It would be nice if a thread's original poster could moderate their own threads, by blocking trolls from being able to post in the thread.. I would even go as far as letting the OP delete flame attempts, but I'll settle for just being able to block trolls from perpetuating a flame war.
On a side note, it seems to me that rewarding forum posters with titles for having reached thresholds of total post counts only encourages them to spam and or troll. Just my opinion.
You can add people to your foe list by going on their profile and clicking "Add as foe" n-n
This prevents them from sending you PM's and hides their posts to you on the forum :3
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do not wallow do not stall
Time waits for none at all
Your allowance may crawl,
It may fly or even vanish
But none will seem more lavished
Than time lost to all.
If you let an OP govern a thread, lots of them would just exploit it by getting rid of people who don't agree with them.
It would be be massively abused.
Then don't let the OP delete messages, only allow them to block people. This way any opposition will remain in the thread, but a flame war could not ensue. Even if the OP did decide to kick out a person that vehemently disagrees, their opposition would still be recorded.
That would render it impossible to abuse and the worst that could happen is that a person would not be able to dispute anything after the fact. Or mine forum posts by insistently voicing opinions which are not open to compromise.
Right now the forums are already being "massively abused" by people who spend hours flaming threads with little, if any, intellectual contribution.
one of my concerns regarding such a feature is that if someone creates a server for the purpose of trolling, in that those who join will be given a chance to invest time and start building, and then the server owner will destroy/reset their own map, it's very easy for them to hide evidence of this happening through their control over their thread. If there's no way for the users of a server to give fair feedback, a malicious server owner can continue drawing people in and wasting their time.
Even with just blocking people, it'd be easy enough to block anyone who gets put on the whitelist shortly before destroying their buildings.
The current set up may be slow, but anyone posting abusively in any topics, minecraft server related or otherwise, should have their abusive post reported. We WILL look into all reports, eventually, and if someone's posting habits aren't constructive, they will be given a warning or, at least, asked to leave the thread alone from now on.
Swingerzetta, I'm referring to blocking people from being able to post in threads you start..
In cases where a person comes into a thread and then just flames people, saying that a persons opinions are worthless and just generally being discourteous to anyone in the thread (usually the OP).
Like, if you start a thread and say "i like chickens" and then i come in and say "chickens suck and you suck for liking them" you should be able to go, ah, ty, *click* then i can't say anything more in your thread. I could still enter a new thread of yours and comment, but not anymore in the thread where you like chickens and I've been an ass.
Stalking you in new threads with the intent to grief you or your thread would be harassment giving you rights to flag my comments.
Eventually the Mods would be able to see a trend in problem forum go-ers, and eliminate the trash; leaving the forums open to the free exchange of constructive ideas, with little effort. And a much more fulfilling forum to read. Instead of the cesspool we have now with people putting a lot of thought into their ideas only to have them trashed by naysayers and ridiculed without any substantiation.
Quote from Sudo »
I don't understand what you mean by "Blocking People". Is that forbidding people to post in your thread? Or hiding their posts from you?
The former. Forbidding people from being able to post in your thread, after having done so at least once.
I think the ultimate problem here is that it places the OP above everyone else in the thread. When someone aims to discuss something, his voice should be regarded equally with everyone else's; giving the OP power to control what happens essentially bends this in his favor.
There's no point to it. If trolls are really the issue, we have a report button, and it's very effective at sorting out problems.
Swingerzetta, I'm referring to blocking people from being able to post in threads you start..
In cases where a person comes into a thread and then just flames people, saying that a persons opinions are worthless and just generally being discourteous to anyone in the thread (usually the OP).
Like, if you start a thread and say "i like chickens" and then i come in and say "chickens suck and you suck for liking them" you should be able to go, ah, ty, *click* then i can't say anything more in your thread. I could still enter a new thread of yours and comment, but not anymore in the thread where you like chickens and I've been an ass.
