The Ignore List

[exchemist]

Became??? LOL!

They did, amazingly, get worse. I put up with them for a bit a few years ago, although as a scientist and a Catholic it was a, shall we say, "bracing" environment.

Then they changed the moderation policy and basically excluded any views outside their narrow, born-again/biblical-literalist evangelical comfort zone. So I faded out, as there were no topics of interest any more.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Contradictory? No. You tell them you are through engaging with them and THEN, having done so, you put them on Ignore. Who said anything about courtesy?

I don't follow why are you assuming I am talking to people I wouldn't initially bother with. That makes no sense. As I said, if they are obviously nuts or trolls, I just silently put them on Ignore (if they post enough for me to stumble over them to an irritating extent - I don't bother with drive-by posters).

If they initially seem as if they might be reasonable, then I talk to them. But if it subsequently becomes evident they are wasting my time or winding me up, then I tell them I've had it with them - and put them on Ignore.

I'd say that was courtesy to tell them you're putting them on ignore. Of course it's 'how' you do it rather than the content.

 

[McBell]

It's a fact that I can't ignore a Moderator; I've tried. Just doesn't seem fair that a Moderator could ignore me.

"just doesn't seem fair"?
Cleared that right up

Yes that was sarcasm.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They did, amazingly, get worse. I put up with them for a bit a few years ago, although as a scientist and a Catholic it was a, shall we say, "bracing" environment.

Then they changed the moderation policy and basically excluded any views outside their narrow, born-again/biblical-literalist evangelical comfort zone. So I faded out, as there were no topics of interest any more.

Only one christian forum I can think of. Their so strict they'd ban their own kind if they decided to speak or challenge trinitarian views. Their rules and "who can join" listed some christians as non-christian (not catholic), so limited access even though they believed christ as their lord and savior.

Edit. Funny, I saw the manager with the exact same name a former RFian had. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the same christian since the timing seemed right.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Yes that was sarcasm.

I wept.

(Now, that's sarcasm.)

 

[McBell]

I wept.

(Now, that's sarcasm.)

I doubt your weeping will be any more convincing....

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Contradictory? No. You tell them you are through engaging with them and THEN, having done so, you put them on Ignore. Who said anything about courtesy?

I don't follow why are you assuming I am talking to people I wouldn't initially bother with. That makes no sense. As I said, if they are obviously nuts or trolls, I just silently put them on Ignore (if they post enough for me to stumble over them to an irritating extent - I don't bother with drive-by posters).

If they initially seem as if they might be reasonable, then I talk to them. But if it subsequently becomes evident they are wasting my time or winding me up, then I tell them I've had it with them - and put them on Ignore.

Sounds more like personal preference. If I told someone I didn't want to speak to them, I have no reason to ignore them. If they're being bothersome and don't listen even if I said something, depending on the nature, that's when I ignore. Since I came back, I only have one person on ignore. But feel kinda bad about it at the same time.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I take a different approach.
I openly state that I'll put no one on <ignore>.
No exceptions, no matter who demands it.

Gotta confess, I'm a bit different in that regard. I am one who is tempted to look at as much as I can of what people write, and then I often wish to respond. This is something of a trap for me.

The people I put on ignore (and there are really only 3 of them) are those that I have determined simply do not play fair, will insist on non-answers to legitimate question, or otherwise hijack a train of thought for their own purposes. (When someone asks me a question, I always do my level best to answer it honestly, and give my reasons, and I get really irritated when someone else uses my honesty and diligence against me through obvious sophistry.) I find these to be games that I simply have no wish to play, and since I know myself well enough to know that I'll read what I see, I choose not to see any more of those few at all, and avoid the temptation and waste of time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Gotta confess, I'm a bit different in that regard. I am one who is tempted to look at as much as I can of what people write, and then I often wish to respond. This is something of a trap for me.

The people I put on ignore (and there are really only 3 of them) are those that I have determined simply do not play fair, will insist on non-answers to legitimate question, or otherwise hijack a train of thought for their own purposes. (When someone asks me a question, I always do my level best to answer it honestly, and give my reasons, and I get really irritated when someone else uses my honesty and diligence against me through obvious sophistry.) I find these to be games that I simply have no wish to play, and since I know myself well enough to know that I'll read what I see, I choose not to see any more of those few at all, and avoid the temptation and waste of time.

I don't recommend my approach to others.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why do some RFians need to tell a person(s) they want to "ignore" that they will be put X person on ignore?

To me, it seems like a pride thing or an indirect way of "getting back" at the person or maybe running away from the problem and not addressing it (or moving on).

Maybe some of you want to see the other's reaction to feel better about your being right?

From what I remember, when I ignored people (which, years ago, where quite a few), I never told them. Recently, I half-told one person but never said I will ignore you but just not talk to that person anymore. I can't think of the emotion I felt.

But I'm curious. Why do you need to tell people you are going to ignore them?

An "I won-I got the last word" feeling?

It's the panic room for the sensitive. ;0]

 

[Onoma]

I tend to avoid engaging with people that are deliberately obtuse or contrarian as a hobby, it's just not worth my peace of mind

I don't think there's anything wrong with tuning out the fluff or " dusting off your sandals "

It's a little amusing that most people will not argue with the crazy person on the street corner holding a " The end is coming soon " sign, but online is a totally different story

 

[Father Heathen]

I've never placed anyone on ignore. I do however wonder how often I've been placed on ignore.

 

[oldbadger]

One of my character weaknesses is that I don't suffer fools gladly.

Where on Earth do you live that is free from fools and nutters?
You're in England, right? We're totally proud of our craziness!

I'll come and be your neighbour...... it would be good training for you.

 

[oldbadger]

I've never placed anyone on ignore. I do however wonder how often I've been placed on ignore.

I've never placed anyone on ignore on RF.

But I'm well used to being ignored.... 45 years ago I paid off my mortgage by selling double glazing, a door knocker....... I learned to never mind being ignored...... I only worried about very big nasty soaking wet people who had just got out of the shower to answer the door. Did I ever run fast, that time.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Never used ignore and not sure if I'm on any ignore lists - probably am - but I see it as opting out rather than having any benefits. After all, one can simply ignore threads or comments from people when nothing substantial will come from either engaging with them or reading what they post. I suspect that happens with my posts but I can accept that. But the function is there and possibly prevents a more draconian approach that is often seen on other forums - and which personally I detest.

 

[Secret Chief]

a door knocker

You should try canvassing for a political party.

 

[oldbadger]

You should try canvassing for a political party.

I can imagine!
I loved door-knocking for double-glazing sales. Loved it. And it saved me financially.
I never abuse a door knocker, whoever, whatever.

 

[HonestJoe]

Why do some RFians need to tell a person(s) they want to "ignore" that they will be put X person on ignore?

Telling the person would be distinct from actually doing it. The former could be a (mild) threat to try convince the poster to adjust the manner in which they're posting. Assuming they're posting because they want their opinions to be seen, being put on ignore would counteract that.

I've never used it myself but I've done similar, by refusing to continue a discussion with someone who won't acknowledge a key fact or continues to write in an insulting, provocative or intentionally opaque manner.

 

[Secret Chief]

I never abuse a door knocker, whoever, whatever.

Relating conversations from the door step, my partner always says something like "I couldn't do it, I don't know how you keep your temper."

 

[Mock Turtle]

I can imagine!
I loved door-knocking for double-glazing sales. Loved it. And it saved me financially.
I never abuse a door knocker, whoever, whatever.

That reminds me - must superglue my door knocker - too many using it rather than using the handily provided BELL!