Purpose of the ignore lists? (Why can't we ignore a moderator?) [MERGED]

[SDColorado]

I am an admin on a Vbulletin site. We don't even have an ignore feature. Which in some ways is perhaps better, because everyone can't be ignored equally

But as for the mods, they are users like every other user on the board and just because one posts an opinion or a take I might not agree with, doesn't mean they are violating forum rules.

I have nobody on my ignore list, but there are a few users I regularly ignore. They have a username and a photo, you can skip over them unless they are sending you DM's

Moderating is a hard job, mostly thankless and it is hard to stay engaged in the forum if you can't also be a regular contributor. I think the mods on MR do as well as they can.

 

[turbineseaplane]

But as for the mods, they are users like every other user on the board and just because one posts an opinion or a take I might not agree with, doesn't mean they are violating forum rules.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I was ignoring people because they were violating forum rules. If they are doing that, I report them.

For me the ignore feature is just about removing consistent and persistent annoyances basically.

 

[SDColorado]

Where did you get the impression anyone thought they were violating forum rules?

Honestly, for me the ignore feature is just about removing consistent and persistent annoyances basically.

I should have explained that better. What I meant to say is on the forum I Admin there is no option to ignore a user. So unless they are violating forum rules, others have no choice but to mentally ignore a user whose posts they disagree, avoid that forum, thread, whatever. Unless they are violating forum rules, neither the Admins, Mods or users have another means to ignore them other than skip their posts.

In some ways, I think the lack of an ignore feature is better. Nobody feels it is an uneven playing field where users can be ignored, while Mods cannot and Mods/Admins by the same token, have no means to ignore a user either. I am not sure if they do on here or not.

My apologies for the confusion on post #29. I am most often multitasking and I admit sometimes don't do a good job of it and leave out important points to what I am typing

 

[turbineseaplane]

@SDColorado

Ahh - gotcha..

I have to say, I'm not sure I'd participate here as much as I do without the ignore feature. Something about this forum and the Apple discussion stuff - something about it brings out some people that are just intensely annoying to me.

Not sure on the pros/cons of the forum overall in that regard, I just know that I love the ignore feature for the 15-20 people that tend to be on mine.

That said, it's amazing how many end up getting suspended - I just looked at that a little while ago..

 

[SDColorado]

@SDColorado
That said, it's amazing how many end up getting suspended - I just looked at that a little while ago..

Well, that is true on my forum as well. Generally speaking, the ones that everyone wants to ignore, don't last long before being placed on LA (limited Access) and then going down the path of suspensions of varying lengths before they bugger off and become someone else's problem

Edit: The other side of the coin on my reference to violating rules though is that we have had to revoke Mod priveledges from some folks over the years as well for constantly violating rules. Everyone is equal in that regard, I assume that is also true of MR.

 

[LizKat]

If I had the skill to do so I gladly would assist.

It's pretty frustrating not to be able to ignore the "normal user opinions" of Moderators just because they also happen to be Moderators.

Gee I dunno. If i see a post from a mod who's posting as a regular user and I happen to disagree with his ideas I just keep moving, same as I usually do when rolling eyes at some other user's idea of a good idea.

I've never gotten into a thread where a mod posting as user seemed either wrong enough or obnoxious enough to warrant wishing I could use the software ignore feature.

But, heh, maybe I've missed some interesting exchanges. Most of the mods seem to avoid PRSI as far as making ordinary user posts.. not sure about iPhone forums, which is another place I can get tempted to use ignores.

Some of the mods here have posted stuff that's been extremely helpful to me on the tech side. Mostly I lurked then but I remember even looking for posts by a few mods in searching relevant threads.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Most of the mods seem to avoid PRSI as far as making ordinary user posts.. not sure about iPhone forums, which is another place I can get tempted to use ignores.

Funny you say that...I actually haven’t done much ignoring from PRSI areas.
It’s usually all deep in Mac stuff.

I’m glad you’ve have a great experience. I mostly have also.
As I said, it’s literally just 2 particular mods and it’s been over the course of years now - lol

 

[LizKat]

Funny you say that...I actually haven’t done much ignoring from PRSI areas.
It’s usually all deep in Mac stuff.

I’m glad you’ve have a great experience. I mostly have also.
As I said, it’s literally just 2 particular mods and it’s been over the course of years now - lol

See this is the problem with online adventures. In real life, you guys would long since have duked it out by now over those issues, or else just gone and had a few beers to get on the same side of a different topic -- anything: a sports team or the consensus on why the players won or lost last night, etc. But in here we're stuck with wishing for software updates.

