How to ignore members.

[Kalgrm]

As a moderator, I field many questions and reports about the behaviour of certain members. Although those members may not have broken any guidelines per se, I can see how their behaviour detracts from the overall experience of participating in this forum for many serious participants of the forum.

If you ever find yourself losing the enjoyment of participating in the forum due to persistently annoying comments from certain members, you may choose to ignore everything they post - in most cases, it's no great loss. Click on their profile button on any of their posts, then click on the "Add foe" link under their user name. You'll still be able to see that they have posted something, but their - often snide and minimal - comment won't be displayed unless someone else quotes it later.

Unfortunately, if it's a moderator who cheeses you off, you are stuck: mods can't be ignored. Unfortunately for me, as a mod I have to be able to read those same comments that annoy you, so there is nobody on my list of foes.

Anyway, rather than quit the forum in disgust due to inflammatory remarks from a few, try using the ignore function for a while. It might improve your time on the forum.

Cheers,
Graeme

[damhooligan]

As a moderator, I field many questions and reports about the behaviour of certain members. Although those members may not have broken any guidelines per se, I can see how their behaviour detracts from the overall experience of participating in this forum for many serious participants of the forum.

If you ever find yourself losing the enjoyment of participating in the forum due to persistently annoying comments from certain members, you may choose to ignore everything they post - in most cases, it's no great loss. Click on their profile button on any of their posts, then click on the "Add foe" link under their user name. You'll still be able to see that they have posted something, but their - often snide and minimal - comment won't be displayed unless someone else quotes it later.

Unfortunately, if it's a moderator who cheeses you off, you are stuck: mods can't be ignored. Unfortunately for me, as a mod I have to be able to read those same comments that annoy you, so there is nobody on my list of foes.

Anyway, rather than quit the forum in disgust due to inflammatory remarks from a few, try using the ignore function for a while. It might improve your time on the forum.

Cheers,
Graeme

Does that include moderators ??


I don't wanna be put on the 'ignore' list here,
but isn't that a bit ,(looking for the right word ....sorry i'm foreign...)

If they haven't doen anything wrong according to the guidelines ,
why do we have to ignore them?
This is really going overboard and close to the nitpicking category.
What's next , more rules , stronger guidelines.
What's that bad about people saying the wrong thing , we all make mistakes.
We learn from that, without the wrong there is no right.

I defenatly not going to use this 'ignore' thingy,
Sometimes i feel it's too strict in this forum ,this topic is a good example of this.
This prevents people from saying what they wanna say, that to me is called censorship.

Sorry , I just had to say that...

[Kalgrm]

No problems damhooligan - you're not out of line for raising this point.

This is a personal thing - if you know certain people raise your ire with nearly everything they write, all you have to do is ignore them. When it seems to you like that person is a troll and has nothing meaningful to contribute (in your own opinion), ignoring them makes life easier, especially if you're prone to reacting to their jabs.

Nobody else sees your ignore list (including the ignored member).

What's that bad about people saying the wrong thing , we all make mistakes.

Some people are "making mistakes" on purpose, with nearly every post they put up. They aren't trying to stop "making mistakes", but are trying to stir feelings and create arguments. These are the people who end up on ignore lists.

Cheers,
Graeme

[kukamunga]

.....you may choose to ignore.....

.....why do we have to ignore them?

I think the word 'choose' says something.....

To quote those great philosophers, Devo.....

Then if you got it you dont want it
Seems to be the rule of thumb
Dont be tricked by what you see
You got two ways to go

Ill say it again in the land of the free
Use your freedom of choice
Freedom of choice

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want.....

(PS: Feel free to add me to your 'foe' list - "daylight savings" has put me totally 'out of whack')

[damhooligan]

This is a personal thing

True, so for a person to personly 'ignore' a person that is fine.
But do we really need an special application/button for this?
Is it really that bad?
I don't think so
(just imagine the conversations ; did'nt you read what (*) said? no i 'ignored' him:
half the forum , 'ignores' the other half, that's would be funny , we would have 2 fora in 1 forum.)

Some people are "making mistakes" on purpose, with nearly every post they put up. They aren't trying to stop "making mistakes", but are trying to stir feelings and create arguments. These are the people who end up on ignore lists.

