Suggestion: Option to make ignored peoples posts completely invisible.

[Dread_Lord]

I've decided to post several suggestions because the ignore system is very simple and flawed. To be more blunt, the ignore system is complete shit.

1. Remove the indicator that shows when people you've ignored has made a post.

2. Make it so that people who are on ignore cannot post in your UserCP. Why even have ignore if they can circumvent it?

3. Make it so that when someone is quoted, and they're on your ignore list, you cannot see their posts. The fact that you can see their posts also defeats the purpose of having ignore.

4. Make it so that if you ignore someone it forces them to put you on ignore.

[zombo.com]

if you have half the board on ignore why post at all?

[Rust]

:lol:

[Dread_Lord]

if you have half the board on ignore why post at all?

I don't have half the board on ignore, it's just that the people I do have on ignore are stalkers. One of them is already in this thread.

Updated my original post to include some suggested changes.

[zombo.com]

sounds like a whole bunch of coding work, when a simpler answer would be for you to fucking ignore them.

as in "pretend they don't exist" rust, are you stalking this troll?

[Rust]

Do these really need to be debated? Clearly this guy wants to live in his own sheltered existence where he doesn't want to listen to the opinions of anyone he disagrees with, so not only does he want go through all this trouble to ignore these people completely, but he events to force others to not read what he says so he can say it without criticism.

There's an easy solution to this problem: Stop being a little crybaby.

[Arkham Knight]

I didn't even know that there is actually an ignore system on this board.

I still can't find the goddamned button.

[Paragon]

Better solution:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oYVtrV25iwU/TdqX-rUD6pI/AAAAAAAAAFk/cILs8L5P5sA/s1600/covering%20ears.jpg

[Rust]

rust, are you stalking this troll?

He wishes. He just saying that because I disagree with what he has to say (e.g. he supports the lunatic that massacred those kids in Norway), and made it known in a couple of threads he participated in.

[Rust]

Better solution:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oYVtrV25iwU/TdqX-rUD6pI/AAAAAAAAAFk/cILs8L5P5sA/s1600/covering%20ears.jpg

Or:

http://alanrdennis.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/baby-shampoo.gif

[zombo.com]

Do these really need to be debated? Clearly this guy wants to live in his own sheltered existence where he doesn't want to listen to the opinions of anyone he disagrees with, so not only does he want go through all this trouble to ignore these people completely, but he events to force others to not read what he says so he can say it without criticism.

There's an easy solution to this problem: Stop being a little crybaby.

i'm trying to be a kinder, gentler zos, who doesn't immediatly call out morons as i seem them, but instead function as an efficient interface between users and admins in s&s.


i'm not very good at it, my bullshit threshold is pretty nonexistent anymore. So thanks for saying that for me :)

[Dread_Lord]

sounds like a whole bunch of coding work, when a simpler answer would be for you to fucking ignore them.

as in "pretend they don't exist" rust, are you stalking this troll?

Rust has been stalking me since Totse and in fact when I ignored Rust he exploited the system by posting in my UserCP right after I ignored him, which is one of the reasons I suggest it be fixed.

Why are you calling me a troll? My suggestions are not trolls and, really, 1, 2, and 3 are just common fucking sense that should already be in the system. Most systems with ignore features implement this kind of stuff. 4 is just an idea.

[Dread_Lord]

i'm trying to be a kinder, gentler zos, who doesn't immediatly call out morons as i seem them, but instead function as an efficient interface between users and admins in s&s.


i'm not very good at it, my bullshit threshold is pretty nonexistent anymore. So thanks for saying that for me :)

See, this is exactly what I am talking about. I can see what you quoted.
What the fuck is the point of an ignore feature if it can be circumvented that easily?

And you're being awfully hostile when my suggestions are not out of the ordinary or out of line.

[Rust]

See, this is exactly what I am talking about. I can see what you quoted.

Awww. The white-nationalist skinhead is sad he can still see the opinions of someone else. :violin:

[Dread_Lord]

In regards to what Rust said about me, I have very valid reasons why I put people on ignore, and it has nothing to do with their opinions.

Want to hear why Rust is on ignore?

Rust used to stalk my every post ever since totse. Rust has an argumentative personality. I have yet to see him agree with a single thing I have ever said and even if he does agree he ignores it and argues about some insignificant point. Once he drove a thread off topic arguing over the definition of words.

In truth this is how all my arguments with him have been. He drags conversations way past the point they need to go and he derails topics in the process.

