Community Chat

[Cakers3]

---

@SahmIam wrote:

As other have stated, a block feature would do quite a bit to add enjoyment to the board. Blocking someone works VERY well; eventually, the truly obnoxious are blocked by so many that the number of posts they can see dwindle down to VERY few. It's also a sign to the mods that this person has some "issues" that causes a large percentage of members to block them and perhaps, they need to go.

A political board would be great if it meant people would actually stay there regarding that subject. It's also a forum that could get ugly very quickly and cross over to other forums; I've seen that too many times to count on other sites. Then again, once that happens, you can block the person. Sadly, someone that decides to hunt you on other threads will usually start threats about you so.....yeah, it can get ugly.

---

@SahmIam  I'm still confused on this; I asked the following question to another poster who indicated the same thing but she didn't respond.

So let's say I put you on ignore-does that mean you also cannot see my posts?

If a poster has 20 people blocking her, how does that diminish what the blocked poster can see?

My understanding is that you block a poster; you cannot see her post but she can still see yours.

Am I missing something about blocking??

[stevieb]

Less and lighter handed moderation.

[SahmIam]

@Cakers3  How blocking works completely depends on how the function is set up the head person. The version I am familiar with 99% of the time works as follows:

1) Joan is blocked by John

2) Joan can see NONE of posts made by John in another persons' thread and NO thread that is started by John.

3) John can see NON of the posts made by Joan in another person's thread and NO thread that is started by John.

4) If there are 100 people in a forum and 90 of them block Joan, Joan will see a VERY blank page/very few posts in general.

5) Mods can see that Joan is blocked (if it has been set up that way). 

HTH : )

[Cakers3]

---

@SahmIam wrote:

@Cakers3  How blocking works completely depends on how the function is set up the head person. The version I am familiar with 99% of the time works as follows:

1) Joan is blocked by John

2) Joan can see NONE of posts made by John in another persons' thread and NO thread that is started by John.

3) John can see NON of the posts made by Joan in another person's thread and NO thread that is started by John.

4) If there are 100 people in a forum and 90 of them block Joan, Joan will see a VERY blank page/very few posts in general.

5) Mods can see that Joan is blocked (if it has been set up that way). 

HTH : )

---

@SahmIam  Thank you for the reply but I understand that when you block a poster you do not see anything by that poster; either a post, a post in a quote, or the content of a thread started by the blocked poster.  That's a given.

If Joan is blocked by John, it is John who cannot see anything by Joan.

But Joan still sees anything by John; she hasn't blocked John.

This is what I'm trying to say.

If I block you, then I don't see anything posted by you.

But you would still see MY posts.

That's what I was trying to clear up. 

[sidsmom]

At the end of the day, it all weighs on the shoulders of the posters.

Just today a poster, who is trying to be kumbaya with everyone

at this current writing, recognized the OP nickname &

called them out for ‘always’ being negative, etc. etc.  

In fact their short post contained 3 “you(r)” mentions.

Not cool. And of course, the bullying began. And thread shut down.

So predictable....and it had n.o.t.h.i.n.g to do with the original post 

I’ve always said here....

’‘unless you are saying ‘I love you’ or ‘you are great,’

’you’ is rarely used in a positive light...especially in an open forum.’

My suggestion is block out (****) the word ‘you’.

That might defuse the negative action.

[Montana]

I would like a these topics/rules  added to forum Standards:

1. A list describing which actions would result in community members being banned. This is not clear to me.

2. Explain the types of bans, if they exist - posters have mentioned various lengths of time, and of course permanent 

3. Require Moderators to give a reason for removing threads instead of poofing them without explanation.

[Cakers3]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

At the end of the day, it all weighs on the shoulders of the posters.

Just today a poster, who is trying to be kumbaya with everyone

at this current writing, recognized the OP nickname &

called them out for ‘always’ being negative, etc. etc.  

In fact their short post contained 3 “you(r)” mentions.

Not cool. And of course, the bullying began. And thread shut down.

So predictable....and it had n.o.t.h.i.n.g to do with the original post 

I’ve always said here....

’‘unless you are saying ‘I love you’ or ‘you are great,’

’you’ is rarely used in a positive light...especially in an open forum.’

My suggestion is block out (****) the word ‘you’.

That might defuse the negative action.

---

@sidsmom  ???  So if I say "I agree with you" I'm being negative??

I disagree that using the word "you" is negative all the time.  I'd rather be a "you" than a *.   

Am I missing your point?  Wait-am I missing **** point? 

[software]

---

@Q4u wrote:

Yes, an ability to report/ignore those posters who claim ultra sensitivity to all things social yet go after the Original Poster with great intolerance to imply stupidity and ignorance about what the OP originally posted.  All being done without overt anger or breaking posting rules.... invariably the thread becomes a bashing thread beating up the OP and the culprit for instigating it continues on her merry way.....

---

You just described the definition of bullying.

[sidsmom]

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@sidsmom wrote:

At the end of the day, it all weighs on the shoulders of the posters.

Just today a poster, who is trying to be kumbaya with everyone

at this current writing, recognized the OP nickname &

called them out for ‘always’ being negative, etc. etc.  

In fact their short post contained 3 “you(r)” mentions.

Not cool. And of course, the bullying began. And thread shut down.

So predictable....and it had n.o.t.h.i.n.g to do with the original post 

I’ve always said here....

’‘unless you are saying ‘I love you’ or ‘you are great,’

’you’ is rarely used in a positive light...especially in an open forum.’

My suggestion is block out (****) the word ‘you’.

That might defuse the negative action.

---

@sidsmom  ???  So if I say "I agree with you" I'm being negative??

I disagree that using the word "you" is negative all the time.  I'd rather be a "you" than a *.   

Am I missing your point?  Wait-am I missing **** point? 

---

@Cakers3

Somehow eliminating the word ‘you’ makes it less...pointed.

It’s like a written ‘finger pointing you in the chest.’

For instance...and I’m not stretching from what I’ve seen on here:

Ex 1

”You are always posting negative things. Your posts are so mean.’

Ex 2

”*** are always posting negative things. ***r posts are so mean.’

See how the 2nd example loses the punch?

The *** function is easy to implement since we already have it.

Sounds silly....but it might work!

[Sooner]

Blocking.  Most all of the people here are nice to one another.  The few that aren't stir the pot continually.  If we didn't have to see them and endure  being baited and constanty put down by a fewwe wouldn't have the squabbles and hurt feelings brought forth by the mean few. 

Yes, ignore would be wonderful.