Implementing a traditional ignore feature

[A000045]

Is there a reason Iwaku has an ignore feature that allows ignored users not only to read your posts, but also post in your threads? Or, is there a reason why ignored users still show up for you in threads, rather than being--I'm not sure how else to phrase this--ignored? If it's feasible, could we implement a traditional ignore feature, where an ignored user is no longer able to engage in threads you have created and you're not shown when they post?

I understand if we're limited by the tools and knowledge available, but if it is reasonably possible, I do think it would be beneficial to offer.

 

[Elle Joyner]

I'd imagine it's done this way because it wouldn't exactly be fair to the user being ignored if they suddenly stopped seeing threads and posts around the site.

As far as I'm aware, the concept of ignore is meant for the person doing the ignoring... Not as a punishment for the user being ignored. If someone is having issues with a member on the site and feels as though there is a breach in the rules on site, they're welcome to report that member, but finding someone annoying or disliking them or their content is unfortunately just too subjective to be considered a reason to limit their activity in any way.

That's my take, at least. Admins might feel differently, who knows :)

 

[Jorick]

This is a traditional ignore feature. I'm not sure what your idea of traditional comes from, but I've been using forums for the better part of two decades and this is how it always worked. The two-way ignoring system is a new thing found predominantly on social media sites.

Pedantry aside, we have no current plans to seek changes to our ignore feature. The ignore feature is meant to be used when you no longer wish to see what another person posts. It also blocks them from sending you private messages. They don't stop profile posts, but we have privacy settings for that which allow you to make it so only people you follow can post on it.

As for posts in threads, they're considered open to the public for viewing. That includes people you dislike or have ignored. For roleplay related threads you have created you may politely inform such people that you would like them to stop posting in your threads, and if they fail to comply then you can report them and the Security staff will handle it; this falls under the rule we have that says GMs have the right to decide who may participate in their roleplays. For other threads you may ask them to not post, but if they refuse then you're going to have to just be mature about it and deal with the presence of those posts, ideally by way of keeping them hidden rather than opening them to read it. The exception to the above is if they are posting in order to violate a rule, particularly our rules against harassment, then you can report them and we may decide to tell them they aren't allowed to post in your threads. Or if it's a particularly bad case or a repeat offender situation we might ban them entirely from the site.

As you can see, we have plenty of measures and policies in place to minimize your contact with people you would prefer not to have contact with. Speaking frankly, if it's not a matter of harassment or other illegal or rulebreaking activities, which can be dealt with via reports, we are not interested in doing anything to force people you don't like to stay away from you. You've got the tools to make it so you literally never have to read a word they write, and that should be plenty enough to deal with anyone you merely dislike. A two-way block system is entirely unnecessary.

 

[A000045]

/

I don't find it useful to debate the basis of a user's decision to ignore someone. Certainly staff does not leave it up to their personal feelings to determine if user A is guilty of harassment when there is objective proof that user B clearly asked user A to leave them alone, and user A continued to engage user B?

The takeaway to consider: is placing a user on ignore analogous to saying "please leave me alone"? Which, I'm of the belief it should be. Utilizing ignore or requesting someone leave you alone should accomplish the same end--that being the person no longer having approval to engage with you. But like you said, that is just my $0.02 and admins probably feel differently, assuming it's a choice and not a limitation, haha.

/

I admit, most of my experience comes from 2000 to 2004. Ignoring or blocking a user did hide their posts from you, but also meant they did not have permission to respond to threads you created. They could respond to other user's threads, and if they were quoted, you'd probably see what they said. I find that reasonable, because they are not engaging the person who has them ignored. I have less of an idea what forums were like in the 90's or 80's, so with your years of experience you probably know better than I do what it was like. ._.

To meet you halfway in frankness: I think objectivity suffers greatly when we focus on how we subjectively feel about a user's reasoning for wanting to get away from someone else. Rather than belittling them because we think their reasons are not valid enough, it is more reliable and objective to ask: a) did the user make a reasonable attempt at communicating they wanted the contact to stop? and b) was their request ignored?

Which is taken care of by the rules against harassment, like you mentioned. Reaching that point just seemed unnecessarily dramatic if there were other options available, so I started asking questions. Thankfully I haven't had reason to use the ignore function.