So one day I make a post on his forum and he derails it, as usual, with nonsense claims that I needed to teach him about the subject I was speaking about before I could ask for other peoples opinions on it.
I explained to him that his knowledge was not a requirement for the conversation and after he derailed my thread with his trolling bullshit I asked that he simply delete the thread and I would make a new one.

I also asked him to stop derailing my threads and when he didn't I put him on ignore.
As soon as he was on ignore he was on my UserCP posting and trying to continue trolling me.

I posted my new thread but Rust, being angry that I Ignored him and defied his trolling bullshit, infracted me.

After the admin got involved he has not bothered me or stalked me but now he seems to be starting in again. I have also made it a point to avoid his forum whenever possible. It seems that every time yall pick a mod for that forum it's a liberal.

So yeah, let's not pretend that I ignore people simply because I don't want to hear what they say. I have very valid reasons and I usually take people off ignore after a while anyways after they get past their little bipolar episodes of retardation.

[Rust]

He wonders why I don't agree with what he says, but who the fuck would when all he says is utter bullshit and lies? He just lied through his teeth right there.

I didn't derail his thread; his thread was accusing Jews of promoting multiculturalism (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=2481875&postcount=1). The first thing I did was ask if he had any evidence linking Jews to promoting culturalism (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=2481908&postcount=3) above other races/ethnic groups/religions. Immediately after that very simple, complete on topic, question, he accused me of trolling and insisted he didn't have to "educate me" (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showpost.php?p=2482177&postcount=4). If the thread got derailed, it's because he couldn't answer a fundamental question/problem with his accusations and instead of admitting that and moving on he started blaming everyone but himself.

Once the argument devolved, and other people joined in, he wanted the thread deleted to make a new one. But instead of asking me to resolve the issue, he made a duplicate thread by himself. I told him he had to talk with me first. I deleted the duplicate thread because I didn't agree that all the opinions of everyone else deserved to be deleted, the first thread could be taken back on topic.

After I told him not to, he created the same thread again (though he changed one or two things to pretend it was a new one). I deleted it again, and gave him a warning (http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/infraction.php?do=view&infractionid=3589) (not an infraction).

I also didn't stalk/spam his "userCP" (he means profile). I posted one or two visitor messages explaining my position.

[Dread_Lord]

Let me guess, Rust disagrees?

[ShadyLady]

Make it so that if you ignore someone it forces them to put you on ignore.

I'd like to see that feature.

[zombo.com]

Let me guess, Rust disagrees?

at length.
we can't really muzzle someone for disagreeing with you though. at least he's posting content. there were actual paragraphs in his response. that..looks like attempted communication to me.

if he's stalking you PM an admin with examples, i can't promise they'll agree with the interpretation though.

[Rust]

He complained to Fish when I gave him the profile warning (again, not an infraction as he claims). Apparently Fish didn't agree with him. :)

But still, this thread isn't about me. It's about requesting a huge amount of unnecessary work because he doesn't want to look at the opinion of someone who disagrees with him.

Remember, he wants this because of all those people he has on ignore. Unless he wants us to believe they are all stalking him, it's clear it has nothing to do with stalking and more to do with him wanting to be oblivious of people with opinions he doesn't like.

[Dread_Lord]

if he's stalking you PM an admin with examples, i can't promise they'll agree with the interpretation though.

Well, that's why I am making these suggestions. If the ignore system is better then you'll never even know they're there. Don't make me triple dot you dude.

[Nick]

They seem reasonable enough I suppose, but number three I can imagine would be nigh impossible to do. : /
Since quoting someone is pretty wishy washy in terms of how 'real' the post is; I could write whatever I wanted and throw anyone's name on it.


Like this! :P

I Think it would be troublesome as the quoted posts are totally under control of the quote-er!

...if that makes sense. :o

[Rust]

Number 4 is definitely not reasonable. Just because someone decides they want to cover their ears, doesn't mean they get to force others to cover their mouth. If he says something absurd, others have the right to read it and comment on it; even if he's resorted to putting them in ignore to not listen to them.

[Dread_Lord]

They seem reasonable enough I suppose, but number three I can imagine would be nigh impossible to do. : /
Since quoting someone is pretty wishy washy in terms of how 'real' the post is; I could write whatever I wanted and throw anyone's name on it.




I Think it would be troublesome as the quoted posts are totally under control of the quote-er!

