NationStates Jolt Archive

So, this is pretty simple. I'm just curious how many of us are ignoring other posters, using the /ignore function of Jolt.

Please don't count posters you are pretty sure are gone and won't be back. It doesn't make much difference whether you're /ignoring them, if they're not posting, right?

So, this thread is really just for the poll. If you like the poll, and are curious as I am, bump the thread with some comment.

Feel free to talk about the use of /ignore
How many posters do you have on /ignore? (Note that the poll is anonymous)
Does it corrupt debate, when some cannot see the posts of others?
Is it malicious to /ignore another poster? Or self-defence?
Should you notify another poster when you put them on /ignore?
Do you put posters on /ignore just for a while, then give them another chance to pollute your screen?

Please, PLEASE, don't use this thread to name people you are /ignoring.
The One-Stop Rules Shop states: Politely informing another nation that you are henceforth using the Jolt "ignore" feature is acceptable, but repeating it in different threads or over long periods is considered gloating. Other cases will be considered on an ad hoc basis.

Putting a whole lot of "I'm ignoring FreakdomAndGlory" posts in one place (this thread) might qualify as "ignore gloating." So let's not do that, huh?

If you don't know what the /ignore function IS, read the first page or so of this thread.

Go vote.

I'm ignoring you.

1. Only one
2. Not in this particular case. The poster in question adds nothing to debate but flamebait and hate-ridden bile.
3. Maybe. It's just an easy way of not reading his crap anymore.
4. You can, but I don't see the point.
5. No.

I don't have anyone on ignore. It's far simpler to ignore people as you go along, and just call bullshit when you're in the mood for some fun:p

So, this is pretty simple. I'm just curious how many of us are ignoring other posters, using the /ignore function of Jolt.Using the ignore function, none. It's not really all that useful in the first place, since all it does is prevent you from reading the post itself. If said post is quoted, you'll be able to read it. I tend to avoid getting into threads that don't interest me or that I feel it's best to stay out of instead.

i'am ignoring two people who posts don't get quoted,

None because if they don't ignore me and my stereotyping as a drunk loud arrogant American then why should I ignore them.

1. About 20, but some of them are different incarnations of the same person.
2. Perhaps, but I don't care.
3. Self-preservation. I don't want to get banned for flaming them.
4. I usually do.
5. Once you're on my ignore list, you're there for eternity. Occasionally, I'll see something one of them wrote because someone else quoted them, and if it's important enough, I'll comment.

1. None.
2. Depends on which posters.
3. Usually self-defence, but not always.
4. No.
5. Everyone deserves a second chance.

In Soviet Russia, Poster ignores YOU!

14. Though one poster is ignored four times on his various puppets. Rest are trolls.

I said I only ignored 3-4, but now that I check, I'm actually ignoring nine... one of which is a puppet of one of the others. Wow.

I don't - and can't - ignore people, on any of my nation accounts. Whenever I see an ignored person posting in a thread I get an overwhelming urge to just click the 'View Post' button to see what they've written. It actually makes it harder to ignore them!

I don't have anybody on /ignore. It seems pointless to me. I know I have enough self-control to not post back or to post back respectfully if I don't like what they're saying. (Or else I get up and walk away. :))

I don't use the Ignore function, I just ignore some posters manually.

<snip>

I used it once to ignore one poster, but not anymore.

None.

Officially, I have no one on ignore. Never have and never will.

Unofficially, I have refused to respond to several posters due to their flaming, or trolling, or when they adopt the attitude that they are God's gift to NSG.

None. It's useless anyway - you still know they've written something, just not what. And you can still see it when people quote.

...or when they adopt the attitude that they are God's gift to NSG.
You... you mean we're not? =(

I've learned that you're all pretty predictable so I've put you all on ignore and post blind to every everyone, I hope some of them are relevant.

I have one on ignore who wont be getting off anytime soon but for the funny I have the mods on ignore along with the temptation to add that asshat Call to Power:p

I went several years without using the ignore cannon on anyone, because I'm all responsible and mature and all that enough to not be provoked into flaming etc.

However, I've started using it recently and I believe I now have about 10 or so posters on my list because I just and simply got weary of their posts. It's rarely posters I disagree with too heavily content-wise, but rather those with such obnoxious posting styles that it sours my mood when I have to wade through their mostly content-free posts in any thread in order to get to the relevant posts of other NSGers.

So far, there's two posters in this thread whose messages have been mercifully hidden from me.

it sours my mood when I have to wade through their mostly content-free posts in any thread in order to get to the relevant posts of other NSGers.

I suppose you can't see this (http://kevin.vox.com/library/post/post.html) then :p

I've got everyone on ignore, including myself. Which explains a lot about my posts, I'm sure you'll all agree.

At least I'm assuming you'll all agree. As I can't see anyone's posts I'll never know.

I suppose you can't see this (http://kevin.vox.com/library/post/post.html) then :p

Let's see.. one of the first things I read in this blog is "Yes, I spend most of my time on Facebook" - you're right.

How many posters do you have on /ignore? (Note that the poll is anonymous)

None.

Does it corrupt debate, when some cannot see the posts of others?

I suppose it would.

Is it malicious to /ignore another poster? Or self-defence?

It's just kind of lame.

Should you notify another poster when you put them on /ignore?

They probably don't care that much.

Do you put posters on /ignore just for a while, then give them another chance to pollute your screen?

No.

So far, there's two posters in this thread whose messages have been mercifully hidden from me.
Ooh! Ooh! Am I one of them?

