Changes coming - And an FYI on potential actions

[Steve102]

I'd like to address the "let it go" issue if I may. If you really think about it this started when fans started complaining about fans like myself who weren't happy with the move and expressed those thoughts here. That was why Ian created a separate Brady forum and it happened pretty soon, not years later.

And if anyone thinks that fans are going to simply forget about the errors that Bill makes (and this was his biggest by far) then they don't know sports fans. Like it or not, I can see it getting worse if the Pats go on a long run of mediocrity.

So we should just continue to beat the dead horse just a little more?

 

[Triumph]

If someone posts something that you dont like simply use the ignore feature.

There is no need to go running to Ian or a Moderator to cry and complain.

 

[Steve102]

If someone posts something that you dont like simply use the ignore feature.

There is no need to go running to Ian or a Moderator to cry and complain.

I don't cry to either, but thanks for the tip.

 

[h0c2000]

No, not at all. And if you feel that way you may have missed the point he was making. Going to a different table isn’t the same as being removed, and people can still have the conversation. It’s simply keeping everyone else from having to hear/see it if it begins to derail a thread.

I don't think I missed the point at all. I don't want to be pedantic but how is locking a group off in a separate room not the same as being removed? That group is for all intents getting kicked out of the club a la Sergio Brown.

I'll trust what you're planning because you've made the board an enjoyable place to visit. None of the previous changes you've made seem rash or reflexive. On the other hand, a moderator doesn't come across as neutral when they reference opinions as hot takes. You're walking a fine line and I don't envy your position.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

 

[SHOWTIME15]

If someone posts something that you dont like simply use the ignore feature.

There is no need to go running to Ian or a Moderator to cry and complain.

The people on this forum get triggered easily. Even reacting to someone's post with a laughing emoji will cause people to run to Ian. This would explain why he removed my ability to react with an emoji on other people's posts, at least in the main forum.

 

[Triumph]

I don't cry to either, but thanks for the tip.

No problem.

I am here for you all.

 

[Ian]

I don't think I missed the point at all. I don't want to be pedantic but how is locking a group off in a separate room not the same as being removed? That group is for all intents getting kicked out of the club a la Sergio Brown.

I'll trust what you're planning because you've made the board an enjoyable place to visit. None of the previous changes you've made seem rash or reflexive. On the other hand, a moderator doesn't come across as neutral when they reference opinions as hot takes. You're walking a fine line and I don't envy your position.

Again, I feel like people are viewing this as me implementing an attack on opinions and not the effect they have when they're spammed over and over, including in unrelated threads.

This isn't me looking to silence or kick out individuals for their opinions. This is me trying to keep from threads getting completely derailed with exchanges that keep rehashing similar arguments where they're not relevant.

I'm pretty sure plenty of people have run into this, and I've certainly also seen it enough where it makes threads unreadable. From a mod standpoint, it just makes it tough to go back through and find every exchange and either remove it or move it to another thread, especially when there's times where it overlaps and just makes a mess to try and follow. This allows the parties involved to continue the discussion while the rest of the thread with the original topic remains intact.

Again, the goal is to improve the overall experience for people scanning through threads where obviously - especially if a thread has a lot of posts - it evolves into something completely different than how it started. My goal is to hopefully tone that down and I'll see how this goes.

However, there are various people who are going to need to be mindful of my intent and help me out by being a little more self-aware. I get that it's still occasionally going to happen and I'm doing this to allow for some of those exchanges to continue without getting into thread-bans, etc. But if it does remain an issue, then that may ultimately be necessary.

As I said, it's not related to dissenting opinions. It's bringing up those opinions over and over in irrelevant threads and derailing them. That's the true impetus behind this move, and I'm really hoping people understand that rather than worrying about what they post since that's certainly not the issue.

 

[sb1]

Not that I can see this stuff anymore after I started using the block feature, but I assume any pro-Chiefs anti-Brady drivel especially from one poster in particular qualifies for mod mute

 

[Dingleberry]

@Ian quick question.

I know people can mute other posters. Can someone make it so others cannot see their posts?

 

[crawhammer]

The people on this forum get triggered easily. Even reacting to someone's post with a laughing emoji will cause people to run to Ian. This would explain why he removed my ability to react with an emoji on other people's posts, at least in the main forum.

That's an interesting restriction. How ridiculously would you have to abuse emojis to have that function disabled? Just seems like an odd restriction.

 

[Ian]

@Ian quick question.

I know people can mute other posters. Can someone make it so others cannot see their posts?

Yes, that would be the case if the blocked function is in use.

 

[crawhammer]

Yes, that would be the case if the blocked function is in use.

Is there way of knowing who may have you blocked or muted? Is there a difference between the two?... I don't use these functions.

 

[n6249c]

As a long since departed doubter of those in power/control once opined, love is all you need.

How’d that work out for him?

 

[n6249c]

Again, I feel like people are viewing this as me implementing an attack on opinions and not the effect they have when they're spammed over and over, including in unrelated threads.

This isn't me looking to silence or kick out individuals for their opinions. This is me trying to keep from threads getting completely derailed with exchanges that keep rehashing similar arguments where they're not relevant.

I'm pretty sure plenty of people have run into this, and I've certainly also seen it enough where it makes threads unreadable. From a mod standpoint, it just makes it tough to go back through and find every exchange and either remove it or move it to another thread, especially when there's times where it overlaps and just makes a mess to try and follow. This allows the parties involved to continue the discussion while the rest of the thread with the original topic remains intact.

Again, the goal is to improve the overall experience for people scanning through threads where obviously - especially if a thread has a lot of posts - it evolves into something completely different than how it started. My goal is to hopefully tone that down and I'll see how this goes.

However, there are various people who are going to need to be mindful of my intent and help me out by being a little more self-aware. I get that it's still occasionally going to happen and I'm doing this to allow for some of those exchanges to continue without getting into thread-bans, etc. But if it does remain an issue, then that may ultimately be necessary.

As I said, it's not related to dissenting opinions. It's bringing up those opinions over and over in irrelevant threads and derailing them. That's the true impetus behind this move, and I'm really hoping people understand that rather than worrying about what they post since that's certainly not the issue.

Problem is, the posters you are talking about don’t see themselves as doing what you’re talking about.

they don’t think they’re being obnoxious. They feel aggrieved. Your attempts to limit their noxious behavior is just another grievance and they double down. Some of them have been doing it in this thread. Skunks can’t change their stripes.

 

[Dingleberry]

How’d that work out for him?

He got shot while the Patriots were beating the Dolphins.

Are you saying he got shot because of his cynical tendencies?

 

[Ian]

Is there way of knowing who may have you blocked or muted?

No, as that would create a separate issue I have no desire to deal with.

Is there a difference between the two?... I don't use these functions.

Muted means they can’t see the person who they’ve muted’s posts. Blocked has the same function, in addition to the person also not being able to see their’s.

 

[Ian]

Problem is, the posters you are talking about don’t see themselves as doing what you’re talking about.

they don’t think they’re being obnoxious. They feel aggrieved. Your attempts to limit their noxious behavior is just another grievance and they double down.

I certainly agree with your points. And if it does become a larger issue, that’s when it may require me to address it further.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

That's an interesting restriction. How ridiculously would you have to abuse emojis to have that function disabled? Just seems like an odd restriction.

Goat emoji

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Problem is, the posters you are talking about don’t see themselves as doing what you’re talking about.

they don’t think they’re being obnoxious. They feel aggrieved. Your attempts to limit their noxious behavior is just another grievance and they double down. Some of them have been doing it in this thread. Skunks can’t change their stripes.