Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Blocking People

tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 9:04:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Right now the blocking feature is kind of useless because you can set your messages so that only friends can message you, and people you want to block are unlikely to challenge you to a debate anyway.

I think the blocking feature should include forum posts, so that you see that the person posted, but you can't see the content of their posts.

Thoughts?
yang.
MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 9:16:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 9:04:47 AM, tulle wrote:
Right now the blocking feature is kind of useless because you can set your messages so that only friends can message you, and people you want to block are unlikely to challenge you to a debate anyway.

I think the blocking feature should include forum posts, so that you see that the person posted, but you can't see the content of their posts.

Thoughts?

It wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't really solve anything either. If someone is publicly harrassing you in the forums (which is the only good reason to block someone), everyone else can read that person's post, even if you can't.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 9:22:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 9:16:54 AM, MassiveDump wrote:
It wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't really solve anything either. If someone is publicly harrassing you in the forums (which is the only good reason to block someone), everyone else can read that person's post, even if you can't.

That would be fine with me.

Another reason to block someone's posts is if you don't think they say anything worth reading. I'm sure other people can think of members whose posts they either always skim over, or get annoyed when they read. It would save time and space scrolling down :p
yang.
MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 9:27:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 9:22:48 AM, tulle wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:16:54 AM, MassiveDump wrote:
It wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't really solve anything either. If someone is publicly harrassing you in the forums (which is the only good reason to block someone), everyone else can read that person's post, even if you can't.

That would be fine with me.

Another reason to block someone's posts is if you don't think they say anything worth reading. I'm sure other people can think of members whose posts they either always skim over, or get annoyed when they read. It would save time and space scrolling down :p

Been there before. Still, sometimes I enjoy listening to what idiots have to say. I can see where you're coming from with this, I just wanted to be inb4 "that's a stupid idea."
imabench
Posts: 21,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 11:18:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 9:04:47 AM, tulle wrote:
Right now the blocking feature is kind of useless because you can set your messages so that only friends can message you, and people you want to block are unlikely to challenge you to a debate anyway.

I think the blocking feature should include forum posts, so that you see that the person posted, but you can't see the content of their posts.

Thoughts?

Im heavily against it...... People would abuse the feature beyond belief to block everyone who's views they disagree with rather then just those who are excessively abusing them, which is the point of blocking someone.

Besides, if people could choose to not see someone's posts, then nobody would be able to see GWL's retarded rants since everyone on the site would block him.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 2:17:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hmm, interesting. Before I comment, I will simply state that tulle is still on my friend's list, as are the other people commenting on this thread, and thus this thread showed up on my "dashboard" and I became curious.

At 9/18/2013 9:16:54 AM, MassiveDump wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:04:47 AM, tulle wrote:
Right now the blocking feature is kind of useless because you can set your messages so that only friends can message you, and people you want to block are unlikely to challenge you to a debate anyway.

I think the blocking feature should include forum posts, so that you see that the person posted, but you can't see the content of their posts.

Thoughts?

It wouldn't hurt, but it wouldn't really solve anything either. If someone is publicly harrassing you in the forums (which is the only good reason to block someone), everyone else can read that person's post, even if you can't.

I agree with dump, especially about the part pertaining to public harassment - that is indeed one of the only reasons I can think of that would warrant a forum block. However, dump is also correct that that doesn't really solve the problem.

What would solve the problem is what airmax calls a "mutual restraining order", where both members voluntarily agree that they do not reply to or even mention each other in any way, shape or form, to include PMs, debates, forum posts, opinion sections, or polls, to the other party.

Incidentally, I have noticed tulle's signature (it's hard to miss, really). I will say that the conversation that involved that quoted portion (which did not involve tulle at all initially, and which tulle became offended enough to engage me at 4AM lol) did indeed lead to a mutual restraining order with a different party, and that the arrangement has worked quite satisfactorily.

I would be more than willing to debate a resolution stemming from tulle's signature, as I still fully stand by the implicit claim, and, implied insults notwithstanding, am still somewhat surprised that there is any disagreement on the issue.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 2:43:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 2:17:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

What would solve the problem is what airmax calls a "mutual restraining order", where both members voluntarily agree that they do not reply to or even mention each other in any way, shape or form, to include PMs, debates, forum posts, opinion sections, or polls, to the other party.