Right. I see what you're saying, and I can definately see how that could be helpful. What I'm saying is just that it could be abused by pre-emtively banning people from your thread before they have a chance to say something productive. My example was in server threads in the Beta Survival Servers section, but other examples could include the OP just starting arguments and then blocking the other guy just to annoy him, you know?
As I say, I can see how this could be helpful, but I'm just thinking the costs may outweigh the benefits.
I'm not asking for complete control, but the point is moot, try as I might there will always be people who come in and read one or two posts, then formulate an opinion because they think they know what's going on, when really they don't and it's unmistakable because they say things which were no where in the post.. like me wanting full control over the thread.
I asked to be able to ban a person from a thread, After they post, and only being able to ban a person from the thread that they posted in, in the first place.
But it doesn't matter, even the mods that replied didn't read what i wrote, so really, who is left to go to? the supreme court?
I'm not asking for complete control, but the point is moot, try as I might there will always be people who come in and read one or two posts, then formulate an opinion because they think they know what's going on, when really they don't and it's unmistakable because they say things which were no where in the post.. like me wanting full control over the thread.
I asked to be able to ban a person from a thread, After they post, and only being able to ban a person from the thread that they posted in, in the first place.
But it doesn't matter, even the mods that replied didn't read what i wrote, so really, who is left to go to? the supreme court?
The point is now moot. Thread closed.
They did read your post. I think you're the one not reading theirs.
Quote from Swingerzetta »
Right. I see what you're saying, and I can definately see how that could be helpful. What I'm saying is just that it could be abused by pre-emtively banning people from your thread before they have a chance to say something productive. My example was in server threads in the Beta Survival Servers section, but other examples could include the OP just starting arguments and then blocking the other guy just to annoy him, you know?
As I say, I can see how this could be helpful, but I'm just thinking the costs may outweigh the benefits.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do not wallow do not stall
Time waits for none at all
Your allowance may crawl,
It may fly or even vanish
But none will seem more lavished
Than time lost to all.
You're kind of only proving our points; in a situation like this, your "troll blocker" system would allow you to ban us from replying to your thread just because you didn't like what we had to say. Sure, you might not be tempted to misuse it, but nearly everyone else would be.
In any situation, it would make a discussion favor the OP, where everyone should be considered equal.
EDIT: Let's apply the system to this thread. Rdogg would see Cilph's post as derogatory and meaningless, as it is in direct contradiction to what he believes. Rdogg's next post clearly denies what Cilph says, even tagging on a classy "gtfo" on the end, just as Ciplh did.
Now, if you could block someone from a thread, Rdogg would undoubtedly ban Cilph from further replying even though they both have valid opinions. Cilph wouldn't be able to contribute and support himself, others wouldn't get to see what he had to say, and the discussion would be biased for Rdogg as he has eliminated a voice speaking against him. What's worse is that Cilph, with time, will probably get pissed at being banned from talking just because people don't like what he has to say. Dozens of other people would be pissed at this, too. People would make threads everywhere complaining about it, and in the end, the privilege would just be taken away.
EDIT2: Is this suggestion because of this thread? I read your report on muncher, and it was pretty single-sided. You want to have him warned for flaming even though you've been doing the exact same things as him. This almost assures me that you would be one of the people abusing the "troll blocker" you want put into practice.
I'm not asking for complete control, but the point is moot, try as I might there will always be people who come in and read one or two posts, then formulate an opinion because they think they know what's going on, when really they don't and it's unmistakable because they say things which were no where in the post.. like me wanting full control over the thread.
I asked to be able to ban a person from a thread, After they post, and only being able to ban a person from the thread that they posted in, in the first place.
But it doesn't matter, even the mods that replied didn't read what i wrote, so really, who is left to go to? the supreme court?
The point is now moot. Thread closed.
They did read your post. I think you're the one not reading theirs.
