Can we please have the ignore feature back?

[Danielx64]

Yeah, I just saw that the ignore feature was turned off, and I felt that it was a bad idea. I make use of it to try and keep the few posters that I find annoying out of sight and now I am not all that happy that their posts are showing up again. It also means that they could PM me if they wanted to as well.

 

Or at the very least let the subscribers have this feature?

 

Thank you

[Steven P. Administrators]

I will look into enabling this for subscribers after lunch.

[Xahid]

Ohh, all those dislike and happy face emoticons gone?

Why ?

[xendrome]

Wait is that why I am seeing all of these garbage political and personal attack posts from the 10 or so regulars I had blocked?

 

The problem is the cancer on this site is those specific people and they continue to post political and conspiracy posts which generates clicks and bickering for pages and pages, thus ad revenue. As long as money is rolling in, nothing is going to change. Because those people should have been removed/banned a long time ago.

 

[DaveLegg Developer]

12 minutes ago, xendrome said:

Wait is that why I am seeing all of these garbage political and personal attack posts from the 10 or so regulars I had blocked?

 

The problem is the cancer on this site is those specific people and they continue to post political and conspiracy posts which generates clicks and bickering for pages and pages, thus ad revenue. As long as money is rolling in, nothing is going to change. Because those people should have been removed/banned a long time ago.

 

If you're seeing personal attacks, report them, and the moderators will deal with them. That will help clean up the site from the exact issues you're talking about.

[Steven P. Administrators]

I think the biggest problem we have was trying to cater to individuals, plus all of the chances we give with member warnings, some members have tons of warnings on their account! 

 

Maybe we should just go to a three strikes and you're out system, why bother trying to babysit those members that constantly fall foul of our community rules and then proceed to slap it in our faces.

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

Whatever happened to free speech? Can't we all just get along?

 

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

8 minutes ago, Steven P. said:

I think the biggest problem we have was trying to cater to individuals, plus all of the chances we give with member warnings, some members have tons of warnings on their account! 

 

Maybe we should just go to a three strikes and you're out system, why bother trying to babysit those members that constantly fall foul of our community rules and then proceed to slap it in our faces.

Like me?  Fair play then - if you see that as "slapping it in your faces".

[xendrome]

15 minutes ago, Steven P. said:

Maybe we should just go to a three strikes and you're out system, why bother trying to babysit those members that constantly fall foul of our community rules and then proceed to slap it in our faces.

This... maybe not 3 strikes. But I remember when the warns lasted a lot longer, and someone getting 4-5 warns they would be banned. No one on here should have that many warn's, it's not hard to follow the rules.

 

But now the warns drop off after a short period of time, so if someone gets a warn, and then a second in a few months period, it only counts as one because the first dropped off. 

13 minutes ago, PsYcHoKiLLa said:

Whatever happened to free speech? Can't we all just get along?

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with a forum on a privately owned site.

[Steven P. Administrators]

1 minute ago, xendrome said:

This... maybe not 3 strikes. But I remember when the warns lasted a lot longer, and someone getting 4-5 warns they would be banned. No one on here should have that many warn's, it's not hard to follow the rules.

 

But now the warns drop off after a short period of time, so if someone gets a warn, and then a second in a few months period, it only counts as one because the first dropped off. 

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with a forum on a privately owned site.

I will look into this  

[Tuskd]

1 hour ago, Xahid said:

Ohh, all those dislike and happy face emoticons gone?

Why ?

Can someone explain? Why did the reactions go? Did someone misuse it?

[Eric Veteran]

24 minutes ago, PsYcHoKiLLa said:

Whatever happened to free speech? Can't we all just get along?

 

That also includes the right not to listen to someone.

[trag3dy]

What's the purpose of removing the ignore feature? And then there is the fact that unless I completely missed it we weren't told it was going away..?

 

Typically I haven't been bothered by changes made to the forum over the years but this one doesn't sit well with me.