None, though I should ignore you for using '/ignore'.

Let's see.. one of the first things I read in this blog is "Yes, I spend most of my time on Facebook" - you're right.

well now you know the secret about Cheney what more do you want?

Ooh! Ooh! Am I one of them?

what makes you think your not two?

None, though I should ignore you for using '/ignore'.

I'm sure your request will be /ignored :)

I don't ignore anyone with the ignore function because the ignore function doesn't block out the "quote" feature in this forum. Plus I find it's more amusing to irritate someone by waiting for them to slip up than to just outright ignore them. :):D

Feel free to talk about the use of /ignore
How many posters do you have on /ignore? (Note that the poll is anonymous)
Does it corrupt debate, when some cannot see the posts of others?
Is it malicious to /ignore another poster? Or self-defence?
Should you notify another poster when you put them on /ignore?
Do you put posters on /ignore just for a while, then give them another chance to pollute your screen?



I don't ignore posters. I just wait quietly for them to die.

But seriously, the kinds of posters that would make it onto my ignore list are the kinds of posters that violate a lot of rules and don't last long here anyway, so I keep them off Ignore in case I need to Moderate them.

1. None.
2. Generally improves debate, I think.
3. Self-defense in most cases.
4. Nah.
5. Negatory.

You... you mean we're not? =(

If I am, God has a sick sense of humor. :)

1. One.
2. Not particularly. It seems that, if they're worth debating (and sometimes even if they're not), someone will quote them and the post gets seen anyway.
3. Pretty much self-defense, it keeps me from the temptation of responding to a poster who irritates the Hell out of me and therefore keeps me out of modly trouble.
4. No. I did notify him/her/it, but he/she/it didn't really care.
5. No.

If I am, God has a sick sense of humor. :)Take one look at the duck-billed platypus and then tell me God doesn't have a sick sense of humor =P

Take one look at the duck-billed platypus and then tell me God doesn't have a sick sense of humor =P

I think the location of the human male genitals is proof enough. *nod*

I didn't even know there was an ignore button. But I don't really ignore posters, I tend to ignore threads

I only have 1 poster on official ignore. I have another that I ignore 90% of the time. It's not so much self defense as I'm tired of being flame baited. The mods aren't really in a position to do much about it because it's so on that line of acceptable/bull shit that I hate to bother them with it.

I only have 1 poster on official ignore. I have another that I ignore 90% of the time. It's not so much self defense as I'm tired of being flame baited. The mods aren't really in a position to do much about it because it's so on that line of acceptable/bull shit that I hate to bother them with it.

If it ever dances gleefully across the line, please let us know. :)

I didn't even know there was an ignore button. But I don't really ignore posters, I tend to ignore threads

so you missed all that talking we did about you? ;)

The mods aren't really in a position to do much about it because it's so on that line of acceptable/bull shit that I hate to bother them with it.

but you have like 30,000 posts the odds are you run the forum without even knowing it :p

If it ever dances gleefully across the line, please let us know. :)

I'm unsure if it has or not, like I said it's on ignore. I have seen people respond to things though, but they were nice enough not to quote so I have no clue what the original comment was. I'm pretty sure it wasn't over the line, or it might have gotten reported.

The other one, I think just pisses me off. I'm pretty sure they aren't going to flame me or something.

so you missed all that talking we did about you? ;)

lol, yep

No, I'm not ignoring anyone. Probably because I almost never post.

I'm unsure if it has or not, like I said it's on ignore. I have seen people respond to things though, but they were nice enough not to quote so I have no clue what the original comment was. I'm pretty sure it wasn't over the line, or it might have gotten reported.

The other one, I think just pisses me off. I'm pretty sure they aren't going to flame me or something.

Well I'm glad they were nice enough not to quote. That certainly is handy given the Ignore feature's limitations.

If I am, God has a sick sense of humor. :)

Well thats a given. Anyway, I am god gift to reality and that (vaguely) includes General, so......;)

what makes you think your not two?
True, I did use Splintered for a bit :p

So, this is pretty simple. I'm just curious how many of us are ignoring other posters, using the /ignore function of Jolt.


I don't use the Ignore function. I tried it once to see what it was like and removed that person from the list.

I find it removes and detracts from the thread with signs of "this poster is on ignore" or whatever the message was.

I also hate it becuase sometimes, even trolls can say something amusing.

I've tried...when things have gotten super heated...to ignore posters. But my curiosity gets the best of me. I can't do it. I have to read what they've posted.

So I have no one on ignore, and never will. I've tried and it only made me more curious.

It's my opinion that "ignore" is the last refuge of a coward. It also denies you ammunition.

It's my opinion that "ignore" is the last refuge of a coward. It also denies you ammunition.

I don't agree that it's based in cowardice. Sometimes it really is better to walk away...and yet you shouldn't be forced off the forum simply because you're arguing with one poster.

I think it can provide you with some breathing space, and allow you and the other person to calm down.

Just because I can't do it, doesn't mean that everyone else should be as obsessive as me. :D

Also, TG:)

I don't /ignore anyone. I figure everyone has something to say, and while I may disagree, that's no reason not to hear their arguments.

I see very little point in the ignore function. It amounts to closing one's eyes and clasping hands around one's ears and then assuming that if one cannot see or hear a person, they don't exist. Bloody childish.

It's my opinion that "ignore" is the last refuge of a coward. It also denies you ammunition.I don't agree that it's based in cowardice. Sometimes it really is better to walk away...and yet you shouldn't be forced off the forum simply because you're arguing with one poster.I agree with Sin, and disagree with Int!

