Question for the mods and software guru's

**John Voss** · 11-Feb-2007, 10:33

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 11-Feb-2007, 14:18

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

**roteague** · 11-Feb-2007, 15:52

Originally Posted by John Bowen

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** · 12-Feb-2007, 05:23

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** · 12-Feb-2007, 07:58

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** · 12-Feb-2007, 08:08

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** · 14-Feb-2007, 08:29

"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** · 14-Feb-2007, 13:36

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** · 14-Feb-2007, 16:25

Originally Posted by 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

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** · 19-Nov-2014, 16:20

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.