My opinion, other than the question above, is as follows:

Proposal A has the potential for abuse, and would only be useful in cases where one person constantly trolls another. I know of one case where that happens, which doesn't involve me. But that leaves the additional hassle of having to set the blocker on every single thread the trolled person starts. Plus they can't put the filters in threads where they reply to someone else, and thus can be trolled there. Overall, this one won't work out.

Proposal B sounds more practical, except for the quoting function, as Palador mentioned. Some people quote the entire posts of anyone they reply to, and many others will quote segments of a post to properly direct their responses. This invalidates the core purpose of the proposal, and also presents the possibility of abuse by third parties who edit quotes to express their own opinions. The optional addendum of getting banned for badmouthing someone on your list would resolve some issues, but leaves far too much margin for overreaction. A person could get banned for a comment that wasn't intended to be malicious, but gets misread. It also only works if the person who gets on the other's list doesn't behave at all maliciously.

I reserve my vote until I have all the facts, but at the moment I'm prone to vote no to both on the ballot (though you can't vote for one over the other anyhow).

Isn't the problem we are trying to correct here banworthy? If this is a consistent issue, I would vote for banning those involved. Just my theory.

But if we're not banning, I need to make a choice I gues. I don't understand how to vote for the choices -- we vote in the poll for Emeril or whatever and then say A or B in the thread? Emeril sucks!

In any case, I would say A and B -- a threadban would be useful, IF YOU GET 1 AND ONLY 1 WARNING AND THEN ARE BANNED for abusing it. And B creates a sort of "silent treatment" that might work -- if it means that left-handed backstabs and slights are also forbidden -- I would offer that anyone on the L-Ignore list can't be mentioned by the other at all, ever, in any context.

That way Snoota can finally be dead to me.

I KID

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Judge Gydyon ]

Of course, I've said most other things are silly, but, it hasn't gotten anything done

But, seriously. You're ruining what the whole idea of a forum is about. It'll promote cliques, and, could lead to separation and even more grudges, now that there is an easier way to block those you don't like.

I wrote an essay on how this forum involved the free exchange of ideas and intellegent discussion, mixed in with emotional intemperance to reflect human emotion. I sent it to Duke and Harvard.

I'll fight to the bitter end to protect that.

We thrive on a level of maturity. I wrote how we would destroy the weak and the strong will remain. A survival of the fittest, as it were. The ones who couldn't survive a free enviroment where many opinions are represented eventually give up, or are banned. We need bans, not tools to destroy one another and to break things.

The forum philosiphy should not be changed to reflect the users, the users should understand and subscribe to the philosiphy. What is it? "A mature exchange of ideas and also a lighthearted exchange of humor, tempered with maturity and understand."

Both ideas are stupid, and I think there are other ways to resolve it than these tools of destruction.

Yes, I'm being pessimistic, but, especially with A, it might turn into that.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Lenny ]

So perhaps your premise is slightly flawed, in that some of the "strong" still don't get along with each other even after we've disposed of the "weak."

Brings on the weapons of mass destruction!

quote:

---

Judge Gydyon had this to say about pies:
Lenny, I agree that bans are a better solution in my humble opinion. However, I suspect (without naming names or knowing for sure) that most of the people who are the biggest "offenders" are some of the "oldest" posters.

So perhaps your premise is slightly flawed, in that some of the "strong" still don't get along with each other even after we've disposed of the "weak."

Brings on the weapons of mass destruction!

---

Don't tell Harvard :-(

If, by, don't get along, you mean flamewars, well, it's true. My post was mostly idealistic, and flamewars cannot completely be stopped. However, mature resolution and forgiveness are part of keeping a free exchange open.

Subscribe or die.

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Lenny ]

quote:

---

Lenny wrote this stupid crap:
Don't tell Harvard :-(

---

I won't say anything.

quote:

---

Judge Gydyon wrote this stupid crap:
I won't say anything.

---

No, just don't tell them that.

Do tell them that I am ub3r.

B is the better of the two. Even if someone can quote said person and you can read what that person said, you can still ignore what that person said by just skipping over it or by not paying any attention or serious thought to whatever he/she said.

quote:

---

Willias stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:

you can still ignore what that person said by just skipping over it or by not paying any attention or serious thought to whatever he/she said.

---

Will, if everyone did that, we wouldn't HAVE this problem.

quote:

---

Lenny had this to say about Robocop:
No, just don't tell them that.

Do tell them that I am ub3r.

---

OK!

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Judge Gydyon stammered:
IF YOU GET 1 AND ONLY 1 WARNING AND THEN ARE BANNED for abusing it.

---

One warning is one too many. If you abuse it, you're no less an asshole than the person you're "banning."

quote:

---

Suddar wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
One warning is one too many. If you abuse it, you're no less an asshole than the person you're "banning."

---

Right, but that allows more room for interpretation from a cranky mod. And allows one chance for someone new to the boards who bans someone from the thread and was not privy to the overall discussion (just sees the button)

...

NOT THAT MODS ARE EVER CRANKY I LOVE U

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Suddar ]

But, if I have to vote Ill go for B.