 

[Elle Joyner]

I don't find it useful to debate the basis of a user's decision to ignore someone. Certainly staff does not leave it up to their personal feelings to determine if user A is guilty of harassment when there is objective proof that user B clearly asked user A to leave them alone, and user A continued to engage user B?

This, I believe, depends entirely on the circumstances. As Jorick suggested in his reply - posts in common areas, such as General Chatting and the like - are public and open for anyone to reply to. A member can certainly ask that someone not respond, but the whole purpose of 'ignore' is to do just that... so if said person DOES respond to the thread, they shouldn't, if they are in fact ignoring the person, even see/read their response.

But telling a person they cannot reply to a public thread because another user has chosen to ignore them would be the equivalent of telling a person they can't go to a restaurant because another patron doesn't like them.

Harassment is taken very seriously on Iwaku, but the definition isn't simply responding to someone who is ignoring you - if they're responding strictly to be obnoxious or inflammatory, that's certainly reportable, but just stating their opinion or engaging in the discussion doesn't constitute any sort of negative behavior, no matter how annoying someone might find them.

Putting someone on ignore isn't so much saying 'leave me alone' -- particularly since there is no actual way to even KNOW you're being ignored unless you're specifically told as much. It's more or less what it sounds like - ignoring someone - which in the end makes it up to the user DOING the ignoring to follow through on. If said user chooses NOT to ignore that person, despite having the option to do so? That's on them.

Hope that makes sense!!

 

[A000045]

This, I believe, depends entirely on the circumstances. As Jorick suggested in his reply - posts in common areas, such as General Chatting and the like - are public and open for anyone to reply to. A member can certainly ask that someone not respond, but the whole purpose of 'ignore' is to do just that... so if said person DOES respond to the thread, they shouldn't, if they are in fact ignoring the person, even see/read their response.

But telling a person they cannot reply to a public thread because another user has chosen to ignore them would be the equivalent of telling a person they can't go to a restaurant because another patron doesn't like them.

Harassment is taken very seriously on Iwaku, but the definition isn't simply responding to someone who is ignoring you - if they're responding strictly to be obnoxious or inflammatory, that's certainly reportable, but just stating their opinion or engaging in the discussion doesn't constitute any sort of negative behavior, no matter how annoying someone might find them.

Putting someone on ignore isn't so much saying 'leave me alone' -- particularly since there is no actual way to even KNOW you're being ignored unless you're specifically told as much. It's more or less what it sounds like - ignoring someone - which in the end makes it up to the user DOING the ignoring to follow through on. If said user chooses NOT to ignore that person, despite having the option to do so? That's on them.

Hope that makes sense!!

I dunno, the restaurant comparison makes more sense to me when put like this: "Telling a person they cannot reply to your public thread is like telling a person they cannot dine at your table; however, they are welcome to reserve their own table or join someone else's table in the restaurant." The restaurant being Iwaku, tables being threads, so on and so forth?

And yeah, someone simply responding to you when the ignore feature doesn't provide any indication that you are on ignore (and said user hasn't specifically brought it up) wouldn't be harassment. I was describing the ideal condition and not necessarily the conditions as they are currently, and I'm sorry if I didn't clarify that. ^^; We'll just have to agree to disagree, because where you and Jorick see threads as a restaurant, I see threads as tables, and I think it's reasonable to ask someone to leave your table. Maybe that makes a little more sense where I am coming from, though? In a way, I sorta understand better where you're both coming from, even if I disagree on some details, so I appreciate the analogy.

 

[Astaroth]

There actually IS a technical limitation, and is not just a matter of "we don't think you should feel this way". Implementing this kind of two-way block is not possible without installing an add-on for our forum software. This add-on would 1. cost money for licensing, and potentially cost more money on top of that in order to get support and future updates after the initial installation, and 2. have to be compatible with all of our other current add-ons, which means finding the right one isn't as easy as just googling the first add-on for Xenforo that enables this feature. Some of the available add-ons (if they even work in the way you want) might also be from unreliable programmers who provide poor support or abandon and do not update the add-on to ensure it keeps working with the current software version; in other words, it might break the next time a new version of XenForo rolls out and we'd be screwed because the developer is AWOL.

With that in mind, we have to carefully consider with potential add-ons whether the feature is strictly necessary and how much of a benefit it would be to the community. The system we have works well enough that we don't feel it is worth the extra cost and vetting process.

