How to block two users from seeing each other's

[Kami]

It isn't peace though, it's a stopgap measure that leaves the underlying behaviour unaddressed. If staff need to intervene because two members cannot stop squabbling, the issue is that they lack respect for forum etiquette and that needs to change and it will only do so with tangible consequences. What's to stop them from picking on friends and acquaintances if you don't address the issue at hand? Are you going to babysit them constantly to keep adding more blinkers to prevent them from seeing more people? What if the forum is popular with hundreds or even thousands of members?

Your analogy is flawed because both families are on private property. A forum is a community, not a private residence -- your example would be more appropriate if they went to a local event and began fighting with each other. The local government (in this case the forum) would step in and enforce the law (forum rules) and dole out fines and punishments (disabled accounts) as necessary.

Also it's really inappropriate to compare two immature people to a literal global threat and arms race.

[D]

Jun 4, 2017 1:38:18 GMT -8 Kami said:

It isn't peace though, it's a stopgap measure that leaves the underlying behaviour unaddressed. If staff need to intervene because two members cannot stop squabbling, the issue is that they lack respect for forum etiquette and that needs to change and it will only donsonwith consequences. What's to stop them from picking on friends and acquaintances if you don't address the issue at hand? Are you going to babysit them constantly to keep adding more blinkers?

Also it's really inappropriate to compare two immature people to a literal global threat and arms race.

Yes, exactly. And once other people get drawn into the conflict it can drag more and more people in and turn entire communities toxic and destroy the vibrancy of any forum. This happens time and time again and trying to appease the people doing this by enforcing blocks but allowing them to continue fluanting the community guidelines is bad for your forum, in my view. The potential escalation only ever seems to abate when these people are removed from the community. This has happened right here on PBS at least once in the years I've been here, and it's not a very pleasent experience for a regular member to go through, let alone the forum staff who work hard to build and maintian the community.

[mmhmm]

Jun 3, 2017 10:16:46 GMT -8 Šcott said:

I take off my admin cap and here's my personal take on this:

We can't hand hold every member and keep creating new features to force users to stop bickering (or antagonizing each other) or to get along. These members that go at each other need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions. 

If you have an issue with another member, you work it out, or you block and/or ignore them and move on. If a member won't block another that irks them and continues the fight openly on a forum, then they are purposely choosing to disrupt the forum and are being disrespectful to the staff and the other forum members.

To me if members fight and are "coin blocked" (a term used in a post above), what did this really solve other than forcibly pretending each other isn't there?



I venture to say the members that continue to fight are pushing the boundaries of cyberbullying. (The use of digital-communication tools to make another person feel angry, sad, or scared, usually again and again.) There is a difference between members that have the occasional misunderstanding, or have passionate discussions on a topic, versus those that continually go at each other with the intent of antagonizing the other.

If I may quote mmhmm from this thread (link):

"In short, if they're going to fight, they're going to fight. The best way of handling it (that I've found) is to let them know that if they can't post civilly and responsibly, they'll need to stop posting. I've put our "battlers" on short "vacations" (using the disable option) in the past to make it clear their bickering is not going to be tolerated. That, along with your forum rules, usually clears up the problem. "

I'm assuming forum staff asks these members to behave and recommend the block option. If staff are ignored then temporarily disabling the accounts would be an appropriate measure to enforce the standards of respect on the forum.

The age of hiding behind a keyboard to be a jerk needs to stop.

Yes, Scott, we do recommend the Block option and, most often, multiple PMs pass between staff and the "warrior(s)". For us, disabling an account is a last ditch effort to preserve the ability for all members to enjoy the boards rather than having to wade through a battle between two (or a few) posters to get to the meat of the discussion.

[RichardInTN]

Jun 4, 2017 1:38:18 GMT -8 Kami said:

It isn't peace though, it's a stopgap measure that leaves the underlying behaviour unaddressed. If staff need to intervene because two members cannot stop squabbling, the issue is that they lack respect for forum etiquette and that needs to change and it will only do so with tangible consequences. What's to stop them from picking on friends and acquaintances if you don't address the issue at hand? Are you going to babysit them constantly to keep adding more blinkers to prevent them from seeing more people? What if the forum is popular with hundreds or even thousands of members?

Your analogy is flawed because both families are on private property. A forum is a community, not a private residence -- your example would be more appropriate if they went to a local event and began fighting with each other. The local government (in this case the forum) would step in and enforce the law (forum rules) and dole out fines and punishments (disabled accounts) as necessary.

