Option to block users comments

Frank Truth wrote: This thread is cool, you want to promote sameness and banish Tradiban, the receiver of memory, to elsewhere.

All that is missing is people calling for precision of language and you will get the forums you deserve.

With respect, no.

I think those of you who keep coming back to this general argument don't really understand that in the world we live in we all choose, each and every day, what information we want to know and what information we don't want to know. We all choose who to listen to and who not to listen to. We all exist in bubbles of our own creation. 

I don't want to watch Foxnews, I don't watch Foxnews; I don't agree with CNN, I don't watch CNN. Etc. etc. I hate white supremacists, I don't read white supremacist web sites.

Whether this curation of our own little information bubbles is a positive thing or not, the ability to block certain users is certainly no different than what we all already do each and every day.

This is a fucking Rock climbing website. Let's be stoked on rock climbing for gods sakes.

I come here to get psyched on days like today when it's snowing on May 20 and am stuck inside, and instead am greeted by a wave of shit from toxic people like I'm watching a political smear campaign. I come here to get away from that noise.

I'm all for the block feature. 

Wow. It appears my master plan is working better than expected.   

Mojo, can you make me of those post blocking thingys for OLH? Asking for a friend.

FosterK wrote: There seems to be a lot of confusion between the implementation of a block function (controlled by each individual user, with their own separate criteria) and banning (controlled by admins and prevents that user from participating at all).

If there is a genuine fear that you may miss good content from the trolls, why not add a time-limited option to each block? That way, if a user thinks that someone's behaviour is probably temporary, they can set a timeline to see that user's posts again.

This. Banning and moderation by admins is a blunt tool and overall detrimental to the forum's "health". A member choosing to not display the posts of another has virtually no impact of the forum as a whole. It would allow people with a short butthurt fuse or no interest in nonsense to continue getting as much info from the forum as they want without having to pull their hair out when seeing the posts of a few dipshits.  

TGR, one of the most caustic forums out there, has a block function at the user level which is used heavily to drown out actual trolls (their posts are still visible when they are quoted by someone else though so it's not 100% efficient. People who don't block are constantly asked to stop quoting trolls to address this issue. Banning OTH happens extremely rarely and has a very high threshold, basically for doxxing or something as egregious. There is no other form of moderation and the general level of conversation is, IMO, far less polluted with bullshit than it has become on MP. Caveat: the sensitivity level is much lower over there. 

Boissal . wrote:

TGR, one of the most caustic forums out there,

I'm stupid, what is TGR, I want to go check it out...

I would like this feature as well.

At a certain special point, is complaining about trolling is more annoying than the troll itself?

Middle path,

Tim

Buck Rio wrote:

I'm stupid, what is TGR, I want to go check it out...

Teton Gravity Research, skiing community.

Boissal . wrote:

Teton Gravity Research, skiing community.

Thanks....alas my days of backcountry skiing are behind me, corduroy here I come.

But there are 320 posts on the correct G&T recipe, which any idiot knows is Tanquary and Schweppes, so I may have to join.

Tradiban wrote: Wow. It appears my master plan is working better than expected.   

Mojo, can you make me of those post blocking thingys for OLH? Asking for a friend.

Hmm.....I could then troll you at will, eh? ;-)

In all seriousness, I have no problem with what any of you choose to read, or not. If you would like to never see posts by others, fine.

For myself? I enjoy MP as entertainment. It is also a site to find information, and, partners. There isn't anyone who is pure troll on here, lately. The comments, contributions, and debate club gives us a sense of character. That, I appreciate. Honestly, I'd trust the "trolls" more than some, in terms of climbing.

Best, Helen

would a downvote button make you feel better?

This thread and subsequest posts are what is wrong with america. Complaining, group think, blocking out what you don't like, living sheltered comfortable lives, and getting upset & emotional about anything that does not suit your fancy.

I don't think the OP understands the purpose of the Internet.

“For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?”    
―       Jane Austen,        Pride and Prejudice

I like the idea of blocking some posters. Otherwise it's like having that same annoying drunk guy barging in on your all your conversations at a party and not being able to escape. I mean sure I can walk away / leave the thread but I was having a nice time for a minute there...

