Question for the mods and software guru's

[Jim Galli]

Would it be possible to incorporate a feature that allows a poster to block another member from posting in "their" threads. You get these guys whose only purpose in life is to be a fly in the ointment. My thinking is that the original poster should be able to have that small control over "their" posts. Sort of like being able to block a bidder on Ebay that you know is just a notorious trouble maker. For my part I'd be pleased to be blocked from someone elses post that feels my contribution is of no value what-so-ever. What do the rest of the folk think? It could save the mods a lot of bother with pettiness.

[Frank Petronio]

Geez Jim, I'm sorry!

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Don't point your finger at me, Daddy-O, I'll bite it off!

Really, Jim, I wish we could do that.

[domenico Foschi]

Jim, I agree,
I have one of these guys that everytime I post something follows me with unintelligent, pungent and pointless remarks.
Let's, yes, let's!

[Ralph Barker]

I don't know of any standard feature that would allow an OP to block responses from seleted individuals. You can, of course, put them on your ignore list, so you don't see their posts anywhere.

We're avoiding making any code-level changes to the software, as that entails a huge amount of work every time a factory upgrade comes along (even minor ones).

[steve simmons]

I think this would be a great idea. I have also been the victem of someone who waits for me to post and then comes on to start a fight. The problem IMHO is that the moderators don't always apply this guideline

"Prohibited behavior
By accessing this site, you agree not to abuse other site users, neither by posting offensive comments (like personal attacks or insulting language)..."

If they would you might see a lot of this behavior go away.

steve simmons

[Ted Harris]

As Ralph noted, the software will not allow the sort of blocks that are being requested. However, we have taken note of the issue of harrassment and will be 1) clarifying the guidelines and 2) paying more attention to this sort of behavior.

[Dave Brown]

That would kind of defeat the purpose of a "community", wouldn't it?

[Jim Galli]

That would kind of defeat the purpose of a "community", wouldn't it?

Not really. Every community has stone throwers. Every community does what it can to prevent broken windows and punishes people who break them. It may be several years before the next major upgrade here, but I think it would be worthy of looking at.

[eddie]

sounds to me like the ignore function should do the same as you are asking. if you do not see their posts then it has the same effect.....well almost. remember it takes two to fight! if you do not see their posts then you do not respond to them=they go away cause it is not so much fun to play by yourself. (notice i did not say "with" yourself! har har har!)

eddie

[John Voss]

sounds to me like the ignore function should do the same as you are asking. if you do not see their posts then it has the same effect.....well almost.

Almost indeed. As I'm doing now, a quoted post in someone else's post bypasses the ignore function and keeps the thing going. Enforcing the rules that are already in place makes sense.

[John Bowen]

Perhaps QT or someone could request this "enhancement" be made by the writer of the software used to power this site

[roteague]

Perhaps QT or someone could request this "enhancement" be made by the writer of the software used to power this site

This software is a canned package, that anyone can buy. I believe that the souce code is also available as well. FWIW, I personally woudn't go through the effort of modifying it - I would just live with the functionality it has.

[clay harmon]

I think a function such as this would be a very bad idea, because it would essentially serve as a means to stifle any debate. 'Prior restraint' is what they call it in the news business. Trust the people who are reading the posts. If someone is behaving like an insufferable a**, it is abundantly clear from reading the posts who has the long ears and the annoying bray. We can handle it, if by no other way than just putting the offender on the 'ignore' list. But let us do it, not the poster. Allowing the thread creator to pre-emptively choose who is allowed to comment is a very bad thing in my opinion.

[Wayne]

I also think its a terrible idea. It would basically allow BS to go unchallenged. A few people here have huge followings with only one or two people willing to say something that contradicts or corrects them. I'm sorry, but once you push submit they arent "your" threads anymore. All you can do is enforce the personal attack guidelines.

I'm sympathetic if someone is following someone else around and criticizing them just because they dont like that person, but without personal attacks I dont see how you can enforce a situation like that fairly.

Wayne

[Henry Ambrose]

I'm with Clay on this. This is a public forum and has all the good and bad characteristics that go with being one. If anyone here wants a private forum they should start one up for themselves and their few close friends.

From time to time we'll see bad behaviour pop up. Usually the offenders will go away after they stirred up their trouble for a while. We don't have that many here compared to some other fora I've visited.

Rapidly dispatched and blunt words from Moderators will go a long way toward adjusting behaviour by reasonable people who've forgotten their manners. Those who continue to be pains in the side of our community can be quickly eliminated. Peace is a mouse stroke and click away.

[steve simmons]

"I also think its a terrible idea. It would basically allow BS to go unchallenged. ?


I disagree. You don't have to be vulgar and abusive to disagree with someone. It is like the joke about the American trying to talk to someone in another country. If they don't understand the first time just yell at them. All too often that is what happens here. If someone disagrees with you they become vulgar and abusive and will say anything just to brow beat the other person into submission. The guidelines I posted above are not followed and all too frequently have not been enforced.

steve simmons

[Dave Wooten]

Jim, I feel this idea has merit and I do agree with Steve Simmons, Clay's points are well taken but I do not feel this is the issue here (prior restraint)...IMNSHO...I have witnessed all to often the hijacking of a thread with the obvious intent of totally destroying the intent and integrity of the original post and poster.

These individuals should start a new thread.

I am not discouraging debate and discussion nor community. I do not feel the need to be politically correct to posters whose purpose is nothing more than to disrupt and
discredit and vent their personal vendettas with others.

[Wayne]

"I also think its a terrible idea. It would basically allow BS to go unchallenged. ?


I disagree. You don't have to be vulgar and abusive to disagree with someone. It is like the joke about the American trying to talk to someone in another country. If they don't understand the first time just yell at them. All too often that is what happens here. If someone disagrees with you they become vulgar and abusive and will say anything just to brow beat the other person into submission. The guidelines I posted above are not followed and all too frequently have not been enforced.

steve simmons


Enforcement is still a much better option than allowing the thread originator to become moderator of their own threads, which is essentially what the change would do. If someone is being abusive tell the mods. After all, if you are allowed to ban someone from your own threads you could do it for ANY reason, whether they were actually abusive or not. There would be no way to control abuse of that power without moderators getting involved anyway (in which case just use the above suggestion) , you would become self-ordained Thread Gods. It just aint gonna work.


Wayne

[Sal Santamaura]

Seven and a half years later, has the latest version of vBulletin added capability to do what Jim requested in the original post of this thread? I suspect there's a certain lens designer who wouldn't mind being able to lock out one particular poster. :D

[Tim Meisburger]

That guy should be banned and all his posts deleted for aggressive rudeness and unprovoked attacks.

[Ralph Barker]

Seven and a half years later, has the latest version of vBulletin added capability to do what Jim requested in the original post of this thread? I suspect there's a certain lens designer who wouldn't mind being able to lock out one particular poster. :D

I don't believe so. I see nothing in the current configuration options that would provide that functionality.

Rude posts should be reported using the little triangle icon at the lower left of the offending post. Being persistently rude to other users can result in the offender being banned.

[richardman]

I believe in Freedom of Speech, .... but having said that, I know some versions of some forum software would allow the moderator to set it up so that a pesky poster have full read / write access except that no one else can see their postings. A sort of global ignore list. It works particularly great against passive aggressive trolling.

[Ralph Barker]

" . . . except that no one else can see their postings"

True, but that is sort of underhanded. We prefer the more straightforward approach of play by the rules or get banned.

[richardman]

Yay, I agree it's underhanded. It was funny though when the Mod/Site Owner told us the story. The site caters to younger people in their teens and twenties, but there are/were some particularly juvenile trolls.