Also it's really inappropriate to compare two immature people to a literal global threat and arms race.

First bolded:
But the overall neighborhood those two lots are in isn't "private property", just as the forum itself and in general isn't "private property" Each person's individual posts could be considered "front yard of THEIR property".

Second bolded:
Last I heard the Cold War was over, so it's literally no threat anymore. "The Cold War" refers to the period between WWII and the pre-Gorbachev U.S.S.R. ... and the way some members snipe at each other, it quite often seems like an arms race, who can get in the best/most digs at the other person first.

[RichardInTN]

As it appears that the suggestion has been deemed unnecessary anyway (it's not unnecessary... that's a definite difference of opinion, but PB's opinions do rule on PB's forums... I accept that)... I think I may head over to the Plugin Requests area and see if it's something someone can figure out as a plugin.

[♥ ℒʊ√ ♥]

ProBoards has provided more than enough options to handle disruptive members, as most have said. They have taken these situations into consideration and provided various means to deal with them.

The majority feel forcing an "ignore" on adults, particularly while still allowing them access to a forum they're disrupting, seems counterproductive for the community at large.  

[RichardInTN]

Jun 4, 2017 17:27:53 GMT -8 ♥ ℒʊ√ ♥ said:

ProBoards has provided more than enough options to handle disruptive members, as most have said. They have taken these situations into consideration and provided various means to deal with them.

The majority feel forcing an "ignore" on adults, particularly while still allowing them access to a forum they're disrupting, seems counterproductive for the community at large.  

Majority just means that there are more of them... not that they are right.

For the record though, I will say that they could be right. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea to test drive an option though.

[Šcott]

Jun 4, 2017 10:29:32 GMT -8 mmhmm said:

Jun 3, 2017 10:16:46 GMT -8 Šcott said:

I take off my admin cap and here's my personal take on this:

We can't hand hold every member and keep creating new features to force users to stop bickering (or antagonizing each other) or to get along. These members that go at each other need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions. 

If you have an issue with another member, you work it out, or you block and/or ignore them and move on. If a member won't block another that irks them and continues the fight openly on a forum, then they are purposely choosing to disrupt the forum and are being disrespectful to the staff and the other forum members.

To me if members fight and are "coin blocked" (a term used in a post above), what did this really solve other than forcibly pretending each other isn't there?



I venture to say the members that continue to fight are pushing the boundaries of cyberbullying. (The use of digital-communication tools to make another person feel angry, sad, or scared, usually again and again.) There is a difference between members that have the occasional misunderstanding, or have passionate discussions on a topic, versus those that continually go at each other with the intent of antagonizing the other.

If I may quote mmhmm from this thread (link):

"In short, if they're going to fight, they're going to fight. The best way of handling it (that I've found) is to let them know that if they can't post civilly and responsibly, they'll need to stop posting. I've put our "battlers" on short "vacations" (using the disable option) in the past to make it clear their bickering is not going to be tolerated. That, along with your forum rules, usually clears up the problem. "

I'm assuming forum staff asks these members to behave and recommend the block option. If staff are ignored then temporarily disabling the accounts would be an appropriate measure to enforce the standards of respect on the forum.

The age of hiding behind a keyboard to be a jerk needs to stop.

Yes, Scott, we do recommend the Block option and, most often, multiple PMs pass between staff and the "warrior(s)". For us, disabling an account is a last ditch effort to preserve the ability for all members to enjoy the boards rather than having to wade through a battle between two (or a few) posters to get to the meat of the discussion.

Apologies mmhmm, that statement wasn't directed at you as I know you have a process you follow.

My point was just that though, that forums should have rules or guidelines in place that let's members know what is expected of them, and then a process for when the rules are not followed.  I was applauding your process of using the disable option.  It's very simple, direct and to the point.

[mmhmm]

I didn't take it as directed at me, Šcott. I just felt I should clarify further our process for getting this kind of thing done. It really works pretty well for us. Discussions like this can provide useful information for lots of folks trying to deal with difficult issues.

[RichardInTN]

Jun 6, 2017 8:52:36 GMT -8 mmhmm said:

I didn't take it as directed at me, Scott. I just felt I should clarify further our process for getting this kind of thing done. It really works pretty well for us. Discussions like this can provide useful information for lots of folks trying to deal with difficult issues.

Not as well as you think it does, nor as well as the option to force blocks would.

