feather wrote:

If people do want an ignore function, it's no biggie to me and it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Gilly wrote:
thats my line of thinking on this.

I vote no - my reasons are as follows

if everyone just ignored the things they didnt like or are unable to respond responsibly or cant be bothered to challenge that which needs challenging the world would be....oh wait....

I thought this place was attempting to be different from other internet playgrounds in that we respected each other and views and behave with said respect in mind. I know that historically this has not happened but I am not of the belief that adding an ignore button will help in anyway as it does not address the problem.

thoreau wrote:
I think some people will never see eye to eye, or get along, i perhaps see it as the human condition rather than a 'problem' per se, i think thats just the way it is sometimes.

novum wrote:
I agree with you not everyone will get on or see eye to eye and that in itself is probably just the human condition - how we deal with the not getting along or the not seeing eye to eye can be a problem though and I would prefer to see people acting more responsibly, kindly and respectfully - or if truth be told just log off and let go if needs be.

as ever will go along with what the community prefer - just giving my opinion

thoreau wrote:
Sure, i started the thread to see opinions.

As ive stated earlier, personally its not something i would ever likely use.

It seems a bit ridiculous to me. There are only ever a handful of people posting....rarely anyone new. Only 13 people have voted on a poll that has been up most of the day and people want the option of an ignore feature?

I decided a while ago to not read certain peoples posts....only to find out that they now use different user names..What use would an ignore function be when you can't even be sure who you are communicating with?

pheony wrote:
Well if its who i think it is (the one person that i think you are talking about), they only have one active account and barely post now (starts with an 'r' ) The rest are inactive, in part because i spotted them.

We cant always spot socks, (that they are socks) but they can still be put on ignore!

novum wrote:
I wasn't talkng about anyone in particular, but, I'll give you an example..... I decided to not read Guevs posts anymore...I find out a couple of days ago that he is now Mike.

Having an ignore function is worthless if posters leave and come back and use another name....which quite a few have done.

pheony wrote:
I'll still answer, if only to fight the good fight
I've yet to meet anyone as bad as KOTG and I even managed not to put him on ignore.

I'm with thoreau.

andyh wrote:
Yes but isn't that saying that because you choose not to ignore, nobody else should have the ability to?

I'd not use it myself, and never have where it's been available, but I think it's a perfectly good option for some people who want to avoid conflict or irritation - better than just logging off & never logging back on again, as so many have done in the past.

The number of members isn't really relevant, as it can take 1 or 2 to spoil it, and not everyone's idea of what 'spoils' things matches the majority view - so why not let the individual make their own choice?

I don't see it as irresponsible, or unkind, or lazy to opt to not see someone who makes you feel upset or annoyed, and I even find the suggestion that it does a bit sanctimonious - no offence meant, but that's my opinion. Or did you mean you shouldn't need to ignore anyone because the whole community should be kind/responsible etc? I agree with that, but everyone's different.

andyh wrote:
Ahh, KOTG, I sent him an invite to this place... Not really

Mike is Guev? ...

I didn't realise that so many people had fallen out with each other and had socked up and come back. That's completely passed me by. How very cloak and dagger!

Maybe a flounce button is in order too?

Gilly wrote:
I meant I'd basically rather see arseholes banned and then you won't need the ignore button

andyh wrote:
Whick leads to another debate. What justifies being banned?

Being a nob?

Baiting/trolling?

Logging on just to criticise forum size/members?

I almost put myself forward for the roll of Jan Ban Hammer a couple of months back but I don't think that would have acheived anything. We all have different thickness of skin.

If someone's going to log on just to ridicule the forum for the size of it's members, ban 'em I say!

hugorune wrote:
All of the above.
I'm sure sketti will be able to deal with it in the right way and I've total confidence in her, hence why I'm not really fussed about the ignore thing.
This whole community consensus things not going to work.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
Yes!!!

That is needed far more urgently round here.

If you want to ignore somebody, do it with willpower. Don't really on electronic means to protect your tender eyes from the words of others.
I used ignore on the DIF, but that's a whole other ball game. There's nobody like tinyint here.