Quote from Swingerzetta »
Right. I see what you're saying, and I can definately see how that could be helpful. What I'm saying is just that it could be abused by pre-emtively banning people from your thread before they have a chance to say something productive. My example was in server threads in the Beta Survival Servers section, but other examples could include the OP just starting arguments and then blocking the other guy just to annoy him, you know?
As I say, I can see how this could be helpful, but I'm just thinking the costs may outweigh the benefits.
So now i have to argue in smaller circles with people who don't read the thread about people who don't read the thread, nice.
Quote from Swingerzetta »
by pre-emtively banning people
Quote from Tigax »
Then don't let the OP delete messages, only allow them to block people. This way any opposition will remain in the thread, but a flame war could not ensue. Even if the OP did decide to kick out a person that vehemently disagrees, their opposition would still be recorded.
Quote from A.I. »
You're kind of only proving our points; in a situation like this, your "troll blocker" system would allow you to ban us from replying to your thread just because you didn't like what we had to say.
To keep you from continuing to reply to the thread, yes, in a case where you came in and said, no, this is crap, and kept saying over and over again that it was crap, i could then block you, and you could no longer come in and keep repeating yourself. This would work on two levels, one, anyone voicing their opposition would have incentive to make their reasoning known the first time, rather than waiting for someone to ask them why they disagree.
And in all practicality, i cannot envision anyone blocking someone for simply disagreeing, if they disagree then leave the topic forever, what difference would it make if you blocked them? If they came in and stated their case and disagreed and you block them, they cannot respond, but you cannot just neglect to answer the question, because then any new entrant to the thread would see the opposition, note the neglect to answer and most likely ask the same question, or expose the abuser. Regardless, the opposition would remain to be seen by all.
Quote from A.I. »
Sure, you might not be tempted to misuse it, but nearly everyone else would be.
Sure, you might not be tempted to misuse it, but nearly everyone else might be.
Quote from A.I. »
In any situation, it would make a discussion favor the OP, where everyone should be considered equal.
I cannot agree to this, if a person takes the time to prepare and present an idea in the forums, they should have the opportunity to maintain that thread. The OPs opinions may not be more important, but having a person come into the thread and flood it with "no this is crap" seems hardly fair; it's discourteous to the person who is attempting to contribute and discourages them from doing so in the future.
Right now you have the contributors getting flamed and trolled by the trolls and since it's far easier to snub an idea than to make one, the trolls are winning.
Quote from A.I. »
EDIT: Let's apply the system to this thread. Rdogg would see Cilph's post as derogatory and meaningless, as it is in direct contradiction to what he believes. Rdogg's next post clearly denies what Cilph says, even tagging on a classy "gtfo" on the end, just as Ciplh did.
Now, if you could block someone from a thread, Rdogg would undoubtedly ban Cilph from further replying even though they both have valid opinions.
And so he should, Cilph was rude. But let's move on to practicality, Cilph made his point, said his rude stuff, and continued on to school the guy, yay for him. However, if Rdogg did ban him from the thread, how does that change what's already been said? How does Cilph's point be made moot? Cilph made his point, is there really any more need for him to have a back and forth? What good could possibly come of it? If Cilph says it enough will Rdogg suddenly give in and say ok? Do you see any way that Rdogg could possibly convince Cilph? I don't. So stopping the conversation would hurt the situation how?
Quote from A.I. »
Cilph wouldn't be able to contribute and support himself, others wouldn't get to see what he had to say, and the discussion would be biased for Rdogg as he has eliminated a voice speaking against him. What's worse is that Cilph, with time, will probably get pissed at being banned from talking just because people don't like what he has to say. Dozens of other people would be pissed at this, too. People would make threads everywhere complaining about it, and in the end, the privilege would just be taken away.
Your final sentence is the one i was waiting for, people would flood the forums with gripes.
And your rebuttal? Play Nice, and people won't ban you. Think about what you intend to write, think it through, make sure you are right, make sure you haven't missed anything in the thread BEFORE you post, make sure you aren't rude to the person, keep it cordial and collaborative, refrain from words and phrases which might get you banned from the post; because it may be the only chance you get to speak.
