Blocking - use and abuse

[*SD*]

Point of order: does a blocked poster get notified that they've been blocked by the blocker?

No. But as I'm not admin or mod here, I shall shut the fuck up

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It doesn't actually matter whether he used a button or not. He is, of course, not obliged to read or reply to any thread.

However, there does logically come a time when it goes too far, and should be treated as stonewalling.

So now he's on 3 or 4 people he's repeatedly called an idiot then blocked/ignored them.

That is trolling, regardless. First abuse, then repeatedly referring back to them as 'idiots', and refusing to engage with them.

3 or 4 - ok.

How about 10 or 15?

30 or 40?

At what point does it become 'too many' and it's not desirable to have someone use this forum as their personal fiefdom and platform to disseminate their ideas and not allow those ideas to be discussed?

Isn't that the remit of a blog, should someone so choose? Why would this website host that?

If it's justified to think of it as reaching a point where it's no longer acceptable, then it's justified considering what that point is.

Actually, my favorite way this forum has ever handled a troll was to quarantine it. Nothing I have seen from TJump seems worthy of getting a block. However, once this forum restricted a user to only posting in one thread. There, whomever wanted to engage with the troll could and that troll could not pollute other threads. Eventually, the troll just left and never posted again. If TJump has reached troll status, then I think this should be done. It should be done for all trolls that have not reached the level of scum.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Again you are wasting my time.... you are intellectually inferior to me, im right. I don't care what you think.Nothing You say will ever change my mind because your not on my level. your poor education and lack of ability to understand is your problem not mine. I understand Dawkins quote just fine.

...

theist are atheists in regards to all gods they don't believe in. YOU DON'T GET AN OPINION. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

The meaning is clear, your inability to understand is your problem and is not a problem for for those of us educated on the topic.

...

meaning is crystal clear, no further question necessary.

Get back on topic.

The thing is, this genetically works both ways or not at all.

If you only get an opinion to the degree it coincides with the lofty views of TJump, then why doesn't he only get an opinion if it coincides with others?

Given how he's repeatedly called those who disagree 'idiot' - and I do mean repeatedly - then I submit that something does need to be done to change this trajectory if rational discourse is desired. Otherwise, why shouldn't the membership take him to task mercilessly?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Again you are wasting my time.... you are intellectually inferior to me, im right. I don't care what you think.Nothing You say will ever change my mind because your not on my level. your poor education and lack of ability to understand is your problem not mine. I understand Dawkins quote just fine.

...

theist are atheists in regards to all gods they don't believe in. YOU DON'T GET AN OPINION. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

The meaning is clear, your inability to understand is your problem and is not a problem for for those of us educated on the topic.

...

meaning is crystal clear, no further question necessary.

Get back on topic.

The thing is, this genetically works both ways or not at all.

If you only get an opinion to the degree it coincides with the lofty views of TJump, then why doesn't he only get an opinion if it coincides with others?

Given how he's repeatedly called those who disagree 'idiot' - and I do mean repeatedly - then I submit that something does need to be done to change this trajectory if rational discourse is desired. Otherwise, why shouldn't the membership take him to task mercilessly?

I think that "taking him to task" is as simple as ignoring him.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I think that "taking him to task" is as simple as ignoring him.

I appreciate the idea, but again, it makes me wonder what the point of discussion fora is if people get to use them as their personal platforms to expound their own greatness. I was under the impression that's what things like blogs and MySpace were for.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

I think that "taking him to task" is as simple as ignoring him.

I appreciate the idea, but again, it makes me wonder what the point of discussion fora is if people get to use them as their personal platforms to expound their own greatness. I was under the impression that's what things like blogs and MySpace were for.

I got the impression that, once they become dissatisfied with either the quantity or quality of conversation, he'll just leave on his own. I suppose if it gets to be a more serious issue, the moderators will wind up hearing about it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

To be honest, I would be more concerned with setting precedent suggesting that the moderators have the right to determine who we do and do not wish to talk to.

The thing is, I think they already do, both in terms of the point of the forum and in particular situations they have assumed the power to oblige or restrict speech, so to speak.

For example...

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16014&p=185873#p185873

An obligation to show that a thread is not just trolling.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=186099#p186099

A warning that shit-posting has consequences.

I may be wrong, but I think I've seen either Gnug or Australopithecus warn a user for stonewalling before.

Obviously, this doesn't say they can (or want to) oblige someone to speak to others against their wishes, but on the other hand, if a member is actively engaged in a thread and is ignoring all the points raised defeating their contentions but is just ignoring all those points to repeat their flawed contention... then I think there is a reasonable motivation there to protect the integrity of discussion on the forum.

None of what I've said, incidentally, is intended to express any desire for TJump to be banned (although given his behavior, I do think it would be deliciously ironic) but rather that it might be good for one of the moderators to explain to him the requirements for using this forum and warning him from misusing it. I think that a fair warning can sometimes produce good outcomes.

Of course, it might also result in TJump calling the moderator an intellectually inferior idiot without an education, and that would be a fun outcome! :lol:

 

[Greg the Grouper]

To be honest, I would be more concerned with setting precedent suggesting that the moderators have the right to determine who we do and do not wish to talk to.

The thing is, I think they already do, both in terms of the point of the forum and in particular situations they have assumed the power to oblige or restrict speech, so to speak.

For example...

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16014&p=185873#p185873

An obligation to show that a thread is not just trolling.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=186099#p186099

A warning that shit-posting has consequences.