That said, I would like to address your analogy because I think you're missing the perspective we're looking at this from. A public thread is NOT a table at a restaurant. It is a conference hall with an open mic. If you own the conference hall, it is up to you if you want to put restrictions on who gets a turn at the mic (such as how a GM has say on whether each user is approved for their roleplay, or whether the RP is public to all applicants or invite-only). HOWEVER, in the General Discussion forum, you are not the owner of the conference hall. You are being permitted by the owners of the hall (the admins) to use the mic to address the general public. Everyone is given the same access by us in this forum. Your roleplays are yours, your art shops and coding threads are yours, but public discussions are not. This is an important distinction because it promotes a welcoming atmosphere that is VITAL to the health of a community.

Imagine going into GD only to find you don't have access to half the threads because someone messaged half the site telling them to put you on ignore. (Before you object, I've actually seen shit like petitions passed around via PMs to report someone and/or get them banned because they were generally disliked.) Imagine an excited newbie to the site going into a thread and making a post, only to find themselves blocked because they accidentally missed a cleverly-hidden "Did You Read This" rule. (Sometimes people have dyslexia and other conditions that make it harder for them to notice that stuff, even if they read everything.) Essentially this opens a huge can of worms for potential alienation, cliquishness, even bullying. If you want a private venue for general discussion where you don't have to worry about who might respond, you can create a Clan where you have absolute control over membership. Clans are intended to be private member-run groups. The public forum is not.

Obviously, if someone follows you into the hall knowingly against your wishes and engages with you (even if you can't hear a word they say), you should contact the authorities so that the individual can be punished for harassing you. But they have as much right to be in a public place as you do.

I hope that clears up some of the questions you have on this matter.

 

[A000045]

There actually IS a technical limitation, and is not just a matter of "we don't think you should feel this way". Implementing this kind of two-way block is not possible without installing an add-on for our forum software. This add-on would 1. cost money for licensing, and potentially cost more money on top of that in order to get support and future updates after the initial installation, and 2. have to be compatible with all of our other current add-ons, which means finding the right one isn't as easy as just googling the first add-on for Xenforo that enables this feature. Some of the available add-ons (if they even work in the way you want) might also be from unreliable programmers who provide poor support or abandon and do not update the add-on to ensure it keeps working with the current software version; in other words, it might break the next time a new version of XenForo rolls out and we'd be screwed because the developer is AWOL.

With that in mind, we have to carefully consider with potential add-ons whether the feature is strictly necessary and how much of a benefit it would be to the community. The system we have works well enough that we don't feel it is worth the extra cost and vetting process.

That said, I would like to address your analogy because I think you're missing the perspective we're looking at this from. A public thread is NOT a table at a restaurant. It is a conference hall with an open mic. If you own the conference hall, it is up to you if you want to put restrictions on who gets a turn at the mic (such as how a GM has say on whether each user is approved for their roleplay, or whether the RP is public to all applicants or invite-only). HOWEVER, in the General Discussion forum, you are not the owner of the conference hall. You are being permitted by the owners of the hall (the admins) to use the mic to address the general public. Everyone is given the same access by us in this forum. Your roleplays are yours, your art shops and coding threads are yours, but public discussions are not. This is an important distinction because it promotes a welcoming atmosphere that is VITAL to the health of a community.

Imagine going into GD only to find you don't have access to half the threads because someone messaged half the site telling them to put you on ignore. (Before you object, I've actually seen shit like petitions passed around via PMs to report someone and/or get them banned because they were generally disliked.) Imagine an excited newbie to the site going into a thread and making a post, only to find themselves blocked because they accidentally missed a cleverly-hidden "Did You Read This" rule. (Sometimes people have dyslexia and other conditions that make it harder for them to notice that stuff, even if they read everything.) Essentially this opens a huge can of worms for potential alienation, cliquishness, even bullying. If you want a private venue for general discussion where you don't have to worry about who might respond, you can create a Clan where you have absolute control over membership. Clans are intended to be private member-run groups. The public forum is not.

Obviously, if someone follows you into the hall knowingly against your wishes and engages with you (even if you can't hear a word they say), you should contact the authorities so that the individual can be punished for harassing you. But they have as much right to be in a public place as you do.

I hope that clears up some of the questions you have on this matter.

Yeah, in looking up xenforo, that's the basic conclusion I came to (that it'd require an initial cost and then whatever cost in maintenance.)