Quote from A.I. »
EDIT2: Is this suggestion because of this thread? I read your report on muncher, and it was pretty single-sided. You want to have him warned for flaming even though you've been doing the exact same things as him.
no no no mr AI, i want him warned for..
Quote from Muncher21 »
Maybe if you came off the pedestal you've built for your self, you'll realize you idea is ****, your a ***** with your nose stuck int he air so far you would drown when it rains,
Quote from Muncher21 »
Never counter argued about the quests being ****ing stupid, and the same as finding a dungeon
I'd like to hear your explanation on how this was some sort of contribution. It was abusive and hateful as he has been throughout the thread, it brought nothing but anger to the conversation and added nothing to help create a better idea.
Had i the option, I would have banned him from that thread a long time ago, so that the war could never have happened, as a result of many hours of posting over the course of days absolutely nothing, has been accomplished. Now explain to me how banning him would have changed anything for the worse.
Quote from A.I. »
This almost assures me that you would be one of the people abusing the "troll blocker" you want put into practice.
Please refer to previous answer
All things aside, you actually read this topic and thread, for that i must commend you. Most people don't.
I told the OP, that I did'nt like his idea, and he cried troll, multiple times.
OP thinks, that anyone that doesn't like his ideas are trolls, and would defiantly abuse this like another poster said.
On a side note, I think it's funny that the OP would want this when he claims that he's "spanking" me in the other thread. And he reported me? I thought you were stomping my arguments so hard you did'nt need that.
Also, I see your still using that "you did'nt read my OP" argument. To all those that don't get it, The OP uses this when ever someone tells it that it has a bad idea. It also likes to nit-pick people's grammar to avoid answering their valid points. Also seen in this thread.
Thank you AI for reading the thread and not just giving a warning to the person reported.
Anyways, this would be easily abused by people trying to block out people that don't like their ideas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from mjcabooseblu »
Muncher is right, listen to him, he can cure the blind and make paraplegics walk.
I'm sorry you feel that way about my responses. I assure you I did read your posts, but maybe I missed or forgot some things. I suspect, though, that I simply haven't been clear. I do see that you're suggesting that people are blocked from FURTHER posting, not that their previous posts have been deleted, but they would simply not be allowed to return.
Here's the thing. The benefit I see is this: People would be able to prevent trolls or unfriendly forumers from harassing them or their thread any further once it's started, rather than having to wait for a mod to intervene and maybe delete the abusive messages.
The downside I see to this is that people with bad intentions could make people angry and block them before they had a chance to speak out; my example is letting them onto a minecraft server, destroying their buildings, and then blocking them from the server thread before they can point out that the server owner is abusive.
Another example could be making a false statement about another user who's already posted and then locking them out so they can't deny it.
and there would be a great many cases where people who just can't handle being disagreed with would block people before discussion could reach a civil and constructive conclusion.
If there were no way to deal with trolls normally, then I would agree with this system. At this point though I think asking for mod intervention is the best all around.
Hopefully I've been more clear this time. If there is something that *I* have misunderstood, I'm interested in having it clarified to me. I'm not trying to flame you or anything, I'm just trying to help you see my point of view, rather than be discouraged that people aren't listening to you. If you don't want to hear my point of view, feel free to let me know that, as well, and I'll leave this thread alone.
lol @ muncher stalking me to cry.
Really muncher, this is harassment now.
All of your claims are imagined by you.
You know swinger, you seem nice enough and i hated to point out that you had missed what i had said, then that girl wanted to throw her hat into the ring and i was forced to point it out. I have no bad feelings toward you, i figured you just made a mistake and would eventually see that i had repeatedly stated that it would be a ban after the fact.
Aw, boo hoo is someone mad that I figured out that all he can do is tell me to reread that OP, and if that doesn't work he goes crying to the mods. Deal with it.