I've had times were certain poster's attitudes and what I saw as deliberate ignorance pissed me off so badly I needed a break. I don't think it's cowardice at all, since not engaging in a debate with someone, either by staying away from the forum or using the ignore function, doesn't really mean you're walking away from anything important.

I don't believe in censoring what others wish to say, no matter what it is.

Though, I do have the impression some people have me on ignore, just from their lack of replying to anything I've said. Not sure why they'd have put me on ignore, however.

I agree with Sin, and disagree with Int!

I've had times were certain poster's attitudes and what I saw as deliberate ignorance pissed me off so badly I needed a break. I don't think it's cowardice at all, since not engaging in a debate with someone, either by staying away from the forum or using the ignore function, doesn't really mean you're walking away from anything important.

Yay! Someone start a tally! :D

Often, and I know this isn't the case with Intangelon, the people yelling 'cowardice' are the flame-batey assholes who deliberately attempt to get people kicked off NSG by pursuing them from thread to thread. You see, if you put them on ignore, they feel jilted. And bullies hate that.

I don't believe in censoring what others wish to say, no matter what it is.

I also believe I have the right not to listen to every Ass, Dick and Fuckwad that feels like posting on the internet.

I just do it via skimming, rather than using the ignore function is all.

I don't believe in censoring what others wish to say, no matter what it is.Censorship is preventing someone from saying things, not preventing someone from saying things to you. Ignoring someone isn't an act of censorship, it's an act of tuning out.

I try to ignore lots of people but I don't have anyone on Ignore.

I try to ignore lots of people but I don't have anyone on Ignore.

I'd agree, except I'm so totally ignoring you when you're not on UMP :P

1. I don't have anyone on /ignore, and never will, as I don't feel the need to censor anyone. However, there are plenty of posts I've read and didn't respond to.

2. I suppose it could corrupt debate, but at the same time it probably doesn't, as I'd assume putting someone on /ignore indicates the lack of desire for debate with that particular person, and therefore there's no debate to corrupt.

3. It could be malicious, but it's mostly self-defense. Better someone /ignores someone trying to provoke them than be provoked and end up facing mod action.
With that said, a small part of me is tickled by the people who can successfully provoke others, regardless of how awful their messages are.

4. I suppose notifying them is best, in case the reason you're doing so happens to be a giant misunderstanding.

5. I think giving people chances is a good idea, as people can change. They don't change that often though, so too many chances isn't necessary.

Can anyone else read the OP?

Can anyone else read the OP?

Everyone can, except you! It must be by someone you have on ignore :p

Ooh! Ooh! Am I one of them?

Nah. You're one of those who actually have at least some content to convey most of the time, and occasionally even do so in an entertainingly humorous fashion. You may stay. ;P

well now you know the secret about Cheney what more do you want?
My half a minute back? An ignore function that covers quotes? Chocolate?

I don't /ignore anyone. I figure everyone has something to say, and while I may disagree, that's no reason not to hear their arguments.
Well, see, I started out with similar illusions, but soon found that a great many people actually don't have anything to say, let alone arguments. Unfortunately, those also happen to usually be just the ones who talk loudest.

I see very little point in the ignore function. It amounts to closing one's eyes and clasping hands around one's ears and then assuming that if one cannot see or hear a person, they don't exist. Bloody childish.
Not quite. I feel it is the equivalent of avoiding to talk to a certain person / hearing a person talk whenever possible, an option I also choose with some RL people. There is, for example, this one obnoxious girl who for some unfathomable reasons believes I'm her best buddy and greatest fan or something, and insists on filling me up to the brim with her latest bullshit whenever I've been careless enough to make myself visible in her vicinity. I've soon adopted the strategy to just make a little detour whenever I see her, or walk by real fast with a "terribly busy; must dash" face/gesture, and I find that to be a perfectly acceptable behavior. Where'd be the merit in listening to her, or any other idiot, on- or offline, if that communication will lead to nothing but frustration about wasted time?

Can anyone else read the OP?

Yeah, there's this little "view post" clicky on the top left-hand corner... ;P

Note: I do not have the OP on ignore, nor do I endorse putting them on ignore, and/or viewing posts of people on one's ignore list.

Yeah, there's this little "view post" clicky on the top left-hand corner... ;P

Note: I do not have the OP on ignore, nor do I endorse putting them on ignore, and/or viewing posts of people on one's ignore list.

The few times I've used the ignore function, I clicked on that little 'view post' thingy all the time. I fail at ignore.

Also, why did you stop loving me?

The few times I've used the ignore function, I clicked on that little 'view post' thingy all the time. I fail at ignore.


Morbid curiosity mangled the cat. :D

Morbid curiosity mangled the cat. :D

It is morbid. I hate it! Thank goodness for movie spoiler sites, or I'd have long ago gone insane from seeing things I don't want to see.

I think I used to have one or two on ignore. I stopped when I kept seeing things like this:

[i]You have BadPoster on ignore
___________________________________________________
What???!!! Did you honestly just say that? How can you, of all people, be such a selfish, uncaring, etc.

I couldn't help myself. I had to peek.

By the way, I'm not sure where the quote links to. I just typed in a a random number.

1. How many posters do you have on /ignore? None. I am probably too nice to do that. :)
2. Does it corrupt debate, when some cannot see the posts of others? I have no idea.
3. Is it malicious to /ignore another poster? Or self-defence? Nope.
4. Should you notify another poster when you put them on /ignore? Nope.
5. Do you put posters on /ignore just for a while, then give them another chance to pollute your screen? Nope.

