Much like on Discord and Reddit, the ignore feature here isn't a real ignore feature, it's an 'empower the abuser' feature. For it to be a proper block, it has to work like blocking does on Twitter.
Much like on Discord and Reddit, the ignore feature here isn't a real ignore feature, it's an 'empower the abuser' feature. For it to be a proper block, it has to work like blocking does on Twitter.
Again, the "Ignore" feature is not there for abusers. People abusing people need to be dealt with as abuse is against the site rules, and they will be dealt with by moderators.
The Ignore feature is for when somebodies points of view or mannerisms clash with your own in a manner which is beyond your capacity to accommodate. They haven't broken rules or abused you, but you simply don't wish to read what they have to say any more. Some people can just brush off these things and carry on, but others will be upset by or drawn into long, derailing arguments with specific people, and will choose to Ignore them to avoid these undesirable results.
Much like on Discord and Reddit, the ignore feature here isn't a real ignore feature, it's an 'empower the abuser' feature. For it to be a proper block, it has to work like blocking does on Twitter.
Again, the "Ignore" feature is not there for abusers. People abusing people need to be dealt with as abuse is against the site rules, and they will be dealt with by moderators.
The Ignore feature is for when somebodies points of view or mannerisms clash with your own in a manner which is beyond your capacity to accommodate. They haven't broken rules or abused you, but you simply don't wish to read what they have to say any more. Some people can just brush off these things and carry on, but others will be upset by or drawn into long, derailing arguments with specific people, and will choose to Ignore them to avoid these undesirable results.
How does blocking work on twitter?
I think the point is (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that someone you have ignored can still see your posts, reply to them and quote them. If they are, somehow, abusing you and yet somehow getting around the mods, they can continue to abuse you behind your back. You can no longer see their responses, but they are still there, and you will see them if someone you haven't blocked quotes them anyway.
Ignoring someone gives them the power and freedom to continue their behaviour, and removes any other form of defence (reporting etc).
Much like on Discord and Reddit, the ignore feature here isn't a real ignore feature, it's an 'empower the abuser' feature. For it to be a proper block, it has to work like blocking does on Twitter.
Again, the "Ignore" feature is not there for abusers. People abusing people need to be dealt with as abuse is against the site rules, and they will be dealt with by moderators.
The Ignore feature is for when somebodies points of view or mannerisms clash with your own in a manner which is beyond your capacity to accommodate. They haven't broken rules or abused you, but you simply don't wish to read what they have to say any more. Some people can just brush off these things and carry on, but others will be upset by or drawn into long, derailing arguments with specific people, and will choose to Ignore them to avoid these undesirable results.
How does blocking work on twitter?
I think the point is (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that someone you have ignored can still see your posts, reply to them and quote them. If they are, somehow, abusing you and yet somehow getting around the mods, they can continue to abuse you behind your back. You can no longer see their responses, but they are still there, and you will see them if someone you haven't blocked quotes them anyway.
Ignoring someone gives them the power and freedom to continue their behaviour, and removes any other form of defence (reporting etc).
This sounds like a misunderstanding of the unwritten contract of Ignoring somebody. By Ignoring someone, you're acknowledging that you don't care what they say, it has no power over you, and that they can say whatever they like provided that you don't have to read it. Whether they quote you and say your comments are stupid (flouting the "be nice" rules) or tell people not to listen to you is irrelevant because, by Ignoring them, you have made the decision that you don't want to see what they said.
People can't have their cake and eat it. There is no way, without advanced AI or full-time moderation of every post, to stop Ignored people from replying to your posts, quoting you, or mentioning you, directly or indirectly. The choice on whether to Ignore or ignore is the same as whether to keep arguing or walk away - a decision that people have to make regularly, online and otherwise.
Fundamentally it boils down to the fact that if people are being rude about anyone else, and are flouting or regularly skirting the rules, then it should be brought to the attention of the moderators and they should decide how to act. But if people are Ignoring for the right reasons - EG if someone doesn't like the way someone always posts and is fed up of seeing it, then there's no issues there.
The answer is not to Ignore people who are being rude to you, ignore or report them instead (note the capitalized "I" on the first one!)
If they are, somehow, abusing you and yet somehow getting around the mods, they can continue to abuse you behind your back.
If it is actual abuse, it's not supposed to get past the mods. If it does get past the mods, it shouldn't be problematic beyond a personal dislike. I get the argument of "you can't check their behaviour anymore so you won't know if they're still doing what it is you dislike about them or their posts" but the basic premisse is that whatever it is you're disliking is permissible according to the rules or gets caught by the mods (with appropriate consequences for the poster, if any). If it is permissible by the rules, what exactly would you hope or expect to happen?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I was purely answering the question of why "Ignore is an 'empower the abuser' feature".