...if that makes sense. :o

Maybe.
It would have to check the quotation tag for the user name and then run a check against the users ignore list and nop out any ignored users quotes.
You could circumvent it pretty easy. It does seem like a difficult system to make perfect.

[Nick]

Number 4 is definitely not reasonable. Just because someone decides they want to cover their ears, doesn't mean they get to force others to cover their mouth. If he says something absurd, others have the right to read it and comment on it; even if he's resorted to putting them in ignore to not listen to them.

Ahh yeah, maybe number 4 isn't so good. :o

That said; removing the 'this message is hidden because....' seems like an alright idea. And preventing ignored people from posting on your profile or PM'ing you would be nice as well, to a point; moderators/admins obviously need to contact you for warnings or infractions, regardless of their ignore status.

[Rust]

Ahh yeah, maybe number 4 isn't so good. :o

That said; removing the 'this message is hidden because....' seems like an alright idea. And preventing ignored people from posting on your profile or PM'ing you would be nice as well, to a point; moderators/admins obviously need to contact you for warnings or infractions, regardless of their ignore status.

I'd agree that the other seem reasonable, but like you said, they also seem like a bitch to implement; especially the third one. There's no good reason to spend all that work just because people don't want to listen to what someone else has to say. Is it really that difficult to just scroll by? :confused:

[Dread_Lord]

Ahh yeah, maybe number 4 isn't so good. :o

That said; removing the 'this message is hidden because....' seems like an alright idea. And preventing ignored people from posting on your profile or PM'ing you would be nice as well, to a point; moderators/admins obviously need to contact you for warnings or infractions, regardless of their ignore status.

Number 4 would prevent stalking. Can't imagine why Rust would not want that feature. :rolleyes:

[Tachosomoza]

Just because someone decides they want to cover their ears, doesn't mean they get to force others to cover their mouth. If he says something absurd, others have the right to read it and comment on it; even if he's resorted to putting them in ignore to not listen to them.

This. People are getting under his skin and he's sick of being called out on his moronic rubbish, so he thinks that he should be able to have his own little fairyland to play in. Here's a couple solutions for him.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
http://www.vnnforum.com/

As for me, Dread_Lord is pissed because I told him that the culture in which he claims to be a member (skinheads) weren't originally racist and are still, for the most part, very much anti-racist. Among other things.

He needs to grow the fuck up.

[Rust]

Number 4 would prevent stalking. Can't imagine why Rust would not want that feature. :rolleyes:

What stalking? Nobody is stalking you; you're just delusional. I posted in a whopping two threads you did today. Oh, my, I'm suck a stalker!

What this would do is make people who disagree with you unable to disagree with you once you put them on ignore. And face it, that's all you want.

[zombo.com]

non racist skin heads? links?

[Tachosomoza]

non racist skin heads? links?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinheads_Against_Racial_Prejudice

^ A couple guys I know used to roll with a crew of these.

http://www.texasrash.org/

Texas Red and Anarchist Skinheads (RASH) is a group of antifascist, left-wing skinheads. We are dedicated to fighting the influence of far-right ideas within the skinhead scene, and to creating and spreading antifascist youth culture. We are against racism, sexism, homophobia and capitalism; we are for liberty, equality, unity and working-class pride. Oi!


Also, the original skins in Britain back in the 50s and 60s were mostly working class Jamaican immigrants and ethnic British kids who liked Motown and rocksteady music. The racists and fascist trash blew up in the mid '80s, and did a bunch of stupid shit to grab the public's attention, now everyone thinks that skinhead=racist, which isn't the case at all. The scene is shifting back towards the original roots, though. :thumbsup:

[docus]

This thread was unintentionally funny because I have the OP on ignore.

[Dread_Lord]

Tacho is telling stories.
Tacho showed up out of no where and began stalking me and trying to debate with me. He never won a single debate and, to be honest, I doubt he understood half the subjects we debated. He is easily the dumbest person I have ever encountered on this forum. Not even exaggerating or being insulting, the guy is literally a retard. He doesn't comprehend half of the shit I say to him. People have actually had to step in and re-explain everything I explained to him once or twice already. No I am not making this up.

He is a moron and he is a stalker and when he was made a mod I placed him on ignore and make it an effort to stay out of his forum so he can't exercise petty vengeance on me.
Though I will probably just take him off ignore and stay out of his forum and that should work fine.


And Docus ignored me so I ignored him.