Also, why did you stop loving me?

Who says I did? This is not a threadjack, seeing how the proliferation of such obtuse slander should be worthy of a heartfelt ignore.

By the way, I'm not sure where the quote links to. I just typed in a a random number.

A Sel-Appaian thread on some obscure Star Wars character..

Who says I did? This is not a threadjack, seeing how the proliferation of such obtuse slander should be worthy of a heartfelt ignore.

Heartless bitch, leading me on for years.

Wait! Damn you and your foreign way of putting together your thoughts...

Are you saying you never loved me?

Or are you saying you never stopped loving me?

*on pins and needles*

Everyone can, except you! It must be by someone you have on ignore :p
Yeah, there's this little "view post" clicky on the top left-hand corner... ;P

Note: I do not have the OP on ignore, nor do I endorse putting them on ignore, and/or viewing posts of people on one's ignore list.

I wouldn't actually know, never having put anyone on ignore.

1. Three
2. No, because the people I have on ignore don't make any worthwhile contributions.
3. It just means I don't have to read their crap anymore. It's only malicious when you gloat about it.
4. No.
5. I have done a couple of times, when I found myself using that "view post" button :p

Heartless bitch, leading me on for years.

Wait! Damn you and your foreign way of putting together your thoughts...

Are you saying you never loved me?

Or are you saying you never stopped loving me?

*on pins and needles*

Bitch edited her post the second I clicked on "quote".. to my foreign-educated understanding of English, only one interpretation of my question is valid; for any other, it would have had to read "Who said I ever did?".

Bitch edited her post the second I clicked on "quote".. to my foreign-educated understanding of English, only one interpretation of my question is valid; for any other, it would have had to read "Who said I ever did?".

Bitch can't prove I edited squat, muahahahahaha!

And the problem is, native speakers are so horribly imprecise and grammatically incorrect in their everday expressions, that I must remind myself that many foreign speakers, using the English language properly, must be read in an entirely different manner.

I would fluffle you but I'd prefer to kneel at your feet and gaze up with puppy dog eyes, a collar, and nothing else.

And the problem is, native speakers are so horribly imprecise and grammatically incorrect in their everday expressions, that I must remind myself that many foreign speakers, using the English language properly, must be read in an entirely different manner.
Learn and adapt, language underling.

I would fluffle you but I'd prefer to kneel at your feet and gaze up with puppy dog eyes, a collar, and nothing else.

How soon can you be here, and how well can you keep a secret from my man?

I would fluffle you but I'd prefer to kneel at your feet and gaze up with puppy dog eyes, a collar, and nothing else.And 1 million internet geeks just creamed their pants.

How soon can you be here, and how well can you keep a secret from my man?

Hide me under your bed, and pull me out as needed. I'm a good cook, and I don't mind cleaning. You could just say I'm your domestic help :D

I also believe I have the right not to listen to every Ass, Dick and Fuckwad that feels like posting on the internet.

I just do it via skimming, rather than using the ignore function is all.

Indeed, so do I.

Censorship is preventing someone from saying things, not preventing someone from saying things to you. Ignoring someone isn't an act of censorship, it's an act of tuning out.

It is like not allowing an already printed newspaper to be distributed. And, effectively, they only 'say' it to me when I read the page, so I would be censoring that purely for myself. Ignoring would be reading part of a post (or just the name of the poster) and then moving on to the next.

And 1 million internet geeks just creamed their pants.

:p

Hide me under your bed, and pull me out as needed. I'm a good cook, and I don't mind cleaning. You could just say I'm your domestic help :DWhat an editfest today! ;P

Well, see, the problem is that I like my under-bed-space dusty and my toys clean, so your major bonus point would have to be an instant self-cleaning function. Can you do that?

He knows what kind of girls I dig, so I presume he'd be reasonably doubtful.

It is like not allowing an already printed newspaper to be distributed.
No, the equivalent for that would be to somehow decide that you disallow all of NSG to read that poster's posts.

Using ignore is more like not frequenting stores that carry a particular newspaper, or to avoid certain newsstand sections where the paper usually appears.

What an editfest today! ;P

Well, see, the problem is that I like my under-bed-space dusty and my toys clean, so your major bonus point would have to be an instant self-cleaning function. Can you do that?

He knows what kind of girls I dig, so I presume he'd be reasonably doubtful.

I can.

And I would hope your man wouldn't be so selfish...I'll cook the meal, you lovebirds can eat, and I'll continue the service out of sight. He doesn't even need to know I'm there.

I can
Yes, my little engine.

And I would hope your man wouldn't be so selfish...I'll cook the meal, you lovebirds can eat, and I'll continue the service out of sight. He doesn't even need to know I'm there.

Unfortunately, he *is* as selfish as to demand equal treatment under equal law, and seeing how I shan't allow him to have any Sins, neither will I, I'm afraid.

who cares:upyours:

who cares:upyours:

For one, the OP, quite apparently.

Any other questions you wish to have answered? I'm feeling helpful today.

Unfortunately, he *is* as selfish as to demand equal treatment under equal law, and seeing how I shan't allow him to have any Sins, neither will I, I'm afraid.

Sins hmm?

Well fine. But you can still order me around via MSN :D

I must be gone...check your TGs you evil woman.

Any other questions you wish to have answered? I'm feeling helpful today.
How can I win the lottery?

A Sel-Appaian thread on some obscure Star Wars character..

So it is; that's funny.

I sense a new game for the "Spam" thread...