Butt , altough they do that , they still contribute something positive to the forum.
They do sometimes say what other people are afraid of saying.
And creating arguments , not always a bad thing.
And for some they are 'disruptive' but for some they are not.
I realy feel you are giving the wrong signal here by doing this.
It comes across as , play nice or we wil 'ignore' you.
If they are bad , banish them , if not let them be...
Without 'them' i would leave the forum, because i would simply feel censored.

[kukamunga]

I think the 'add foe' button could be a useful feature

(Hmmm.... I might just see how it works.... )

(...some other time maybe...)

Oh.... and by the way - ignorance can be bliss sometimes !

I choose to ignore this thread (for now)....... by going to bed

Goodnight

[Kalgrm]

Is it really that bad?
I don't think so

Sorry, but for many members here, it IS that bad. I get two to three PMs a week from members who are annoyed by the constant put downs of certain members without constructive contributions to balance the snide remarks they make. The other mods also get similar numbers of PMs, judging by the discussions we have. Moderators also see "reported posts", and you'd be very surprised by the number of reports we get. Most of the reports* are referring to a select group of members who seem to have nothing better to do than fire off one liners that help nobody resolve their question.

Far from "half the forum ignoring the other half", I reckon only three people at most would be widely ignored. (You would not be one of them, by the way. You contribute.)

Oh, and it's not a new feature - it's been there for months. All I'm doing is bringing it to the attention of those who might find it helpful.

Cheers,
Graeme

* that aren't about spam

[AUbicycles]

Thank you for posting this Greame.

You are spot on regarding Option to ignore. Each member has the option / choice if they feel they need it. The forum is a little society with different people with different experiences and backgrounds - nobody expects everyone to get along perfectly and the 'ignore' option will mean that you would see the name of a 'foe' who has posted however won't be able to see the post contents.


Specifically, the reason for highlighting this option is due to the recent increase of disputes and conflicts from members who don't get along. As Kalgrm mentioned - yes it is that bad sometimes.

Cheers
Christopher

[waynohh]

What about if another member quotes the post by the member you've ignored or a portion of the post?

[Kalgrm]

What about if another member quotes the post by the member you've ignored or a portion of the post?

In that case, the quoted text will be shown. That's a limitation of the software and can't be overidden, as far as I know.

Cheers,
Graeme

[damhooligan]

Sorry, but for many members here, it IS that bad.

I reckon only three people at most would be widely ignored.

Sounds a bit confusing, but they are two different statements.
If it IS that bad, they would be WAY more than just 3 members on the ignore list.

I don't know the details of all the complaints you get, and i do respect that you read them all ,
And treat them with respect.
And i know i can't really say this without reading the complaints ,but i'm positive that not all complaints are complaints*
( * again missing the right word here sorry...)

[m@]

The other possibility is that there are many complaints, all about the same two or three people

At the end of the day, some people just don't get along; rather than having the forum dominated by arguments the ignore feature just makes it easier for people who get on each other's nerves to coexist.

[damhooligan]

The other possibility is that there are many complaints, all about the same two or three people

At the end of the day, some people just don't get along; rather than having the forum dominated by arguments the ignore feature just makes it easier for people who get on each other's nerves to coexist.

Yes , but if that was the case the solution would be much easier

And at the end of the day I don't need a button to ignore people,
I'm very capable of doing that all by myself...

[ruscook]

Good post Graeme... I agree pretty much with the other positive posts on this topic.

Damhooligan, there's nothing wrong with censorship by the owners/operators of a free web site. If we want free speech we're free to setup our own system. (I do agree it's very different if gov't mandated though).

It's great you can choose who to ignore without getting stressed, even or whatever. However not everyone copes the same way. The ignore feature is a great idea to add a bit of flexibility to people's options and maybe increase their enjoyment of the forum, or at worst reduce their frustration.

I suppose the bottom line is, if we were all the same, it wouldn't be needed,but then if we were all the same, the discussions would get a bit boring

Russ

[damhooligan]

Damhooligan, there's nothing wrong with censorship by the owners/operators of a free web site. If we want free speech we're free to setup our own system. (I do agree it's very different if gov't mandated though).