Operationally, I see this as very similar to the whole facebook idea of blocking friends or, if you still feel like giving them a chance "snooze" them for a week or 30 days or something. The nice thing about this is people are still free to scream into the wind all they want, I just don't have to scroll through pages of it to see if anyone said anything interesting on a thread I care about the idea of. I like to come here for insight, beta, and a bit of different viewpoints on climbing and hearing the same acrimony from the same 5 loud dudes gets so old.

And please, if this somehow does go into effect, apply the filter to the user and not the user name. The usual troll tactic of swapping user names once a week is so lame. People just need to own their behavior and stick with the same handle so we can all remember who we are talking to.

Chris Hill wrote: I don't think the OP understands the purpose of the Internet.

“For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?”    
―       Jane Austen,        Pride and Prejudice

I'll respond with D.H. Lawrence's assertion in 1930 that Jane Austen was a "mean old maid," "thoroughly unpleasant, English in the bad, mean, snobbish." 

I would've blocked her too. 

I agree with the previous comments advocating for a downvote system that would hide comments at a certain threshold. I don't want to block users, because even the trolls sometimes have interesting things to contribute to the discussion. But again, something similar to what Reddit does would actually help to raise the level of conversation.

If someone posts a really reprehensible or stupid comment that's not quite bad enough to merit removal for violating forum rules, then once it reached X number of downvotes (maybe 10?) the persons name and post would still appear in the thread, but instead of their posted text it would instead say something in really small text like, "This comment has been hidden due to downvoting. Click here to show the comment."

It seems like a minor thing, but it really does help to improve the flow of conversation when you don't have to read through the truly bad or unhelpful comments. This also seems like it would be much easier to implement than blocking, banning, etc.

master gumby wrote: This thread and subsequest posts are what is wrong with america. Complaining, group think, blocking out what you don't like, living sheltered comfortable lives, and getting upset & emotional about anything that does not suit your fancy.

Except for selfies though.

master gumby wrote: All selfies should be one started and dropped to the the bottom of the pile. ORRRR preferably flagged. Yah or nay?

Abram Herman wrote: I agree with the previous comments advocating for a downvote system that would hide comments at a certain threshold. I don't want to block users, because even the trolls sometimes have interesting things to contribute to the discussion. But again, something similar to what Reddit does would actually help to raise the level of conversation.

If someone posts a really reprehensible or stupid comment that's not quite bad enough to merit removal for violating forum rules, then once it reached X number of downvotes (maybe 10?) the persons name and post would still appear in the thread, but instead of their posted text it would instead say something in really small text like, "This comment has been hidden due to downvoting. Click here to show the comment."

It seems like a minor thing, but it really does help to improve the flow of conversation when you don't have to read through the truly bad or unhelpful comments. This also seems like it would be much easier to implement than blocking, banning, etc.

Yes because the circle jerk that is reddit is such a great example...

I just had a comment downvoted to the hiding point bc I used SoMo instead of South Mountain... That's the kind of stuff I like to see.

MojoMonkey wrote:

Except for selfies though.

Awww did gumby insult your selfies????

Abram Herman wrote: I agree with the previous comments advocating for a downvote system that would hide comments at a certain threshold. I don't want to block users, because even the trolls sometimes have interesting things to contribute to the discussion. But again, something similar to what Reddit does would actually help to raise the level of conversation.

If someone posts a really reprehensible or stupid comment that's not quite bad enough to merit removal for violating forum rules, then once it reached X number of downvotes (maybe 10?) the persons name and post would still appear in the thread, but instead of their posted text it would instead say something in really small text like, "This comment has been hidden due to downvoting. Click here to show the comment."

It seems like a minor thing, but it really does help to improve the flow of conversation when you don't have to read through the truly bad or unhelpful comments. This also seems like it would be much easier to implement than blocking, banning, etc.

Except that relies on the quiet, polite, civil people to actually participate. Actively. The equivalent of intervening in bad behavior at a party. Who is more likely to make their voice(s) heard, the "drunks" or the wallflowers???

H.

I'm good with skipping posts I don't want to read, so no changes needed for me.