I already have this in place and the person continues to address me.

Incidentally, I have noticed tulle's signature (it's hard to miss, really). I will say that the conversation that involved that quoted portion (which did not involve tulle at all initially, and which tulle became offended enough to engage me at 4AM lol) did indeed lead to a mutual restraining order with a different party, and that the arrangement has worked quite satisfactorily.

I would be more than willing to debate a resolution stemming from tulle's signature, as I still fully stand by the implicit claim, and, implied insults notwithstanding, am still somewhat surprised that there is any disagreement on the issue.

Over the next few months, I won't have time to do a formal debate. Once my grad school applications are in, I'll send you a PM.
yang.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 2:44:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 2:43:00 PM, tulle wrote:
At 9/18/2013 2:17:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

What would solve the problem is what airmax calls a "mutual restraining order", where both members voluntarily agree that they do not reply to or even mention each other in any way, shape or form, to include PMs, debates, forum posts, opinion sections, or polls, to the other party.


I already have this in place and the person continues to address me.

To my understanding, given that both of you are ostensibly aware of the restraining order, this would merit a ban if reported to Airmax.

Incidentally, I have noticed tulle's signature (it's hard to miss, really). I will say that the conversation that involved that quoted portion (which did not involve tulle at all initially, and which tulle became offended enough to engage me at 4AM lol) did indeed lead to a mutual restraining order with a different party, and that the arrangement has worked quite satisfactorily.

I would be more than willing to debate a resolution stemming from tulle's signature, as I still fully stand by the implicit claim, and, implied insults notwithstanding, am still somewhat surprised that there is any disagreement on the issue.

Over the next few months, I won't have time to do a formal debate. Once my grad school applications are in, I'll send you a PM.

Good luck with your applications. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 2:47:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 2:44:55 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

To my understanding, given that both of you are ostensibly aware of the restraining order, this would merit a ban if reported to Airmax.


I've reported it, so fingers crossed :p

Good luck with your applications. =)

Thanks. I'm actually looking forward to debating your statement.
yang.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 5:13:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 9:04:47 AM, tulle wrote:
Right now the blocking feature is kind of useless because you can set your messages so that only friends can message you, and people you want to block are unlikely to challenge you to a debate anyway.

I think the blocking feature should include forum posts, so that you see that the person posted, but you can't see the content of their posts.

Thoughts?

For somewhat, but then there should be a button that allows you to see it if you want to. For example: say you're in mafia and a guy you have blocked makes a post, you should be able to allow yourself to see the post.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 6:16:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 11:18:50 AM, imabench wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:04:47 AM, tulle wrote:
Right now the blocking feature is kind of useless because you can set your messages so that only friends can message you, and people you want to block are unlikely to challenge you to a debate anyway.

I think the blocking feature should include forum posts, so that you see that the person posted, but you can't see the content of their posts.

Thoughts?

Im heavily against it...... People would abuse the feature beyond belief to block everyone who's views they disagree with rather then just those who are excessively abusing them, which is the point of blocking someone.

Bench makes a strong point that I can agree with, but I can't help but think that it just wouldn't be as fun for him if his favorite idiots blocked him.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 7:36:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 9:04:47 AM, tulle wrote:
I think the blocking feature should include forum posts, so that you see that the person posted, but you can't see the content of their posts.

Thoughts?

I've got no problem with that. I came here from a discussion board with two kinds of blocking. The first kind just reduced the posts of blocked members to a single line, something like:

You have elected to block Joe Schmuck's posts. Click here to view this post anyway.


I might still read the post, but I would be on notice as I clicked in: I would be alert to the fact that this was someone I didn't want to get sucked into conversation with.

The second, more recent, system is even better. It doesn't actually block people; it just lets you flag them. If I flag Joe Schmuck, I can put in my reasons. Nobody else can see my reasons, but I'll see them every time I come to one of Joe's posts. Above the post, there will be a warning in colored print. The warning will be in yellow, orange, or red, depending on what color I flagged him.