Also you accuse me of stalking you and grieving you. Actually, I have'nt searched any of you thread, or searched for ones you've posted in. Every one I found on my own. So, deal with it. You are one of the people that would block out any negative feedback so you don't have to listen to people that don't like your idea.
This thread was obviously about me, and I responded.
Now you'll just tell me to reread the OP like you always do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from mjcabooseblu »
Muncher is right, listen to him, he can cure the blind and make paraplegics walk.
On a side note, it seems to me that rewarding forum posters with titles for having reached thresholds of total post counts only encourages them to spam and or troll. Just my opinion.
Patch Notes, Ability to moderate your threads, Copper, Tin, Silver, Bronze, and Steel, Depth Increase, Layers in the ground of water/lava, Moar Forum Icons, Moar realistic ore veins-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThis prevents them from sending you PM's and hides their posts to you on the forum :3
Do not wallow do not stall
Time waits for none at all
Your allowance may crawl,
It may fly or even vanish
But none will seem more lavished
Than time lost to all.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffIt would be be massively abused.
Then don't let the OP delete messages, only allow them to block people. This way any opposition will remain in the thread, but a flame war could not ensue. Even if the OP did decide to kick out a person that vehemently disagrees, their opposition would still be recorded.
That would render it impossible to abuse and the worst that could happen is that a person would not be able to dispute anything after the fact. Or mine forum posts by insistently voicing opinions which are not open to compromise.
Right now the forums are already being "massively abused" by people who spend hours flaming threads with little, if any, intellectual contribution.
Patch Notes, Ability to moderate your threads, Copper, Tin, Silver, Bronze, and Steel, Depth Increase, Layers in the ground of water/lava, Moar Forum Icons, Moar realistic ore veins-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffEven with just blocking people, it'd be easy enough to block anyone who gets put on the whitelist shortly before destroying their buildings.
The current set up may be slow, but anyone posting abusively in any topics, minecraft server related or otherwise, should have their abusive post reported. We WILL look into all reports, eventually, and if someone's posting habits aren't constructive, they will be given a warning or, at least, asked to leave the thread alone from now on.
In cases where a person comes into a thread and then just flames people, saying that a persons opinions are worthless and just generally being discourteous to anyone in the thread (usually the OP).
Like, if you start a thread and say "i like chickens" and then i come in and say "chickens suck and you suck for liking them" you should be able to go, ah, ty, *click* then i can't say anything more in your thread. I could still enter a new thread of yours and comment, but not anymore in the thread where you like chickens and I've been an ass.
Stalking you in new threads with the intent to grief you or your thread would be harassment giving you rights to flag my comments.
Eventually the Mods would be able to see a trend in problem forum go-ers, and eliminate the trash; leaving the forums open to the free exchange of constructive ideas, with little effort. And a much more fulfilling forum to read. Instead of the cesspool we have now with people putting a lot of thought into their ideas only to have them trashed by naysayers and ridiculed without any substantiation.
The former. Forbidding people from being able to post in your thread, after having done so at least once.
Patch Notes, Ability to moderate your threads, Copper, Tin, Silver, Bronze, and Steel, Depth Increase, Layers in the ground of water/lava, Moar Forum Icons, Moar realistic ore veins-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThere's no point to it. If trolls are really the issue, we have a report button, and it's very effective at sorting out problems.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffRight. I see what you're saying, and I can definately see how that could be helpful. What I'm saying is just that it could be abused by pre-emtively banning people from your thread before they have a chance to say something productive. My example was in server threads in the Beta Survival Servers section, but other examples could include the OP just starting arguments and then blocking the other guy just to annoy him, you know?
As I say, I can see how this could be helpful, but I'm just thinking the costs may outweigh the benefits.
Patch Notes, Ability to moderate your threads, Copper, Tin, Silver, Bronze, and Steel, Depth Increase, Layers in the ground of water/lava, Moar Forum Icons, Moar realistic ore veinsYou're asking to have complete control over your thread. No that is not possible. It is an internet community forum/discussion forum.