As for your disagreement over Elle's restaurant analogy, and your conference hall analogy--like I said, we need to agree to disagree. Thank you for the clarification and new analogy. I'm pretty clear on where staff stands at this point, and the issue now simply boils down being at ideological odds.

I understand using the report system by rallying users to brigade another is abusing the system. It is a valid concern, especially when there is solid evidence on the site itself of organized collaboration to target specified users. I'm sorry you've had to see that kind of abuse previously. I also understand there are policies set up to deal with that abuse when it happens, and that despite the potential for abuse of the system, it is still available for us to use in good faith. The same could be argued for the type of ignore feature I was wondering about. That said, it is neither here nor there. If a site's admins choose to enforce that posting in certain sections of a forum means relinquishing control over who gets to interact with you, then from a member's standpoint it is what it is. As you mentioned, if a user is not comfortable with that loss of control or the risk of their harasser interacting with them so long as the response is on topic, they can refrain from posting in those sections.

In summary: I understand such a feature is at odds with the current priorities. I may still disagree on certain priorities and ideologies, but my desire to understand why things are done the way they are has been met and I will base my actions off of that understanding. Thanks again for taking the time.

 

[Vars]

The exception to the above is if they are posting in order to violate a rule, particularly our rules against harassment,

@Astaroth also

So my question is what actually is harassment?

Because in the rules it's this (emphasis mine):

What is harassment?
Harassment is the badgering of another person for ANY reason. If you continue to bother a person after someone asks you to stop, that is considered harassment.
[...]
Harassment - Harrassing or stalking of another member after requests to leave them alone.

Terms of Service and Rules | IwakuRoleplay.com

So if someone says "Hey, I've ignored you, and I'd really appreciate it if you didn't post in my threads and/or ignored me too" that's basically a polite way of saying "leave me alone" isn't it?
And then if the user you asked to stop responding to your threads continues to do so, in my mind, that is considered harassment, and from the terms in "Site Policies" it seems I'm correct in this?

But when I asked a member relations staff member about this specific scenario, they said it doesn't really count (because it's General chat, as your analogies also seem to agree with) and their best suggestion to me was to take that user off ignore and PM them?
Would PMing them about this scenario and then them continuing to reply to threads then be considered harassment, or do you just have zero power in this situation entirely?

 

[Kitti]

@Astaroth also

So my question is what actually is harassment?

Because in the rules it's this (emphasis mine):

Terms of Service and Rules | IwakuRoleplay.com

So if someone says "Hey, I've ignored you, and I'd really appreciate it if you didn't post in my threads and/or ignored me too" that's basically a polite way of saying "leave me alone" isn't it?
And then if the user you asked to stop responding to your threads continues to do so, in my mind, that is considered harassment, and from the terms in "Site Policies" it seems I'm correct in this?

But when I asked a security team member about this specific scenario, they said it doesn't really count (because it's General chat, as your analogies also seem to agree with) and their best suggestion to me was to take that user off ignore and PM them?
Would PMing them about this scenario and then them continuing to reply to threads then be considered harassment, or do you just have zero power in this situation entirely?

Harassment is hard to define since people are so creative but harassment is typically viewed as things like: demeaning comments toward someone, inappropriate sexual advances, or sending emails despite requests to stop.

This thread is rampant with analogies but to draw back on Ozzie's and give it a shot: someone who saw your speech in conference hall, didn't like it, and: now attends your speeches to yell racial slurs at you; started sending threatening letters to your home; or started breaking into your private rooms is harassment. Someone you don't like attending a workshop that you're holding in a public auditorium isn't harassment. If they attend that workshop and start whispering that they want to key your car, that's a different story.

In short, General Chat is the public hall. Threads are public workshops that the community hosts.

I am going to say that, no, I don't recommend taking whoever it is off ignore and sending them a PM. Especially if you feel heated, you're liable to get in hot water for harassing them. If someone is on ignore, just ignore them. Don't open the little spoiler for their message, pretend that they don't exist, ignore them.

If they send you PMs, profile posts, etc. when you tell them to leave you alone, report it. That's harassment.

 

[Kagayours]

@Astaroth also

So my question is what actually is harassment?