Moderation should catch and stop abuse. However, abuse will not always be seen to be so by others. As a for instance, my wife was horrified when she first met my brother. She considered the way he treated me to be abusive, whereas to us it was just making fun of each other.
One person can be abusing another without realising it, and the mods may not view it as abuse either, or as serious enough to take action over. A person can even be told that what they are saying or doing is upsetting or abusive, and just respond that they should "suck it up" and "if you don't like it you can leave". If that's the case, the only options left are to ignore it, Ignore it, or leave the site. If you ignore it, lower case I, you need to suffer reading the material you consider abusive trying not to let it upset you, but at least you can see what is said and respond in defence. If you Ignore it, upper case I using the site's Ignore feature, you may not have to read it anymore but you know it's still there, that the other person is carrying on saying things you consider abusive. You have zero defence against things you Ignore.
I don't know what the answer is or if there is one, but hopefully this explains more clearly why the Ignore feature can be an 'empower the abuser' feature.
If you join a thread and do not break any rules but still cause issue for a single person it is hard to nail down.
For example:
Person A: "I think X is a good thing for Rogue"
Person B: "Quotes Person A: No that is incorrect. Because of W , Y and Z it is actually terrible for Rogue to take X."
Person A having ignored this person does not respond.
Person C: "Well I think that X could be good "
Person B: "No it isn't as we have already established X is bad and there has not been any claims otherwise to why X is good to refute my points."
Person B isnt breaking any rules but is obviously de-railing the conversation as they will no let anyone say X is acceptable because you have to "prove" it. Person A pretty much has to abandon the thread if they do not want to interact with Person B as they do not wish to engage with them or be moderated.
Now imagine Person B posts a lot in the area that you like to read/contribute. You have given all the power to Person B in this situation but they have not broken any rules but you have effectively allowed this person to lock another out of an area.
On the topic of the thread title, the ignore feature? Honestly, I'd have far less of a problem with these forums if people tried to stay on topic and not devolved into side conversations. Which is why I bothered replying to this post specifically, because I wanted to tie it back in.
I don't disagree with you. This is really difficult, though. Conversation will naturally drift between topics. It is perfectly natural to find a conversation has shifted from the original topic to a completely different one after a few pages. We do this all the time in our day to day lives.
I would say that certain forums, particularly those like Rules & Mechanics, should probably be kept strictly on topic. However, something like here, General Discussion? Threads here should be discussions which are allowed to evolve naturally and follow whatever path they take. A big jump into a vastly different subject should still be considered OT, but not natural drifts.
Discussions being derailed by another argument about an emotionally charged subject should be dealt with, but how is a different story. Asking or telling people to Ignore each other wouldn't be the right way IMHO (although the mods have said they don't do that, so my information in opening this thread may not have been correct)
If it drifts, make a new thread. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the subject is vague as hell, then sure, the conversation can spiral into 50 different tangets. Not every thread needs to be 500 posts to be considered a success.
Person B isnt breaking any rules but is obviously de-railing the conversation as they will no let anyone say X is acceptable because you have to "prove" it. Person A pretty much has to abandon the thread if they do not want to interact with Person B as they do not wish to engage with them or be moderated.
Now imagine Person B posts a lot in the area that you like to read/contribute. You have given all the power to Person B in this situation but they have not broken any rules but you have effectively allowed this person to lock another out of an area.
They don't have to ignore person B, they have to be civil with person B. They can't delve into attacks with person B. You report person B for being off topic, and you move on. Trolling is reportable, and off topic posting is reportable.
The issue, Pang/Thoruck, is that not everyone agrees on what should or should not get past the mods.
As a concrete example, and offered in the spirit of Good Discussion so please don't punch me mod team, I am one of the people whom Urth was speaking of when he started this thread. Due to recent scuffles, I was informed by [Mod] to ignore a certain user/subset of users rather than continually butt heads with them.
The users in question are not abusive towards me. Not to any degree that bothers me, at least. Nor could they really be abusive towards me if they tried; they don't have the Internet Fight Goblin chops to take me head-on and make any headway. They are abusive to a much more vulnerable segment of the player population, without the defenses of twenty years spent being an Internet Fight Goblin or the defense of knowing down to my bones how much of a waste of human flesh I am and being more-or-less comfortable with that fact. The subset of users I 'butt heads' with has caused real distress to people to both people I respect and new people with no real clue how things work yet, and that infuriates me.
Those users' patterns of aggressive, distress-inducing posts continue regardless of whether I am under advisement to block/ignore them or not. What does not continue when I am forced to resort to the forum's Ignore functionality is my ability to rebut, refute, and repulse those posts, or to show solidarity with the people those users do frequently abuse. I cannot act to counter hatred I cannot see. That frustrates me a great deal. It may sound highfalutin' and busybody of me, but deliberately blinding myself to frequent bad actors' bad actions to avoid Internet Fight Goblin moments means they "win" by default.