Thanks everyone for keeping the thread afloat long enough to get some polling.

I know it's bad form to "bump" a thread, but I'm doing it for the poll.
Oh, and the hot lesbian action (phew!).
The thread is surpisingly unspammy! You folks gave real answers to what seems a rather introverted question.

I'm going to reply to some of the posts, but do it a bit at a time as a way of keeping the poll on the front page.

I commend these posts:

None because ...
I don't have ...
I've learned that ...
I've got everyone ...
I didn't even know ...
I don't use ...
I've tried...
I don't agree that ...
I see very little point ...
I agree with Sin ...
Yay! Someone ...
... Where'd be the merit ...
I think I ...
[B]1. How many ...
1. Three ...


Who says I did? This is not a threadjack ...
SWB, I hearby authorize you to 'jack the thread any way you see fit!

And 1 million internet geeks just creamed their pants.
The other 99% have been here before, and had a tissue handy ;)

I don't ignore any posters.

I have never used the /ignore function. I really have no use for it.

I wonder if I'm on somebody's ignore list?

But you can still order me around via MSN :D

You wish. You can (still) ask for orders on Skype, but that's the limit, you evil chatter.
How can I win the lottery?
By not playing. Luck favors those who ain't trying; all you have to do is stumble on a discarded ticket on the curb one day.



SWB, I hearby authorize you to 'jack the thread any way you see fit!


Thanks. I hereby authorize you to hammer away with vowels any way you see fit.

It is like not allowing an already printed newspaper to be distributed. And, effectively, they only 'say' it to me when I read the page, so I would be censoring that purely for myself. Ignoring would be reading part of a post (or just the name of the poster) and then moving on to the next.No, it's more like not buying it. Not letting it be distributed would be something along the lines of preventing every other poster from being able to read it as well.

Sins hmm?

Well fine. But you can still order me around via MSN :D

I must be gone...check your TGs you evil woman.Am I worthy enough to be added? :(

I've had a few over my years here. They are all back on good standings now, simply because I hate not seeing what other people say, or because they decide to get a new nation every 6 months and I grow tired of blocking all incarnations.


What I want to know is how many people /ignore me. I don't count it as flaming or anything if I am told. Just curious...

But wait, if they ignore me, then how would they know to inform me they are doing so? Gah!

What I want to know is how many people /ignore me. I don't count it as flaming or anything if I am told. Just curious...

But wait, if they ignore me, then how would they know to inform me they are doing so? Gah!

Someone else could quote you ...

I mean, if you asked, I see no reason why anyone who is ignoring you shouldn't tell you. That's not gloating hmm?

only those who parrot the assumptions they are familiar with because their too lazy to do their own thinking, or even dream about attempting to be honest with themselves.

i've lost track of how many that might be. other then that they do often seem like a large majority. expecially in the context of anything people get emotionally attatched to, like their religeous, economic, and political perceptions.

=^^=
.../\...

No, the equivalent for that would be to somehow decide that you disallow all of NSG to read that poster's posts.

Using ignore is more like not frequenting stores that carry a particular newspaper, or to avoid certain newsstand sections where the paper usually appears.

No, it's more like not buying it. Not letting it be distributed would be something along the lines of preventing every other poster from being able to read it as well.

Evidently I wasn't clear enough in my post. It is allowing printing but not distribution to me. I've said to my newsagent that this paper, that I used to receive, I no longer wish to. I have thus censored it from my delivery and my reading.

Or another analogy would be to ask the newsagent to go through each page of the newspaper and rip out every article by a certain writer.

I mean, if you asked, I see no reason why anyone who is ignoring you shouldn't tell you. That's not gloating hmm?

I don't ignore Zilam, nor do I wish to, but I guess that someone who's bothered enough by him to to so will not be terribly inclined to do him any favors, let alone contact any person on their own initiative with whom they have even gone as far as blocking any communication coming from the other.

Seriously, if I block someone, I'll do anything but contact them, no matter their wishes, firstly because I won't care about the wishes of someone who annoys me thus, and secondly because I sure won't risk that my information is misunderstood as an offer to contact me back with impertinent questions and/or whining concerning my blocking decision.

Evidently I wasn't clear enough in my post. It is allowing printing but not distribution to me. I've said to my newsagent that this paper, that I used to receive, I no longer wish to. I have thus censored it from my delivery and my reading.

Ah, okay. And where exactly do you see the 'badness' of such a decision, one which you, IMHO, wrongly label as 'censoring'?

Evidently I wasn't clear enough in my post. It is allowing printing but not distribution to me. I've said to my newsagent that this paper, that I used to receive, I no longer wish to. I have thus censored it from my delivery and my reading.

Or another analogy would be to ask the newsagent to go through each page of the newspaper and rip out every article by a certain writer.That's not censorship, though.

That's not censorship, though.

As I already said in my post above, I agree. Will you, however, shoulder the burden for the tow of us to define censoring/censorship in contrast to what EI describes? *pretty please*

As I already said in my post above, I agree. Will you, however, shoulder the burden for the tow of us to define censoring/censorship in contrast to what EI describes? *pretty please*
Censorship is preventing someone from making themselves heard to an audience, most usually the general public, either by silencing the entire statement or removing parts thereof.

i don't use the ignore function thing at all, but i don't pay attention to about 90% of the people that post.

i ... use the ignore function ...
A-HA!

Ah, okay. And where exactly do you see the 'badness' of such a decision, one which you, IMHO, wrongly label as 'censoring'?

That's not censorship, though.