Because in the rules it's this (emphasis mine):

Terms of Service and Rules | IwakuRoleplay.com

So if someone says "Hey, I've ignored you, and I'd really appreciate it if you didn't post in my threads and/or ignored me too" that's basically a polite way of saying "leave me alone" isn't it?
And then if the user you asked to stop responding to your threads continues to do so, in my mind, that is considered harassment, and from the terms in "Site Policies" it seems I'm correct in this?

But when I asked a member relations staff member about this specific scenario, they said it doesn't really count (because it's General chat, as your analogies also seem to agree with) and their best suggestion to me was to take that user off ignore and PM them?
Would PMing them about this scenario and then them continuing to reply to threads then be considered harassment, or do you just have zero power in this situation entirely?

Also worth noting: there's a difference between an ignored member posting in your threads because they know you don't want them to, and an ignored member postinf in your thread because they just want to comment on the topic at hand, especially if they straight-up forgot that you didn't want them posting there.

Because that last bit definitely sounds like something I would do. :/

 

[Vars]

If someone is on ignore, just ignore them. Don't open the little spoiler for their message, pretend that they don't exist, ignore them.

Becomes difficult when other people quote the ignored person and that second person's post makes no sense without context (because ignored quotes in other people's posts don't show up, which I realize is intended, but still makes things really confusing).

Especially difficult when multiple people comment on/about ignored person's post and therefore appears to completely alter the direction the thread was going in or was intended to go in.

I'm not saying I disagree with those things, they're perfectly fine. I am just giving examples of how "pretending they don't exist" isn't as simple as it appears. Especially when it's a thread you created.

 

[Astaroth]

I'd just like to put in that Member Relations Community Staff in general are not necessarily the best people to ask about things like handling harassment. Member Relations peeps are great at diffusing mild scuffles within isolated threads and promoting a friendly atmosphere on the board, but they are NOT used to or trained for handling long-term problems or serious rule violations. Ask Security Staff or send in a report if you feel that you are being harassed.

Obviously, yes, other people are going to respond to a person you've ignored. You're going to be aware they exist. They have a right to attend the public workshop, but I will say that if they are derailing the course of conversation off topic, either you or a Staff member on your behalf can haul in the reins and ask people to stay on-topic.

If you think they are deliberately attending a workshop just to annoy you or that they are spamming your thread, then that might be a problem. Honestly the best thing to do is just report it and let Staff investigate. And try not to worry about it, since that sort of thing sounds pretty childish rather than malicious and they're likely not worth the stress.

 

[A000045]

I'd just like to put in that Member Relations Community Staff in general are not necessarily the best people to ask about things like handling harassment. Member Relations peeps are great at diffusing mild scuffles within isolated threads and promoting a friendly atmosphere on the board, but they are NOT used to or trained for handling long-term problems or serious rule violations. Ask Security Staff or send in a report if you feel that you are being harassed.

Oh no, I hope no one started messaging member relations or Elle with questions. x_x I thought her last sentence made it clear it's the admins who'd give the for-sure answer. Edit: Brain is broke after a long day--after rereading, I suppose I mean security staff + admin. Either way, figured what she'd said implied someone with a role meant for handling the dirty issues, so hope no one was confused.

 

[Elle Joyner]

Not that I know of :) Thanks for the concern, though! If anyone did, I'd just refer them to the admins and security!

 

[Astaroth]

Oh no, I hope no one started messaging member relations or Elle with questions. x_x I thought her last sentence made it clear it's the admins who'd give the for-sure answer. Edit: Brain is broke after a long day--after rereading, I suppose I mean security staff + admin. Either way, figured what she'd said implied someone with a role meant for handling the dirty issues, so hope no one was confused.

I was replying to Vardoger's comment:

But when I asked a member relations staff member about this specific scenario

I'm not sure who was asked, or why Vardoger asked them in particular- and of course I don't mean to imply the Staffer in question is not a good Staff member or did anything wrong- but I wanted to make it clear that they wouldn't be trained to give advice in this area, so in future to seek out the people who are.

 

[A000045]

I was replying to Vardoger's comment:



I'm not sure who was asked, or why Vardoger asked them in particular- and of course I don't mean to imply the Staffer in question is not a good Staff member or did anything wrong- but I wanted to make it clear that they wouldn't be trained to give advice in this area, so in future to seek out the people who are.

Ah, got it. Glad to know it wasn't something like my acknowledging her comments lead to anyone lurking reaching out or something, which is where my mind immediately went to for some reason. Not sure why I didn't connect the dots who the reply was to--probably because tired.