DVD Josh

I would appreicate paying members to have the ability to make posters on their block list unable to post to threads they've created. I would glady pay for this feature.

It makes sense to me that if a member does not wish to view posts by another member, it would be equal that they be permitted to block that member from posting in threads they have created.

I realize it seems "anti-community", but the reason that I'd like to block these posters in the first place is that I feel they do not make positive contributions to our community, and perhaps such action as shutting them out of threads will force them to realize that need to improve their behavior here or be, for lack of a better word be "shunned".

We have a phenomenal board here, IMHO the best of its kind on the net, but some posters, through their negative attitude and pomposity, have the capacity to destroy a thread. It's a shame to see a good thread go to hell because of posters like these.

At the same time, I realize that the posters that I feel act in this manner, others may not agree. That is why I think blocking posters from specific threads, rather than from the entire board, is the preferred method.

In a way, it could be our version of the "Do Not Call" list

Thanks for your time.

Rypro 525

sounds like a good idea (am i on your list?)

DVD Josh

Of course not! It's a short list

fnordboy

One bad thing I can think of is that this might cause even more duplicate threads.

If someone who is on your ignore list actually has something valid to say on the subject, but isn't allowed to post in your thread. They might go and start a new thread about it. Granted the mods can just close their thread, but then it comes down to what gives you the right to talk about subject X and at the same time stop Ignored Poster from being able to talk about it? (don't know if that came across the way I wanted it to)

So, i can see some issues stemming from this. Personally, I don't think it is a good idea. Of course YMMV

chrisih8u

This is a stupid idea. What if I want to hear the opinion of someone you have on ignore? Just because you dont like that person doesnt mean that others dont fine them informative.

das Monkey

This is a community. You have no "ownership" over a thread. There are people on this forum I have no interest in ever hearing from again in my life, but that's my problem, not everyone else's.

das

das Monkey

A feature I would like to see, though, would be an aggressive ignore, one where thread titles would be censored much like the posts are. For some people who continue to post spoilers in thread titles, the Ignore List doesn't do a complete job. The duplicate thread problem is still there, though, so I don't know if that's even possible.

das

Numanoid

It's because of the Nemesis thing, isn't it?

das Monkey

Not at all ... it's because of A.I.

das

twikoff

Test



<small>I guess the feature hasnt been added yet</small>

AndyCapps

If certain members can't seem to keep themselves from creating threads with spoilers in the title even after being warned, it is possible to take away their thread creation privileges. That would solve the duplicate thread problem.

I agree with those who said that no one should be able to choose who can and cannot post in a thread they created. You'd need to start your own forum for that kind of control.

DVD Josh

This is exactly what I am talking about.

You couldn't have just said you didn't you didn't think it was a good idea? You had to say "stupid" instead? Your post is the EXACT reason I would like to be able to exclude certain posters.

Just because you don't agree with an idea doesn't make it stupid.

DVD Josh

See Anandtech.com

I understand the viewpoint completely. It doesn't mean that I don't want to be able to do it.

Presumably, becoming a premium member is predicated in part on that user wanting to enhance his forum experience. I would be able to do that by shutting out members who I *know* if given the chance will introduce rudeness and general "jackassedness" into a thread.

That's just my opinion, and I can certainly see how others differ.

das Monkey

You won't be the only premium member, and consequently, all the <i>other</i> premium memberships will be predicated in part on not having other people ruin <i>their</i> forum experience. While shutting someone out of a thread may make you twitch with joy, it could just as easily piss someone else off. Since you have no more ownership of the thread than he does, there is no justifiable reason to give you final say on that issue.

Your position on this is not unlike what you criticize another poster for in this thread. Just because <i>you</i> don't want to hear from someone doesn't mean the rest of us agree with you, and you don't have (and shouldn't have) the power to make that decision for the thousands of us who post here.

das

DVD Josh

The difference is I didn't say that position is STUPID. That's a huge difference. It's very much unlike.

Das, you make excellent points. I am NOT by any means saying you should abuse the ability to lock out people with different viewpoints. I am talking about people who assert their viewpoints as if there could not possibly be another, and do so with what I can only describe as pomposity, usually coupled with rudeness.

I think many of you think I would like to lock out posters who dont' agree with me. Nothing could be further from the truth! I welcome dissenting viewpoints. What the heck would we talk about otherwise? What I want is to block out users who do so in a manner that does not contribute positively to our forum. The posters I am talking about are jerks, that's all. I'm not talking about shutting out legitimate comment. I'm talking about shutting out jerks. That's the best I can describe it.

Groucho

Ha!

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=351561
http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=352876

OWNED!!!

Seriously, though...this isn't a good idea. I could start a thread titled "das Monkey drinks from the milk jugs at the store and puts them back on the shelf!" Then, das couldn't respond because he was on my ignore list. And since other people can't see my ignore list, I can taunt him with things like "Come on das, defend yourself!" and "Not responding is an admission of guilt!"

das Monkey

Perhaps you really would be profoundly fair and just with your powers, but what about everyone else? Just by starting this thread, I bet 10 people would lock you out of every thread they start, and now where are we? I don't intend to criticize your ideas, but can you not see how this would go horribly wrong in under an hour?

As for pomposity and rudeness, some of the forum's most valuable contributors (IMO) are often pompous and rude. I hate to think what this forum would be like without their input, especially <b>Groucho</b>. I myself am a jackass at least 87% of the time, probably more, especially if you cross me in Book Talk.

The solution seems to me to just ignore these people that upset you, and if they derail a thread, report the post. If they continue to do so to the detriment of the forum, they'll be suspended or banned. Anything more than that is asserting your personal preference on the rest of the forum, which is quite unfair to everyone no matter how noble you believe your intentions to be.

das

DVD Josh

Again, excellent points Das. I absolutely see your points.

But I've been here a long time, I've read Groucho and your posts many times. I don't think that you guys are, but your brand of what you refer to as "pomous and rude" isn't the kind I'm talking about. It's in the spirit of making a good point or a good jab. That's really not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the "jerk for the sake of being one" folks.

I guess I'll just continue to go the report to mod route, and keep my ignore list active. It seems like the best I can hope for. That, and Sarah Michell Gellar waiting for me when I get home

chrisih8u

Yes, I could have said that I didn't think it was a good idea. But that wouldnt truly express what I thought about the idea. It's not just that I dont like it, but I also think its stupid. I felt it important to state that.

And I dont see why I can't say that your idea is stupid. I'm not attacking you in any way. It's just my opinion that the idea is stupid and I explained why.

das Monkey

Well, you can forget about that, because I have no plans to untie her until she apologizes for the second <b>Scooby Doo</b> film.

das

Groucho

I find it interesting that das Monkey didn't respond to my milk guzzling charges. "Taking the Fifth," I take it?

twikoff

Im all for a twikoff subforum that only I can post it

any chance of that?

<small>of course, some sick bastard would probably make X the mod of it </small>

AndyCapps

I'm just upset that the option to set a member on fire wasn't included. I've been asking for that one for quite some time.

das Monkey

The post clearly says, "not responding is an admission of guilt." I deny nothing. I will say that while I did guzzle some milk in the 70s, I never swallowed. (God, that sentence is bad )

das

Blade

The reason is because it's unnecessarily inflammatory and doesn't foster discussion.

DVD Josh...another problem (which das probably already stated, but I'm too lazy to read everything he says ) is that just because you might use such a tool responsibly doesn't mean everyone would.

It's an open forum. You have to take the good with the bad as long as no one's breaking the forum rules.