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

5 minutes ago, xendrome said:

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with a forum on a privately owned site.

In the US it really does, it's a constitutional right, any company stopping people expressing themselves like that would need to specify what can/cannot be discussed when you sign up or else they're in danger of being taken to court for suppressing the 1st amendment.

[Zidane]

25 minutes ago, PsYcHoKiLLa said:

In the US it really does, it's a constitutional right, any company stopping people expressing themselves like that would need to specify what can/cannot be discussed when you sign up or else they're in danger of being taken to court for suppressing the 1st amendment.

@PsYcHoKiLLa

 

Um,

 

"The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government."

 

No.

[techbeck]

2 hours ago, Steven P. said:

Maybe we should just go to a three strikes and you're out system, why bother trying to babysit those members that constantly fall foul of our community rules and then proceed to slap it in our faces.

I think a harder stance needs to be taken.  You can ignore people all day long but they can still derail posts and cause them to be closed.  Also, posts/replies filled with just a ton of emojis/text going hahahahahaha serves no purpose other than to get people riled up and contribute to getting threads locked.

[ctebah]

3 hours ago, Danielx64 said:

now I am not all that happy that their posts are showing up again. It also means that they could PM me if they wanted to as well.

Oh the humanity!

[techbeck]

33 minutes ago, PsYcHoKiLLa said:

In the US it really does, it's a constitutional right, any company stopping people expressing themselves like that would need to specify what can/cannot be discussed when you sign up or else they're in danger of being taken to court for suppressing the 1st amendment.

No for the reason someone else stated.

3 hours ago, Danielx64 said:

Yeah, I just saw that the ignore feature was turned off, and I felt that it was a bad idea. I make use of it to try and keep the few posters that I find annoying out of sight and now I am not all that happy that their posts are showing up again. It also means that they could PM me if they wanted to as well.

It is a bug.  Give them time to fix it.

[DConnell Member]

35 minutes ago, PsYcHoKiLLa said:

In the US it really does, it's a constitutional right, any company stopping people expressing themselves like that would need to specify what can/cannot be discussed when you sign up or else they're in danger of being taken to court for suppressing the 1st amendment.

One: The first Amendment doesn't apply to private companies/forums

Two: The rules dictating what constitutes acceptable behavior are pretty plainly laid out when you sign up.

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

6 minutes ago, DConnell said:

One: The first Amendment doesn't apply to private companies/forums

Two: The rules dictating what constitutes acceptable behavior are pretty plainly laid out when you sign up.

Hmm apparently you're right, I thought it would be "the law of the land" type legislation, apparently not.

Censoring is good then. As you were.

[DConnell Member]

3 minutes ago, PsYcHoKiLLa said:

Hmm apparently you're right, I thought it would be "the law of the land" type legislation, apparently not.

Censoring is good then. As you were.

It's censorship to expect people to actually follow the rules they agreed to follow when they signed up?

[shockz]

2 hours ago, Steven P. said:

Maybe we should just go to a three strikes and you're out system, why bother trying to babysit those members that constantly fall foul of our community rules and then proceed to slap it in our faces.

Yes, please do that. 

[FloatingFatMan]

1 hour ago, techbeck said:

It is a bug.  Give them time to fix it.

It is? I didn't see a mod of developer confirming this... Could we have a clarification please?

[Circaflex]

3 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

It is? I didn't see a mod of developer confirming this... Could we have a clarification please?

Same here, from what Steven posted in the other thread this was done on purpose. He might re-enable it for subscribers, but the feature being turned off was a decision made by him. Basically it sounds like, pay us money and we will enable a feature that we just took away. Seems like a crummy decision, but meh.

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, Circaflex said:

Same here, from what Steven posted in the other thread this was done on purpose. He might re-enable it for subscribers, but the feature being turned off was a decision made by him.

A poor decision IMO, especially as there was no warning about it.  I'd be interested in the reasoning behind that...