That it soooo not true...
We might be 'free' to set up our own system, but not everybody can set up their own system.
So 'free' is a fairly relative term.
And yes censorship is wrong , it doesn't matter wether the operators/owners are free or getting paid.
It stil comes down to the opinion of a person who then decides what is good or wrong .

[Boognoss]

Good post Graeme... I agree pretty much with the other positive posts on this topic.

Damhooligan, there's nothing wrong with censorship by the owners/operators of a free web site. If we want free speech we're free to setup our own system. (I do agree it's very different if gov't mandated though).

It's great you can choose who to ignore without getting stressed, even or whatever. However not everyone copes the same way. The ignore feature is a great idea to add a bit of flexibility to people's options and maybe increase their enjoyment of the forum, or at worst reduce their frustration.

I suppose the bottom line is, if we were all the same, it wouldn't be needed,but then if we were all the same, the discussions would get a bit boring

Russ

+1 Russ. I like the Foe feature. So far 1 "lucky" forumite is on my list and I'm sure more will in time .

[ruscook]

....And yes censorship is wrong , it doesn't matter wether the operators/owners are free or getting paid.
It stil comes down to the opinion of a person who then decides what is good or wrong .

I agree with the above 100%. In fact I HATE gov't censorship in all forms. However it is the owners *right* to determine what they publish. And it is their right. They have no, (zero), obligation w.r.t anyone else re: free speech.

Even in the USofA with their first amendment freedom of speech, the first amendment does not mean that the right to free speech overrides a website owners right to do what they want with their own site.

I understand not everyone has the technical capability to run a website, but professionals can be employed to do that I also undersand that not everyone has the $$ to employ others, but our right to free speech does not automatically give us a right to assume we MUST be given the means to publish that speech.

Russ

[Kalgrm]

Sounds a bit confusing, but they are two different statements.
If it IS that bad, they would be WAY more than just 3 members on the ignore list.

I don't know the details of all the complaints you get, and i do respect that you read them all ,
And treat them with respect.
And i know i can't really say this without reading the complaints ,but i'm positive that not all complaints are complaints*
( * again missing the right word here sorry...)

M@ has it right - it's the same 2 or 3 members being complained about in those reports and PMs.

You're correct though - it would be very easy to simply ban the people who cause the complaints (and "complaints" is exactly the right word). Banning those people would make our life as mods much easier, but that would then be censorship - REAL censorship! You said earlier that you would not enjoy it around here without those people, yet you imply we could ban them if we wanted to stop their diatribe. Relax - we aren't banning them. They are still free to make their pointless remarks and you'll still be able to read them - we aren't censoring any remarks which fall within the guidelines. However, you won't be watching as many flame-wars started by those remarks because there won't be as many reactions to those remarks.

There are plenty of forums around where flame wars and incessant niggling between members is rife. If fiery forums are your thing, this is the wrong place to be. The site's owner and the moderators are all striving for a family friendly and mature community. We'll do everything we can to promote mature interactions between members, not only because that's what we believe this place should be, but because we are lazy: Our lives are easier when everyone gets along (or at the very least, ignores those they can't get along with).

Cheers,
Graeme

[Mulger bill]

There's times I wish I could use it.

I believe, without being able to see it that blocked posters still show up as having posted, with a link to the post so you can see it easily if you wish.

I won't be a part of bans for no reason, once in a while a pearl shows up in that depleted bag of marbles. IMO ignoring people is not censorship, it's the right not to listen to someone who bores you.

Shaun

[kukamunga]

[damhooligan]

You're correct though - it would be very easy to simply ban the people who cause the complaints (and "complaints" is exactly the right word). Banning those people would make our life as mods much easier, but that would then be censorship - REAL censorship! You said earlier that you would not enjoy it around here without those people, yet you imply we could ban them if we wanted to stop their diatribe. Relax - we aren't banning them. They are still free to make their pointless remarks and you'll still be able to read them - we aren't censoring any remarks which fall within the guidelines. However, you won't be watching as many flame-wars started by those remarks because there won't be as many reactions to those remarks.