[mmhmm]

Jun 6, 2017 16:31:19 GMT -8 RichardInTN said:

Jun 6, 2017 8:52:36 GMT -8 mmhmm said:

I didn't take it as directed at me, Scott . I just felt I should clarify further our process for getting this kind of thing done. It really works pretty well for us. Discussions like this can provide useful information for lots of folks trying to deal with difficult issues.

Not as well as you think it does, nor as well as the option to force blocks would.

It works quite to our satisfaction. I don't think forcing others to block one another is something that would be considered for our forum. Easier to simply disable those who will not follow the rules. While those whose accounts are disabled for varying periods of time might not think it works, they're not the ones who are making the decisions. Those decisions are made for the good of all posters instead of the wishes of those who'd prefer to disrupt.

[RichardInTN]

Jun 6, 2017 23:14:18 GMT -8 mmhmm said:

Jun 6, 2017 16:31:19 GMT -8 RichardInTN said:

Not as well as you think it does, nor as well as the option to force blocks would.

It works quite to our satisfaction. I don't think forcing others to block one another is something that would be considered for our forum. Easier to simply disable those who will not follow the rules. While those whose accounts are disabled for varying periods of time might not think it works, they're not the ones who are making the decisions. Those decisions are made for the good of all posters instead of the wishes of those who'd prefer to disrupt.

You can say that it works, but we both know that it doesn't. Because it doesn't address the actual problem of a member being goaded into making bannable (questionably or not) posts. And even worse... it doesn't stop the member doing the goading if they stay on the "good" side of the line (even if just barely).

But... I didn't want to drag this thread there... I was simply making an observation about something that you said which was provably incorrect. Here in Support I think it's more important than ever that we should always stick with facts.

[Boy_Wonder]

Jun 7, 2017 3:07:01 GMT -8 RichardInTN said:

Jun 6, 2017 23:14:18 GMT -8 mmhmm said:

It works quite to our satisfaction. I don't think forcing others to block one another is something that would be considered for our forum. Easier to simply disable those who will not follow the rules. While those whose accounts are disabled for varying periods of time might not think it works, they're not the ones who are making the decisions. Those decisions are made for the good of all posters instead of the wishes of those who'd prefer to disrupt.

You can say that it works, but we both know that it doesn't. Because it doesn't address the actual problem of a member being goaded into making bannable (questionably or not) posts. And even worse... it doesn't stop the member doing the goading if they stay on the "good" side of the line (even if just barely).

But... I didn't want to drag this thread there... I was simply making an observation about something that you said which was provably incorrect. Here in Support I think it's more important than ever that we should always stick with facts.

If someone is goading another member then the member doing the goading gets banned. Simple.

[mmhmm]

Jun 7, 2017 3:20:36 GMT -8 Boy_Wonder said:

Jun 7, 2017 3:07:01 GMT -8 RichardInTN said:

You can say that it works, but we both know that it doesn't. Because it doesn't address the actual problem of a member being goaded into making bannable (questionably or not) posts. And even worse... it doesn't stop the member doing the goading if they stay on the "good" side of the line (even if just barely).

But... I didn't want to drag this thread there... I was simply making an observation about something that you said which was provably incorrect. Here in Support I think it's more important than ever that we should always stick with facts.

If someone is goading another member then the member doing the goading gets banned. Simple.

Yes. This is exactly how, and why it works. If a person really wants to continue to post they'll need to moderate their behaviors. If they're not willing to do that, their account will be disabled. The account may, or may not be reinstated after what we feel to be a reasonable "wait-time". If the poster continues to disrupt, that poster will be permanently banned. The poster is warned throughout the procedure of what may happen next. The choice to remain a member in good standing is theirs to make. That seems much more fair, to me, than forcing them to ignore another poster.

[♥ ℒʊ√ ♥]

If a members continues to bait another member, after being told to ignore one another by an admin, and they refuse to do so and continue their bad behavior; why would they even be considered valuable members of the community worth being forced into "separate corners" yet allowed to continue to participate?

If they have so little respect for their admin  after they are warned to ignore someone, that's a bad board dynamic. Other "borderline" members would likely follow by example, if they perceived a weak admin unable to enforce the community rules. It's really simple. Obey the community rules; when warned act accordingly; or suffer the consequences. One of which shouldn't be you're allowed to continue to post while being forced into an ignore. That simply says you can ignore the admin and the rules others are obeying and suffer little consequence for your childish behavior.