Doesn't bug me that they win, Pang/Thoruck. It bugs me that they can say whatever they want to people with a thinner hide than I've got and I can't counterweight intolerance and hostility with a hand of solidarity and understanding. That is what gets me, and why I hate the forum's "Ignore" function vehemently and violently.
Let's say I'm being an insufferable *******, but an insufferable ******* within the rules, barely. I might get a warning here and there, but then I structure my debate in a way that seems constructive, but isn't to most. The biggest obstacle to my omni-presence is the fact that people are willing to "Debate me". If I post, and no one ever replies to me and my shit is in an self contained echo chamber, eventually I'll stop engaging. There's no "I won" feeling to being able to post and not have that argument, it's deflating because no one argues with me. Even if I don't feel like I'm doing that, but its painfully obvious I am, if we are at the point where you feel that you can't engage with me, then don't. Also make that decision to talk to your forum friends and go "Hey, if we all get together and stop, then we can deplatform."
The people who have the power on these forums and control debate are the ones who post most often. Yurei, you're in that club. I'm not, I've been here for 4 years and have 360 posts. You've been here for 3 and have almost 3000. Objectively, if people like you, Optimus, Urth, Pangurjan, ThorukDuckSlayer or anyone who posts more than twice a day got together and stopped giving a platform to those negative voices, their power diminishes. Moderators are just like officials who enforce the law in real life, very much in look but don't touch unless shit gets out of hand. The community is responsible for protecting itself in 90% of instances.
I don't know what the answer is or if there is one, but hopefully this explains more clearly why the Ignore feature can be an 'empower the abuser' feature.
I don't think that was ever really in question. The issue is that everybody is entitled to fair treatment. Someone who's actions are not considered abusive by anyone other than another poster is also entitled to fair treatment. I don't want to be callous about someone's feelings getting hurt, I really don't, but it's kind of harsh to refer to someone as an abuser when they are apparently not being abusive by a common standard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
On the topic of the thread title, the ignore feature? Honestly, I'd have far less of a problem with these forums if people tried to stay on topic and not devolved into side conversations. Which is why I bothered replying to this post specifically, because I wanted to tie it back in.
I don't disagree with you. This is really difficult, though. Conversation will naturally drift between topics. It is perfectly natural to find a conversation has shifted from the original topic to a completely different one after a few pages. We do this all the time in our day to day lives.
I would say that certain forums, particularly those like Rules & Mechanics, should probably be kept strictly on topic. However, something like here, General Discussion? Threads here should be discussions which are allowed to evolve naturally and follow whatever path they take. A big jump into a vastly different subject should still be considered OT, but not natural drifts.
Discussions being derailed by another argument about an emotionally charged subject should be dealt with, but how is a different story. Asking or telling people to Ignore each other wouldn't be the right way IMHO (although the mods have said they don't do that, so my information in opening this thread may not have been correct)
If it drifts, make a new thread. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the subject is vague as hell, then sure, the conversation can spiral into 50 different tangets. Not every thread needs to be 500 posts to be considered a success.
Person B isnt breaking any rules but is obviously de-railing the conversation as they will no let anyone say X is acceptable because you have to "prove" it. Person A pretty much has to abandon the thread if they do not want to interact with Person B as they do not wish to engage with them or be moderated.
Now imagine Person B posts a lot in the area that you like to read/contribute. You have given all the power to Person B in this situation but they have not broken any rules but you have effectively allowed this person to lock another out of an area.
They don't have to ignore person B, they have to be civil with person B. They can't delve into attacks with person B. You report person B for being off topic, and you move on. Trolling is reportable, and off topic posting is reportable.
On my mobile so I can't easily trim the quote above, but I'm responding specifically to "if it drifts, make a new thread".
Where do you draw the line on that? If a discussion starts with, say, thoughts on a new rulebook, should I start a new thread if I wish to compare it with an existing rulebook? What if I'm responding to that comparison to point out some inaccurate information about the existing rulebook? What about to disagree with three information being inaccurate? Right there, in 3 posts, 2 of which are relevant to the original post and all of which are relevant to the post they are replying to, the subject had potentially been diverted to an argument about a different rulebook.
Unless you are going to be very strict about both sticking to the subject AND having clearly defined, narrow subjects for all threads, you are going to get discussions going off topic. And unless the mods act very fast, this could easily be several pages before anything is picked up. It's a naturally flowing conversation. It's how discussions work.
First couple of posts are okay, third post talks about how 8d8 is powerful for a third level spell. That's not what the original poster wanted, it's off topic.
