[Artchic528]

I certainly understand that members have a right to ignore other members, and we all have a right to our opinions. I have no qualms with either of those. In fact, I encourage people to form their own opinions and values and to learn to ignore those who may not be healthy towards their mental health.

What I do have a qualms with is when the ignore feature is abused to the point where a member ignores others so they can't post their viewpoints and such in any fashion on a thread unless they agree with the member who started the thread. This is very distressing and disrespectful to many members on here and nothing short of bullying IMHO. Not only that but it goes against the rules and guidelines of the News and Current Events forum.

Can something be done to prevent this?

[amandalouise]

Originally Posted by Artchic528

I certainly understand that members have a right to ignore other members, and we all have a right to our opinions. I have no qualms with either of those. In fact, I encourage people to form their own opinions and values and to learn to ignore those who may not be healthy towards their mental health.

What I do have a qualms with is when the ignore feature is abused to the point where a member ignores others so they can't post their viewpoints and such in any fashion on a thread unless they agree with the member who started the thread. This is very distressing and disrespectful to many members on here and nothing short of bullying IMHO. Not only that but it goes against the rules and guidelines of the News and Current Events forum.

Can something be done to prevent this?

um no offense but others placing people on ignore does not prevent that person from voicing their opinions. the person who is unable to post with in someone elses thread is free to start their own posts on the same issues...

example if someone that has me on their ignore list posts a thread about pit bull dogs (or any other issue I may feel important to me) I can click on start a new thread and write my own post about how i believe pit bull dogs are not always a violent breed. that person that may have me on ignore did not prevent me from having full access to psych central nor did they abuse me by preventing me from speaking my mind about that issue.

my suggestion if you find someone has placed you on ignore it may be helpful to remember thats their problem, not anything personally against you. it may just mean you frequently use a word that is triggering them that day, thats their problem and they are taking care of their self and their problem by not exposing their self to what triggers them.

it might also help you to remember people placing you on ignore does not punish or penalize you and your abilities to fully use this site because you can start your own thread on any topic\issue that is important to you.

[where_to_begin]

Does the ignore feature prevent someone from posting in a thread started by another person or just make that person's posts not viewable by the person who has them on ignore?

thanks

[IowaFarmGal]

I think I have received a message that I could not post to a thread because the thread starter had me on ignore. That's been a while ago. It was a game thread too that I commonly played.

[Artchic528]

The ignore feature is set up to prevent an ignored member from posting on a thread made by the member doing the ignoring. I have seen this feature abused to the point where a member ignores anyone who has an opposing viewpoint on topics that are posted, so no one can contribute with constructive counterpoints. There is no debate, just the member using the feature to press their viewpoints on the forum with only agreeing members allowed to post on the thread in order to make the topic appear more valid.

I just want to reiterate that I am all for having your own point of view, and have no qualms with ignoring others for self care purposes, but using the ignore feature in such a way is very wrong IMHO, and should be made against the rules.

[lizardlady]

I don't see how any of us can know the reason one member puts another member on ignore. How could we tell if someone put another person on ignore just to keep them from posting in threads? If you think someone is doing this what about a PM to admin/moderators to express your concern?

[Artchic528]

I have Lizardlady, but didn't want to discuss that interaction as I don't think it's appropriate to do so publicly.

[lizardlady]

Oh okay. Yeah, it's not appropriate to discuss admin matters on the boards. Didn't realize you'd already tried.

We have Community Guidelines, and I believe I understand the motivation behind the Ignore feature, but it clearly is the weakest link in an otherwise excellent website.

I really don't understand how it works, so someone please tell me if the following is correct: A puts B on Ignore, so is it true that B cannot respond at all to a thread started by A? If true, can A respond at all to a thread started by B? If so, that creates an advantage for A thereby compelling B to put A on Ignore. Am I correct?

Is there a limit to how many members a member can put on Ignore? If so, what is the limit? You see where I'm going here, right? Yeah, 100X100X100, etc. Taken to its logical conclusion the website is reduced to simply thread starters.

Given that we have Community Guidelines, I believe the Ignore feature is potentially more harmful than helpful.

[Artchic528]

Thank you Kindness. I feel this feature was instilled with nothing but good intentions and I certainly understand a members right to ignore another member as a means of self care. I am not contesting that at all.

Whatever I am concerned about is the misuse of this feature to dominate or exclude anyone who they don't like from posting their viewpoints on threads started by the person doing the ignoring. Especially when they post such things that a of a sensitive nature and could use an opposing viewpoint to level things out. Instead, thanks to this feature, the member can propeller their thread's influence by only allowing like minded people to post on it.