Censorship is preventing someone from making themselves heard to an audience, most usually the general public, either by silencing the entire statement or removing parts thereof.

According to wiki:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor. The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored. Censorship is the act or practice of removing material from things we encounter every day on the grounds that it is obscene, vulgar, and/or highly objectionable.

I see no discrepancy between this and what I said. You seem to be limiting the word's usage to purely public areas, whereas I am using it in a personal sense.

And to answer SoWiBi: By putting some poster on an ignore list, you are making the assumption that they will never post something reasonable; I feel this position is unreasonable. A poster who deliberately spams or flames will be dealt with by mods, but this public censorship is not in the discussion. Anyone else you are censoring purely because you dislike what they have to say at a certain point. It is like ignoring everything a person says just because you disagree with one of their views.

According to wiki:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor. The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored. Censorship is the act or practice of removing material from things we encounter every day on the grounds that it is obscene, vulgar, and/or highly objectionable. I see no discrepancy between this and what I said. You seem to be limiting the word's usage to purely public areas, whereas I am using it in a personal sense.It's pretty vauge, but I can see why you misinterpreted it. You're not suppressing speech, nor are you deleting it. It's still there, you're just choosing not to let it reach you and you alone. You're not removing anything.
And to answer SoWiBi: By putting some poster on an ignore list, you are making the assumption that they will never post something reasonable; I feel this position is unreasonable. A poster who deliberately spams or flames will be dealt with by mods, but this public censorship is not in the discussion. Anyone else you are censoring purely because you dislike what they have to say at a certain point. It is like ignoring everything a person says just because you disagree with one of their views.Ignoring for a moment that it's not censorship, you interpreted it wrong. Not everyone ignores people because they assume they'll never post something reasonable. Weighing the chance that they may post something reasonable against the grief they cause you by you reading it can lead to the result that the latter outweighs the former and justifies no longer paying attention to them. It has nothing to do with assuming they'll never post something reasonable.

Aside from that, I think you're confusing public censorship with censorship.

It's pretty vauge, but I can see why you misinterpreted it. You're not suppressing speech, nor are you deleting it. It's still there, you're just choosing not to let it reach you and you alone. You're not removing anything.

I'm not seeing a difference between censoring from one perspective and not another. One newspaper could censor a reporter but another could allow him to write an article, then the article has been partially censored, effecting one portion of the population and not another.

Ignoring for a moment that it's not censorship, you interpreted it wrong. Not everyone ignores people because they assume they'll never post something reasonable. Weighing the chance that they may post something reasonable against the grief they cause you by you reading it can lead to the result that the latter outweighs the former and justifies no longer paying attention to them. It has nothing to do with assuming they'll never post something reasonable.

Aside from that, I think you're confusing public censorship with censorship.

Please elaborate your last sentence, I don't quite get what you're meaning.

EDIT: I see what you mean about the analogy. However, when the definition says 'suppression', I am taking it to mean a stopping of communication i.e. when you ignore someone on here you are preventing the communication of information from them to you (or more correctly, from the server to you). I guess you are taking the view it means stopping them communicating it to anyone on the forum, which may be fair, I'm just using looser definition of the words and equating 'personal censorship' with 'filtering of information' (though the latter may be even weaker in that it could mean just seeing the poster's name and generally not reading their post).

And to reply to why people would do it, I've never experienced anyone remotely causing grief on this forum, perhaps others are just more sensitive.

So, this is pretty simple. I'm just curious how many of us are ignoring other posters, using the /ignore function of Jolt.

Currently none, the most I've ever had on ignore at one time is 2. The longest I've ever had someone on ignore is a week and a half.

It seems I didn't put point number two (OP) very well at all.

Feel free to talk about the use of /ignore
How many posters do you have on /ignore?
Does it corrupt debate, when some cannot see the posts of others?



2. Not particularly. It seems that, if they're worth debating (and sometimes even if they're not), someone will quote them and the post gets seen anyway.


2. I suppose it could corrupt debate, but at the same time it probably doesn't, as I'd assume putting someone on /ignore indicates the lack of desire for debate with that particular person, and therefore there's no debate to corrupt.

2. Generally improves debate, I think.

What I was thinking with this "corrupting debate" thing is that posts might influence other posters (positively or negatively) and the person who is ignoring them isn't aware of that influence on others.

From time to time, posters who are hugely at odds with each other on most things will surprisingly agree on something. If the second to say that is ignoring the first, and posts very much the same opinion ... other posters are going to look at that and go "which one of them is joking? Surely they don't agree."

That's what I mean by corrupting. Not so much between the ignorer and ignoree (agree with HotRodia there, it keeps down the mindless headbutting) ... but for other posters who are working under the assumption that what they see in the thread is the same collection of posts as what another sees.

I agree with Sin, and disagree with Int!

I agree with you, but disagree with Sin.

And to answer SoWiBi: By putting some poster on an ignore list, you are making the assumption that they will never post something reasonable; I feel this position is unreasonable. A poster who deliberately spams or flames will be dealt with by mods, but this public censorship is not in the discussion. Anyone else you are censoring purely because you dislike what they have to say at a certain point.

You are making the assumption that I ignore posters because I think they will never post anything reasonable; this position is completely unreasonable.

a) There are some posters I've put on ignore simply because their posting style gives me headaches, It's not about what they say, it's the way they say/type it. Or try to say/type it, more likely.

b) Some posters I ignore because of their tendency to bring one subject or the other into every single post of theirs, and I'm plain old sick of it. It's not like they don't have some reasonable things to say, but somehow they also feel the need to add some information about their sex life or other things I don't feel any need to hear about to any such useful post content.

