Removing quotes from people on ignore

[straight_stewie]

2 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

For starters, this says that you don't understand what freedom of expressions means.

I must respectfully disagree.

 

I believe that if a person must think before they speak for fear of retaliation from an authority, however slight, then that person has no freedom of expression under that authority.

 

That definition necessitates that any speech is acceptable, and doesn't allow for restrictions on anything including slander/libel.

 

I understand that this is not a widely accepted understanding, but I would argue that it should be, for without the ability to speak without restriction, one doesn't have the ability to think without restriction.

 

One key component of this perspective is that an individual should have the right to moderate what speach they consume. Hence why I am in support of strengthening the forums content blocking features.

 

I also understand that there are some significant challenges to implementing a strong blocking feature on this forum, the most difficult of which stem from how threads and their replies are conceptually organized, and that these problems may not actually have any good solutions. 

[TempestCatto]

5 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Ignore is ignore. Literally. It only hides ignored persons posts etc. Blocking doesn't sound very useful. If you aren't comfortable with your posts being public, don't post them.

I respectfully disagree. I have a particular user blocked, because they're the kind of person to always try and one up you. They always have to go against what you're saying, even if you're agreeing with them. I got sick and tired of this user so I wanted to outright block them, so they don't see my posts and continue their "story telling". That is why an outright block feature is better than "auto hide a user's posts". Because they can still see what I post and still try and come up with a story that's better than mine, a more hardcore use case than mine, or tell me how wrong I am with a backstory that's meaningless at best.

[LogicalDrm]

17 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

I respectfully disagree.

That sounds bit more case of internet bullying if person is coming after you, but doesn't do it constantly and to everyone else too. In which case thats just part of their personality, and we have bit limited ways to deal with it.

[flashiling]

any update on the state of my request?

[LogicalDrm]

1 hour ago, flashiling said:

any update on the state of my request?

colonel_mortis will reply when he has time for it. If this is easy fix, then it will be done with next update. But if its something with IPS software, then it must be made for IPS. And they might or might not deal with it.

[Mark Kaine]

On 12/17/2019 at 1:25 PM, LogicalDrm said:

You know this for fact? AFAIK this has not been suggested, so unless you know for a fact that IPS isn't going to change things...

 

On 12/18/2019 at 12:49 PM, LogicalDrm said:

Yeah, meaning that system has problems. Like I said earlier, I haven't used that feature even before accepting moderator position. My view of the world is that I can just skip over, block my eyes and ears to ignore. I don't need some block of code for it. Same goes the other way around. If I'm not comfortable of people reading what I write, I don't post it publicly.

 

Heh,  I'm envious... I can't do that at all,  there's just a certain type of posters I can't deal with at all so I just block them  *after some evaluation*  I simply don't want their info and I can't block them "virtually" I'll still see at least parts of their posts while skimming... 

 

BUT, I really like the feature that you can still see their posts if you want to so they're not completely blocked - I think it's really good and sometimes helps to know the context of how a thread is developing. 

 

However,  I also think it's dumb that you can still see their posts in full if someone quotes them and you can also see threads they made *including* headlines, in which case I'm wondering why they're even blocked aka,  why it doesn't block that also... I imagine the last issue might be hard to fix,  but that you see the posts if someone quotes them should probably be any easy fix - it should just collapse like it does with normal posts?? 

 

 

PS: I want to emphasize I think it's really clever you can still see that someone on ignore has posted, just a collapsed version - I kinda think this helps keeping up a friendly atmosphere -  if that makes sense - it simply avoids posting things out of context or at least helps with that,  so I rather have no change than losing that feature outright,  but I do think it could be fixed though without losing the ability of seeing someone on ignore *did* post.

[Mark Kaine]

On 12/18/2019 at 3:09 PM, straight_stewie said:

I believe that if a person must think before they speak for fear of retaliation from an authority, however slight, then that person has no freedom of expression under that authority.

 

That definition necessitates that any speech is acceptable, and doesn't allow for restrictions on anything including slander/libel.

Yeah, but that is not how forums work - you can't just let everyone run wild and post whatever they think... it would only end up in chaos - this is an inherent problem of how the Internet works, because there are no physical consequences, that's how trolls were created - they would *never* act or say the things they say irl in fear of (rightful or not) retaliation - but hiding behind a screen is easy and "muh free speech" a wonderful excuse to act like the biggest jerk ever... 