Then the conversation devolves why its overpowered, that's off topic.
Eventually the topic creator is like hey, I just wanted to figure out about this spell, kindly stop having that discussion, but since it looks like I'm not going to find what I want, topic over.
The issue, Pang/Thoruck, is that not everyone agrees on what should or should not get past the mods.
That's an issue with moderation, not with the Ignore function. Again, Ignore is not meant to replace moderation. It's not meant to address flaws in the moderation. I totally see why it aggravates you as a tool in the situation you describe, but it's not meant as a tool for that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
First couple of posts are okay, third post talks about how 8d8 is powerful for a third level spell. That's not what the original poster wanted, it's off topic.
Then the conversation devolves why its overpowered, that's off topic.
Eventually the topic creator is like hey, I just wanted to figure out about this spell, kindly stop having that discussion, but since it looks like I'm not going to find what I want, topic over.
True, there was some discussion of our being overpowered, but I think that was mainly down to trying to understand where the spell might live. Maybe it was a higher level than the OP remembered, or maybe they misread the damage. Nobody could find a level 3 spell which caused that damage, so they were expanding the search. On their way, they discussed elements of it in more detail to help narrow things down.
Would it have been more helpful if they'd got a single answer "there is no official spell which matches your description"? I wouldn't have found it so.
First couple of posts are okay, third post talks about how 8d8 is powerful for a third level spell. That's not what the original poster wanted, it's off topic.
Then the conversation devolves why its overpowered, that's off topic.
Eventually the topic creator is like hey, I just wanted to figure out about this spell, kindly stop having that discussion, but since it looks like I'm not going to find what I want, topic over.
True, there was some discussion of our being overpowered, but I think that was mainly down to trying to understand where the spell might live. Maybe it was a higher level than the OP remembered, or maybe they misread the damage. Nobody could find a level 3 spell which caused that damage, so they were expanding the search. On their way, they discussed elements of it in more detail to help narrow things down.
Would it have been more helpful if they'd got a single answer "there is no official spell which matches your description"? I wouldn't have found it so.
The discussion of the spell elements with regard to the specific question aren't what the OP wanted, clearly by his post that goes hey I didn't want to talk about this, I just wanted to find the spell. If you want to open the floor to discovery questions to dive deep, that's fine. There are posts in that thread that 100% do not even try to help the OP or answer his questions, that only post specifically to continue the off topic debate of why that spell was overpowered.
That's the line. That's how the tangents on this website start, and then others(who are VERY passionate about their D&D) instantly hop in and go WELL IN MY DAY or WELL AT MY TABLE or IN MY EXPERIENCE and it snowballs.
Like we're doing right now. To hammer the point home. This should be moderated as it has zero relevance to the ignore feature.
First couple of posts are okay, third post talks about how 8d8 is powerful for a third level spell. That's not what the original poster wanted, it's off topic.
Then the conversation devolves why its overpowered, that's off topic.
Eventually the topic creator is like hey, I just wanted to figure out about this spell, kindly stop having that discussion, but since it looks like I'm not going to find what I want, topic over.
True, there was some discussion of our being overpowered, but I think that was mainly down to trying to understand where the spell might live. Maybe it was a higher level than the OP remembered, or maybe they misread the damage. Nobody could find a level 3 spell which caused that damage, so they were expanding the search. On their way, they discussed elements of it in more detail to help narrow things down.
Would it have been more helpful if they'd got a single answer "there is no official spell which matches your description"? I wouldn't have found it so.
The discussion of the elements in that specific question aren't what the OP wanted, clearly by his post that goes hey I didn't want to talk about this, I just wanted to find the spell. If you want to open the floor to discovery questions to dive deep, that's fine. There are posts in that thread that 100% do not even try to help the OP or answer his questions, that only post specifically to continue the off topic debate of why that spell was overpowered.
That's the line. That's how the tangents on this website start, and then others(who are VERY passionate about their D&D) instantly hop in and go WELL IN MY DAY or WELL AT MY TABLE or IN MY EXPERIENCE and it snowballs.
I think the only way to combat that would be to lock threads once they "Answered" but it does not seem the site is designed with that as workflow.
Also again here we are going off tangent for a topic I guess lol....
Much like on Discord and Reddit, the ignore feature here isn't a real ignore feature, it's an 'empower the abuser' feature. For it to be a proper block, it has to work like blocking does on Twitter.
Again, the "Ignore" feature is not there for abusers. People abusing people need to be dealt with as abuse is against the site rules, and they will be dealt with by moderators.
The Ignore feature is for when somebodies points of view or mannerisms clash with your own in a manner which is beyond your capacity to accommodate. They haven't broken rules or abused you, but you simply don't wish to read what they have to say any more. Some people can just brush off these things and carry on, but others will be upset by or drawn into long, derailing arguments with specific people, and will choose to Ignore them to avoid these undesirable results.
