Is it technically possible to set the "ignore" feature to "'block" so that the person one doesn't want to interact with anymore is not seeing one's posts either, rather than just isn't being seen?

[doc benway]

The new mod team has been active for barely a few days after an extremely long period of total neglect. Most of their time has been spent dealing with spamming and crude attacks, while trying to get familiar with the software, the change in relationship to our peers, the skills needed to try and moderator this board, etc... 

 

It’s telling to see the near instantaneous pushback and criticism from some members, and disappointing. It will take a little time for things to stabilize, for the new mods to get the hang of the position, and the old mods to readjust. Some here seem to expect overnight transformation. That’s not going to happen.

 

People here will need to have a little patience, maybe even work with us to try to make the transition a little easier for everyone concerned. It’s not surprising that we are seeing some reactivity and tension and if it’s too much to handle, taking a break is healthy.

 

Peace

[thelerner]

2 hours ago, ralis said:

I am leaving this site for the time being due to the fact that moderation micromanaging is smothering any challenge or debate. I don’t need parents that read every post and nitpick every statement with their so called exalted wisdom. 

You'll be missed but taking a break is good.  You've gotten too political.  Letting it inform every post.  Even nutritional ones.  This is a frickin philosophy and cultivation site.   You haven't been starting or joining many conversations on anything other then politics.  Thats bad. 

 

Take a break, get politics out of your system and come back and give us some good thoughts on cultivation.  You've got experience and wisdom, but becoming too one sided knocked out your equanimity, imo. 

[waterdrop]

Just to add in a comment and not just like  -  that i join taomeow will  to  have a block option   (unlike the usless ignore option)

And i see some negative impact it can have  but i think the positive impact it will have is greater  

So if any day in the future  - it would available (technically) to add this option  - wanted to add that i think it would be a good thing to add

Edited June 24, 2020 by waterdrop

[Zhongyongdaoist]

We have had this discussion before in regard to member deci belle, who had a similar request.  The discussion of this request seems to no longer be viewable to non-mod Dao Bums.  I know its not available because I remember posting in it and not being able to find those post now.  A lot of the present mod staff have been here long enough that they may remember this discussion and may want to review it in light of this request.

 

The problem with a "block" button is that it would stifle the give and take involved in discussion, which is as can be seen in the TheDaoBums' Three Foundations: Eclectic, Egalitarian, Civil. is not the purpose for which the Dao Bums exists:

 

Quote

TheDàoBums has a strong egalitarian ethic in that it's whole purpose is to provide a civil very open context for member conversations.  However, its governance structure is mostly top down; it's not a democracy.
- admins - own / run the board
- moderators - enforce rules
- members - converse 

TDBs' Conversational Context:
1. At TDBs member participation in conversation is non-hierarchical.  Meaning, members have equal ability to talk regardless of level of knowledge, achievement, or status / credentials of any kind.  TDBs has an underlying ethic of valuing the communication of each person.

2. TDBs most basic rules about conversation are around civility (leaving enough flexibility for lively debate).  A moderator's basic role is to moderate members' uncivility toward each other in coversation.  Members support this process by 'reporting' offending posts.

A fictional example of how 1&2 shake out:
If there's a TDBs debate about music between Mozart vs a beginning piano player, and it becomes heated enough that reports are generated for moderator consideration then, still, "level of knowledge, achievement, or status" are not basis for moderation.  Civility is, applied equally to each member.

It's up to each member, not moderators, to sort out the truth (and other questions of quality) for themselves in conversation.  Moderators just keep the conversation civil within reasonable limits.  For issues of staff bias, members can contact the current admin.

 

That my interpretation of this is the "official" purpose is confirmed here:

 

Quote

Dear everyone, particularly SongShuhang,

 

The purpose of TheDaoBums is discussions along the way - that is about our various spiritual paths and mostly how we can help each other to progress, share ideas and generally and so on.  The Mod team will take action to safeguard that environment from time to time - when and how it choses in line with a few general rules.  If you are not happy with something you can report it.  If however the Mod team don't take the exact action you would like to see, at the time you would like to see it, that's just tough.  So while the Mod team may post occasionally explaining what action has been taken for the purpose of clarity it is not an invitation for endless debate over whatever is happening.

 

Don't do it.  It will be locked.  And if you persist you will be banned.

 

Have a very nice day.

 

There are two usual ways to deal with the problem of not wanting to take part in the give and take of discussion, first you have your own private feifdom in your PPF, and can delete any offending posts that happen to disagree with you.  If you are only interested in Dao Bums seeing your response unfettered with disagreement you can put links in the thread to your PPF.  If you want to have a public response, you always have the option of a blog on anyone of a number of sites, where you are also "absolute autocrat" of what is posted and responses to it, and you can put links to that for those who wish your unblemished exposition.

 

Some time ago I experimented with a third alternative here:

 

Quote

 

Bridge over Garble Waters to previous post

 

When I started this thread I of course anticipated that our local Pythagorean fundamentalist would come over and share with us his inimitable style of spamming attacks. I had already worked out a strategy for that which I want to use as an experimental examination of a post that I made sometime back about dealing with such situations:
 

On 10/13/2013 at 2:35 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

 

  On 10/13/2013 at 1:20 PM, dawei said:

I recently saw a thread where a poster who normally likes to rock the boat had posted twice and nobody responded to either one... and the thread moved on... and that was the end of that poster's BS.