Its all based on opinions and who is to say your post to me or anyone else isn't trolling? Its all opinions.
-Answer to everything-
Search the forums
Google!
Developer Blog
Wiki
I asked to be able to ban a person from a thread, After they post, and only being able to ban a person from the thread that they posted in, in the first place.
But it doesn't matter, even the mods that replied didn't read what i wrote, so really, who is left to go to? the supreme court?
The point is now moot. Thread closed.
Patch Notes, Ability to moderate your threads, Copper, Tin, Silver, Bronze, and Steel, Depth Increase, Layers in the ground of water/lava, Moar Forum Icons, Moar realistic ore veins-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThey did read your post. I think you're the one not reading theirs.
Do not wallow do not stall
Time waits for none at all
Your allowance may crawl,
It may fly or even vanish
But none will seem more lavished
Than time lost to all.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffIn any situation, it would make a discussion favor the OP, where everyone should be considered equal.
EDIT: Let's apply the system to this thread. Rdogg would see Cilph's post as derogatory and meaningless, as it is in direct contradiction to what he believes. Rdogg's next post clearly denies what Cilph says, even tagging on a classy "gtfo" on the end, just as Ciplh did.
Now, if you could block someone from a thread, Rdogg would undoubtedly ban Cilph from further replying even though they both have valid opinions. Cilph wouldn't be able to contribute and support himself, others wouldn't get to see what he had to say, and the discussion would be biased for Rdogg as he has eliminated a voice speaking against him. What's worse is that Cilph, with time, will probably get pissed at being banned from talking just because people don't like what he has to say. Dozens of other people would be pissed at this, too. People would make threads everywhere complaining about it, and in the end, the privilege would just be taken away.
EDIT2: Is this suggestion because of this thread? I read your report on muncher, and it was pretty single-sided. You want to have him warned for flaming even though you've been doing the exact same things as him. This almost assures me that you would be one of the people abusing the "troll blocker" you want put into practice.
So now i have to argue in smaller circles with people who don't read the thread about people who don't read the thread, nice.
To keep you from continuing to reply to the thread, yes, in a case where you came in and said, no, this is crap, and kept saying over and over again that it was crap, i could then block you, and you could no longer come in and keep repeating yourself. This would work on two levels, one, anyone voicing their opposition would have incentive to make their reasoning known the first time, rather than waiting for someone to ask them why they disagree.
And in all practicality, i cannot envision anyone blocking someone for simply disagreeing, if they disagree then leave the topic forever, what difference would it make if you blocked them? If they came in and stated their case and disagreed and you block them, they cannot respond, but you cannot just neglect to answer the question, because then any new entrant to the thread would see the opposition, note the neglect to answer and most likely ask the same question, or expose the abuser. Regardless, the opposition would remain to be seen by all.
Sure, you might not be tempted to misuse it, but nearly everyone else might be.
I cannot agree to this, if a person takes the time to prepare and present an idea in the forums, they should have the opportunity to maintain that thread. The OPs opinions may not be more important, but having a person come into the thread and flood it with "no this is crap" seems hardly fair; it's discourteous to the person who is attempting to contribute and discourages them from doing so in the future.
Right now you have the contributors getting flamed and trolled by the trolls and since it's far easier to snub an idea than to make one, the trolls are winning.
And so he should, Cilph was rude. But let's move on to practicality, Cilph made his point, said his rude stuff, and continued on to school the guy, yay for him. However, if Rdogg did ban him from the thread, how does that change what's already been said? How does Cilph's point be made moot? Cilph made his point, is there really any more need for him to have a back and forth? What good could possibly come of it? If Cilph says it enough will Rdogg suddenly give in and say ok? Do you see any way that Rdogg could possibly convince Cilph? I don't. So stopping the conversation would hurt the situation how?
Your final sentence is the one i was waiting for, people would flood the forums with gripes.