How does blocking work on twitter?
I think the point is (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that someone you have ignored can still see your posts, reply to them and quote them. If they are, somehow, abusing you and yet somehow getting around the mods, they can continue to abuse you behind your back. You can no longer see their responses, but they are still there, and you will see them if someone you haven't blocked quotes them anyway.
Ignoring someone gives them the power and freedom to continue their behaviour, and removes any other form of defence (reporting etc).
Again, the "Ignore" feature is not there for abusers. People abusing people need to be dealt with as abuse is against the site rules, and they will be dealt with by moderators.
Except that moderation isn't (since it's done by people) always perfect. As Yurei mentions, there are people on these boards that manage to abuse people without actually breaking the rules bad enough to get banned. Heck, I've gotten PMs from people who have either thanked me for standing up to those kinds of people or warning me that I shouldn't butt heads with certain people because they are bullies.
This sounds like a misunderstanding of the unwritten contract of Ignoring somebody. By Ignoring someone, you're acknowledging that you don't care what they say, it has no power over you, and that they can say whatever they like provided that you don't have to read it. Whether they quote you and say your comments are stupid (flouting the "be nice" rules) or tell people not to listen to you is irrelevant because, by Ignoring them, you have made the decision that you don't want to see what they said.
And thus you should be able to not be forced to see what they say.
People can't have their cake and eat it. There is no way, without advanced AI or full-time moderation of every post, to stop Ignored people from replying to your posts, quoting you, or mentioning you, directly or indirectly.
This is not true. Many fora allows you to ignore/blocking people in such a way that they can't interact with you or your threads.
The choice on whether to Ignore or ignore is the same as whether to keep arguing or walk away - a decision that people have to make regularly, online and otherwise.
You shouldn't have to put the responsibility on the victim, though.
Fundamentally it boils down to the fact that if people are being rude about anyone else, and are flouting or regularly skirting the rules, then it should be brought to the attention of the moderators and they should decide how to act. But if people are Ignoring for the right reasons - EG if someone doesn't like the way someone always posts and is fed up of seeing it, then there's no issues there.
The answer is not to Ignore people who are being rude to you, ignore or report them instead (note the capitalized "I" on the first one!)
But this leads back to the problem that Yurei put into words much better than I can, namely that it is quite possible for people to abuse people within the rules.
So then you as a consumer, take your presence elsewhere.
First and foremost, D&D Beyond is a product to me. I pay to host my 5th Edition Toolset here, and the team does a WONDERFUL job with that.
That being said, these forums are an afterthought. I couldn't be more thoroughly convinced of this. The front page has content, because it's the gateway to my D&D 5th Content, but the forums, meh, the team doesn't care about. There are posts in very specific areas by the content creation team to make sure that shit isn't broken, but by and large there is no engagement. Stormknight replied to me about hey, I POST A LOT, and then only posts to the player base when they're talking about content that might be broken. Mellie only posts when there is an issue that might be a big deal because shes the community manager, and we're technically a community. Joe posting on the forums compared to BadEye is a hilarious concept. I am sure all of those people behind the scenes for what their task is, do a fantastic job. Just interacting with this community here? Doesn't happen.
The forums aren't their task, and therefore they don't give a shit UNLESS it threatens the bottom line. This translates to the moderation team I feel, who take a very hands off approach to what the community is, and really just stick to rule enforcement. This is the vibe I get whenever Davyd posts about hey, this is my opinion.
If the ignore feature isn't working for you because certain users ruin your experience, and then in tandem the site enforcement isn't to your liking, take your engagement elsewhere. Your posts here are owned by Fandom, and they can use the content for whatever the hell they want. Anything you post here can be translated to them for money in some way shape or form. So take your presence elsewhere. Show them that they aren't working for you by no longer being here. The ultimate ignore button, the entire site, gone.
Let's say I'm being an insufferable *******, but an insufferable ******* within the rules, barely. I might get a warning here and there, but then I structure my debate in a way that seems constructive, but isn't to most. The biggest obstacle to my omni-presence is the fact that people are willing to "Debate me". If I post, and no one ever replies to me and my shit is in an self contained echo chamber, eventually I'll stop engaging. There's no "I won" feeling to being able to post and not have that argument, it's deflating because no one argues with me. Even if I don't feel like I'm doing that, but its painfully obvious I am, if we are at the point where you feel that you can't engage with me, then don't. Also make that decision to talk to your forum friends and go "Hey, if we all get together and stop, then we can deplatform."