I mean, why have A and ban someone from your thread all together when you can have B and not see ANY of their posts, but they still have the free will to post in your thread to communicate with others?

I think A is just really dumb, kinda pointless. Something somebody would do to "get even" or something stupid like that. Childish-ish (Yes, childish-ish). Plus with A that person you dislike can still troll you within somebody ELSE'S thread if they really wanted to.

So yeah...

Go B!

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Gomateux ]

quote:

---

Suddar impressed everyone with:
Mods can't ban (I believe, they can only send it to Drysart for review), and new folks are supposed to read the rules!

---

Mods can warn and blacklist, which was my point. If the sole discretion in this goes to Drysart, I would be fine with one strike you're out. Heck, he only thing I ever abused was the spoiler text, and that was before anyone started complaining and Drysart said stop.

I understand new folks are supposed to read the rules, but the rules don't take care of everything. For example, features like the ignore feature and spoiler text, as well as the "house rules" regular posters know about aren't mentioned in there. As a result, I would personally be more inclined to cut a wee little tiny bit of slack for a rule that may not be well-advertised after this drops off as a sticky thread.

Alternatively, we could sticky up a version of the old newbie guide with such information in it. I'd be happy to write something up, as I tend to be controversy-free.....

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Judge Gydyon ]

I have no idea how slow the boards would go from that checking constantly, or if it would slow them down at all, but it is an idea.

quote:

---

Lenny had this to say about the Spice Girls:
This is completely stupid.

But, seriously. You're ruining what the whole idea of a forum is about. It'll promote cliques, and, could lead to separation and even more grudges, now that there is an easier way to block those you don't like.

I wrote an essay on how this forum involved the free exchange of ideas and intellegent discussion, mixed in with emotional intemperance to reflect human emotion. I sent it to Duke and Harvard.

I'll fight to the bitter end to protect that.

We thrive on a level of maturity. I wrote how we would destroy the weak and the strong will remain. A survival of the fittest, as it were. The ones who couldn't survive a free enviroment where many opinions are represented eventually give up, or are banned. We need bans, not tools to destroy one another and to break things.

The forum philosiphy should not be changed to reflect the users, the users should understand and subscribe to the philosiphy. What is it? "A mature exchange of ideas and also a lighthearted exchange of humor, tempered with maturity and understand."

Both ideas are stupid, and I think there are other ways to resolve it than these tools of destruction.

Yes, I'm being pessimistic, but, especially with A, it might turn into that.

---

The point of a forum is, indeed, about the free exchange of ideas between individuals of different thought-patterns and backgrounds.

However, that is not happening here. It has not happened in awhile. Instead, the exchange of ideas has been restricted - filtered by people's opinions of others in the forums, and by prevailing attitudes of confrontation.

It has gotten so that some people here have come to the decision that NOTHING those people who they individually dislike may say can EVER have some sort of disassociative value, some sort of usefulness outside the context of the reciprocated malcontent shown and participated in.

In short, certain people on the boards have decided that others are not right, and never will be right no matter what they say, simply because of differences in personality. A free exchange of ideas is ruined by this atmosphere.

One of the more unique natures of this board is that we in general disperse with the anonymity that the Internet provides, because we've had enough contact with each other over time that we feel some sense of nearness to each other that most people do not hold for someone living across the country. I myself find that I am sometimes calling across the country just to talk to the people who I've come to know through here. People have entered serious relationships based primarily on their board contact. People have fallen in love through here.

But, this is the root of the problem that is being seen right now. As we are no longer generally using the shield of anonymity to hide behind, there is a conflict between the dual natures of this medium. On the one hand, we are an Internet forum - one based around a silly little webcomic, based on a game. Forums in general are impersonal. The most you ever see of the other people in most forums are an avatar, chosen by that person to represent them. Flaming in a forum is expected, and tolerated, because there's no point in getting angry over the words of some grabass you don't know and will never meet in a state or country far away. Forums are a place to relax, share stupid jokes with fellow relaxers, blow off some steam, and generally treat non-seriously. Even the most serious of forums has an attitude of "this is not real life - don't treat it as such."

We are no longer just a forum, however. We are also a community. People look at each other not as names, but as other people - people with names and faces, personalities and individual troubles. I know no other forum whose members send Christmas gifts to each other. I know no other forum whose members plan get-togethers, not to perform some function beneficial to the stated goal of the message board, but just because they're FRIENDS. People know each other here, to a significant extent - and as such, they've built relationships with each other outside the nature of the boards. Relationships built on support, and caring, and assistance. I've bought people food who I've never met, and likely WILL never meet, because they were hungry and I had the ability to. I've sent packages to Oklahoma, Washington, and Ohio - and recieved one from another country. The people here aren't faceless, they aren't easy to discount or ignore - because they are seen as people here, people who form close friendships and support networks with others, people who genuinely care for one another.

