Foe function...

[Deleted member 619]

Has a good enough case been made for disabling it yet? Pretty please?

 

[BrainBlow]

wat

 

[Deleted member 619]

Read the two concurrent threads in the Cretinism & IDiocy forum with the King of the Slavs for more info.

 

[BrainBlow]

I have no idea what the "foe function" is or what it does.

 

[Darkchilde]

Has a good enough case been made for disabling it yet? Pretty please?

I totally agree.

I have never seen any argument that has convinced me that it is useful as a function. I have my own ignore, and it's called "scrolling".

 

[televator]

Whaaa....? We have an ignore function?

 

[Prolescum]

So you want the ignore function removed because... someone's ignoring you?

What, beyond the above, are your reasons for wanting this function removed?

 

[Squawk]

I'm in two minds on this, gonna ponder it some more.

I think it speaks volumes about someone when their chosen form of rebuttal is to ignore the other person, however.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm trying to think if there is any way to salvage the function.

Perhaps we could make this something that you have to appeal a mod to do? i.e. "I don't much care for hackenslash's delightfully foul mouth, I would like you to make it so that I can no longer see his wonderful posts." Then we decide if your request is reasonable.

Or perhaps we could limit the function to one or two uses?

Or perhaps we could put a time limit on it? Say a few days to act as a cool of period to prevent flamewars?

Any of this sound like a reasonable alternative?

 

[Prolescum]

I'm in two minds on this, gonna ponder it some more.

I think it speaks volumes about someone when their chosen form of rebuttal is to follow the oft-given advice of the moderators.

Fixed.

Telling us on the one hand to use a function when we bump into a brick wall and then looking down upon us when we do is... well, I'll let you finish that sentence.


I am of the view that if this system's being abused by someone, do something about the person; put them on ignore and you no longer need to untwist your knickers every time you log out.

 

[Memeticemetic]

I don't think the actions of one user who has taken pains not to become a member of our little community should influence how we view any feature of the forum. The user in question liberally ignores vast swatches of text in even the posts from users he doesn't have on his foe list, so there really isn't much reason to think that removing the option would change the nature of his discourse.

We want to encourage free speech, no? Well, the freedom to ignore whomsoever you choose should be an integral part of that freedom, in my humble opinion. I'll consider you cowardly for doing so, of course, but I don't support removing that option.

 

[Squawk]

I'm in two minds on this, gonna ponder it some more.

I think it speaks volumes about someone when their chosen form of rebuttal is to follow the oft-given advice of the moderators.

Fixed.

Telling us on the one hand to use a function when we bump into a brick wall and then looking down upon us when we do is... well, I'll let you finish that sentence.


I am of the view that if this system's being abused by someone, do something about the person; put them on ignore and you no longer need to untwist your knickers every time you log out.

Grrr ;-)

I don't actually see these as the same issue. The ignore function can be used to resolve a dispute between two users. It can also be used as a tool of sorts to attempt to provoke. The latter is clearly not the intended function. Whilst I advocate the use of the ignore function in some instances, there are times when it's use is not appropriate. That's why I'm pondering

 

[borrofburi]

I'll come out in support of it... as I have before. I don't feel like re-typing why I value it yet again though... Wait I remember where:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=103766#p103766


Rargh... where's joe when I need him? He'd defend it...

 

[Prolescum]

Grrr ;-)

I don't actually see these as the same issue. The ignore function can be used to resolve a dispute between two users. It can also be used as a tool of sorts to attempt to provoke. The latter is clearly not the intended function.

All types of formatting (for that's pretty much how I view it) can be used as a tool of sorts to attempt to provoke, despite its intended function. Unless you want to get rid of the large fonts and the coloured text too. I can't say that's much of a reason to get rid of it, personally.

I'm only saying that a valid reason for its removal hasn't been given, and it's a mite premature to start the 'how can we salvage this function' conversation; I think it should just be left as-is.
I get the impression that it's generally used to ignore those you find unbearable (for whatever reason) and not generally in the use case described, uncharacteristically briefly, by Hackenslash.