The flag might say,
<red>Irredeemable troll given to personal attack</red>


or it might say,
<yellow>Brings every conversation around to the topic of waterless hams.</yellow>

or it might say,
<orange>Avoid. I've already insulted him once. Don't let him get me into a position where I have to do it again. </orange>


This was invaluable. I don't wish to get into uncivil conversations, but I can't remember who all tends to throw dirt. This flagging system made it easy to remember who to fight shy of, and how much, and why. It was perfect.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 8:25:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 7:36:20 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:04:47 AM, tulle wrote:
I think the blocking feature should include forum posts, so that you see that the person posted, but you can't see the content of their posts.

Thoughts?

I've got no problem with that. I came here from a discussion board with two kinds of blocking. The first kind just reduced the posts of blocked members to a single line, something like:

You have elected to block Joe Schmuck's posts. Click here to view this post anyway.


I might still read the post, but I would be on notice as I clicked in: I would be alert to the fact that this was someone I didn't want to get sucked into conversation with.

The second, more recent, system is even better. It doesn't actually block people; it just lets you flag them. If I flag Joe Schmuck, I can put in my reasons. Nobody else can see my reasons, but I'll see them every time I come to one of Joe's posts. Above the post, there will be a warning in colored print. The warning will be in yellow, orange, or red, depending on what color I flagged him.

The flag might say,
<red>Irredeemable troll given to personal attack</red>


or it might say,
<yellow>Brings every conversation around to the topic of waterless hams.</yellow>

or it might say,
<orange>Avoid. I've already insulted him once. Don't let him get me into a position where I have to do it again. </orange>


This was invaluable. I don't wish to get into uncivil conversations, but I can't remember who all tends to throw dirt. This flagging system made it easy to remember who to fight shy of, and how much, and why. It was perfect.

I like this. A lot.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 8:41:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 9:04:47 AM, tulle wrote:
Right now the blocking feature is kind of useless because you can set your messages so that only friends can message you, and people you want to block are unlikely to challenge you to a debate anyway.

I think the blocking feature should include forum posts, so that you see that the person posted, but you can't see the content of their posts.

Thoughts?

Ha is jimtimmy back?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 9:46:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 2:17:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
...

I would be more than willing to debate a resolution stemming from tulle's signature, as I still fully stand by the implicit claim, and, implied insults notwithstanding, am still somewhat surprised that there is any disagreement on the issue.

Interesting idea. Could argue it either way.

There's this idea that depressed people perceive reality more accurately than non-depressed people, that "sanity" requires certain biases in the way people accumulate and process information. (I could get sources for all this, but I'm pushed for time today) For instance, people tend to see themselves as better and more important than they really are, but this distortion of reality is functional.

For most mental illness - anxiety, depression, ADHD, Asperger's etc. - which are defined by deviation from social norms/ideals, there's always an uneasiness around diagnosis, because it's so societally dependent.

Another example is the very low incidence of SAD (social anxiety disorder) in Korea and Japan.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Because these cultures tend to emphasize the importance of social behavior, anxiety about social situations is very common. So common, researchers suggest, that social anxiety is not considered excessive or in any way an illness.

We only have SAD as a diagnosis in Western countries because our cultural ideal is one of social ease.

Therefore, the most straightforward argument is that wrichcirw is wrong and opinion and observation of reality is not weakened by the presence of most mental illness.

However. You could take the argument further and say that reality is socially constructed anyway, and that we are always deferring to social ideals, and what is a diagnosis of a mental illness if not a declaration of deviance from those ideals?

For instance. Diagnosis of depression is not much more than a self-report of being sad most of the time. I'm not sure how the health system works in other countries, but in Australia people have control over their diagnoses. They can be sad most of the time with disrupted sleep, etc, but just refuse to accept a diagnosis of depression if they want.

So to my mind, you always have to think - maybe like an economist a bit - about the benefits of a diagnosis and what it actually does.

