The forum, its present and its future

digitalscream

Chalky said:

Ha! Now that Drew's coming back, any other member can act like a right tosser and rightfully claim the "Well you let Drew return!" defence.  And if you don't let them off they will quite rightfully claim bias.  Your only truthful response will be "Well we need Drew but don't need you".  So much for egality and integrity?

No.

Handsome_Chris

@Chalky has a point.  I think in line with that the offended member should get their subscriptions refunded.

Roland

Handsome_Chris said:

@Chalky has a point.  

No he hasn’t. He’s just mis-portraying what @digitalscream has said. We all make mistakes at times, for which there is a path back. However people who intentionally cause trouble may find that path somewhat longer.

octatonic

Roland said:

Handsome_Chris said:

@Chalky has a point.  

No he hasn’t. He’s just mis-portraying what @digitalscream has said. We all make mistakes at times, for which there is a path back. However people who intentionally cause trouble may find that path somewhat longer.

Pretty sure Chris was joking.

Roland

I know he was, but these jokes can easily get misread, and it was my opportunity to reinforce the point.

Strangefan

Roland said:

I know he was, but these jokes can easily get misread, and it was my opportunity to reinforce the point.






What a daft post..... Its 100% clear Chris was joking...... you're like the forum moderation  bot, 

monquixote

Strangefan said:

Roland said:

I know he was, but these jokes can easily get misread, and it was my opportunity to reinforce the point.






What a daft post..... Its 100% clear Chris was joking...... you're like the forum moderation  bot, 

Aaaand this sort of shit is why all the mods quit.

Emp_Fab

@digitalscream ;;  The only real suggestion I have for the new software is an 'ignore' function that really does ignore. - i.e. if A has B on ignore, A cannot see any posts by B.  A cannot even see that a post has been made by B (so no ability to click on their semi-hidden post to read it), and all quotes of B's posts by other people are invisible to A.

If you want to ignore someone's output, it should mean exactly that - you cannot see it at all - and the only way to see it is to un-ignore them again.

I have no current desire to ignore anyone but a proper, comprehensive ignore function would go a long way to keeping the peace in future.

The existing system is akin to two drunks arguing in the street, and then being separated by a police officer - but you can still see his lips move and his friends are also quoting what he just said !  

digitalscream

Emp_Fab said:

@digitalscream ;;  The only real suggestion I have for the new software is an 'ignore' function that really does ignore. - i.e. if A has B on ignore, A cannot see any posts by B.  A cannot even see that a post has been made by B (so no ability to click on their semi-hidden post to read it), and all quotes of B's posts by other people are invisible to A.

If you want to ignore someone's output, it should mean exactly that - you cannot see it at all - and the only way to see it is to un-ignore them again.

I have no current desire to ignore anyone but a proper, comprehensive ignore function would go a long way to keeping the peace in future.

The existing system is akin to two drunks arguing in the street, and then being separated by a police officer - but you can still see his lips move and his friends are also quoting what he just said !  

Yep, it's a good call and I've already got some ideas on that. Ignoring quotes is somewhat harder - what do you do when somebody you're not ignoring quotes someone you are? Hide their post too? Just hide the quote, thus removing the context from it?

My current thinking is that there will be two levels to the ignore function - first is "Hide their posts, but let me see them if I really want to", pretty much as it works here (but having hopefully solved the quote issue), and the second is "Don't let me know they even exist". The latter will even hide threads that they've started, I think.

Nobody, however, will be able to ignore admins or moderators.

Strangefan

monquixote said:

Strangefan said:

Roland said:

I know he was, but these jokes can easily get misread, and it was my opportunity to reinforce the point.






What a daft post..... Its 100% clear Chris was joking...... you're like the forum moderation  bot, 

Aaaand this sort of shit is why all the mods quit.

Mods quit because of being called a bot or something else just as delicate.... Please if that's offends you then moderation is not for you  

fendergibson

I love a lively thread.

Give Peace a Chance/Season of Goodwill and all that. 

If only I could find the threads where the mysterious Drew offended everyone I’d be a truly happy man. Beats playing my guitar any day of the week 

mrkb

digitalscream said:

Emp_Fab said:

@digitalscream ;;  The only real suggestion I have for the new software is an 'ignore' function that really does ignore. - i.e. if A has B on ignore, A cannot see any posts by B.  A cannot even see that a post has been made by B (so no ability to click on their semi-hidden post to read it), and all quotes of B's posts by other people are invisible to A.

If you want to ignore someone's output, it should mean exactly that - you cannot see it at all - and the only way to see it is to un-ignore them again.

I have no current desire to ignore anyone but a proper, comprehensive ignore function would go a long way to keeping the peace in future.

The existing system is akin to two drunks arguing in the street, and then being separated by a police officer - but you can still see his lips move and his friends are also quoting what he just said !  

Yep, it's a good call and I've already got some ideas on that. Ignoring quotes is somewhat harder - what do you do when somebody you're not ignoring quotes someone you are? Hide their post too? Just hide the quote, thus removing the context from it?

My current thinking is that there will be two levels to the ignore function - first is "Hide their posts, but let me see them if I really want to", pretty much as it works here (but having hopefully solved the quote issue), and the second is "Don't let me know they even exist". The latter will even hide threads that they've started, I think.

