>the ass to change, even if Daddy wanted to.

 

Daddy is not the author. This is an off-the-shelf (err... web) package.