04 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneWould you be inclined to consider that any attack perpetrated against human freedom (whether frontal, contrived blindside, 'slippery slope' subtle/gradual, premeditated or out of clumsy ignorance) by definition suggests evil intent and/or evil consequences or both. Why? Because self determination and the uncoerced excercise of human volition is the crux reason for human history.
My two cents here is that this is a bad idea.
Not evil, mind you, as some have suggested, but simply misguided. "Slippery slope" stuff.
Better to kiss up to the powers that be and just have the people you wish to ignore banned. See what I mean by "slippery slope"? Where does it end?
04 Apr 10
Originally posted by PhlabibitI think you should, for two reasons: In the (however unlikely) case that the user honestly doesn't know xyr behaviour is not appreciated, it gives xym the chance to solve the problem peacefully by changing xyr behaviour; and if the behaviour doesn't change after you have explicitly asked the user to stop, it would be a clear case of harassment (which "this user keeps replying to me, and I bet xe knows it annoys me" is not) and could be handled accordingly. And you have already acknowledged xyr very existence by adding xym to your ignore list.
Should I just message the user and ask they stop? I'd rather not, having no interest in acknowledging their very existence.
04 Apr 10
Originally posted by NordlysWouldn't it seem logical that Russ & Chris have long since considered (and continue to monitor)
I think you should, for two reasons: In the (however unlikely) case that the user honestly doesn't know xyr behaviour is not appreciated, it gives xym the chance to solve the problem peacefully by changing xyr behaviour; and if the behaviour doesn't change after you have explicitly asked the user to stop, it would be a clear case of harassment (which "this u ...[text shortened]... gly. And you have already acknowledged xyr very existence by adding xym to your ignore list.
competitive internet bulletin board site policy/administrative formats in formulating their own?
04 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitI think there is definitely a case for saying that some people are terrible irritating and are basically just a waste of space around here (quite literally actually) - how much I wish I could just make some magically disapear - , but I guess we will just have accept their presence and suffer their presence in a stoic way, either that or punch them in the nose repeatedly like our friend Nowakowsky sugested...
I think the next step for the Ignore List here at RHP is the exclusion from ignored users responding to your posts directly, and even better would be if you are the OP of a thread they are not able to respond to the thread. I know it's a public forum, but when you are hounded by a user you'd rather not socialize with it can be very annoying... especially ir very existence.
I'd like opinions before I use feedback on this situation.
P-
04 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by orion25Orion, would you be kindly disposed to cutting these nuisance people some
I think there is definitely a case for saying that some people are terrible irritating and are basically just a waste of space around here (quite literally actually) - how much I wish I could just make some magically disapear - , but I guess we will just have accept their presence and suffer their presence in a stoic way, either that or punch them in the nose repeatedly like our friend Nowakowsky sugested...
slack if they chimed in, now and then, with your personal points of view?
04 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by orion25Some may think the same way about you.
I think there is definitely a case for saying that some people are terrible irritating and are basically just a waste of space around here (quite literally actually) - how much I wish I could just make some magically disapear - , but I guess we will just have accept their presence and suffer their presence in a stoic way, either that or punch them in the nose repeatedly like our friend Nowakowsky sugested...
Had that crossed your mind?
DO YOU think we would be better off if everyone thought alike and agreed on everything? ( Sounds kind'a boring to me )
04 Apr 10
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI would not agree that any attempt to abridge someone's rights is inherently evil. Just ignorant of the fact that such attempts also abridge that person's rights as well. For example, I don't think right-to-lifers nor heterosexuals petitioning to deny homosexuals the basic human right to marry are actually evil. Just misguided and ignorant.
Would you be inclined to consider that any attack perpetrated against human freedom (whether frontal, contrived blindside, 'slippery slope' subtle/gradual, premeditated or out of clumsy ignorance) by definition suggests evil intent and/or evil consequences or both. Why? Because self determination and the uncoerced excercise of human volition is the crux reason for human history.
Disclaimer: These opinions are wholly mine and do not represent the views of anyone other than myself. Hysterical rants filling my mailbox will be deleted without reply. 😀
04 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneMost always you succeed in generating less heat than light. Thanks for your perspective.
I would not agree that any attempt to abridge someone's rights is inherently evil. Just ignorant of the fact that such attempts also abridge that person's rights as well. For example, I don't think right-to-lifers nor heterosexuals petitioning to deny homosexuals the basic human right to marry are actually evil. Just misguided and ignorant.
Disclaimer ...[text shortened]... ne other than myself. Hysterical rants filling my mailbox will be deleted without reply. 😀
😏