Nobody, however, will be able to ignore admins or moderators.

Would it be possible to stop anyone you are ignoring quoting your posts (or even inserting your user name) as well. That would stop the petty bullying and people jumping into other posts to keep up an argument.

Emp_Fab

digitalscream said:
Ignoring quotes is somewhat harder - what do you do when somebody you're not ignoring quotes someone you are? Hide their post too? Just hide the quote, thus removing the context from it?

Yes.  If you're not interested in what B has to say then you're not interested - whether it is quoted by C or not, and irrespective of whether what C is saying loses its context.  It would be folly to consider the loss of context in the odd post important enough to allow holes in the dyke, so to speak.  When the object is to keep the fire extinguished, you don't want any holes in the wall that sparks can get through.  You could keep a placemarker in there that just says [ignored quote] or something so it doesn't look like the person is nuts and talking to themselves though!

I see zero value in a "Hide their posts, but let me see them if I really want to" system.  That's no different from a self-imposed "I'll skip over that post and not read it" approach.  It's human nature to look.  It's more frustrating half the time to fight with your urge to read what they've written than it would be to read it anyway.  I have plenty of experience in this field !

digitalscream

Emp_Fab said:

I see zero value in a "Hide their posts, but let me see them if I really want to" system.  That's no different from a self-imposed "I'll skip over that post and not read it" approach.  It's human nature to look.  It's more frustrating half the time to fight with your urge to read what they've written than it would be to read it anyway.  I have plenty of experience in this field !

Heh...well, the idea is that - unless it's stuff that plain doesn't work - I don't want to take any functionality away. However, what I may do is just build the "absolute ignore" and see if anybody wants the "kinda ignore" for a later release.

digitalscream

mrkb said:

digitalscream said:

Emp_Fab said:

@digitalscream ;;  The only real suggestion I have for the new software is an 'ignore' function that really does ignore. - i.e. if A has B on ignore, A cannot see any posts by B.  A cannot even see that a post has been made by B (so no ability to click on their semi-hidden post to read it), and all quotes of B's posts by other people are invisible to A.

If you want to ignore someone's output, it should mean exactly that - you cannot see it at all - and the only way to see it is to un-ignore them again.

I have no current desire to ignore anyone but a proper, comprehensive ignore function would go a long way to keeping the peace in future.

The existing system is akin to two drunks arguing in the street, and then being separated by a police officer - but you can still see his lips move and his friends are also quoting what he just said !  

Yep, it's a good call and I've already got some ideas on that. Ignoring quotes is somewhat harder - what do you do when somebody you're not ignoring quotes someone you are? Hide their post too? Just hide the quote, thus removing the context from it?

My current thinking is that there will be two levels to the ignore function - first is "Hide their posts, but let me see them if I really want to", pretty much as it works here (but having hopefully solved the quote issue), and the second is "Don't let me know they even exist". The latter will even hide threads that they've started, I think.

Nobody, however, will be able to ignore admins or moderators.

Would it be possible to stop anyone you are ignoring quoting your posts (or even inserting your user name) as well. That would stop the petty bullying and people jumping into other posts to keep up an argument.

I'm not sure that has value, and there are logical problems with it. Also, it effectively reveals who's ignoring you, which could cause more problems than it solves.

duotone

Just thinking aloud but could there be a new sub forum for stuff like the Guitarist Quarterly? Basically anything that has a cost to it, sometimes when it's mixed in with the rest of Off Topic it gets a bit 'heated' especially when deadlines/promises arent met.

monquixote

Strangefan said:

monquixote said:

Strangefan said:

Roland said:

I know he was, but these jokes can easily get misread, and it was my opportunity to reinforce the point.






What a daft post..... Its 100% clear Chris was joking...... you're like the forum moderation  bot, 

Aaaand this sort of shit is why all the mods quit.

Mods quit because of being called a bot or something else just as delicate.... Please if that's offends you then moderation is not for you  

Not one instance no.

When you give up your Sunday for unpaid public service and you get needled again and again over months you eventually think fuck it. Given that 3 of the 4 mods have quit it seems moderation is not for most people.

Sporky

mrkb said:

Would it be possible to stop anyone you are ignoring quoting your posts (or even inserting your user name) as well. That would stop the petty bullying and people jumping into other posts to keep up an argument.

I think that's a bit iffy - it turns it from enabling you to ignore them, into you having control over what they can post. 

digitalscream

Sporky said:

mrkb said:

Would it be possible to stop anyone you are ignoring quoting your posts (or even inserting your user name) as well. That would stop the petty bullying and people jumping into other posts to keep up an argument.

I think that's a bit iffy - it turns it from enabling you to ignore them, into you having control over what they can post. 

And the corollary to that is that no non-moderator should ever be able to control what somebody else sees or posts on here. That's pretty much a given, IMO.

Bridgehouse

You will never get consensus on what functionality to have and what to implement/not implement. You’ll not get consensus on moderation, themes, rules or pretty much anything. 

But, when it’s a free to use forum run by volunteers then it should be down to the people who put the hard hours of graft in to decide what and where and how. I’m sure @digitalscream has more than enough experience of what works/doesn’t work here now to put together an iteration of forum software that is much better than it is now. It will never please everyone all the time.. but as a free to use forum we have the choice to use it and get the most we can out of it, or not use it. Simples.