I would like the ability to completely hide a specific user's posts in the forums. There is one user who consistently posts off-topic crap (at least to me it is crap) in the forums and I would really prefer to just ignore all their posts. One, I wouldn't see unread posts if that user is the only new post. Two, I wouldn't have to read at least some of their post before realizing it is crap and skipping past it.
If this is already possible, please let me know how to do it.
Thanks
tbf (and assuming it's who I'm thinking of and not me), occasionally he posts something relevant. That does not stop me ignoring any thread when his is the most recent post.
I like your idea, and there is at least one poster that I would block.
However, blocking the display of a poster's posts would create problems. You would also have to block the posts replying to the blocked poster. The posts by other posters about the blocked posts' content would still be discussed in their posts.
What I currently do is skip over the posts of the posters that I would block. Totally avoiding their BS is not really possible in my opinion for I still see it in other posters' replies.
Posters quote some or all of other poster's posts. If you don't want to see the
BS someone posts, it will be quoted by other posters.
I don't want to see user X's posts because user normally X has nothing of any interest to say. Replies may contain something of interest.
It is not as though X's posts have content which turns my stomach.
In my experience, posts in reply to the poster I'm thinking of are usually about their post so are also off topic and I wouldn't care about them either. Hiding that entire thread of posts wouldn't bother me at all. For the most part, I only read posts on the Lost Stories and Story Recommendations forums so off topic posts are really unwanted. If I was looking for more general conversations, I would look at one of the other forums.
Well it's either me or richardshagrin. If it's me, sorry all.
If it's the later, well maybe publicly naming them is all that is required for them to tone it down a little?
Well it's either me or richardshagrin.
StarFleet Carl reckoned I was an alias of richardshagrin (or vice versa) so I probably merit a (dis)honourable mention too ;-)
AJ
Do I need mammograms and smear tests?
You may or may not wish to send your mother a telegram.
And
Getting you tested to see if you've slandered someone is pointless.
:)
maybe publicly naming them is all that is required for them to tone it down a little?
I'm sure that user is well aware of how annoying and off-topic their 'puns' are, and I doubt this discussion will make any difference, no matter how I might wish it would. I also doubt Lazeez will institute a block option. This idea has been mentioned to him before - more than once I'll wager.
If Lazeez was going to do anything about this, I'd have expected him to make a comment in this thread before now.
If Lazeez was going to do anything about this, I'd have expected him to make a comment in this thread before now.
I suspect that if Lazeez has ever considered adding blocking to the forum he has long since auto blocked any thread about voting and probably this one as well…
Then again, given that thread drift is so prevalent, any topic is likely to veer off into the wilds, at least until it gets stuck in one of the more popular yet mostly pointless ruts. Grammar, Guns, Absent authors, Copyright, etc
Pointless in as much as they have all been flogged to death and beyond.
I myself am not for blocking of posts and not because of those idiots that scream FREE SPEECH!!! but because of the old saying "Keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a moron or open it and prove they were right."
I am sure I would end up on some blocked lists.
For me, it's about the experience I receive. When I'm looking at the Story Recommendations forum, my focus is fairly narrow and having to read posts that are clearly off topic is a waste and is frustrating. If others then decide to reply to that waste of a post, then I have to scroll past that entire thread just to get back to the focus of the original post. Some times, I just give up and know that I might be missing some relevant content but just don't want to have to wade through the crap to find it. If I could just completely block certain posters, then I would never see their post (and hopefully not see the thread of irrelevant crap replies) and my forum experience would be much better.
Site wide?
In the forums. Mainly due to a certain poster who shall remain nameless disrupting threads (which is ALL he does).
He apparently writes perfectly sane and useful story reviews.
My comment was restricted to the forums.
Actually incorrect, occasionally his posts have relevance to the topic being addressed.
To be fair, the individual seems to have toned it down substantially since the start of this thread. It could be one of several reasons. The individual in question has read this thread, they have been saved by the Lord above, or Laz might have had a quiet 'word'.
I know from personal experience that just because Laz doesn't appear to be doing anything, doesn't mean he is not doing anything. He could well have messaged the individual asking them to tone it down a bit or risk removal. Over my many years here, I have received the odd message from Laz politely saying "That is enough".
