[Azhon]

I wish that this forum had an ignore function. It is a great feature on other fora I read and I miss it here...

Anyone else agree with me?

[Brianna]

What exactly do you want it to ignore? Particular users, forums etc. I think you need to be more specific so that Synoozer will know what you are looking for.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Brianna @ Oct. 09 2002,3:02 pm) What exactly do you want it to ignore? Particular users, forums etc. I think you need to be more specific so that Synoozer will know what you are looking for.

I know I'd like the ability to ignore particular users, although preferable to that would simply be a policy requiring a certain maturity of behavior on the forums. Flamers have no place on any forum worth anything.

--matt

[Maggie]

It would speed things up on my end if I could just load the forums that I read, and would be really nice to be able to ignore posts by certain users.

I don't really think it's worth the work that would be involved in making it work; I basically ignore both now most of the time with no problem.  I think removing messages that are flaming would help, and so would putting a limit on the length of posts.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Maggie @ Oct. 10 2002,09:36 am) I don't really think it's worth the work that would be involved in making it work; I basically ignore both now most of the time with no problem.  I think removing messages that are flaming would help, and so would putting a limit on the length of posts.

Maybe some sort of system whereby if your posts are removed more than twice for flaming, your account is terminated or whatnot. Flaming is nothing but useless, content-less spam.

--matt

[Loremaster]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Oct. 10 2002,1:37 pm) Flaming is nothing but useless, content-less spam. --matt

Define flame.
Opinions will vary as to what constitutes a flame, and forces someone to read every message and make a decision.  Filtering for foul language may be doable depending on the software and is fairly objective.

Personally, I get a secret thrill out of a 'good' flame: one that actually makes a point and flames the recipient without resorting to foul language or grade school level name-calling.  

It seems to me from recent postings that you (as many of us) may find it difficult not to respond to thecontentless, pointless gibberish of those you have indicated are not worthy of your interest.

Could it be that an IGNORE feature is not so much for squelching the cacophany of fools as it is a bridle on the temptation to respond in kind?
 

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Loremaster @ Oct. 10 2002,3:57 pm) Opinions will vary as to what constitutes a flame, and forces someone to read every message and make a decision.  Filtering for foul language may be doable depending on the software and is fairly objective. Personally, I get a secret thrill out of a 'good' flame: one that actually makes a point and flames the recipient without resorting to foul language or grade school level name-calling.   It seems to me from recent postings that you (as many of us) may find it difficult not to respond to thecontentless, pointless gibberish of those you have indicated are not worthy of your interest. Could it be that an IGNORE feature is not so much for squelching the cacophany of fools as it is a bridle on the temptation to respond in kind?

A flame is, to me, anything that attacks an individual rather than an idea. It's very easy to do a good job of filtering out flames. The excellent mud-dev mailing list has virtually no flames, for instance, though admittedly, it requires the moderator to pre-approve all posts that go through, which is somewhat against the immediate nature of web forums.

A flame that makes a point isn't a flame in that part of the post. A flame that attacks an individual rather than an idea is just name-calling, regardless of whether it's clever or not.

And yeah, I, like most people, have a difficult time not responding to juvenile posts aimed at me. Character flaw, as the people making those posts should really rank beneath my attention.

Still, the problem with an ignore option is that even posters that make posts that are 95% full of garbage may occasionally come up with something useful to say, though I suppose if it's useful enough, someone will comment on it and one could read the useful bits that way.

--matt

[Xanferious]

phpbb version 2has that mod avalibe and alot of other features to me phpbb is the bet bb out there, its more dynamic

[Azhon]

When I mean ignore option, I mean the ability to ignore users.

I have not the slightest wish to stop anyone from posting whatever their opinion is, just I personally don't want to see it.

An ignore option would allow the person to continue to sprew rhetoric as much as he wishes, but I could just ignore him and be done with it.

Hope this clarifies things.

[Alaire]

A flame in most reasonable discussion forums is designated as an argument that attacks a user rather than the argument.

It'd be nice if those were confined to one thread or forum. Keeping a space open for them keeps them limited to that while letting people let off steam.