Broken Ignore button.

[#1]

Spell checking on the fly? I suppose some people may like it, but I don't. That red underlining thing as I type does my head in, so that is the first thing that gets disabled as soon as possible with anything I use.

I don't see the problem with just clicking on a check button after I have finished typing.

[#2]

Whilst others don’t see the problem with red underlining if you make a spelling error?

Seems far simpler than involving another layer of technology. As an experienced professional developer you’ll know well the risks of complication and error inducement from adding a redundant layer of code … to do what’s already in-built but someone chose to turn off?

[#3]

---

@Mav wrote:

I wouldn't get 'fed up' as you call it with the General Chat spats if members played nicely like the adults we're all supposed to be and adhered to the rules.

---

Most try to play nicely but every now and again there is the odd one who comes along and will disagree with everything. To make matters worse they will then try to force their opinion on everyone else and attack those who won't accept it.

Further, not everyone is placid. You might be Mav but that then means you see many others as "trouble" because they're not as placid as you.

Most General Chatters don't want hassle but theres always been a few (over the years) that have come and gone with the intent of being difficult. Some hang around and eventually learn to fit in, others clear off and then either stay away or come back determined to finish it.

As Alex has said, it's like North Korea round here these days - we can say what we like as long as you mods and Jono like it.

Like i said, that ignore button filtering out everything from the selected user would end a lot of trouble before it even started.

Moderator's note by Mike (Mav): Details of a PM removed as per Forum Rules.

[#4]

@Townman 

Just because other software offers it, then that is no justification as to why something that was useful should be removed.

If I removed something from my software and said, "Well other software offers it, I can't be bothered to support it anyone. Use some else's software instead. Tough", then once again I would be fired.

Again, if that is not a cost cutting exercise then I don't know what is.

[#5]

I wonder whther this board's title  should be changed from General Chat to something more appropriate. I can think of a few titles but assume that each would cause offence to some-one.

The first complaint was from a poster who wants the option to block out seeing a response from a poster with opposing views to their own. Presumably the preference would be the capability to completely suppress opposing views? Who mentioned North Korea? The response was that this is a feature that is not available.

Nineteen posts later the subject is still being heatedly debated. The General Chat board is back. Rejoice and use the features that are available.

[#6]

---

@7up wrote

As Alex has said, it's like North Korea round here these days - we can say what we like as long as you mods and Jono like it.

@7up 

That's a very misleading statement. It's not about what we like as we have had to lock many interesting and enjoyable threads due to how some members have behaved.

[#7]

---

@Baldrick1 wrote:

Who mentioned North Korea?

The General Chat board is back. Rejoice and use the features that are available.

---

Yes, last year you were starving to death, now you've got kimchi, so rejoice and stop asking for meat.

[#8]

---

@Mav wrote:

---

... It's not about what we like as we have had to lock many interesting and enjoyable threads due to how some members have behaved.

---

I strongly suspect that if a Venn diagram could be drawn of which participants were involved in most of those threads, it would show a common catalyst, already plain to many.

Edit; words in italics

[#9]

I guess this question has arose because a previous member in their marmite persona was always going on about blocking selected members posts with their software settings.

[#10]

---

@Baldrick1 wrote:

The first complaint was from a poster 7up who wants the option to block out seeing a response from a poster with opposing views to their own.

---

A prime example of what goes on around here - not naming names. We all know it's me that's asked for the ignore feature, why go all politically correct about it? - It is not a secret!!!

The reason the option would be useful is that some people find others to be trouble - those others in return might also decide that some people are trouble in their own eyes. Putting them on ignore works in this scenario.

For what its worth, we're not talking about mnor disagreements of opinion like what shade of blue the sky is or th length of a bit of string, it's often legitimate topucs which one user will try to wind up another to get a hostile reaction. It's not worth it.

If a user gets ignored, so do their attempts to cause trouble. Eventually they all stop bothering poking at each other.

I've been on many forums over the years where this is possible and it just makes life easier.

[#11]

@7up 

 I didn’t name names simply because I do not believe that you are the only one who would like to censure opposing views, regardless of whether the responses are a deliberate wind up.  
The easiest way to ignore an opposing view is to not read it.

One persons strongly held opinion can be seen by another as a hostile response.

[#12]

Okay, first of all the ignore feature does not mean another user is being censored - it just means that one particular user does not want to see that users content. Everyone else will continue to do so (unless they also ignore).

Secondly, what is the difference between not reading that users content and not seeing it due to the ignore feature? - It still doesn't get read but the reader no longer has to worry about filtering out the unwanted content themselves.

[#13]

---

@RobPN wrote:

I strongly suspect that if a Venn diagram could be drawn of which participants were involved in most of those threads, it would show a common catalyst, already plain to many.

---

You seem to be confusing correlation with causation.

[#14]

---

@7up wrote:

Okay, first of all the ignore feature does not mean another user is being censored - it just means that one particular user does not want to see that users content. Everyone else will continue to do so (unless they also ignore).

---

The key here is in the “unless they also ignore”. One can ‘imagine’ a situation in which several or many regular members conspire to ‘ignore’ another forum user, perhaps a newcomer who happens to have different views from that group of regulars. This then amounts to bullying via ostracism, and is hardly in keeping with the supposed ethos of the forum, is it @7up?
Furthermore, if a new member is ostracised via an ignore button because existing members don’t like the way their posts reflect some neurodiversity, then this is quite simply discriminatory. I’m not sure Plusnet would want to be associated with such behaviour.

[#15]

---

@7up wrote:

Okay, first of all the ignore feature does not mean another user is being censored - it just means that one particular user does not want to see that users content. Everyone else will continue to do so (unless they also ignore).

Secondly, what is the difference between not reading that users content and not seeing it due to the ignore feature? - It still doesn't get read but the reader no longer has to worry about filtering out the unwanted content themselves.

---

Unfortunately @7up I don't think your wish will be granted.

You don't need me to tell you this, but imagine you're looking at a newspaper page with several stories on it, if you see a story that doesn't interest you either because of its heading, or perhaps the journalists name, you probably don't read it.

But back to this forum; if you do find yourself reading something from someone you find objectionable, there's no compulsion to reply even if you're referred to by name, and we have it in writing, including from a PlusNet staff member and the Moderating team, advising to ignore such a person, despite what conceited views the person may express over that matter.