Over my many years here, I have received the odd message from Laz politely saying "That is enough".
Oooo, something to aspire to!
Actually incorrect, occasionally his posts have relevance to the topic being addressed.
Not a single response to ANY of my posts has EVER been on topic. And I certainly haven't seen any in threads I read.
In 40 years on the 'net' (including back in the UUCP and b-news days), trolls are the biggest problem facing online fora. YMMV.
Usenet newsreaders had 'kill lists' that blocked threads based on subject or author (including using regex). That was a handy feature.
Not a single response to ANY of my posts has EVER been on topic.
Aha, it's all about you!
More seriously, there was a reply a month or so ago which was on topic.
trolls are the biggest problem
Personally, I don't consider him a troll. I think his sense of humor is not shared by others.
Personally, I don't consider him a troll. I think his sense of humor is not shared by others.
Quoting dictionary entires for words is not humor.
Quoting dictionary entires for words is not humor.
His posts are often a play on words that he must think is funny. Why he started quoting dictionary entries is beyond me.
My experience is that each of us are different.
You and me and everyone else have traveled different paths.
Those that have not yet figured out their social interactions are not well accepted are to be pitied.
The full import of the southern US phrase of 'Bless your heart.' Poor child.
Google it if necessary for nuanced understanding.
Then... ignore and move on.
You cannot have free speech and restrict speech from those who annoy you. YOUR rights are also THEIR rights.
Any member can post here, every member can choose which posts they read.
Simple.
Now can someone please explain why I'm defending shaggy?
Now can someone please explain why I'm defending
You are drunk? On drugs? He is holding your cat hostage?
Now can someone please explain why I'm defending shaggy?
You're addicted to scoobie snacks?
AJ
Any member can post here, every member can choose which posts they read.
They can also choose which ones to ignore, something which is made much easier if the index does not show the "new post" flag in the first place.
What I'm suggesting isn't restricting the speech of anybody and is in fact an option to allow me to choose what to read. What part of my request sounded like it was restricting anybody's rights? That is assuming you ignore the fact that the free speech rights you are speaking of are in relation to the US Government and not a private entity. Laz has every right to restrict what anybody posts on his site as much as he wants to.
My request doesn't restrict anybody's "rights" and in fact is just a technological solution to your "every member can choose which posts they read".
What I'm suggesting isn't restricting the speech of anybody and is in fact an option to allow me to choose what to read.
You already have an option to choose what to read.
Every post starts with the posters name. So don't read any post by whichever member annoys you.
Your comment about the US Government isn't germane since SoL is based in Canada and whilst many members are US based, many are not and therefore don't actually care about the US Gov.
All of which bypasses the practicality of achieving your desire. Blocking a members posts is relatively simple. But what about posts by others that reply or just quote them? If a member both replies to your blocked poster and provides information you desire, are you happy to miss out on that info so your sensibilities remain protected? What if your blocked poster provides the information you seek? Are you so offended by their presence that you'd rather remain ignorant that gain knowledge they possess?
But what about posts by others that reply or just quote them? If a member both replies to your blocked poster and provides information you desire, are you happy to miss out on that info so your sensibilities remain protected? What if your blocked poster provides the information you seek? Are you so offended by their presence that you'd rather remain ignorant that gain knowledge they possess?
All good reasons not to block posts, but none of it justifies a claim that someone wishing to block (himself from seeing) posts from a particular user infringes anyone's free speech rights.
Here is another pun most of you will not want to read It is based on ae waterway in western washington, puget sound.
if Boeing makes a jet whose engines run on poo the plane may be loud enough to make a poo jet sound.
Granted.
If you click on that red circle with a diagonal line next to a user name, is that how the user is blocked?
If you click on it by accident, how do you unblock the user?
If you click on that red circle with a diagonal line next to a user name, is that how the user is blocked?
If you click on it by accident, how do you unblock the user?
Yes. But it asks you to confirm first. There is a strong warning that you can't unblock anyone once you block them.
May I suggest...
That a trial period take place.