Note that all three of the people in here bitching trying to claim I am somehow unjust or unreasonable were ignored for perfectly legit reasons and they are all communist faggots. Note that both Rust and Tacho sought my attention, not the other way around. I'm not following them to their threads. I don't give a flying fuck about either of those jackasses. They're following me and starting arguments with me because they're commies and I am a nationalist and that hurts their sensitive bitch like sensibilities.

[zombo.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinheads_Against_Racial_Prejudice

^ A couple guys I know used to roll with a crew of these.

http://www.texasrash.org/



Also, the original skins in Britain back in the 50s and 60s were mostly working class Jamaican immigrants and ethnic British kids who liked Motown and rocksteady music. The racists and fascist trash blew up in the mid '80s, and did a bunch of stupid shit to grab the public's attention, now everyone thinks that skinhead=racist, which isn't the case at all. The scene is shifting back towards the original roots, though. :thumbsup:

probably best i didn't know all this in jail. arguing skin head history most likely would have gotten my ass beat.

[Tachosomoza]

Yeah. Most everyone, black and white, stayed away from those dumb assed woods where I was.

[Rust]

Note that all three of the people in here bitching trying to claim I am somehow unjust or unreasonable were ignored for perfectly legit reasons and they are all communist faggots. There's a surprise.

Yeah, nobody is arguing you're being unjust or unreasonable for ignoring people, you're being unjust and unreasonable for wanting to force other people to ignore you because you can't handle the fact that they criticize what you say. It doesn't work that way.

You say something dumb, everyone else has the right to point out how it was dumb. Like just now. See? :)

[Dread_Lord]

Notice how they turned this thread into an off topic troll fest?

Isn't that something they can be infracted for?

[Tachosomoza]

Notice how they turned this thread into an off topic troll fest?

Isn't that something they can be infracted for?

Anything that disagrees with your beliefs, or anyone who doesn't kiss your ass, is a troll in your book.

OT: This is a stupid fucking idea. If Dread_Lord wants to have a fairyland to play in, let him take his ass to Stormfront or VNN.

[Nick]

Cmon' guys, I realize the lot of you have a history of not getting along, but this isn't a political debate. :facepalm:
It's a valid suggestion and should be discussed as such; if you want to have it out about your beliefs, keep it in the appropriate forums!

[Tachosomoza]

Cmon' guys, I realize the lot of you have a history of not getting along, but this isn't a political debate. :facepalm:
It's a valid suggestion and should be discussed as such; if you want to have it out about your beliefs, keep it in the appropriate forums!

This thread was started because Dread_Lord doesn't like being debated with or having his ideas critiqued. He wants a little circle jerk of his own. His intention was clear from the get go.

[&Zenith]

People actually use the ignore feature? I am disappoint.

At any rate, I couldn't care less if this is implemented or not.

[ShadyLady]

Tacho is telling stories.
Tacho showed up out of no where and began stalking me and trying to debate with me. He never won a single debate and, to be honest, I doubt he understood half the subjects we debated. He is easily the dumbest person I have ever encountered on this forum. Not even exaggerating or being insulting, the guy is literally a retard. He doesn't comprehend half of the shit I say to him. People have actually had to step in and re-explain everything I explained to him once or twice already. No I am not making this up.

He is a moron and he is a stalker and when he was made a mod I placed him on ignore and make it an effort to stay out of his forum so he can't exercise petty vengeance on me.
Though I will probably just take him off ignore and stay out of his forum and that should work fine.


And Docus ignored me so I ignored him.

Note that all three of the people in here bitching trying to claim I am somehow unjust or unreasonable were ignored for perfectly legit reasons and they are all communist faggots. Note that both Rust and Tacho sought my attention, not the other way around. I'm not following them to their threads. I don't give a flying fuck about either of those jackasses. They're following me and starting arguments with me because they're commies and I am a nationalist and that hurts their sensitive bitch like sensibilities.

You don't have to stay out of BI b/c Tach is a mod in there. I can assure you he is not going to 'exercise petty vengeance' on you.

[Dread_Lord]

Anything that disagrees with your beliefs, or anyone who doesn't kiss your ass, is a troll in your book.

OT: This is a stupid fucking idea. If Dread_Lord wants to have a fairyland to play in, let him take his ass to Stormfront or VNN.

It's not a question at all that you're trolling me and derailing this thread.

You are only just now posting on topic and you're only saying it's a stupid idea because you don't like me and even stated that as your explanation of why it's a stupid idea.

