Category: Zone BBS Suggestions and Feedback
I realize that this subject is one that has been brought up time and time again, however, I would like to make another suggestion. Based on the assumption that the ignore feature is not going to be removed from the boards, might I suggest that it be amended slightly, so that if you have someone on ignore, you are then unable to post to that person’s board topics. Several topics have been posted recently by users who are ignored by other users, and yet, despite the fact these users have them on ignore, they insist on posting to their topics, and causing the whole topic to become disjointed because they were unable to read the initial post. If they were unable to post to the topics of a user they have on ignore, then this wouldn’t happen. I am still an advocate of the ignore feature on the boards being removed altogether, but as this appears not to be happening, can we have a compromise? Any thoughts?
I can't see that working. Because then that would then force them to unignore that person. And if they don't want to do that, then well they are restricted. Ok I don't use the ignore feature, am just playing devils advicate here.
well the ignore feature on the boards is a silly idea anyway, but if you're going by that view, if you ignore someone's board posts, you're doing it because you can't stand to read what they've posted right? in which case, you shouldn't click on their topics in the first place, but if you do, you shouldn't be able to give an opinion on something you're ignoring.
perhaps. Ah but what about forum storkers? Lets have this as a situation. There's 2 people, and neither likes the other. 1 posts in a topic, it's a sensable topic. Then the other person decides to shall we say shaddow post. They can then do this in every topic person 1 posts in, thus effectively barring them from posting anywhere. That's a major reason not to have it. Because person 2 can flame person 1 and person 1 wouldn't even know it.
Good point LV I think the ignore feature is fine as it is why is there this need to constantly fiddle with something that isn't broken...
well i don't use it, i don't see the point. but I can see problems with what SB is suggesting, that's all I was hilighting.
because the suggestion is merely to prevent people from posting to topics of users they are ignoring. i.e. if you post a topic and i have you on ignore, i am unable to respond to that topic, if you post within a topic that was posted by someone else, I can still post to that topic, and I won't se what you've posted because I have you on ignore.
right so lets just get this clear then, are you suggesting that if I created a topic and you had me ignored then you couldn't post to a topic that I had created, but if I had posted to a topic that someone else had created, then you could post as per normal? Well I don't know about the programming side of it, but yes for those who would use the ignore feature then that might work. Mind you though, I got to say it, sometimes I do view topics by people I don't normally like, mostly for curiousity and I'll post as well, so if I did ever decide to make use of the ignore feature then that would restrict me. in theory.
How abut you just have to ignore everything from every user on the sight or no user on the sight, none of this fine grained control crap?
Blindguy I agree with your last line
Well Darren there’s a difference between not liking someone and putting them on ignore, after all, we can’t all like everyone, but even people we don’t like potentially have constructive things t say sometimes. However, if you deem someone to be so offensive that you feel the need to put them on ignore, then you shouldn’t have the ability to comment on anything they have to say, after all, if you haven’t seen what they have to say, then how can you comment on it? After all, by putting a user on ignore you are already being restricted, because you can’t see what they’re saying. Personally I agree with blindguy to an extent – I wouldn’t have an ignore feture at all, on the boards or anywhere else, but as that will never happen, at least can we compromise?
well even if there was one I wouldn't use it. Am only discussing it purely as a point of discussion to be honest, as I wouldn't ever use it it really doesn't affect me.
Yes even people I don't like have some constructive things to say, and I haven't got any problem with agreeing with them even.
the problem though darren is that some users have people on ignore, and they reply to their topics purely because they can, and 9 times out of 10 they haven't got a clue what the topic is even about because they have so many users on ignore.
As has been brought up earlier, the question is how far to take the can't post thing. If you're ignoring me, and I created a topic, my understanding is that you're saying that you would not be able to respond to that topic. I in a way have ownership of it since I'm the first poster. What if I know you're ignoring me, so I post in every topic? Should you not be able to post because you're ignoring me and I've made at least 1 post in that topic, or should you be able to post if I'm not the originator of the topic? I think this is an interesting compromise and am trying to fully understand it and work out all the special cases.
Ok this is how my suggestion works, say I have you on ignore, you start a topic on the boards, because I have you on ignore, I am then unable to post to that topic. However, say someone else starts a topic on the boards and you respond to that topic, because you are not the originator of that topic, I can post to it, after all, I can see what the original post was about. So … yep, only if the person on ignore actually starts the topic are the people ignoring that user unable to respond to it.
yes then that makes a degree of sense. Considering that if I really didn't like that person I would ignore them anyway.
I like this idea. What do others have to say?
I like the idea very much. I think it is a good solution.
bring it on
I'm against this on principle. There have been far too many posts concerning alterations to the ignore feature...And I feel this move is completely unnecessary .
That last version of SB's suggestions sounds perfect to me. If you ignore a person you shouldn't be posting to their topics, you could even go as far as not displaying topics posted by someone you ignore on your list of topics (I think it would be as simple as adding something like "where IgnoreStatus = Fales (or = 0 depending on datatype) provided you have a Boolean or bit column) to a sql statement or two and you will have achieved this. I think it makes a lot of sense really.
Thanks
-B
actually yeah, not being able to see their topics is a good idea as well to add to the feature ..
yeah yeah Chris, I agree, whatever you say.
Um, Goblin, as long as the suggestions are constructive, I think we can post as many topics about the ignore feature as we wish. Personally I like the last suggestion.
Yes and I don't need to rack my brains to wonder why hmmm?
well the irony of this is ines, goblin has me on ignore so he doesn't actually know what the suggestion is! *grins*
Oh yeah, I forgot. Hehehehe. Good point claire. But he read Chris Ns suggestion.
ok, this topic seemed to disappear so I thought I'd bring it back to the fore. Chris seemed to like the suggestion at the time so .. any chance of it becoming a reality?
sure hope so!
it's a good idea clare
I don't ignore anyone but sounds a good idea. I thought is good to repply here because the more people posting here the more likely it is to happen for the people who want to use it.
Yeah man, I like the idea too. I like as many options as possible even though I doubt I'll ever actually used them myself.
just bumping this back to the top. maybe if it keeps coming back ... *looks hopeful*
I dont like the ignore feature on the boards pms qns yeah the boards that causes the issue of throwing a whole discussion off
still nothing has happened on this one so time for it to come back to the top! it's not gunna go away! please please please?
I'm all for this. We're waiting, please make these changes.