Feedback from users as to the effectiveness and does this feature increase or decrease understand ability of (whatever) forum topic.
Maybe a vote yeah or nay, keep or discard, in a few months?
you can't unblock anyone once you block them.
Can you change that? People change their minds.
Maybe the circle could be one color if the user is not blocked. Then it changes to another color (maybe red) when they are blocked. Then if you click on the red (blocked) one it allows you to unblock the user and then the circle turns back to the not blocked color.
ETA: What I suggested won't work. If the user is blocked you won't see his posts anymore so there won't be a circle to unblock him.
Making that is perhaps more work than it's perceived worth, or at least, being put to low priority lane. If anything, the need for that could be circumvented by making a new account...
Or, actually, indeed, not a full detailed list, but just a reset button in the profile could be an acceptable (interim) solution.
It could simply nuke all blocks at once, without needing (much) new interface.
Or, actually, indeed, not a full detailed list, but just a reset button in the profile could be an acceptable (interim) solution.
It could simply nuke all blocks at once, without needing (much) new interface.
This is a good idea. One key thing about Usenet kill lists is you could set a time limit or edit them. (at least in 'nn').
It doesn't seem to be an option in some threads. For example;
https://storiesonline.net/d/s5/t11772/new-ability-story
https://storiesonline.net/d/s6/t11777/qustion-about-searching
It doesn't seem to be an option in some threads.
Caching. When the cache for a thread expires and the thread gets refreshed, the new links will show up.
Granted.
Thank-you.
Out of curiosity, does it work both ways, ie, if you block someone, will that also stop them from seeing your posts, or will they continue to see them? I was just thinking that if those blocked don't know that they are blocked and reply to a post by someone who has blocked them, they could be waiting a long time for a reply... (asking for a friend...)
Edit: Because I'm one of those people who struggle NOT to press the big red button marked 'Do not press'. What happens if you block yourself? Is it even possible? I did (sorry) click on the cross next to my name and the warning box came up, but I chickened out at the last minute from pressing 'Ok'... (Don't judge me okay! We all have our issues...)
Out of curiosity, does it work both ways, ie, if you block someone, will that also stop them from seeing your posts, or will they continue to see them?
No, it's one way. You don't see their posts. They wouldn't know.
What happens if you block yourself? Is it even possible?
No. You can't block yourself. There are safeguards. You can't block me either.
You can't block yourself. There are safeguards. You can't block me either.
A bit of inconsistent UI here: the 🚫 icon does not appear next to your username, making it obvious you can't be blocked, but it does appear next to mine.
making it obvious you can't be blocked, but it does appear next to mine.
It's due to caching.
I could create the files without an icon next to my own nick name, because nobody should be able to block me.
However, for everybody else, I either turn off all caching (to show each person a custom version of the page without the icon next to their own name), slowing the forum quite a bit and putting a bigger CPU load on the servers, or I keep the block icon next to everybody's name and catch the self block on the back end.
Although, I may put in more effort into the javascript and add code that would remove the icon from the user's own posts. That would require more effort and for now I've given it way more than it warrants. Just for the record, so far, 5 people have use the feature and all of the blocked that exact same person.
We'll see in a week or two if the effort I put in was worth it or not. Although, I suspect not. Most people on the forum are pretty civilized and are generally nice, so nobody asked for the ability to block before now despite the forum using my own code since 2015.
I may put in more effort into the javascript and add code that would remove the icon from the user's own posts. That would require more effort and for now I've given it way more than it warrants.
I wouldn't put any more effort into it. Your resources are better used elsewhere.
I wouldn't put any more effort into it. Your resources are better used elsewhere.
I agree.
I guess a 'simple' option would be to 'collapse' those parts of the post behind a button, like 'spoiler'.
Ah - the caching makes sense. I wouldn't bother refining it, at least for now.
Just for the record, so far, 5 people have use the feature and all of the[m] blocked that exact same person.
All that effort - requested by a bunch of people - triggered by one person, pity you can't bill him for the time you expended.
All that effort - requested by a bunch of people - triggered by one person, pity you can't bill him for the time you expended.