Whatever, keep it up and I will just get the admin involved.

This is the kind of shit I am talking about right here. They're like children.

Crazy Pills - YouTube

[Tachosomoza]

You don't have to stay out of BI b/c Tach is a mod in there. I can assure you he is not going to 'exercise petty vengeance' on you.

I told them that I wouldn't do anything of the sort when he came into my mod introduction thread. Again, he's extremely paranoid and delusional. As long as he behaves himself and stays relevant to the matter at hand, we won't have issues.

Anyone who wants to completely stifle discussion and debate by placing someone on ignore and forcing them to do the same has issues.

[Dread_Lord]

You don't have to stay out of BI b/c Tach is a mod in there. I can assure you he is not going to 'exercise petty vengeance' on you.

Since 2004 I have been infracted 6 times. I deserved it I think 1 maybe 2 times.

In nearly every case I was infracted by a liberal. Sepiroth, Rust, Greyfox, Sybil, etc. I forget all the names. I think Sepiroth got me twice.

The fact is I am well aware that A: You can't do shit to prevent vengeance infractions and B: Admin ain't going to do shit either.

[Tachosomoza]

I really don't consider these suggestions debatable. If people don't want to be argued with, they can go elsewhere. You can't build a bubble for yourself from which you spew shit and expect not to have it popped.

[Dread_Lord]

I really don't consider these suggestions debatable. If people don't want to be argued with, they can go elsewhere. You can't build a bubble for yourself from which you spew shit and expect not to have it popped.

You already said that. Thank you for your input, go away.

[Tachosomoza]

You're welcome. Try harder next time. :)

[Fish]

I've decided to post several suggestions because the ignore system is very simple and flawed. To be more blunt, the ignore system is complete shit.

1. Remove the indicator that shows when people you've ignored has made a post.

2. Make it so that people who are on ignore cannot post in your UserCP. Why even have ignore if they can circumvent it?

3. Make it so that when someone is quoted, and they're on your ignore list, you cannot see their posts. The fact that you can see their posts also defeats the purpose of having ignore.

4. Make it so that if you ignore someone it forces them to put you on ignore.


The indicator is there so that, should you choose to see the post, you can do so on a case-by-case basis. Removing the indicator would mean that users that do occasionally like to read an ignored post would have to completely un-ignore the person just to view a single post, assuming they'd even know it's there. I understand that some folks don't ever choose to click "view," but the system is not meant to make ignored users invisible, just less visible.

It's possible that we could do something that would prevent them from posting on your profile page, but I don't know if I want to start telling people that they aren't allowed to post in certain places simply because another user has them on ignore for whatever reason. If a user is actually harassing you, let me or another staff member know and it'll get taken care of, but if we're going to start telling users "you can't post here because some other user doesn't like you" without them having broken any rules, that's setting a precedent that I'm not comfortable with.

The "make posts quoting someone you've ignored also ignored" option has been discussed many times, and for the hundredth time, I'll explain why it's impossible: a post is loaded as a post, but a post quoted within a post is processed as just text. If I have billy-bob ignored, and I want all quotes also ignored, then the server needs to search for the text "Originally Posted by billy-bob" and then ignore any posts containing it every time you load a page. You know how long it takes the server to search for some text when you're looking for something? Imagine that multiplied by however many people you have on ignore, every time you load a page (regardless of whether there's anything to be ignored on the page). Then multiply that by however many people are browsing at any moment, and you've pretty much designed a way for Zoklet to lag itself out of existence. Unless we completely re-write the way that VBull works, there's no practical way to do this.

Once again, this involves imposing restrictions on other users simply because other users have decided they don't like them. If I decide just to fuck with billy-bob, then I can put him on ignore and suddenly he's banned from seeing my posts. I'm not comfortable doing this to a users that hasn't broken any rules, but if someone is really haranguing you that badly that you think they shouldn't be allowed to even read your posts, you should consider either talking to a staff member about it, or revising your expectations of what "ignore" means.



In short, the ignore system is not supposed to be a 100% "erase this user from your zoklet experience" system. It's meant to help you do the ignoring, not do the ignoring for you.

[Dread_Lord]

The indicator is there so that, should you choose to see the post, you can do so on a case-by-case basis. Removing the indicator would mean that users that do occasionally like to read an ignored post would have to completely un-ignore the person just to view a single post, assuming they'd even know it's there. I understand that some folks don't ever choose to click "view," but the system is not meant to make ignored users invisible, just less visible.