In the referent case, you could say "he's a d1ckhead like his dad so I just ignore him" which is rude but more acceptable than, "he has Asperger's, like his Dad, so his opinion is worthless" which is completely unacceptable. That's the power of diagnosis. I'm kind of fascinated by that.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2013 10:22:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 9:46:31 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/18/2013 2:17:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
...

I would be more than willing to debate a resolution stemming from tulle's signature, as I still fully stand by the implicit claim, and, implied insults notwithstanding, am still somewhat surprised that there is any disagreement on the issue.

Interesting idea. Could argue it either way.

[etc...]

Therefore, the most straightforward argument is that wrichcirw is wrong and opinion and observation of reality is not weakened by the presence of most mental illness.

Well now. This is begging for a debate. We've been mulling a debate of some sort in private anyhow. You want this one to be it?

[etc]

In the referent case, you could say "he's a d1ckhead like his dad so I just ignore him" which is rude but more acceptable than, "he has Asperger's, like his Dad, so his opinion is worthless" which is completely unacceptable. That's the power of diagnosis. I'm kind of fascinated by that.

In the referent case, the more appropriate conclusion would be "he has Asperger's, like his Dad, so his opinion is questionable, as much so as his father's." What is "completely unacceptable" is the exaggerated conclusion you reached that gave greater weight to the strawman of emphasis you had constructed.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 4:23:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 9:04:47 AM, tulle wrote:
Right now the blocking feature is kind of useless because you can set your messages so that only friends can message you, and people you want to block are unlikely to challenge you to a debate anyway.

I think the blocking feature should include forum posts, so that you see that the person posted, but you can't see the content of their posts.

Thoughts?

this is far better then when leo said it
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 4:24:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 4:23:54 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:04:47 AM, tulle wrote:
Right now the blocking feature is kind of useless because you can set your messages so that only friends can message you, and people you want to block are unlikely to challenge you to a debate anyway.

I think the blocking feature should include forum posts, so that you see that the person posted, but you can't see the content of their posts.

Thoughts?

this is far better then when leo said it

but not perfect
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 4:35:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/18/2013 10:22:41 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/18/2013 9:46:31 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/18/2013 2:17:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Well now. This is begging for a debate. We've been mulling a debate of some sort in private anyhow. You want this one to be it?hich is completely unacceptable.

No no. Not trying to replicate your debate with tulle. Just making some general remarks because I happen to be thinking about the anthropology of mental diagnoses lately.

I did wonder if it was bad form to join in the discussion here, but I decidenot....

Anyway i can't. Going away in a few days. I look forward to reading your and tulle's drbate though.

In the referent case, the more appropriate conclusion would be "he has Asperger's, like his Dad, so his opinion is questionable, as much so as his father's." What is "completely unacceptable" is the exaggerated conclusion you reached that gave greater weight to the strawman of emphasis you had constructed.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 5:21:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 4:37:17 PM, rross wrote:
What's a "strawman of emphasis"?

My interpretation of the referent case was that instead of the strong and absolutist language of "his opinion is worthless" which is completely unacceptable," that because of mental illness, his judgment would have been questionable.

The extra emphasis/exaggeration of what I had intended my point to be, intentional or not, I found to be a strawman.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 9:50:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 5:21:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 4:37:17 PM, rross wrote:
What's a "strawman of emphasis"?

My interpretation of the referent case was that instead of the strong and absolutist language of "his opinion is worthless" which is completely unacceptable," that because of mental illness, his judgment would have been questionable.

The extra emphasis/exaggeration of what I had intended my point to be, intentional or not, I found to be a strawman.

oh sorry. yes I misinterpreted "discount".

Anyway. My point was only that a diagnosis has significance over and above the symptoms it describes. That was all I was trying to say. Kind of a tangent maybe.
Subutai
Posts: 3,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:19:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I tend to agree with imabench. Just allowing people to willy-nilly block people from seeing people's posts is excessive. If you have a problem with someone, mention it to airmax.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:22:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 9:50:29 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/19/2013 5:21:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 4:37:17 PM, rross wrote:
What's a "strawman of emphasis"?