I may be wrong, but I think I've seen either Gnug or Australopithecus warn a user for stonewalling before.

Obviously, this doesn't say they can (or want to) oblige someone to speak to others against their wishes, but on the other hand, if a member is actively engaged in a thread and is ignoring all the points raised defeating their contentions but is just ignoring all those points to repeat their flawed contention... then I think there is a reasonable motivation there to protect the integrity of discussion on the forum.

None of what I've said, incidentally, is intended to express any desire for TJump to be banned (although given his behavior, I do think it would be deliciously ironic) but rather that it might be good for one of the moderators to explain to him the requirements for using this forum and warning him from misusing it. I think that a fair warning can sometimes produce good outcomes.

Of course, it might also result in TJump calling the moderator an intellectually inferior idiot without an education, and that would be a fun outcome! :lol:

I wonder how frustrated he actually is. Who knows; if moderation does do something, it'll probably piss him off, and then we might get a vlog about the forum after all.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I wonder how frustrated he actually is. Who knows; if moderation does do something, it'll probably piss him off, and then we might get a vlog about the forum after all.

I am sure the genius is a tad preoccupied finding a cure to cancer to worry about the frivolous flappings of the untermenschen.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

I wonder how frustrated he actually is. Who knows; if moderation does do something, it'll probably piss him off, and then we might get a vlog about the forum after all.

I am sure the genius is a tad preoccupied finding a cure to cancer to worry about the frivolous flappings of the untermenschen.

I guess that explains why he couldn't waste any time on spelling and grammar.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I am sure the genius is a tad preoccupied finding a cure to cancer to worry about the frivolous flappings of the untermenschen.

I guess that explains why he couldn't waste any time on spelling and grammar.

Aww come on! Principle of charity: he more than made up for it with additional-to-requirement capital letters!

 

[Akamia]

If Dragan Glas is still curious as to whether any automated system notifies someone if they've been blocked, I'm happy to test it on him to see if he gets notified. :lol:

(Nothing personal, James. I'll have you un-blocked within 24 hours.)

As for what happens when someone is blocked on the side of the blocker, well, at least when viewing a topic, the ignored user's posts are "hidden" insofar as they are not immediately displayed; there's instead a bar indicating there is a post present that was made by a blocked user. You are then given the option to show the hidden post anyway.

I do not know what other effects a block has on this forum. I suspect it prevents a blocked user from sending direct messages to you, but I don't know that for sure. The function claims to prevent notifications about the blocked person posting, but either I am misreading that, or it doesn't actually work. If it does work when using the site itself, it doesn't seem to work when accessing the forum through Tapatalk, at least.

If anyone is wondering how I know any of this, it's because I blocked a couple of people for being annoying. :lol: I unblocked them eventually, though. I very rarely use block functions anywhere, to be honest.

 

[WarK]

I think that "taking him to task" is as simple as ignoring him.

I appreciate the idea, but again, it makes me wonder what the point of discussion fora is if people get to use them as their personal platforms to expound their own greatness. I was under the impression that's what things like blogs and MySpace were for.

He can't use the forum the way you describe it. He may have blocked other user or maybe he's just ignoring what they're posting. But anyone reading through that topic will see all the replies and how TJump couldn't address any of the arguments.

As for calling other users idiots, coupled with his demands to be treated charitably, it's just funny and exposes how full of himself he is.

edit:

btw, if we're looking for a new banner, "The League of Idiots" is free

 

[Sparhafoc]

btw, if we're looking for a new banner, "The League of Idiots" is free

Oh that would be glorious!

There's nothing like a parody than one that humorously inflates that which it parodies.

That would tickle me for days, I admit.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

btw, if we're looking for a new banner, "The League of Idiots" is free

Oh that would be glorious!

There's nothing like a parody than one that humorously inflates that which it parodies.

That would tickle me for days, I admit.

I'm still hoping that TJump actually is pissed off enough to make a vlog about this place with that title.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I appreciate the idea, but again, it makes me wonder what the point of discussion fora is if people get to use them as their personal platforms to expound their own greatness. I was under the impression that's what things like blogs and MySpace were for.

He can't use the forum the way you describe it. He may have blocked other user or maybe he's just ignoring what they're posting. But anyone reading through that topic will see all the replies and how TJump couldn't address any of the arguments.

As for calling other users idiots, coupled with his demands to be treated charitably, it's just funny and exposes how full of himself he is.

edit:

btw, if we're looking for a new banner, "The League of Idiots" is free

How about "League Of Socratic Ignorants"?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

How about "League Of Socratic Ignorants"?

Are you making a request, or was that rhetorical?








I'll find my own way out.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

How about "League Of Socratic Ignorants"?

Are you making a request, or was that rhetorical?








I'll find my own way out.

Just my attempt at witticism.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[australopithecus]

If people are abusing the ignore function then I’ll just remove that option.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

If people are abusing the ignore function then I’ll just remove that option.

Do those who are blocked get notified of same?

If not, then there'd be no means of their knowing, and appealing it if they deem it to be a tactic to ignore valid criticisms of the blocker's position/claims.

Is there an appeal procedure for a perceived misuse of blocking?

If not, perhaps there should be, as there is for bans.

If the above would make things too complicated, then the simplest solution is to remove the option, as you say.

As it is, posters can click on the triangle to alert the Mods of any posts that are offensive, troll-ish, etc.

Kindest regards,

James