Feature Request: Transparency for members on Ignore

[bonnie]

Right now when I put a member on ignore (ahhhhh, heaven), there is no way for that person to know that anyone is ignoring him/her.

While it would be great to be able to see how many people were ignoring a specific member (gives a heads up to others), I'm suggesting that at least the member should be notified that someone has put them on ignore. No need to say who. But it's feedback for that person that their forum behavior is not particularly welcomed by others.

Does TMC administration ever review the members on ignore & have a discussion regarding overall behavior?

To be absolutely clear, I'm NOT suggesting that those with contrary opinions be silenced or otherwise punished in some way -- only that those (shorts/longs/FUDsters/fanboys/trolls/whatever your insulting term is today) who cannot state their opinion without direct (or indirect) attacks on other forum members at least know that a large number of their fellow forum members have decided to no longer listen to their opinion.

 

[Tiger]

Or maybe the ignore should be bidirectional so that ignored members can eventually converse among themselves ...

 

[bonnie]

Or maybe the ignore should be bidirectional so that ignored members can eventually converse among themselves ...

I'm pretty sure that some of them already do that.

I'm also a fan of 'global ignore', where the member is put on ignore for everyone, but is unaware as to why no one is replying to them.

 

[boaterva]

Maybe also a parole function where a person can get off ignore if they change their ways? I know this is getting complex, but since you never see what they say, you now never know if what they say *now* is worth listening to when what they said *then* wasn't! (Of course, that assumes that people change their ways, and that's a whole 'nother discussion....!)

I agree having some way to know about ignores would be nice. You never know if people are just not reading something or 'ignoring' you.

 

[alcibiades]

Is it not an option to PM to a person that you put them on ignore? If you want them to know, tell them yourself. Or even within a thread, "@alcibiades , I put you on IL."

Also, it strikes me that this very idea is meant to encourage blocs of posters to try to get people in trouble. Seems both childish and unhelpful.

 

[bonnie]

Is it not an option to PM to a person that you put them on ignore? If you want them to know, tell them yourself. Or even within a thread, "@alcibiades , I put you on IL."

Also, it strikes me that this very idea is meant to encourage blocs of posters to try to get people in trouble. Seems both childish and unhelpful.

Wow. Way to make it personal. The reason I asked if accounts with high ignore accounts were reviewed (vs. an automatic ban when you hit a certain level of ignores), is so that people couldn't just gang up and get an expected outcome.

Sure it's an option to PM a person. But that seems as if the person is just trying to escalate & at the same time, get the last word: "I dislike your posts so I'm putting you on ignore. So I won't see your response to me in PM, since you're on ignore."

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I ignore people because I don't want to communicate with them. That includes that I've ignored them.

So, no.

 

[Cyclone]

Without commenting on Bonnie's thought (I could go either way on it), what irks me about the ignore process is how the forum software applies it in quotes.

So, for instance, say I am blocked by you and bonnie replies to this message with a quote. The quote box is gone unless you hit (Show Ignored Content) on the bottom. So someone you ignored sometimes makes no sense. Now, if the quoted post shows up, or even just a quote box with "ignored content", that provides more context to member whose post seems far-fetched.

This becomes worse when someone crafts a response with a quote from an ignored member in the middle of the post, since it then shows up as simply a separate paragraph of the same post and doesn't clearly show the topic has changed.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I ignore people because I don't want to communicate with them. That includes that I've ignored them.

So, no.

IMO I think that's fairest. Most ignores come from a clash or personalities and chemistries, not really from bad behavior or bad intent by anyone. Some people just clash in their style and content.

Parting in silence seems the decent way to just let everyone have their peace, given that ignore already takes away the chance to talk about it. Ignore announcements would seem like a form of shunning with potential for bullying IMO.

I have exactly one person on ignore and even that's most due to volume. I have no need to add any burden to them, it is to help me manage to messageflow and stay a bit more productive (as nothing ever comes out of that).

I have had some public ignore announcements in posts directed at me over the years and I find that's a rather unfortunately grouping up on someone. It quickly becomes its own form of attack when some like-minded people gang up on a member whose content they dislike for whatever reason.