This reminds me of what I said here:
 

  On 10/10/2013 at 10:39 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

>As for what I said about a little editing, if someone comments in a way that leads to a serious loss of the topic, one can go to ones own comments, post a reference to the most intelligent 'on topic' post after yours and to your own response to that. In that way one can skirt around some of the borderline 'nutcases' who sometimes derail otherwise interesting topics and so can readers who are interested in following the discussion, at the same time legitimate criticism can also be maintained and people can have a chance to read it for themselves. Since what the 'nutcases' want most is attention, when they don't get it and see that they are being worked around, maybe they will let it drop, if they continue, then maybe the Mods should step in.[]

A little ignoring goes a long way too.

 

 
This is how I will implement this idea. When I make a new post I will edit my previous one with a link to it so that someone can follow my exposition without having it be broken up intervening periods of incomprehensible twaddle. I may add some links to parts of the discussion which I think are particularly worth considering, or add them to my new post like this:

Apeiron&Peiron Brings up the relationship between the Republic and Laws

Apeiron&Peiron talks about publication in ancient Athens

both of which I intend to respond to shortly.

 

This was during the period of "Owner's Permissions" where the OP was given extraordinary control over the thread, a feature which could not be implemented in the subsequent software upgrade, and if you read the whole post you can see the requests from other people to remove the spam-trolling posts, which eventually I did remove.   As the thread is now it is only two thirds of what it was before, I had to hide over twenty post from a single poster.  Overall I kind of like the approach, but it will not deal with a troll whose goal is not simply for attention, as I mentioned above, but for victory, to silence you and put forward their own opinion above all others.  This is the type of troll who should be disciplined with suspensions until it becomes obvious to all that a ban is necessary, and believe me, mods get enough flack for just suspending someone, banning a member is one of the last things that mods will contemplate, when all else has failed.

 

I am glad to hear that there is no way a "block" feature can be implemented, as I really do believe in the free flow of conversation as my own experimental way of dealing with it, illustrated above, demonstrates, but I also know how painful it is to deal with a determined troll who will not let go of the matter until you have been exhausted and given up.  To protect us from such trolls is part of the reason moderators exist, and I wish the new staff well in their efforts to do so.

 

Zhongyongdaoist, former Concierge

 

 

Edit: After posting some Paragraphs and spacing needed adjustment.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Zhongyongdaoist

[Daemon]

Do Clubs meet Taomeow's needs?

 

☮️

 

[Taomeow]

16 minutes ago, Daemon said:

Do Clubs meet Taomeow's needs?

 

☮️

 

 

I've no idea -- thanks for bringing their existence to my attention, I'll explore.  I was talking technical capabilities of TDB though and the feasibility of using this particular one, blocking a select individual, in case it exists.  Per current mods' response it does not, technically, so its merits or drawbacks are perhaps a moot point. 

 

Because it does not seem to resolve the problem (which I have reasons to believe is more than just "Taomeow's needs" for at least some of us or I would't bother suggesting it), I might try to eventually formulate an alternative suggestion for a solution, an administrative one rather than a technical one, and see if that might gain some traction. The solution I have in mind was pioneered by no other than the site owner, Sean, when handling one particular case of wrongful spamming/derailing of a thread by a particular member despite repeated OP's and participants' expressed requests not to.  Sean was asked by a few participants in the thread to intervene (he was more around at the time than he currently is) and told the derailer not to post in that thread anymore.  The derailer refused to cease and desist, whereupon Sean banned him permanently.  (The thread proceeded on its merry ways for many more pages as a result, and still survives although has been on hiatus due to OP's and regular contributors' focusing their attention elsewhere for the moment.)

 

    

[cheya]

Curious if the board has a way to keep track of how many people have decided to ignore a given member.

[Taomeow]

1 minute ago, cheya said:

Curious if the board has a way to keep track of how many people have decided to ignore a given member.

 

If it turns out it does, I will make sure to put some folks on that list, which is something I have never done except on the list in my mind.  But if it counts, I'll transfer the list to the shared medium.   

[Zhongyongdaoist]

34 minutes ago, Daemon said:

Do Clubs meet Taomeow's needs?

 

☮️

 

 

When I was a moderator we examined the idea of clubs, even going so far as to install it so we could see how it works, but we also examined the possible consequences of clubs with our "nightmare" scenario being the "Western Mopai" club, which would end out filled with and staffed by a group that has been a source of problems for Dao Bums for as long as I can remember.  We concluded that a forum with even a few warring clubs would create an enormous burden for the moderating staff and risked fragmenting and polarizing the forum in undesirable ways.  We certainly didn't want to deal with it.  The new staff may wish to examine the idea, our own past discussions of the matter should still be available to them.

 

ZYD

[waterdrop]

Wanted to share my thought ,     that the fact that its not possible to have a "block"  option at the moment  is  (one of)  the reasons i didn't explain in detail my view on why exactly i think a block option is a good idea ,  and i think probably its the same for other users who don't give their view on this subject    -  cause in some way its a bit of an effort and time waster (a full debate)    ,  so i believe the moment it was written (and its good it was written)   that it is not really a technical option right now,  it took out the motivation of members to speak about the need for it   ....    so my point is :

In the future  if there would be an option to add a block option to this forum  ,  it would be nice if someone (no need for an obligation  - just in case some moderator remembers this issue)    will  notify  the users here   -   by making a thread (i think better a new thread as opposed to bumping this one)  about this and opening this option to debate         (in a date when it would actually be a possibility so people would want to give their opinion on this ) 

Edited June 29, 2020 by waterdrop