The people who have the power on these forums and control debate are the ones who post most often. Yurei, you're in that club. I'm not, I've been here for 4 years and have 360 posts. You've been here for 3 and have almost 3000. Objectively, if people like you, Optimus, Urth, Pangurjan, ThorukDuckSlayer or anyone who posts more than twice a day got together and stopped giving a platform to those negative voices, their power diminishes. Moderators are just like officials who enforce the law in real life, very much in look but don't touch unless shit gets out of hand. The community is responsible for protecting itself in 90% of instances.
To clarify: you're asking me to organize a website-wide series of boycotts against users of my choice, exercising my tremendous power as She What Posts A Lot to get everyone on the website to shun and ostracize people I personally believe are being turdburglars by presenting them with an obstinate and unyielding wall of unified silence? You believe this is not only a good idea but within my power as an ordinary (if often contentious) forum user?
My questions are twofold.
1.) Do you honestly believe that to be even remotely possible?
2.) If it was, do you really want me, or anyone else for that matter, to do that?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a very important point.
Again, the "Ignore" feature is not there for abusers. People abusing people need to be dealt with as abuse is against the site rules, and they will be dealt with by moderators.
The Ignore feature is for when somebodies points of view or mannerisms clash with your own in a manner which is beyond your capacity to accommodate. They haven't broken rules or abused you, but you simply don't wish to read what they have to say any more. Some people can just brush off these things and carry on, but others will be upset by or drawn into long, derailing arguments with specific people, and will choose to Ignore them to avoid these undesirable results.
How does blocking work on twitter?
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I think the point is (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that someone you have ignored can still see your posts, reply to them and quote them. If they are, somehow, abusing you and yet somehow getting around the mods, they can continue to abuse you behind your back. You can no longer see their responses, but they are still there, and you will see them if someone you haven't blocked quotes them anyway.
Ignoring someone gives them the power and freedom to continue their behaviour, and removes any other form of defence (reporting etc).
This sounds like a misunderstanding of the unwritten contract of Ignoring somebody. By Ignoring someone, you're acknowledging that you don't care what they say, it has no power over you, and that they can say whatever they like provided that you don't have to read it. Whether they quote you and say your comments are stupid (flouting the "be nice" rules) or tell people not to listen to you is irrelevant because, by Ignoring them, you have made the decision that you don't want to see what they said.
People can't have their cake and eat it. There is no way, without advanced AI or full-time moderation of every post, to stop Ignored people from replying to your posts, quoting you, or mentioning you, directly or indirectly. The choice on whether to Ignore or ignore is the same as whether to keep arguing or walk away - a decision that people have to make regularly, online and otherwise.
Fundamentally it boils down to the fact that if people are being rude about anyone else, and are flouting or regularly skirting the rules, then it should be brought to the attention of the moderators and they should decide how to act. But if people are Ignoring for the right reasons - EG if someone doesn't like the way someone always posts and is fed up of seeing it, then there's no issues there.
The answer is not to Ignore people who are being rude to you, ignore or report them instead (note the capitalized "I" on the first one!)
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
If it is actual abuse, it's not supposed to get past the mods. If it does get past the mods, it shouldn't be problematic beyond a personal dislike. I get the argument of "you can't check their behaviour anymore so you won't know if they're still doing what it is you dislike about them or their posts" but the basic premisse is that whatever it is you're disliking is permissible according to the rules or gets caught by the mods (with appropriate consequences for the poster, if any). If it is permissible by the rules, what exactly would you hope or expect to happen?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I was purely answering the question of why "Ignore is an 'empower the abuser' feature".
Moderation should catch and stop abuse. However, abuse will not always be seen to be so by others. As a for instance, my wife was horrified when she first met my brother. She considered the way he treated me to be abusive, whereas to us it was just making fun of each other.
One person can be abusing another without realising it, and the mods may not view it as abuse either, or as serious enough to take action over. A person can even be told that what they are saying or doing is upsetting or abusive, and just respond that they should "suck it up" and "if you don't like it you can leave". If that's the case, the only options left are to ignore it, Ignore it, or leave the site. If you ignore it, lower case I, you need to suffer reading the material you consider abusive trying not to let it upset you, but at least you can see what is said and respond in defence. If you Ignore it, upper case I using the site's Ignore feature, you may not have to read it anymore but you know it's still there, that the other person is carrying on saying things you consider abusive. You have zero defence against things you Ignore.
I don't know what the answer is or if there is one, but hopefully this explains more clearly why the Ignore feature can be an 'empower the abuser' feature.
If you join a thread and do not break any rules but still cause issue for a single person it is hard to nail down.
For example:
Person A: "I think X is a good thing for Rogue"
Person B: "Quotes Person A: No that is incorrect. Because of W , Y and Z it is actually terrible for Rogue to take X."
Person A having ignored this person does not respond.
Person C: "Well I think that X could be good "
Person B: "No it isn't as we have already established X is bad and there has not been any claims otherwise to why X is good to refute my points."