My remark wich implyed removing the bad seeds was not to be taken literaly...but with a bit of sarcasm...(doesn't work well on fora )
But i can see it is al a little bit connected to each other , ones rules the other not out.
So ignoring seems an interesting option.
(stil not for me , but mayby for others.)

And now i'm curious who these 3 seeds are.....

[AUbicycles]

I would like to briefly address the topic of censorship.

Every half a year or so I cover this however the forums change over time so no harm in discussing.
I am not a fan of censorship (in the internet sense of the word)... however.

A site ... totally free of censorship?
If someone posts a comment or picture that is for example illegal, the act of blocking or removing it is censorship and I reserve this right.
If I could guarantee that every single member (even spammers) could participate without infringing any laws - the censorship would not be necessary. Fact is, even the most open forums will not allow certain content as they then would open themself to litigation. A public site totally free of censorship is a myth.

The BNA site and Forums
When the site was setup in 1999 it was started with principles of advocating cycling and content for a general audience. This foundations have been maintained and the vast majority of feedback understand and support this which means using language and topics suitable for general / family audiences. Since the forums launched, over the years with help of members and particularly moderators, the guidelines have been optimised so that the forum is a positive and useful resource.

I agree that it certainly doesn't suit every one and this is a good thing as we try and satisfy the broadest possible cross-section of the cycling community.

The guidelines are there so that newbies know how to participate (benefit for longer members) and to avoid topics simply cause too much stress, heartache and the biggest fights here. To the credit of 90% of the members, the sensitive topics are discussed well however there is always someone who discriminates, attacks, offends - so rather than the mods being there 24/7 to deal with flame wars - avoiding certain topics is easier and happier.

For information, the censorship that would be imposed includes:
• Automatic word censors of naughty words and spam
• Removal (or occasional edits) by a mod of inappropriate content or which infringe guidelines.
• Warning Members
• Banning Members who spam or blatantly infringe the guidelines


All of these items (perhaps some that I have forgotten) are there to make the forum a better place for discussion and is not 'evil' censorship. I guess I could go on however I am certain that the point has come across.


Cheers
Christopher

[martinjs]

I would like to briefly address the topic of censorship.

Every half a year or so I cover this however the forums change over time so no harm in discussing.
I am not a fan of censorship (in the internet sense of the word)... however.

A site ... totally free of censorship?
If someone posts a comment or picture that is for example illegal, the act of blocking or removing it is censorship and I reserve this right.
If I could guarantee that every single member (even spammers) could participate without infringing any laws - the censorship would not be necessary. Fact is, even the most open forums will not allow certain content as they then would open themself to litigation. A public site totally free of censorship is a myth.

The BNA site and Forums
When the site was setup in 1999 it was started with principles of advocating cycling and content for a general audience. This foundations have been maintained and the vast majority of feedback understand and support this which means using language and topics suitable for general / family audiences. Since the forums launched, over the years with help of members and particularly moderators, the guidelines have been optimised so that the forum is a positive and useful resource.

I agree that it certainly doesn't suit every one and this is a good thing as we try and satisfy the broadest possible cross-section of the cycling community.

The guidelines are there so that newbies know how to participate (benefit for longer members) and to avoid topics simply cause too much stress, heartache and the biggest fights here. To the credit of 90% of the members, the sensitive topics are discussed well however there is always someone who discriminates, attacks, offends - so rather than the mods being there 24/7 to deal with flame wars - avoiding certain topics is easier and happier.

For information, the censorship that would be imposed includes:
• Automatic word censors of naughty words and spam
• Removal (or occasional edits) by a mod of inappropriate content or which infringe guidelines.
• Warning Members
• Banning Members who spam or blatantly infringe the guidelines


All of these items (perhaps some that I have forgotten) are there to make the forum a better place for discussion and is not 'evil' censorship. I guess I could go on however I am certain that the point has come across.


Cheers
Christopher

I agree 110% this is the only forum I've stuck with and it due to the rules and the sensibly way in which Chris and the Moderators run this site.
Keep up the good work.

Martin

[}SkOrPn--7]

Anyway to ignore myself even I get tired of my own dribble.........

[MichaelB]

I like it and it works a treat.

Thanks for reminding me ....