h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm all for an ignore button.

Can I have one to use in real life, too, please?

Well...

I (sort of) like the compromise because it's your 'private' space you're protrecting.

I am against a 'global' ignore button as it will not cure any problem. It will only work as an 'ostrich strategy'.

Also (on the Joe vs Frank topic), if everyone except Frank sees Joe (that was the bad guy, wasn't it?) chances are that people will get to hear only Joe's side of the story. Frank will not have the chance to set the matters straight.

so:

(a) Protect your personal space as the löast place you can retreat and be left in peace: good

(b) You don't solve problems by ignoring them: bad

Also:

You can still unsubscribe from a conversation if matters get hot

This kind of thing (stalking, being annoying) happens but is not too common (IMO, correct me if I am wrong) on hootoo, to justify such an intervention. These cases could (IMO) still be dealt with on an individual basis. If there is a *real* problem go cry to the Volunteers, and then to the Powers.


HELL

I see your point Mikey, but I'm still not certain that an ignore button is necessary.

*retains seat on fence*

i'm of the opinion that the yikes works pretty well...if it works don't fix it

Others don't agree, obviously.

if they did i guess this thread would not exist and be ignored

Do we know of researchers who have had unsatisfactory results via the yikes button?

I think we need solid proof that the methods in place do not work before a new method is introduced.

I do appreciate that I keep changing my mind over this feature. But I've a niggling feeling that this isn't quite right for the guide (in my opinion at least)

Traveller in Time read the thread from the beginning
"It appears to be 'mina', as ex-staff, I can hardly call her an ordinary Researcher.
For what I understand there is/are some Researchers nagging her enough for her to try to ignore them.

I have not any really bad experience on this site, sometimes there are serious disputes, but until now always managed to settle the situation. "

I think I explained pretty clearly in one of my posts above why the yikes system isn't the solution to every problem -- and yes, there are quite a few people here on h2g2 for whom the yikes button has not been an effective solution. I would guess that most of those involved in the 'Della wars' would fall into that category, as would those involved with all the similar thread wars we've had over the last 5 years (to trigger people's memories, the ones that most suddenly pop to mind are a few involving Hoo and different people, and then Playboy, and then about a year or two ago we have a spate of them - the ACEs would probably remember the names better than I.

I'm also a bit confused by some of Hell's comments:

"Also (on the Joe vs Frank topic), if everyone except Frank sees Joe (that was the bad guy, wasn't it?) chances are that people will get to hear only Joe's side of the story. Frank will not have the chance to set the matters straight."

That seems quite unlikely, and has never been a problem on the sites I use that have an ignore function. Usually, by the time someone toggles the ignore on, the argument has been going on long enough that those around them are all too aware of both sides of the story. And again, even if this does happen, the Frank here may still feel that there's a net benefit for him, that the advantages of using ignore outweigh the disadvantages for him, in that specific situation and time.

"(b) You don't solve problems by ignoring them: bad"

By no means a universal truth. By and large, the cases in which an 'ignore' function is used are situations in which someone is only prodding and taunting to get a response and attention. Ignoring them denies them those 'rewards', and the problem does indeed stop far more quickly than if the interaction and escalation continued. There's a reason mothers everywhere tell their children to try ignoring those who tease them, and to not let the teasers see them get upset about it -- because it often works.

"You can still unsubscribe from a conversation if matters get hot"

This punishes the person who's being attacked, so I don't get why this would be a better solution. If I have several convos going on with my friends here, why should I need to unsubscribe because someone is trying to be nasty to me everywhere I go on hootoo?

"These cases could (IMO) still be dealt with on an individual basis. If there is a *real* problem go cry to the Volunteers, and then to the Powers."

The Italics have made it repeatedly clear that this sort of problem takes up *far* too much of their time as it is. And volunteer involvement in these problems in the past has largely exacerbated the problem rather than fixing things, I'm afraid. We've had more than a few cases where volunteers have taken it upon themselves to then 'stalk' the individual they see as the aggressor in return -- definitely not something most of us would see as good for the site.