Now, I adore LG and I'm rather fond of his *nod*, but if I for some reason felt that to be extremely annoying, I'd probably end up ignoring him because there's a *nod* in, say, every other post of his and I'd prefer not to be subjected to that in that way.

c) When I decide to ignore someone, that does not mean I think every single one of their post is "bad", I just think that enough of their posts are "bad" to outweigh the benefit of reading the others.


To conclude: Ignoring for me is not the "political act" it appears to be for you. I don't try to "send a message" with it. It's not a dogmatic decision. It's not a decision that affects anyone but me. I come to NSG for one single reason, and that is my entertainment. I've no aspiration to "do NSG justice" or attempt to "take in the whole of NSG". If a thread title or its mouse-over sound uninteresting, I don't click them. If a thread turns out to be uninteresting after the first few posts, I close it. If some poster's contributions on the overall seem more detrimental to my enjoyment of NSG than positive, I put them on ignore. I feel absolutely no obligation to read someone's posts, to "do them any justice". They way you say it, it always sounds as if you believed people on NSG have "the right to be heard" or at least "the right to have reading their posts considered", and I disagree with that stance.

They way you say it, it always sounds as if you believed people on NSG have "the right to be heard" or at least "the right to have reading their posts considered", and I disagree with that stance.

Not "people." YOU!

If you dare to ignore us, we will track you down, and stuff drivel into your letterbox, with hand-drawn fluffles and gun smileys a-plenty!

You are making the assumption that I ignore posters because I think they will never post anything reasonable; this position is completely unreasonable.

a) There are some posters I've put on ignore simply because their posting style gives me headaches, It's not about what they say, it's the way they say/type it. Or try to say/type it, more likely.

b) Some posters I ignore because of their tendency to bring one subject or the other into every single post of theirs, and I'm plain old sick of it. It's not like they don't have some reasonable things to say, but somehow they also feel the need to add some information about their sex life or other things I don't feel any need to hear about to any such useful post content.

Now, I adore LG and I'm rather fond of his *nod*, but if I for some reason felt that to be extremely annoying, I'd probably end up ignoring him because there's a *nod* in, say, every other post of his and I'd prefer not to be subjected to that in that way.

c) When I decide to ignore someone, that does not mean I think every single one of their post is "bad", I just think that enough of their posts are "bad" to outweigh the benefit of reading the others.


To conclude: Ignoring for me is not the "political act" it appears to be for you. I don't try to "send a message" with it. It's not a dogmatic decision. It's not a decision that affects anyone but me. I come to NSG for one single reason, and that is my entertainment. I've no aspiration to "do NSG justice" or attempt to "take in the whole of NSG". If a thread title or its mouse-over sound uninteresting, I don't click them. If a thread turns out to be uninteresting after the first few posts, I close it. If some poster's contributions on the overall seem more detrimental to my enjoyment of NSG than positive, I put them on ignore. I feel absolutely no obligation to read someone's posts, to "do them any justice". They way you say it, it always sounds as if you believed people on NSG have "the right to be heard" or at least "the right to have reading their posts considered", and I disagree with that stance.

Fair enough, though you had assumed incorrectly that the 'they will never post anything reasonable' was the only one, it was just an example. You are, in my opinion, unnecessarily sensitive, but that is rather irrelevant. Clearly anyone has a right to say something and you have the right not to listen, I just dislike blanket ignoring of people. I prefer to allow them the possibility, not that there is an obligation for me to do so.

If a poster is really predictable (ie stupid) it doesn't take long to skim their posts.

The ones who really waste your time are the ones who use a new word they just found, but use it so inappropriately that your imagination runs wild with the idea that maybe they're joking ...

Not "people." YOU!

If you dare to ignore us, we will track you down, and stuff drivel into your letterbox, with hand-drawn fluffles and gun smileys a-plenty!

Oh, please, by all means try. Please film your endeavors and send me the YouTube link ;P

You are, in my opinion, unnecessarily sensitive, but that is rather irrelevant.

Funny, I've always assumed the opposite - you know, I've never understood the people who ignore posters "so that they wouldn't incite me to unmodly behavior", because no internet poster could incite me such. In my opinion, I've just a very low threshold for stuff I don't enjoy in media I use to entertain me - for example, I'm also one of those people who have several stations pre-programmed in her radio, and I will change stations immediately when I don't like a song or piece of moderation, for I don't feel like putting up with stuff I don't enjoy with these things I use for entertainment only.

Clearly anyone has a right to say something and you have the right not to listen, I just dislike blanket ignoring of people. I prefer to allow them the possibility, not that there is an obligation for me to do so.
That's very noble of you, but quite frankly, I don't think any of the posters on my ignore list particularly care about the 'possibility' to be heard by me. In fact, I guess the posters who really care one way or another about whether I read their posts or not, and/or think of the possibility of my reading them as a 'chance', are limited to the lower single digits.

I'm not seeing a difference between censoring from one perspective and not another. One newspaper could censor a reporter but another could allow him to write an article, then the article has been partially censored, effecting one portion of the population and not another.

Perhaps the problem is this old fashioned model (the "press") which is being used to describe a rather more nuanced modern process (this forum.)

At one end, the traditional idea of censorship still applies (but it's weaker.) Government can determine that certain information shouldn't be published at all -- state secrets, child porn, slander, etc. But their control over that is nowhere near as strong as it was when you needed a printing press and a distribution network to publish anything. They've had to recognize limitations, and they go after the state secrets and the child porn instead of trying to completely prevent "publishing" in violation of copyright, conspiracy theories, and slander of people who can't afford to take it to court.

