New Rule Suggestion

[Lord Pein]

If Phytotron or Spin posts in a topic, the other one is not allowed to post in that topic.

[Slov]

this reminded me of something, I heard this forum has like a "silence" option where you can choose who's posts you don't want to see ... then I took a look around and only saw the "Foe list" - is that the same?

[Z-Man]

Yes. And the two in question have been asked several times to use it, but refused (or click on the 'read anyway' button every time regardless).

I think our current rules are sufficient. They had one or two civilized conversations in the past two months.

[Lord Pein]

[Phytotron]

Yes. And the two in question have been asked several times to use it, but refused....

It disrupts the conversation, in all kinds of ways. Silencing someone in game (and I imagine chatrooms and stuff, IRC) can have the same effect. You end up confused, replying to conversation that wasn't directed at you, seeing dangling comments that seem random and unattached to anything, etc.

In the most recent stupid dust-up, imagine I had INW on ignore. I would have unduly singled-out psy's comment for criticism, when both comments were equally deserving. That's an example in the negative, but I'm sure you can imagine several other examples in the positive. Say, repeating advice, answering a question already answered, simply being confused ("what does that comment relate to?"), whatever else.

Plus, putting someone on ignore won't filter out when others quote them (I assume). So, you end up seeing half their posts, anyway, and potentially selectively quoted, and/or out of context, which is unfair to them.

Not to mention the fact it doesn't actually solve anything. It just makes it one-sided. Putting someone on ignore doesn't make them or their behaviour magically go away, especially in a social context such as a forum that involves many people. If it were a forum of only two people, it would work wonderfully.


In sum, it's a classic case of being good in theory, allows you to appear as though you're a reasonable and righteous arbiter, but is totally unworkable, and potentially counter-productive, in practice (that is, if one wants to actually be able to follow a thread).

[INW]

It is like playing the quiet game with your parent when you get mad with them.

Refusing to talk to them for days on end is counter-productive. Refusing to reply to someone's arguments directly involving [you] is also counter-productive.

[sinewav]

Hmm, I never really thought about that. You're totally right.

[Lord Pein]

It is like playing the quiet game with your parent when you get mad with them.

Refusing to talk to them for days on end is counter-productive. Refusing to reply to someone's arguments directly involving [you] is also counter-productive.

Spin, you broke the rule...

[LucK]

idk i have that dude on my ignore list it seems to be working for me...Well i haven't been banned so I think it's working.

[Mkay1]

I have someone on my foes list, but always read what he says...

[Z-Man]

I have someone on my foes list, but always read what he says...

I had you on my foe list while you had your stupid phase and that didn't hurt my understanding of other posts one bit. The location of your foes' posts are still displayed and you can still read them if you suspect you're missing essential parts of the conversation.

[FFIIXXIITT]

.