These two natures of the board do not comfortably co-exist, for obvious reasons. People still use the forums for traditional forum-activities: they make stupid running gags, toss about light mockery, and blast each other with insults over thoughts and opinions. But the mockery, the flames, the minor annoyances are no longer directed towards faceless names, originating from other empty words. A person goes along with each name here, an honest life and personality behind each avatar. Which means those things that can be easily shrugged off in other areas, cannot. You aren't being mocked for the silly nature of your idea by Drysart, an empty name associated with nothing but a facade of an avatar. You're being insulted by Tim, a person who knows you and who you know. A person who, for all intents and purposes, exists in your social circle as much as those people who you meet face-to-face in daily life.

So it is easy to take things personally.

THAT is what I see happening. The flamewars here, the conflicts here, have a dual nature. They are started because people have differing opinions, and as on any forum hold little restraint in voicing them loudly and directly. They continue, however, because people sometimes don't defend each other based on the content of the posts involved. Instead, they come to a person's aid over the social bonds they have formed with them - they defend their friends from insult, because they are FRIENDS. They take sides in a conflict with whom they LIKE, and perpetuate it because of the ill-feelings generated by having people they know personally insult them and their friends. But, because this is the Internet - a place where you can flame freely without having to risk a punch to the face or other significant real life repercussions - there is not much pressure to end these conflicts between peer-groups peaceably. There's no reason to...

...Except that in doing so you're perpetuating a fight that has a personal nature, involves people who interact with each other on a depth that transcends the faceless nature of digital anonymity.

Everyone, stop it. Stop acting like you can choose one aspect of this forum, the impersonal one or the personal one, as each suits your temporary preference. EverCrest can be a message board, impersonal and uncaring, a place to lose yourself in pointless stupidity by adopting a mask of an empty name - one just like all the other faceless individuals. Or it can be a community, personal and human - with the social limitations of all such communities, which exist to protect against violent conflict amongst its members. It can be a place to seek comfort and supportive coexistence amongst friends and compatriots, but one in which people must knowingly restrict themselves to treating each other with the care and consideration that human beings give each other in real life society.

It cannot be both. The two are almost mutually exclusive, and in trying to be both conflicts have arisen which have made people across the country consider each other - people who they have NEVER MET - enemies.

And that is just stupid.

Person A and person B.
Person B trolls Person A.
Person A checks the "blinders" box on person B's profile.
The "blinders" box for person A gets filled in automatically for person B.
Person B cannot see person A's posts as long as either of them has the blinders box checked.
Person A cannot see person B's posts as long as either has the blinders box checked.

To disable, person B must uncheck the "blinders" box on person A's profile, and person A must uncheck the "blinders" box on person b's profile.

That way as long as one person hates the other, neither can see anything about the other, unless they mutually decide to resolve the conflict.

quote:

---

The Burger's fortune cookie read:
well, id say that B is better than A, but i think i may have a better solution.

Person A and person B.
Person B trolls Person A.
Person A checks the "blinders" box on person B's profile.
The "blinders" box for person A gets filled in automatically for person B.
Person B cannot see person A's posts as long as either of them has the blinders box checked.
Person A cannot see person B's posts as long as either has the blinders box checked.

To disable, person B must uncheck the "blinders" box on person A's profile, and person A must uncheck the "blinders" box on person b's profile.

That way as long as one person hates the other, neither can see anything about the other, unless they mutually decide to resolve the conflict.

---

That is the ignore function, only without the ability to temporarily except certain posts from it.

quote:

---

Drakkenmaw had this to say about John Romero:
That is the ignore function, only without the ability to temporarily except certain posts from it.

---

no, because it affects both people.

one person decides there's a problem, and now neither can see eachother's posts until both decide there's no longer a problem.

quote:

---

The Burger thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
no, because it affects both people.

one person decides there's a problem, and now neither can see eachother's posts until both decide there's no longer a problem.

---

How do they tell each other there's no longer a problem?

quote:

---

Judge Gydyon painfully thought these words up:
How do they tell each other there's no longer a problem?

---

PM's

[edit] the idea behind the "blinders" is to keep it clean on the boards. If one person decides to be somewhat mature and try to keep the boards clean, then they both need to work it out in a private environment, like PM's [/edit]

[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: The Burger ]

But I suppose that's too much to ask.

This has been an Opinion.

I did not call people little children.

Hooray for seeing something where nothing exists.

Immaturity usually implies juvenility, IE children.

And the caps were for effect. Showmanship, ay?

I'm not seeing things that aren't there. I'm seeing things that are still there, but you simply didn't say them. Ja follow, amigo?

I didn't mean it that way, though. It wasn't intended to offend, it was intended to get a message across.

quote:

---

Don Parcelan had this to say about pies:
We solved this problem...thanks to DIPLOMACY.

---

Burn the non-believer!

*ties Mortius to a stake*

quote:

---

Second motion on the floor is called Ludicrous-Ignore (;They've gone to plaid! , which is a super ignore list, per user, that only the crack moderator team (or is that the moderator team on crack?) has access to add and remove entries on

---

Seems like only mods can affect the L-Ignore, but everyone has been debating about members using it.

It's still his decision, though.