My interpretation of the referent case was that instead of the strong and absolutist language of "his opinion is worthless" which is completely unacceptable," that because of mental illness, his judgment would have been questionable.

The extra emphasis/exaggeration of what I had intended my point to be, intentional or not, I found to be a strawman.

oh sorry. yes I misinterpreted "discount".

Anyway. My point was only that a diagnosis has significance over and above the symptoms it describes. That was all I was trying to say. Kind of a tangent maybe.

That would be a false diagnosis, yes? Something that a placebo would ostensibly "cure", yes?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 10:45:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:22:23 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 9:50:29 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/19/2013 5:21:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 4:37:17 PM, rross wrote:
Anyway. My point was only that a diagnosis has significance over and above the symptoms it describes. That was all I was trying to say. Kind of a tangent maybe.

That would be a false diagnosis, yes? Something that a placebo would ostensibly "cure", yes?

no. Not at all. Why would you say that?
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 11:48:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:19:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
I tend to agree with imabench. Just allowing people to willy-nilly block people from seeing people's posts is excessive. If you have a problem with someone, mention it to airmax.

I frequent a joke thread on another board. "Joe" joined the thread, and posts several jokes a day. I don't like Joe's jokes. The punchline is generally a husband telling his wife that her snatch isn't tight, or the wife telling the husband that his dingus is tiny, or something equally unsavory. I don't need that several times a day. I quit going to that thread. Gave it up.

After a few months, I realized that I don't have to see Joe's jokes. I just blocked him, or, as they say there, I put him on my Ignore list. So now I enjoy the joke thread again.

I just don't like Joe's jokes. That's nothing to complain to a moderator about. Moderators have important stuff to do. And Joe didn't do anything wrong.

So sometimes it is appropriate to use the blocking feature when it is inappropriate to complain to a moderator.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2013 11:56:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 10:45:11 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:22:23 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 9:50:29 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/19/2013 5:21:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 4:37:17 PM, rross wrote:
Anyway. My point was only that a diagnosis has significance over and above the symptoms it describes. That was all I was trying to say. Kind of a tangent maybe.

That would be a false diagnosis, yes? Something that a placebo would ostensibly "cure", yes?

no. Not at all. Why would you say that?

If a diagnosis goes beyond the symptoms, then the diagnosis is not characterizing the illness, yes?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2013 7:39:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 11:56:30 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:45:11 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:22:23 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 9:50:29 PM, rross wrote:
At 9/19/2013 5:21:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/19/2013 4:37:17 PM, rross wrote:
Anyway. My point was only that a diagnosis has significance over and above the symptoms it describes. That was all I was trying to say. Kind of a tangent maybe.

That would be a false diagnosis, yes? Something that a placebo would ostensibly "cure", yes?

no. Not at all. Why would you say that?

If a diagnosis goes beyond the symptoms, then the diagnosis is not characterizing the illness, yes?

No. For example, a great waiter goes beyond just putting the food on the table - he also makes you feel comfortable and welcome. But you still get the food.

However. This isn't really about blocking. We might need to take it outside.
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2013 1:27:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/19/2013 11:48:59 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 9/19/2013 10:19:59 PM, Subutai wrote:
I tend to agree with imabench. Just allowing people to willy-nilly block people from seeing people's posts is excessive. If you have a problem with someone, mention it to airmax.

I frequent a joke thread on another board. "Joe" joined the thread, and posts several jokes a day. I don't like Joe's jokes. The punchline is generally a husband telling his wife that her snatch isn't tight, or the wife telling the husband that his dingus is tiny, or something equally unsavory. I don't need that several times a day. I quit going to that thread. Gave it up.

After a few months, I realized that I don't have to see Joe's jokes. I just blocked him, or, as they say there, I put him on my Ignore list. So now I enjoy the joke thread again.

I just don't like Joe's jokes. That's nothing to complain to a moderator about. Moderators have important stuff to do. And Joe didn't do anything wrong.

So sometimes it is appropriate to use the blocking feature when it is inappropriate to complain to a moderator.

This would be perfect. I basically have my own personal izbo following me around and harassing me and nothing is being done about it.
yang.