And your rebuttal? Play Nice, and people won't ban you. Think about what you intend to write, think it through, make sure you are right, make sure you haven't missed anything in the thread BEFORE you post, make sure you aren't rude to the person, keep it cordial and collaborative, refrain from words and phrases which might get you banned from the post; because it may be the only chance you get to speak.
no no no mr AI, i want him warned for..
I'd like to hear your explanation on how this was some sort of contribution. It was abusive and hateful as he has been throughout the thread, it brought nothing but anger to the conversation and added nothing to help create a better idea.
Had i the option, I would have banned him from that thread a long time ago, so that the war could never have happened, as a result of many hours of posting over the course of days absolutely nothing, has been accomplished. Now explain to me how banning him would have changed anything for the worse.
Please refer to previous answer
All things aside, you actually read this topic and thread, for that i must commend you. Most people don't.
Patch Notes, Ability to moderate your threads, Copper, Tin, Silver, Bronze, and Steel, Depth Increase, Layers in the ground of water/lava, Moar Forum Icons, Moar realistic ore veinsI told the OP, that I did'nt like his idea, and he cried troll, multiple times.
OP thinks, that anyone that doesn't like his ideas are trolls, and would defiantly abuse this like another poster said.
On a side note, I think it's funny that the OP would want this when he claims that he's "spanking" me in the other thread. And he reported me? I thought you were stomping my arguments so hard you did'nt need that.
Also, I see your still using that "you did'nt read my OP" argument. To all those that don't get it, The OP uses this when ever someone tells it that it has a bad idea. It also likes to nit-pick people's grammar to avoid answering their valid points. Also seen in this thread.
Thank you AI for reading the thread and not just giving a warning to the person reported.
Anyways, this would be easily abused by people trying to block out people that don't like their ideas.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffHere's the thing. The benefit I see is this: People would be able to prevent trolls or unfriendly forumers from harassing them or their thread any further once it's started, rather than having to wait for a mod to intervene and maybe delete the abusive messages.
The downside I see to this is that people with bad intentions could make people angry and block them before they had a chance to speak out; my example is letting them onto a minecraft server, destroying their buildings, and then blocking them from the server thread before they can point out that the server owner is abusive.
Another example could be making a false statement about another user who's already posted and then locking them out so they can't deny it.
and there would be a great many cases where people who just can't handle being disagreed with would block people before discussion could reach a civil and constructive conclusion.
If there were no way to deal with trolls normally, then I would agree with this system. At this point though I think asking for mod intervention is the best all around.
Hopefully I've been more clear this time. If there is something that *I* have misunderstood, I'm interested in having it clarified to me. I'm not trying to flame you or anything, I'm just trying to help you see my point of view, rather than be discouraged that people aren't listening to you. If you don't want to hear my point of view, feel free to let me know that, as well, and I'll leave this thread alone.
Really muncher, this is harassment now.
All of your claims are imagined by you.
You know swinger, you seem nice enough and i hated to point out that you had missed what i had said, then that girl wanted to throw her hat into the ring and i was forced to point it out. I have no bad feelings toward you, i figured you just made a mistake and would eventually see that i had repeatedly stated that it would be a ban after the fact.
Patch Notes, Ability to moderate your threads, Copper, Tin, Silver, Bronze, and Steel, Depth Increase, Layers in the ground of water/lava, Moar Forum Icons, Moar realistic ore veinslol @ OP crying about me harassing him.
Aw, boo hoo is someone mad that I figured out that all he can do is tell me to reread that OP, and if that doesn't work he goes crying to the mods. Deal with it.
Also you accuse me of stalking you and grieving you. Actually, I have'nt searched any of you thread, or searched for ones you've posted in. Every one I found on my own. So, deal with it. You are one of the people that would block out any negative feedback so you don't have to listen to people that don't like your idea.
This thread was obviously about me, and I responded.
Now you'll just tell me to reread the OP like you always do.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired Staff