I prefer current TMC way.

 

[BluestarE3]

So someone you ignored sometimes makes no sense.

Yes, that's sometimes the reason someone gets put on "Ignore" in the first place.



Seriously, though, I agree with this:

Now, if the quoted post shows up, or even just a quote box with "ignored content", that provides more context to member whose post seems far-fetched.

It would be a lot less confusing following a thread if there's some sort of placeholder in a post to show that an ignored person was being quoted in someone else's post.

 

[Cyclone]

Yes, that's sometimes the reason someone gets put on "Ignore" in the first place.

Whoops. Glad you knew I meant that someone you didn't ignore makes less sense.

 

[doug]

The purpose of ignore is so you don't see that person's posts and thus reduce your interaction with him/her. Ignoring someone and then wanting that person to be notified that you've ignored him/her seems unnecessarily passive aggressive.

 

[bonnie]

The purpose of ignore is so you don't see that person's posts and thus reduce your interaction with him/her. Ignoring someone and then wanting that person to be notified that you've ignored him/her seems unnecessarily passive aggressive.

That wasn't what I suggested (unless you're responding to someone else). I suggested that forum members (me, included) are aware of how many people have us on ignore.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The purpose of ignore is so you don't see that person's posts and thus reduce your interaction with him/her. Ignoring someone and then wanting that person to be notified that you've ignored him/her seems unnecessarily passive aggressive.

I guess the merit in @bonnie's suggestion would be that it might cause self-reflection on the part of the ignored. I can see that helping in some cases? Anonymizing the ignorer would also make retaliation harder, thus cooling things down more than direct confrontation, so I can see a logic where this might help things.

I still prefer the current way, though:

Since people are people, it seems doubtful all would use ignore for all the right reasons. I could see a passive aggressive shunning mentality developing as well. Once we know the other guy gets a message, people might start sending that message on purpose and not always for all the right reasons.

I've seen it a few times when like-minded people gang-up on someone with ignore and announce/discuss it publicly. I have even seen a discussion on TMC where people were guiding other people on how to ignore a specific member. Much of the time any self-reflection is lost in the hurt that causes and then we have members bitter at each other for years.

Oh well, @doug. I guess I can appreciate your dilemma.

 

[alcibiades]

Ignoring someone and then wanting that person to be notified that you've ignored him/her seems unnecessarily passive aggressive.

100%.

 

[calisnow]

Right now when I put a member on ignore (ahhhhh, heaven), there is no way for that person to know that anyone is ignoring him/her.

While it would be great to be able to see how many people were ignoring a specific member (gives a heads up to others), I'm suggesting that at least the member should be notified that someone has put them on ignore. No need to say who. But it's feedback for that person that their forum behavior is not particularly welcomed by others.

Does TMC administration ever review the members on ignore & have a discussion regarding overall behavior?

To be absolutely clear, I'm NOT suggesting that those with contrary opinions be silenced or otherwise punished in some way -- only that those (shorts/longs/FUDsters/fanboys/trolls/whatever your insulting term is today) who cannot state their opinion without direct (or indirect) attacks on other forum members at least know that a large number of their fellow forum members have decided to no longer listen to their opinion.

On the flip side it could enrage a nutcase and make them target whoever they think is ignoring them. At least leave it up to the "ignorer" to decide whether or not the target is notified.

 

[Electricfan]

Speaking for the ignored, feel free to send me a message or whatever you want! I'll just ignore it!

 

[cpa]

I placed two individuals on ignore, but not because of personal attacks. My reason for doing so was that these two people became too obsessed with parsing everything to extreme detail. Much of the interesting content of threads became bogged down with their contributions. To me this is a general interest forum (with perhaps an exception for the Technical sub-forum.)

So, the moderators would have to know the cause for placing X on ignore before revealing this fact. And if we know that the moderators would contact the ignored person, what is to prevent an odious person from ignoring people out of spite?

I think it best left secret.

 

[Electricfan]

No lie, my cat and this one could be twins. And he won't be ignored either!