 

[macintoshmac]

Hi


That said, moderators are users on the forum also, and I'm sort of saddened to say there 1 or 2 Mods where I'd really prefer not to see their normal forum posts. It's nothing personal other than finding their opinions on things really divergent from mine and/or kind of annoying and just commentary style's I'm super not into and don't find of very high quality, etc.

Well, that should be a case for respectful ignorance. However, like Maflynn said about not missing communication...

At the moment, I can only see one option then, and that is to talk to other mods about the said mods and try to get them to talk to those mods in question to be a bit better on the forum for everyone.

The only other option is that critical communication must have a way to be marked so that it cannot be ignored. The usual forum postings of mods should then behave in a way it does for all other users. This would make the usual postings of mods ignorable, save for the posts they make using a "non-ignorable" clause in software. With that, mods would then have a responsibility to not use the non-ignorable announcement feature to post their usual responses to forums as users of forums.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Exercise some personal restraint and responsibility and simply ignore the posts you don't like. Very simple. Problem solved.

That's the beauty of the ignore list my friend!
You can simply automate exactly what you've described.

I just wish I could add 2 specific extra people to the list.

At the moment, I can only see one option then, and that is to talk to other mods about the said mods and try to get them to talk to those mods in question to be a bit better on the forum for everyone.

Nah - it's not really about that - just more of a personal thing.

Honestly, it's really ok to have an ignore list function and for some of us to use it.

It's not detracting from the experience for anyone else and it's measurably improving it for those of us who enjoy and use it from time to time.

Really - it's ok.

It's not critical to the forum to have everyone be forced to see/hear everything everyone says about everything in every topic. It just isn't.

It is totally great if some of you prefer that. I respect that and think it's great.

For some others, it's better to ignore/avoid certain things and just be happier and have more fun.
It's truly all good.

I appreciate all the thoughts all - truly

 

[annk]

That's just the way it works - posts written by moderators can't be ignored via the ignore feature. If a mod posts a personal opinion, no one has to pay attention to it. Mod notes must of course be paid attention to, since they consist of information to thread participants and not opinions on the thread subject - but luckily there're not often needed.

As to the frustration that can occur when another user has different views, I think we can all identify on some level. At the same time, if a post written by any user, moderator or no, is written within the rules, any problem that might create is not solved by an ignore function. And - I think it's a good thing that we're all exposed to alternative viewpoints at least once in a while! Of course that can be frustrating, but that's how a real discussion works.

The question has been answered now - posts written by moderators can't be ignored in the same way posts written by other users can be ignored. We have to use our built-in ignore function.

 

[SDColorado]

A couple of questions, because I honestly don't know. But when you read through threads, more often than not you see posts where others have quoted a user in part or in whole. Sometimes in one block, sometimes broken into smaller blocks.

If someone was on your ignore list, would that quoted content not still show up if quoted by someone who was not on your ignore list?

If it does still show, it would seem nearly impossible to avoid everything the ignored user says anyway and would make the context of threads a little odd, wouldn't it?

 

[Weaselboy]

If someone was on your ignore list, would that quoted content not still show up if quoted by someone who was not on your ignore list?

It kills your quotes also, but you can see replies to the quotes.

The second shot there is with you added to my ignore list.

 

[willmtaylor]

It kills your quotes also, but you can see replies to the quotes.

The second shot there is with you added to my ignore list.

*REPORTED (for a Mod ignoring a user)*

 

[Weaselboy]

*REPORTED (for a Mod ignoring a user)*

LOL... you got me!

 

[SDColorado]

It kills your quotes also, but you can see replies to the quotes.

The second shot there is with you added to my ignore list.

View attachment 823495 View attachment 823496

It does make the context a bit odd. It just appears as though Stephen R dropped a random "Wat"

 

[turbineseaplane]

It does make the context a bit odd. It just appears as though Stephen R dropped a random "Wat"

Yep, but that's only visible to you, not anyone else.
Anytime I've seen weirdness like that I've either had a good sense of what made it and/or "unignored" on that page to quickly check and confirm..

Honestly that usually reaffirms for me very quickly why I'd ignored a given user - lol

 

[Scepticalscribe]

hi

harsh?
no.

although on a much more serious level, its the same as in any business or industry practice.
in its simplest terms:
a person whose work consists of activities that are basically policing practices can not (should not) be the same person to be involved in in the transactions themselves.

regulators are regulators.
they should and must stay out of the fray.
or, else there can be zero trust in their decisions.

it was unbelievable to me at first to learn through this thread that moderators post their personal posts using their moderator profile.
after reading through this thread, i simply just find it poor management.

I see no reason why a moderator cannot respond - in a personal capacity - to a thread that they themselves are not moderating.