Does this not go against the "polite debate" rule in the Current Events forum where this tactic is most commonly used?

[~Christina]

I guess people could abuse it . but if a member triggers someone for any reason , even if its just the one placing someone on ignore is due to different opinions... its still a valid reason to use the ignore feature.. I broke down after 3 years of never using it.... I now have and I must say I wish I had used it sooner.

If I ignore a Person , they can not reply to a thread I started. If its a thread by anyone else or the person that I have on ignore I can't see what they post , I can see anyones reply to whatever that OP posted.

[Artchic528]

Originally Posted by ~Christina

I guess people could abuse it . but if a member triggers someone for any reason , even if its just the one placing someone on ignore is due to different opinions... its still a valid reason to use the ignore feature.. I broke down after 3 years of never using it.... I now have and I must say I wish I had used it sooner.

If I ignore a Person , they can not reply to a thread I started. If its a thread by anyone else or the person that I have on ignore I can't see what they post , I can see anyones reply to whatever that OP posted.

In theory that works well and good, and I do respect that member's choice to ignore me if they are feeling I may be threatening their mental stability. However, when used to as a means to post things I or anyone they ignore can't reply to even civilly, in a forum that requires just that, a civil debate and equally opportunity for both sides to be heard, it gets to be ridiculous and unfair. The OP can dominate with their own personal viewpoint and the opposing side has no chance to defend themselves except to post an entirely new thread on the same topic just to be heard, which I believe is also against the rules.

It's a fine line between using the ignore feature for self care and using it with malicious intent, like I am describing.

[~Christina]

I see your point. but I also think that anyone has a right to use the ignore feature if they want too. It's all about personal responsibility to ones own well being.

Do you find this all over PC or is it maybe more so on the current news forum?

[Artchic528]

Originally Posted by ~Christina

I see your point. but I also think that anyone has a right to use the ignore feature if they want too. It's all about personal responsibility to ones own well being.

Do you find this all over PC or is it maybe more so on the current news forum?

I agree that anyone should have the right to ignore whoever they so choose. I am not contesting that. I am more focused on what I see going on in the Current Events forum and how it can be used as it currently works to assert a person's opinions over someone else's without the chance of the other person being able to get their thoughts across in a constructive debate like fashion. It defeats the purpose of the whole forum.

[~Christina]

I don't think it defeats the purpose. Its an online forum, I actually like that PC doesn't allow for arguing, many "civil discussion " do turn into some not so nice interactions or people feeling picked on or ganged up on.... and thankfully trolls don't last long here.

If someone has put me on ignore, well they must have a reason , if I cant reply to a thread I basically am like .....meh... I move along.

It's all good. Whatever works for a person is what they need to do for themselves.

[Artchic528]

I want to make it clear that I am all for the right to ignore someone, just not the ability to use it to your advantage and not allow other, opposing members to your viewpoint the right to express themselves and their views on the topic in a forum specifically designed for that purpose. What good is a Current Events forum without both sides discussing their opinions on an equal playing field?

[Artchic528]

Let it be known that I harbor no animosity to anyone on this site, but I do so feel such toward the abuse of something that was instilled with only good intentions.

[Nammu]

IMO those who use that tactic are pretty obvious and a thread filled with only post after post of a one sided running commentary is going to be seen for what it is. The few allowed to post but don't agree are forced to tip toe around the thread in effect making the thread easy to dismiss as negative paid political ads. They therefor can be ignored as pure emotional card stacking.

I had no idea about this feature, so I guess I've just proved it's not obvious to everyone.

I can understand it's a good feature to avoid seeing triggering posts.

But when I read a comment on here that someone can't post on one of the games threads they used to enjoy - well, that can't be right. The games threads are harmless fun and a therapeutic distraction for many of us, being stopped from posting could be triggering in itself.

[(JD)]

Originally Posted by IowaFarmGal

I think I have received a message that I could not post to a thread because the thread starter had me on ignore. That's been a while ago. It was a game thread too that I commonly played.

This happens to me too. Someone who has me on ignore began a great game thread... well, actually they put me on ignore after it had begun and I had been enjoying it... so then I was no longer able to play. Oh well... there are other games. I think admin then began the game when it "rolled over" in post numbers... and everyone can play it now.

I didn't have hardly anyone on ignore before this year. Then, with so many of "my" begun threads going off topic and being closed, I tried to post in other's threads...to find I was being ignored and couldn't. So I do use the ignore feature now, and it's a good thing, that those of us who disagree are then reminded to ignore each other's threads. There are thousands of members here... so what if we miss a few threads each week?