Whilst I advocate the use of the ignore function in some instances, there are times when it's use is not appropriate. That's why I'm pondering

Sorry old friend, but I don't see this once-in-a-blue-moon event as indicative of a flaw in the function. A screwdriver can also serve as a stabby weapon.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

I, too, will support the disabling of the ignore function.

It seems to me not to solve any problems, and probably would be used more by people like our current Tsar to just avoid having to hear interesting sides of an argument.

I don't think we need the ignore feature when the scroll bar works just as well. It's not like people, like the Tsar, are going to have their actions influenced by it's being enabled anyway.

All purely IMHO of course.

 

[borrofburi]

I'm taking my own personal stance... Just figured I'd make that clear before I got a little bit argumentative.

It seems to me not to solve any problems, and probably would be used more by people like our current Tsar to just avoid having to hear interesting sides of an argument.

emphasis mine

Err... we've been around for a while now (2 years), and this seems to be the first time (and perhaps his use of ignore is the reason he's managed to keep from talking about how darwin was a horse rapist, as he eventually did on ratskep)... So how do you back up your assertion of "probably would be"?

I don't think we need the ignore feature when the scroll bar works just as well. It's not like people, like the Tsar, are going to have their actions influenced by it's being enabled anyway.

Exactly, Tsar won't change by disabling the feature (well, at least not for the better), so why should he affect our decision?

 

[Gnug215]

I can see the arguments for dropping it.

Summed up, they are: Tsar.

And well... Tsar is not a good argument in any way. For anything.

I've had a lot of fun reading all the posts that I knew he couldn't read. He's only shot himself in the foot (yet again) with this.

Now, as to the reasons why we should keep it: chemistry.

Some people will just always shoot past each other, and there is nothing to be done about it, really. I doubt many here would actually ignore someone who because they made good points that invalidated their own positions. No, they'd do it because the communication between the two parties has failed, pure and simple.
And to that end, it is a nice and simple solution. It saves all of us from a lot of silly and emotional clashes.

So I say we keep it.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

... So how do you back up your assertion of "probably would be"?

It was baseless.

All purely IMHO of course.

If indeed Tsar is the first example on this forum of someone using the ignore feature just to avoid being shown to be incorrect, (and it's difficult to imagine he's the first creationist/flat-earther/geocentrist/whatever to be on this board), then my assertion isn't very well supported. I'll retract it.

Exactly, Tsar won't change by disabling the feature (well, at least not for the better), so why should he affect our decision?

I think one could use Tsar's unwillingness to change as an argument to support both sides of the issue. "If it doesn't make a difference, why have it?" vs. "If it doesn't make a difference, why remove it?" I suppose it then just boils down to personal preference.

 

[lrkun]

The foe function should remain as is since tsar can choose not to reply to any post that he reads, and we can't compel him to reply.

 

[Andiferous]

Grrr ;-)

I don't actually see these as the same issue. The ignore function can be used to resolve a dispute between two users. It can also be used as a tool of sorts to attempt to provoke. The latter is clearly not the intended function.

All types of formatting (for that's pretty much how I view it) can be used as a tool of sorts to attempt to provoke, despite its intended function. Unless you want to get rid of the large fonts and the coloured text too. I can't say that's much of a reason to get rid of it, personally.

I'm only saying that a valid reason for its removal hasn't been given, and it's a mite premature to start the 'how can we salvage this function' conversation; I think it should just be left as-is.
I get the impression that it's generally used to ignore those you find unbearable (for whatever reason) and not generally in the use case described, uncharacteristically briefly, by Hackenslash.

Whilst I advocate the use of the ignore function in some instances, there are times when it's use is not appropriate. That's why I'm pondering

Sorry old friend, but I don't see this once-in-a-blue-moon event as indicative of a flaw in the function. A screwdriver can also serve as a stabby weapon.

I completely agree, and with little ground except to repeat the idea that if a person ignoring another can be targetted for making a ruckess, so can responses to someone ignoring you be 3X that same ruckess (with inflation). Ultimately, Ignore is the ability to avoid confrontation and conflict. To destroy that option is to invite both of those evil C's, and as such, and with that apparent direction, I can't speak to your psychological profile.

Unless to create conflict is our goal, in which sense I might be completely off base.