If they are moderating a thread, yes, I can see the argument that they should not necessarily comment on it, but if they themselves are not moderating a particular thread, I fail to see why they should not, as human beings who are members of the forum, comment on what is discussed in that thread.

 

[SDColorado]

Yep, but that's only visible to you, not anyone else.
Anytime I've seen weirdness like that I've ever had a good sense of what made it and/or "unignored" on that page to quickly check and confirm..

Honestly that usually reaffirms for me very quickly why I'd ignored a given user - lol

Fair enough. I was just curious since I haven’t had any experience with having someone on the ignore list.

Of course it did occur to me after Weaselboy posted that example that I could have just put someone on a temporary ignore myself and had a look. But I didn’t think of it until his example

 

[monokakata]

I've been watching this thread with interest, not because I've ever had a problem with a moderator, but because it's such a vexing question.

I get it that the forum software doesn't allow for a moderator to be ignored, and I also get the obvious point that a moderator has to be able to insert himself/herself into any discussion.

However. MR is loaded with rules (not a complaint, although I don't agree with some of them) and so I'm wondering whether there couldn't be an internal rule -- among admins and moderators -- to the effect that if someone tries to ignore a moderator who's making a non-moderator-related posting, then that moderator should not continue to post in that thread.

In other words, accept the ignore request and carry on. Or don't carry on, in this case.

Surely the mods can be asked to obey certain internal rules. No?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I've been watching this thread with interest, not because I've ever had a problem with a moderator, but because it's such a vexing question.

I get it that the forum software doesn't allow for a moderator to be ignored, and I also get the obvious point that a moderator has to be able to insert himself/herself into any discussion.

However. MR is loaded with rules (not a complaint, although I don't agree with some of them) and so I'm wondering whether there couldn't be an internal rule -- among admins and moderators -- to the effect that if someone tries to ignore a moderator who's making a non-moderator-related posting, then that moderator should not continue to post in that thread.

In other words, accept the ignore request and carry on. Or don't carry on, in this case.

Surely the mods can be asked to obey certain internal rules. No?

Why should this be a rule?

Why should a moderator be prevented from posting in a thread he or she is not moderating simply because someone dislikes the tone or content of their posts?

With respect, for example, if a moderator offers an opinion on a particular model of the iPhone, which another poster may disagree with vehemently, why on Earth should the moderator be obliged to refrain from offering further opinions merely because a poster with strong views sought to place that moderator on ignore?

From what I can have been able to observe, most of the mods stay well away from posting in PRSI (in a personal capacity); however, this is a forum dedicated to the discussion of devices and discoveries and similar matters related to Apple, I can see no reason why they shouldn't post in a personal capacity about matters related to Apple or in the other threads where discussions take place.

 

[jpn]

I've been watching this thread with interest, not because I've ever had a problem with a moderator, but because it's such a vexing question.

I get it that the forum software doesn't allow for a moderator to be ignored, and I also get the obvious point that a moderator has to be able to insert himself/herself into any discussion.

However. MR is loaded with rules (not a complaint, although I don't agree with some of them) and so I'm wondering whether there couldn't be an internal rule -- among admins and moderators -- to the effect that if someone tries to ignore a moderator who's making a non-moderator-related posting, then that moderator should not continue to post in that thread.

In other words, accept the ignore request and carry on. Or don't carry on, in this case.

Surely the mods can be asked to obey certain internal rules. No?

this is in reply to you and Skepticalscribe about thread by thread moderation.
is this really a thing?
do moderators working on macrumors actually have assigned duties on a thread by thread basis?
wow, if this is true. messy, inconsistent, incoherent, leading to problems.

double wow if i am to believe this is the most efficient or best way to moderate and help a topic to do well as well as help the community to grow.

persons moderating a topic (or maybe "Forum" is the term) can not (should not) be allowed to post in that topic/forum.

 

[monokakata]

Should have kept my mouth shut. I'm out of this one.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Should have kept my mouth shut. I'm out of this one.

I feel ya' man
This is tough forum to have certain opinions I've noticed, especially if not popular with a certain set.

The ignore feature makes this place usable and fun for me at least.

 

[C DM]

this is in reply to you and Skepticalscribe about thread by thread moderation.
is this really a thing?
do moderators working on macrumors actually have assigned duties on a thread by thread basis?
wow, if this is true. messy, inconsistent, incoherent, leading to problems.

double wow if i am to believe this is the most efficient or best way to moderate and help a topic to do well as well as help the community to grow.

persons moderating a topic (or maybe "Forum" is the term) can not (should not) be allowed to post in that topic/forum.

Curious, can a police officer live in the same district that he/she polices, and thus participate in everyday life and activities that any other person living in the district can?