Why not an option to choose if you want to see it or not?


It's possible that we could do something that would prevent them from posting on your profile page, but I don't know if I want to start telling people that they aren't allowed to post in certain places simply because another user has them on ignore for whatever reason. If a user is actually harassing you, let me or another staff member know and it'll get taken care of, but if we're going to start telling users "you can't post here because some other user doesn't like you" without them having broken any rules, that's setting a precedent that I'm not comfortable with.

That doesn't even make sense tbh. Why do you even have ignore if you don't want to enforce it? It seems to me that preventing someone from posting on a UserCP of a user that has ignored them is simply common sense and should have been part of the system to begin with.
Why would someone post on a usercp of someone that has ignored them in the first place?


The "make posts quoting someone you've ignored also ignored" option has been discussed many times, and for the hundredth time, I'll explain why it's impossible: a post is loaded as a post, but a post quoted within a post is processed as just text. If I have billy-bob ignored, and I want all quotes also ignored, then the server needs to search for the text "Originally Posted by billy-bob" and then ignore any posts containing it every time you load a page. You know how long it takes the server to search for some text when you're looking for something? Imagine that multiplied by however many people you have on ignore, every time you load a page (regardless of whether there's anything to be ignored on the page). Then multiply that by however many people are browsing at any moment, and you've pretty much designed a way for Zoklet to lag itself out of existence. Unless we completely re-write the way that VBull works, there's no practical way to do this.

Correct me if I am wrong but it does nearly that exact same thing when it finds and collapses posts from people on your ignore list, does it not? Speaking strictly in resources, not programming.


Once again, this involves imposing restrictions on other users simply because other users have decided they don't like them. If I decide just to fuck with billy-bob, then I can put him on ignore and suddenly he's banned from seeing my posts. I'm not comfortable doing this to a users that hasn't broken any rules, but if someone is really haranguing you that badly that you think they shouldn't be allowed to even read your posts, you should consider either talking to a staff member about it, or revising your expectations of what "ignore" means.


I threw this in as an afterthought and don't really care.


In short, the ignore system is not supposed to be a 100% "erase this user from your zoklet experience" system. It's meant to help you do the ignoring, not do the ignoring for you.

Why not make it optional?



I had the feeling when all my trolls showed up derailing and trolling that this is pretty much the way it was going to go.
It's not a big deal.

[Jerk.]

Didn't read but I'm pretty sure there's a grease monkey script that makes ignored posts disappear.

[Dread_Lord]

Didn't read but I'm pretty sure there's a grease monkey script that makes ignored posts disappear.

Thx for the suggestion. Was thinking I would have to write it myself.

[Fish]

As for #1, I suppose that an option to make the notices disappear is possible, but like I said, if we're doing a system that's the same for everyone, we'd keep it this way.

For #2 and #4, ignoring a person doesn't make it so that they can't post. Prohibiting them from posting on your profile DOES. If you want the system to to make their posts on your profile invisible, that's one thing, but the ignore feature never has and never will extend to prohibiting users on your ignore list from doing certain things. You may as well ask that the ignore feature stop them from posting in threads you've started, posted in, or looked at if we're gonna go down this road. Making their posts more invisible = okay. Preventing them from posting = not okay.

As for #3, perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. Posts are stored differently in the server's memory than the content of those posts. The "owner" of a post is coded into it, just like the post date, number, and the fact that it's a separate post that can be moved, copied, deleted, etc.. When you've ignored a user, the system checks the post data to see if it's been made by a user on your ignore list. Conversely, quotes are part of the content of a post. They are stored purely as text, just like any other words, phrases, or sentences a person might post. To hide quotations of people on your ignore list, the system would have to do a brute-force text search on the contents of each post. It's the difference between checking the author of a book, and checking to see if a certain author was quoted within another book. One of those things is printed on the cover, while the other requires you to actually read the book.

[Rust]

Why would someone post on a usercp of someone that has ignored them in the first place?

Because they disagree with the person and want to say something. You have control over the posts in your visitor-message section anyways (i.e. you can delete them if you want), so it seems your complaint in this point reduces to you not wanting to use this feature already available.

[Fish]

You have control over the posts in your visitor-message section, ... deleting those posts you really don't want.

Also, this. Deleting posts you don't want on your profile makes a lot more sense than full-on prohibiting a user from posting it in the first place.