No one is saying that this solution would fix everything. But as another tool in the toolbox, I do think it would be useful, I do think it could potentially save significant Italic time in the long run, and I do think it could reduce the number of thread wars that disrupt others enjoyment of the site.

I have to say that my initial response to being harassed over the Hoo problem was to simply tell him to **** off and die. However, this would have got me moderated. So I had to go and yikes each one of his postings I found offensive. So he got theatened with pre-mod (not just over this, I suspect), and then deluged the people who run this site with a torrent of abusive emails, who promptly banned him for a month...

How much cleaner and less irksome simply to ignore people on one's Personal space. It could have prevented this and numerous other incidents in the past, instead of everyhthing having to snowball as it has done now.

still seems rather petty to me

Having had a ponder on this, I think that:

In theory it is a good idea. However, just because I wouldn't be able to see inflammatory comments made about me, doesn't mean that inflammatory comments wouldn't be being made. If someone is abusing me onsite, I want to know about it and I want to do something about it.

I do think that this does go rather against the friendly nature of our community. A complaints procedure is obviously par for the course on an internet site but actually saying up front: you can ignore people who are nasty would make me think that the majority of researchers weren't very friendly. This clearly isn't the case on h2g2.

If this feature were to be introduced I do strongly feel that it should be limited to a person's PS.

I think we should perhaps put this in context. What is the purpose of this site? Broadly speaking, I would say the purpose is to discuss various topics, and to write articles. Now, I guess the whole concept of why an ignore button would be beneficial is based on the fact that discussion can degenerate if two people have a problem with eachother. Would people agree?

One person contended that an ignore button would not counter the reason for the argument in the first place and thus is not useful. I would counter that time, as said Eva Cassidy, is a healer. This is true to an extent, but doesn't go far enough, as people can have long and bitter memories.

Banning or ignoring members from particular conversations would do nothing, as people can just move to another. In the same way, I feel that if one is ignored from your personal space, then they could just end up flaming all the threads you go to.

There are three solutions to this. One, if someone is ignored then they cannot even look at your personal space. This would require ip scanning and banning, which would be unfortunate, and is by no means fullproof. The other would be to do a sitewide ignoring, by either not allowing them to post in the same threads, or not allowing them to see eachothers posts.

The first is undesirable, as it means that if more than one user uses the pc, then they will be banned also. The second is undesirable, as people would be limited in what they could post because of who they ignore/ are ignored by. The third is undesirable because of many aforementioned reasons, as well as the fact that it demotes discussion.

I don't much see the point of an ignore button just on a personal space. Maybe this is because when people have posted something nasty on my PS, I've complained and it's has vanished! Of course, you have to make sure not to reply, because then the thread is stuck there for ever with no subject at the top of it.

It seems more cruel to stop people posting on your PS - I've had spats with people on here before, and eventually one or other of us has gone to the others PS to apologise. Blocking only that comment and leaving all the other stroppiness open to view seems bizarre.

If I've ignored someone and they've come to apologise, then I've got a number of friends on h2g2 who would notice I hadn't replied (because they are on ignore and I hadn't seen it) and let me know that there is an apology there. I imagine most people on h2g2 would have friends who would do this for them.

I agree that we should have to go to a personal space to ignore someone, like we do with adding people to friends. That's the way I've seen it work. I've never seen a limit on the number of people on ignore, but I guess that could work. As long as it wasn't affected by the fact that someone might create multiple accounts to get round that and prevent themselves from being ignored. I can't really see that happening though.

ignorance is bliss

Oh yes... who wouldnt want to be chained to the ground in a cave, only seeing the shadows of invisible actors... bliss...

I'm sorry - have you mistaken this for the fetish thread ?

Unless plato saw enlightenment in orphic forms then I doubt it.

ignore this ,,,,Clive for president>>>