 

Hence it's usually not tolerated and why rules exist.  And most forums have very huge issues because of how rules are enforced / interpreted / and often one sided used, often to push a political agenda of the forum owner(s) which results in high toxicity between users / and also moderators - something this forum (LTT) doesn't really have luckily and for the most part successfully avoids (there's the specific issue of political subjects masked as "tech news" I've noticed,  but it's often a very fine line and usually is dealt with swiftly, and dare I say cleverly by the mods) 

 

So, no, there is no "free speech" on the Internet and that's a good thing in almost all instances. 

 

[colonel_mortis]

It makes sense, but it would be very difficult for us to implement and fairly difficult for IPS to implement, because of the way that quotes work. It could totally be done as a user script if someone wants to write one, but you would probably need to track ignored users separately (please don't try to load the user's ignore list from the server on every page load - it would work, but I would be sad).

[AngryBeaver]

On 12/18/2019 at 8:09 AM, straight_stewie said:

I must respectfully disagree.

 

I believe that if a person must think before they speak for fear of retaliation from an authority, however slight, then that person has no freedom of expression under that authority.

 

That definition necessitates that any speech is acceptable, and doesn't allow for restrictions on anything including slander/libel.

 

I understand that this is not a widely accepted understanding, but I would argue that it should be, for without the ability to speak without restriction, one doesn't have the ability to think without restriction.

 

One key component of this perspective is that an individual should have the right to moderate what speach they consume. Hence why I am in support of strengthening the forums content blocking features.

 

I also understand that there are some significant challenges to implementing a strong blocking feature on this forum, the most difficult of which stem from how threads and their replies are conceptually organized, and that these problems may not actually have any good solutions. 

Just so you know Freedom of speech ONLY offers protection from government entities. So any private party or forum can do whatever they darn well please about it. If you say something they do not like this is THEIR space and they can delete it. They also have the right to ban or remove you for whatever reason or no reason.

 

So you need to understand that while you can say anything you want on these forums without fear of the police kicking in your door... you also have to pay the consequences for what you say if it is not something they want on these forums.

[straight_stewie]

43 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

Just so you know Freedom of speech ONLY offers protection from government entities. So any private party or forum can do whatever they darn well please about it. If you say something they do not like this is THEIR space and they can delete it. They also have the right to ban or remove you for whatever reason or no reason.

This is very very off topic, but why do people always think that because I'm willing to discuss how things should be that I don't understand how they are?

[TempestCatto]

1 hour ago, colonel_mortis said:

It makes sense, but it would be very difficult for us to implement and fairly difficult for IPS to implement, because of the way that quotes work. It could totally be done as a user script if someone wants to write one, but you would probably need to track ignored users separately (please don't try to load the user's ignore list from the server on every page load - it would work, but I would be sad).

What about making it so ignored users cant see content that i post?

[RonnieOP]

On 12/18/2019 at 9:32 AM, TempestCatto said:

I respectfully disagree. I have a particular user blocked, because they're the kind of person to always try and one up you. They always have to go against what you're saying, even if you're agreeing with them. I got sick and tired of this user so I wanted to outright block them, so they don't see my posts and continue their "story telling". That is why an outright block feature is better than "auto hide a user's posts". Because they can still see what I post and still try and come up with a story that's better than mine, a more hardcore use case than mine, or tell me how wrong I am with a backstory that's meaningless at best.

I mean you could just ignore them. A person cant have an argument with someone else if the other person isnt engaging.

 

Ive never used the ignore/block feature on any sort of forum so im not sure how any of it works tbh. But I have completely ignored other users post and carried on the convo with the others in the thread. Im sure people have dont it to me as well.

 

I can understand wanting the ignore feature. but if you want your posts blocked thats going to make a pretty crappy discussion thread for people.

 

What happens when someone quotes you and replies? does the user you have blocked only see the reply, the quote, or none of it?

 

I agree with the mod. If you are worried about what you are posting on the internet just dont post it.

[straight_stewie]

9 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

What happens when someone quotes you and replies? does the user you have blocked only see the reply, the quote, or none of it?

That's one of the key issues in implementing a good blocking feature. I believe that IT largely stems from how threads are hierarchically organized.

For example, we can conceptualize the way that forums work with a tree. There are two well known types of organization that forums usually take.