[A$AP Weed Smoker]

Yeah. Most everyone, black and white, stayed away from those dumb assed woods where I was.

the worst was the youngsters who liked hip hop and chilled with black people in the world but then wanted to be a "wood" in jail, shit is retarded man, some people just lack their own identity

[Dread_Lord]

As for #1, I suppose that an option to make the notices disappear is possible, but like I said, if we're doing a system that's the same for everyone, we'd keep it this way.

If everyone can choose to see it or not then I would say that's the same for everyone.


For #2 and #4, ignoring a person doesn't make it so that they can't post. Prohibiting them from posting on your profile DOES. If you want the system to to make their posts on your profile invisible, that's one thing, but the ignore feature never has and never will extend to prohibiting users on your ignore list from doing certain things. You may as well ask that the ignore feature stop them from posting in threads you've started, posted in, or looked at if we're gonna go down this road. Making their posts more invisible = okay. Preventing them from posting = not okay.

Dude you have features that allow users to delete posts on their usercp. How is that any different? The big thing here is that you would only be allowing the automation of the delete feature.
As I said, I don't really care about #4.


As for #3, perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. Posts are stored differently in the server's memory than the content of those posts. The "owner" of a post is coded into it, just like the post date, number, and the fact that it's a separate post that can be moved, copied, deleted, etc.. When you've ignored a user, the system checks the post data to see if it's been made by a user on your ignore list. Conversely, quotes are part of the content of a post. They are stored purely as text, just like any other words, phrases, or sentences a person might post. To hide quotations of people on your ignore list, the system would have to do a brute-force text search on the contents of each post. It's the difference between checking the author of a book, and checking to see if a certain author was quoted within another book. One of those things is printed on the cover, while the other requires you to actually read the book.

Makes sense, already working on handling this client side anyways.

[Fish]

If everyone can choose to see it or not then I would say that's the same for everyone.

It just seems a bit petty to me that not seeing their text isn't enough, and so you're asking for a re-write of the ignore feature's code just so that you don't have to even know that the person posted in the first place. Whether it's possible isn't so much my hangup so much as whether it's really worth how much work it might take to implement this.

Dude you have features that allow users to delete posts on their usercp. How is that any different? The big thing here is that you would only be allowing the automation of the delete feature.
As I said, I don't really care about #4.

Auto-delete and preventing them from posting are separate things.

[Dread_Lord]

It just seems a bit petty to me that not seeing their text isn't enough, and so you're asking for a re-write of the ignore feature's code just so that you don't have to even know that the person posted in the first place. Whether it's possible isn't so much my hangup so much as whether it's really worth how much work it might take to implement this.



Auto-delete and preventing them from posting are separate things.

Well you've given multiple excuses, none of which have really been logical except for simply saying you don't want to do the work. Not wanting to do the work I can understand, the previous numerous illogical excuses, however, suggest bias so I am wasting my time anyways.
Forget I mentioned it.

[Fish]

Well you've given multiple excuses, none of which have really been logical


:facepalm:

[Tachosomoza]

Well you've given multiple excuses, none of which have really been logical except for simply saying you don't want to do the work. Not wanting to do the work I can understand, the previous numerous illogical excuses, however, suggest bias so I am wasting my time anyways.
Forget I mentioned it.

Donny Osmond - Go Away Little Girl (45 Rpm) - YouTube

[Dread_Lord]

:facepalm:

Am I wrong?

We are only discussing these last two suggestions.

The first one you gave multiple excuses before settling on not wanting to do the work and can't see a reason why it's needed. Does this mean that it's just another excuse or that you were just making the excuses before because the bottom line is you just don't want to do it? If that's the case, why not just say so?
I currently have 8 people ignored and many of them follow me often posting directly after me. It becomes an annoyance for a couple reasons.

As for the usercp thing, I honestly don't even understand that one. It's not even remotely sensible to have ignore but allow the ignore to be circumvented, which ultimately consumes more resources than if you would have just blocked them from posting altogether rather than making users manually delete the comments.
This too could even be solved by an opt in feature.

But the fact is, I know the answer already and to be honest, I feel i've already said more than enough on the matter.

The above post by one of your moderators is the perfect example of the kinds of behavior that warrant making these kinds of peoples invisible.
Troll threads are fine, but he's been derailing this thread and trolling it and has only posted 1 or 2 on topic comments the whole time and he only did that because I brought up that he was not on topic.