I thought of simply banning him, but that wouldn't be fair. Some times, although rarely, he does contribute good stuff.
I thought of simply banning him, but that wouldn't be fair.
Good decision. Block lists are the way to go. I appreciate having the feature, despite not yet using it.
Fair really shouldn't play into it; its your place and we're here because you allow us to be here. You set the rules. You decides who gets to stay.
It is yours to decide if the occasional contributions of one individual are worth the effort you put into this feature.
EITHER way, thank YOU for your effort on your guests behalf; I've already taken advantage of the new feature, and I suspect its the same target.
Actually that makes me rather sad. But then I'm likely to get blocked too by some posters, especially when discussions get heated.
AJ
A random thought... Not directed at any one individual.
If you do not like the idea of being blocked, modify your words/behavior others find offensive, thus removing the impetus.
If you do not like the idea of being blocked, modify your words/behavior others find offensive, thus removing the impetus.
Given it's only the individual blocking you, why would I modify my opinions? If someone doesn't want to hear what I have to say, that's their choice. It's not as if their decision affects anyone but them.
Personally, I only ever blocked confirmed trolls on Usenet, and that's what I would likely do here. There's only one poster I'd even consider blocking after 15+ years here, and I have not blocked them, despite asking for the option to do so.
If you do not like the idea of being blocked, modify your words/behavior others find offensive
That's a very Generation Z sentiment. A recent poll found more than half of Generation Zers would refuse to work with people with whose opinions they disagreed.
AJ
That's a very Generation Z sentiment. A recent poll found more than half of Generation Zers would refuse to work with people with whose opinions they disagreed.
That's because, at least in the US, they've been taught that their being offended trumps the First Amendment.
George Carlin and Frank Zappa beg to differ.
No, it's more that they don't see why should have to put up with it. They don't give a fuck.
It also indicates abundance of opportunity. I don't have that luxury. I have had to work for, with, and hire for work people who think my country shouldn't exist and my nationality should be exterminated.
I kinda get the oldies still resentful about fall of their empire (USSR) but the younger folks occasionally sharing that attitude are more surprising.
No, it's more that they don't see why should have to put up with it
That pretty much hits the nail on the head for me. I'm just too tired, old and grumpy for other peoples shit these days.
I must say you're taking this very well. If, as StarFleet Carl believed, we're the same person, at least there will be one person who will read your posts (since I can't block myself) :-)
AJ
No, it's more that they don't see why should have to put up with it. They don't give a fuck.
One either believes in free speech or censorship. There isn't any real middle ground. And that's the beauty of an individual ignore/kill list — you only limit what you see, not what anyone else sees.
Of course, Lazeez is free to make whatever rules he wants for his forums, and the ethical choices at that point are to abide by them, lobby for change, or not use the site.
Free Speech only works if everyone may use it. The correct response to bad speech is good speech, not censorship (which never works).
Uh, so, I haven't blocked anybody. The forum is indicating that, a couple posts above, richardshagrin has replied (#po192220) to Pixy, and doctor_wing_nut and awnlee jawking have replied to richardshagrin (#po192220). But I don't see any post by richardshagrin.
Is there something going wrong with the caching so I'm catching the effects of someone else's blocklist?
eta: I posted this and refreshed the thread and richardshagrin's post appeared.
eta: I posted this and refreshed the thread and richardshagrin's post appeared.
Thank you for this report. Indeed there was a bug in the code and it didn't work exactly as intended.
I've fixed the bug and now it works as it should (mostly; who knows).
I've fixed the bug and now it works as it should (mostly; who knows)
Yes, I noticed that this morning I could still see their posts, even though I blocked them the other day. So I blocked them again... LOL... Didn't have any effect at the time and over the course of the morning I blocked the same person four? times... LOL
I blocked the same person four? times
Hopefully it's not a toggle (blocked, unblocked, blocked, un…)
If you have blocked the anal-retentive oracle but still want to look at one of his posts, open the thread in a private window.
Obvious, and effective.
I had a look at the https://storiesonline.net/d/s2/t8586/memorable-quotes-from thread and promptly discovered another 15-odd reasons to ignore him.