• This forums style
  • A new thread is the root of the tree.
  • The first post and all posts following are direct children of the root node.
  • This yields an n-tree that has zero based depth of at most 1.
• Big Blue Style
  • A new thread (here called a "post") is the root of the tree.
  • All new posts (here called "comments") are either children of the root or children of at most one other child node.
  • This yields an n-tree that has zero based depth of at most 2.

For an example of the differences between the two: In Big Blue it is trivial to implement a feature that blocks a given user and all of the comments to that given user: You can just remove that users nodes from the tree, and then it is not possible for a user to access the replies to that node (the "replies" to a given "comment"). But it would only be possible to take this flexible approach if there existed some function which translated this forums style to Big Blues style.

There might possibly be a function which can translate this forums style into big blue style, but I cannot come up with one that can handle every case of quoting or tagging. Until someone derives one such function, they cannot claim that the two styles are identical and therefore, they cannot claim that there exists some solution to give this forum Big Blue style user blocking features, nor can they develop one that yields identical functionality.

 

It could be important to note that Big Blue handles the tagging of a blocked user by an unblocked user by simply making the tags plain text instead of a link to that user.
 

One possible solution to quoting could be to treat a post from an unblocked user that quotes a blocked users post as a child of the original posts node. However, this assumption yields a directed possibly cyclical graph of posts rather than the required n-tree with zero based depth of at most 2.

 

While I am in full support of stronger blocking features, I recognize that it may not be possible to do any better until a function that can translate a this forums tree into a Big Blues forum tree is derived.

 

 

NOTES: I find the relation to Big Blues blocking features necessary to discuss because that is the only forum on which I have ever seen truly powerful and well thought out user blocking features and user blocking features are tightly coupled to the organization of a forums threads and replies to threads.

 

 

[TempestCatto]

10 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

I mean you could just ignore them. A person cant have an argument with someone else if the other person isnt engaging.

How can i do that? When i post something they see it and have to belittle me and make up some bogus story as to why im wrong and theyre right. The whole point of my post earlier is that i dont want that user to see me because of that. Theres no way to do this right now, and i cant stand it. I try and post something, whether adding to conversation or trying to be helpful, and this subhuman comes along and makes up a convincing enough story to turn the whole damn thread on me. 

 

10 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

I agree with the mod. If you are worried about what you are posting on the internet just dont post it.

Negitive. Im trying to be helpful here, not post nudes. I post something in relevance to a problem some is having and instead i get shit on for being wrong. 

[RonnieOP]

25 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

How can i do that? When i post something they see it and have to belittle me and make up some bogus story as to why im wrong and theyre right. The whole point of my post earlier is that i dont want that user to see me because of that. Theres no way to do this right now, and i cant stand it. I try and post something, whether adding to conversation or trying to be helpful, and this subhuman comes along and makes up a convincing enough story to turn the whole damn thread on me. 

 

Negitive. Im trying to be helpful here, not post nudes. I post something in relevance to a problem some is having and instead i get shit on for being wrong. 

"How do i do that?".

 

Pretty simple. Ignore them. Talk to the other users in the thread but refuse to engage with them.

 

If a person chooses to believe them over you and you are right thats on them. Not you. 

 

Like the old saying goes "you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink".

 

If your giving good advice and someone else is giving bad advice and user pick the bad advice thats on them. They have to deal with whatever issues arrive from them taking the bad advice.

 

Your doing your part by giving your input. How others take that info is on them and no longer your issue. 

 

[LogicalDrm]

If I weren't clear earlier, if there are users on forum who target you with their posts, whatever the content or style, including reaction spam, this can be ruled as internet bullying and should be reported. Moderators aren't able to follow everything happening and rely strongly on reported content. Bullying is never tolerated.

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, TempestCatto said:

How can i do that? When i post something they see it and have to belittle me and make up some bogus story as to why im wrong and theyre right. The whole point of my post earlier is that i dont want that user to see me because of that. Theres no way to do this right now, and i cant stand it. I try and post something, whether adding to conversation or trying to be helpful, and this subhuman comes along and makes up a convincing enough story to turn the whole damn thread on me. 

If its always the same user(s) as already has been pointed out, report them. 

 

 

This is also why it's *very* good we can still see that someone on ignore has posted something, so if you think it's suspicious you can actually check. 

 

And while I understand you want a complete block,  maybe you can also understand that is not how forums work, it would end up in pretty chaotic threads ,  and ultimately a very unfriendly atmosphere when everyone has everyone on "block".

 

 

That's what Twitter is for,  not forums where actual content is posted and conversations are encouraged, and not just a meme collection.