Person B isnt breaking any rules but is obviously de-railing the conversation as they will no let anyone say X is acceptable because you have to "prove" it. Person A pretty much has to abandon the thread if they do not want to interact with Person B as they do not wish to engage with them or be moderated.
Now imagine Person B posts a lot in the area that you like to read/contribute. You have given all the power to Person B in this situation but they have not broken any rules but you have effectively allowed this person to lock another out of an area.
If it drifts, make a new thread. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the subject is vague as hell, then sure, the conversation can spiral into 50 different tangets. Not every thread needs to be 500 posts to be considered a success.
They don't have to ignore person B, they have to be civil with person B. They can't delve into attacks with person B. You report person B for being off topic, and you move on. Trolling is reportable, and off topic posting is reportable.
The issue, Pang/Thoruck, is that not everyone agrees on what should or should not get past the mods.
As a concrete example, and offered in the spirit of Good Discussion so please don't punch me mod team, I am one of the people whom Urth was speaking of when he started this thread. Due to recent scuffles, I was informed by [Mod] to ignore a certain user/subset of users rather than continually butt heads with them.
The users in question are not abusive towards me. Not to any degree that bothers me, at least. Nor could they really be abusive towards me if they tried; they don't have the Internet Fight Goblin chops to take me head-on and make any headway. They are abusive to a much more vulnerable segment of the player population, without the defenses of twenty years spent being an Internet Fight Goblin or the defense of knowing down to my bones how much of a waste of human flesh I am and being more-or-less comfortable with that fact. The subset of users I 'butt heads' with has caused real distress to people to both people I respect and new people with no real clue how things work yet, and that infuriates me.
Those users' patterns of aggressive, distress-inducing posts continue regardless of whether I am under advisement to block/ignore them or not. What does not continue when I am forced to resort to the forum's Ignore functionality is my ability to rebut, refute, and repulse those posts, or to show solidarity with the people those users do frequently abuse. I cannot act to counter hatred I cannot see. That frustrates me a great deal. It may sound highfalutin' and busybody of me, but deliberately blinding myself to frequent bad actors' bad actions to avoid Internet Fight Goblin moments means they "win" by default.
Doesn't bug me that they win, Pang/Thoruck. It bugs me that they can say whatever they want to people with a thinner hide than I've got and I can't counterweight intolerance and hostility with a hand of solidarity and understanding. That is what gets me, and why I hate the forum's "Ignore" function vehemently and violently.
Please do not contact or message me.
That goes back to the engagement piece.
Let's say I'm being an insufferable *******, but an insufferable ******* within the rules, barely. I might get a warning here and there, but then I structure my debate in a way that seems constructive, but isn't to most. The biggest obstacle to my omni-presence is the fact that people are willing to "Debate me". If I post, and no one ever replies to me and my shit is in an self contained echo chamber, eventually I'll stop engaging. There's no "I won" feeling to being able to post and not have that argument, it's deflating because no one argues with me. Even if I don't feel like I'm doing that, but its painfully obvious I am, if we are at the point where you feel that you can't engage with me, then don't. Also make that decision to talk to your forum friends and go "Hey, if we all get together and stop, then we can deplatform."
The people who have the power on these forums and control debate are the ones who post most often. Yurei, you're in that club. I'm not, I've been here for 4 years and have 360 posts. You've been here for 3 and have almost 3000. Objectively, if people like you, Optimus, Urth, Pangurjan, ThorukDuckSlayer or anyone who posts more than twice a day got together and stopped giving a platform to those negative voices, their power diminishes. Moderators are just like officials who enforce the law in real life, very much in look but don't touch unless shit gets out of hand. The community is responsible for protecting itself in 90% of instances.
I don't think that was ever really in question. The issue is that everybody is entitled to fair treatment. Someone who's actions are not considered abusive by anyone other than another poster is also entitled to fair treatment. I don't want to be callous about someone's feelings getting hurt, I really don't, but it's kind of harsh to refer to someone as an abuser when they are apparently not being abusive by a common standard.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
On my mobile so I can't easily trim the quote above, but I'm responding specifically to "if it drifts, make a new thread".
Where do you draw the line on that? If a discussion starts with, say, thoughts on a new rulebook, should I start a new thread if I wish to compare it with an existing rulebook? What if I'm responding to that comparison to point out some inaccurate information about the existing rulebook? What about to disagree with three information being inaccurate? Right there, in 3 posts, 2 of which are relevant to the original post and all of which are relevant to the post they are replying to, the subject had potentially been diverted to an argument about a different rulebook.
Unless you are going to be very strict about both sticking to the subject AND having clearly defined, narrow subjects for all threads, you are going to get discussions going off topic. And unless the mods act very fast, this could easily be several pages before anything is picked up. It's a naturally flowing conversation. It's how discussions work.