At the other end of the "tube" is the discretion of the viewer. The internet gives us a far wider range of choice than the Sun or the Times ... to the extent that people can find affirmation for just about any delusion they harbour.

But there's also a huge middle-ground now. Chinese find ways to surreptitiously publish what their government bans, and to view what others have published. If anyone remembers AOL, that was a similar situation where a centralized authority offered a subset of the "public domain" which favoured its own interests, but users could find their way out into the big wide internet.

Bringing us to the meta-example, net neutrality. Have no doubt that the businesses who have invested so much money in the internet (the infrastructure anyway) are expecting to get their money back, plus profit. The users have only one powerful ally, and it's our old enemy the government. Maybe we don't need allies, our sheer numbers mean we'll find a way around any centralized system.

There is such a bulk of information available (try reading all of WikiPedia, you'll fail because it grows faster than you're reading) that we're forced to choose what we want to pay attention to. Not one of us is familiar with all of the internet, I could name sites and services you've never heard of (possibly can't even access,) and you could do the same to me.

There is still a framework of "news" and the old authority of "news outlets" but even that might go, leaving the public domain as interlocking sets of discretionary views. People thinking they are living in the "big wide world" of public information, but actually unfamiliar with what their next-door neighbour considers the "public domain."

I'm not disagreeing with you really. Just saying that the old model of "free speech" based on the press is a poor guide to the future.

Funny, I've always assumed the opposite - you know, I've never understood the people who ignore posters "so that they wouldn't incite me to unmodly behavior", because no internet poster could incite me such. In my opinion, I've just a very low threshold for stuff I don't enjoy in media I use to entertain me - for example, I'm also one of those people who have several stations pre-programmed in her radio, and I will change stations immediately when I don't like a song or piece of moderation, for I don't feel like putting up with stuff I don't enjoy with these things I use for entertainment only.

Interesting in your definition of this place as 'media'. I've always considered it more similar to having discussions amongst friends, except the obvious thing that people here I've never met in person. Perhaps this is part of the reason people find it hard to leave, they've created a connection with people here that doesn't really exist. Defining it as purely an entertainment would ease that as the posters would no longer be persons you interact with, simply sources of entertainment. I feel that is rather depersonalised, seeing as this is a place to communicate with others.

That's very noble of you, but quite frankly, I don't think any of the posters on my ignore list particularly care about the 'possibility' to be heard by me. In fact, I guess the posters who really care one way or another about whether I read their posts or not, and/or think of the possibility of my reading them as a 'chance', are limited to the lower single digits.

It wasn't my intention to create a moral high ground over the matter, just a choice I make. And, like I said above, whether they cared about you reading their posts would depend on how they view you, as a person they enjoy interacting with, or a source of entertainment.

Oh, please, by all means try. Please film your endeavors and send me the YouTube link ;P

But you're the only person who will know I faked the whole thing, and letterboxed a random person! Why would I give you the chance to debunk me? You'll be the last to know ...

Not even random really. That creep down the road whose dog keeps barking will do.

: D

Perhaps the problem is this old fashioned model (the "press") which is being used to describe a rather more nuanced modern process (this forum.)

At one end, the traditional idea of censorship still applies (but it's weaker.) Government can determine that certain information shouldn't be published at all -- state secrets, child porn, slander, etc. But their control over that is nowhere near as strong as it was when you needed a printing press and a distribution network to publish anything. They've had to recognize limitations, and they go after the state secrets and the child porn instead of trying to completely prevent "publishing" in violation of copyright, conspiracy theories, and slander of people who can't afford to take it to court.

At the other end of the "tube" is the discretion of the viewer. The internet gives us a far wider range of choice than the Sun or the Times ... to the extent that people can find affirmation for just about any delusion they harbour.

But there's also a huge middle-ground now. Chinese find ways to surreptitiously publish what their government bans, and to view what others have published. If anyone remembers AOL, that was a similar situation where a centralized authority offered a subset of the "public domain" which favoured its own interests, but users could find their way out into the big wide internet.

Bringing us to the meta-example, net neutrality. Have no doubt that the businesses who have invested so much money in the internet (the infrastructure anyway) are expecting to get their money back, plus profit. The users have only one powerful ally, and it's our old enemy the government. Maybe we don't need allies, our sheer numbers mean we'll find a way around any centralized system.

There is such a bulk of information available (try reading all of WikiPedia, you'll fail because it grows faster than you're reading) that we're forced to choose what we want to pay attention to. Not one of us is familiar with all of the internet, I could name sites and services you've never heard of (possibly can't even access,) and you could do the same to me.

There is still a framework of "news" and the old authority of "news outlets" but even that might go, leaving the public domain as interlocking sets of discretionary views. People thinking they are living in the "big wide world" of public information, but actually unfamiliar with what their next-door neighbour considers the "public domain."

I'm not disagreeing with you really. Just saying that the old model of "free speech" based on the press is a poor guide to the future.

Agreed. Interesting post. The internet has altered the definition of many things in its years of influence. And it's funny the way the 'Information age' has been characterised by 'misinformation', due to the sheer number of people expressing their views without basis, but all expressing their freedom of speech.

EDIT: hmm, passed the two thousand mark without noticing, yay for arbitrary 'good' numbers

None.

It's just uncomfortable to read half of an exchange or conversation.