Right, so that's a vague topic, and because it's vague, there is breathing room.
Gonna use this thread as an example:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/110320-looking-for-help-about-a-spell-i-cant-find-this
First couple of posts are okay, third post talks about how 8d8 is powerful for a third level spell. That's not what the original poster wanted, it's off topic.
Then the conversation devolves why its overpowered, that's off topic.
Eventually the topic creator is like hey, I just wanted to figure out about this spell, kindly stop having that discussion, but since it looks like I'm not going to find what I want, topic over.
That's an issue with moderation, not with the Ignore function. Again, Ignore is not meant to replace moderation. It's not meant to address flaws in the moderation. I totally see why it aggravates you as a tool in the situation you describe, but it's not meant as a tool for that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
True, there was some discussion of our being overpowered, but I think that was mainly down to trying to understand where the spell might live. Maybe it was a higher level than the OP remembered, or maybe they misread the damage. Nobody could find a level 3 spell which caused that damage, so they were expanding the search. On their way, they discussed elements of it in more detail to help narrow things down.
Would it have been more helpful if they'd got a single answer "there is no official spell which matches your description"? I wouldn't have found it so.
The discussion of the spell elements with regard to the specific question aren't what the OP wanted, clearly by his post that goes hey I didn't want to talk about this, I just wanted to find the spell. If you want to open the floor to discovery questions to dive deep, that's fine. There are posts in that thread that 100% do not even try to help the OP or answer his questions, that only post specifically to continue the off topic debate of why that spell was overpowered.
That's the line. That's how the tangents on this website start, and then others(who are VERY passionate about their D&D) instantly hop in and go WELL IN MY DAY or WELL AT MY TABLE or IN MY EXPERIENCE and it snowballs.
Like we're doing right now. To hammer the point home. This should be moderated as it has zero relevance to the ignore feature.
I think the only way to combat that would be to lock threads once they "Answered" but it does not seem the site is designed with that as workflow.
Also again here we are going off tangent for a topic I guess lol....
Except that moderation isn't (since it's done by people) always perfect. As Yurei mentions, there are people on these boards that manage to abuse people without actually breaking the rules bad enough to get banned. Heck, I've gotten PMs from people who have either thanked me for standing up to those kinds of people or warning me that I shouldn't butt heads with certain people because they are bullies.
And thus you should be able to not be forced to see what they say.
This is not true. Many fora allows you to ignore/blocking people in such a way that they can't interact with you or your threads.
You shouldn't have to put the responsibility on the victim, though.
But this leads back to the problem that Yurei put into words much better than I can, namely that it is quite possible for people to abuse people within the rules.
So then you as a consumer, take your presence elsewhere.
First and foremost, D&D Beyond is a product to me. I pay to host my 5th Edition Toolset here, and the team does a WONDERFUL job with that.
That being said, these forums are an afterthought. I couldn't be more thoroughly convinced of this. The front page has content, because it's the gateway to my D&D 5th Content, but the forums, meh, the team doesn't care about. There are posts in very specific areas by the content creation team to make sure that shit isn't broken, but by and large there is no engagement. Stormknight replied to me about hey, I POST A LOT, and then only posts to the player base when they're talking about content that might be broken. Mellie only posts when there is an issue that might be a big deal because shes the community manager, and we're technically a community. Joe posting on the forums compared to BadEye is a hilarious concept. I am sure all of those people behind the scenes for what their task is, do a fantastic job. Just interacting with this community here? Doesn't happen.
The forums aren't their task, and therefore they don't give a shit UNLESS it threatens the bottom line. This translates to the moderation team I feel, who take a very hands off approach to what the community is, and really just stick to rule enforcement. This is the vibe I get whenever Davyd posts about hey, this is my opinion.
If the ignore feature isn't working for you because certain users ruin your experience, and then in tandem the site enforcement isn't to your liking, take your engagement elsewhere. Your posts here are owned by Fandom, and they can use the content for whatever the hell they want. Anything you post here can be translated to them for money in some way shape or form. So take your presence elsewhere. Show them that they aren't working for you by no longer being here. The ultimate ignore button, the entire site, gone.
To clarify: you're asking me to organize a website-wide series of boycotts against users of my choice, exercising my tremendous power as She What Posts A Lot to get everyone on the website to shun and ostracize people I personally believe are being turdburglars by presenting them with an obstinate and unyielding wall of unified silence? You believe this is not only a good idea but within my power as an ordinary (if often contentious) forum user?
My questions are twofold.
1.) Do you honestly believe that to be even remotely possible?
2.) If it was, do you really want me, or anyone else for that matter, to do that?
Please do not contact or message me.