How to block two users from seeing each other's

[Scott]

Well said ♥ ℒʊ√ ♥. I was trying to draft a similar response between my support help. Kudos.

[♥ ℒʊ√ ♥]

Thank you, Scott .

This feature makes an admin appear weak and unable, or unwilling, to make the hard decisions. If a member has lost that much respect for their admin that they're not obeying a warning to ignore, then that member is not a valuable member whose bad behavior should be rewarded by allowing them to continue to participate, albeit not seeing a certain member's posts.  

[RichardInTN]

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.

Sadly that's not how it works in my personal experience... which is why such an enforced block is a good idea.

[Kami]

Jun 7, 2017 16:08:55 GMT -8 RichardInTN said:

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

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

Sadly that's not how it works in my personal experience... which is why such an enforced block is a good idea.

I have been running the same forum for 12 years. It has been literally a decade since the last time people displayed petty childish behaviour on our forum because we do not allow churlishness a foothold. Members will be kind, or at least civil, or they are not welcome. We also utilise the warning system so members know when they are on thin ice, and outline the disciplinary actions they will receive during every increase of warning level, and reserve the right to adjust the actions based on the severity of their offence. Those who are genuinely interested in contributing reform, and those who are more interested in being petty find themselves in need of a new community.

If a forum created by people who were teenagers at the time, geared towards a 13-30 age group due to the show it's based on, can understand that actions have direct consequences, 40+ individuals can too. Treating them with kid gloves helps no one.

I know my experience is not universal, of course, but I genuinely fail to see what benefit there is to coddling members who blatantly disrespect people including staff by continuing to bicker and be childish. That is not what I want my forum to be known for, and I sincerely doubt a majority of admins do either. If you do not mind tolerating such behaviour that is one thing, but it doesn't need to become a default feature when the others suffice for what the majority need.

[RichardInTN]

Jun 7, 2017 16:14:09 GMT -8 Kami said:

Jun 7, 2017 16:08:55 GMT -8 RichardInTN said:

Sadly that's not how it works in my personal experience... which is why such an enforced block is a good idea.

I have been running the same forum for 12 years. It has been literally a decade since the last time people displayed petty childish behaviour on our forum because we do not allow churlishness a foothold. Members will be kind, or at least civil, or they are not welcome. We also utilise the warning system so members know when they are on thin ice, and outline the disciplinary actions they will receive during every increase of warning level, and reserve the right to adjust the actions based on the severity of their offence. Those who are genuinely interested in contributing reform, and those who are more interested in being petty find themselves in need of a new community.

If a forum created by people who were teenagers at the time, geared towards a 13-30 age group due to the show it's based on, can understand that actions have direct consequences, 40+ individuals can too. Treating them with kid gloves helps no one.

I know my experience is not universal, of course, but I genuinely fail to see what benefit there is to coddling members who blatantly disrespect people including staff by continuing to bicker and be childish. That is not what I want my forum to be known for, and I sincerely doubt a majority of admins do either. If you do not mind tolerating such behaviour that is one thing, but it doesn't need to become a default feature when the others suffice for what the majority need.

What you seem to be missing is that Moderators and Admins quite often don't warn/punish the right parties. They only see the end result of the "rage" brought about by someone goading.... and then they punish (temp ban or permanent ban) the one that was goaded. They don't bother to warn or punish the goader. That's been my experience on many boards. The goaders get away with their goading because they don't actually break any forum rule.

And as you said, the same is true for me, my experience is obviously not universal either.

[Kami]

Jun 7, 2017 17:50:03 GMT -8 RichardInTN said:

Jun 7, 2017 16:14:09 GMT -8 Kami said:

I have been running the same forum for 12 years. It has been literally a decade since the last time people displayed petty childish behaviour on our forum because we do not allow churlishness a foothold. Members will be kind, or at least civil, or they are not welcome. We also utilise the warning system so members know when they are on thin ice, and outline the disciplinary actions they will receive during every increase of warning level, and reserve the right to adjust the actions based on the severity of their offence. Those who are genuinely interested in contributing reform, and those who are more interested in being petty find themselves in need of a new community.

If a forum created by people who were teenagers at the time, geared towards a 13-30 age group due to the show it's based on, can understand that actions have direct consequences, 40+ individuals can too. Treating them with kid gloves helps no one.

I know my experience is not universal, of course, but I genuinely fail to see what benefit there is to coddling members who blatantly disrespect people including staff by continuing to bicker and be childish. That is not what I want my forum to be known for, and I sincerely doubt a majority of admins do either. If you do not mind tolerating such behaviour that is one thing, but it doesn't need to become a default feature when the others suffice for what the majority need.

What you seem to be missing is that Moderators and Admins quite often don't warn/punish the right parties. They only see the end result of the "rage" brought about by someone goading.... and then they punish (temp ban or permanent ban) the one that was goaded. They don't bother to warn or punish the goader. That's been my experience on many boards. The goaders get away with their goading because they don't actually break any forum rule.

And as you said, the same is true for me, my experience is obviously not universal either.

Then I think that is a failure of procedure not the tools at hand.

Members should turn to staff if they are being goaded rather than responding and if members do not do that then either a) they are also disrespecting forum rules, and/or b) the staff have not established that they are approachable.

With the PM forwarding system it's incredibly easy to see if someone has been goaded privately, and the report post function serves to alert the staff of any public goading.

He-said, she-said is not a problem on my forum because our expectation of behaviour is clearly outlined. Those who decide they aren't going to follow the rules of conduct find themselves ignored by the community (who know better) and their conduct reported immediately. We reach out to all affected parties, and have discussions in the staff board when we notice this behaviour or get reports of it.

Again: PB has provided tools to effectively shut this down; it all depends on how the administration chooses to portray themselves to their members. If the staff are disciplining the wrong people then that shows a lack of due dilligence which cannot be solved by more software features.

[RichardInTN]

Jun 7, 2017 18:31:16 GMT -8 Kami said:

Jun 7, 2017 17:50:03 GMT -8 RichardInTN said:

What you seem to be missing is that Moderators and Admins quite often don't warn/punish the right parties. They only see the end result of the "rage" brought about by someone goading.... and then they punish (temp ban or permanent ban) the one that was goaded. They don't bother to warn or punish the goader. That's been my experience on many boards. The goaders get away with their goading because they don't actually break any forum rule.

And as you said, the same is true for me, my experience is obviously not universal either.

Then I think that is a failure of procedure not the tools at hand.

Members should turn to staff if they are being goaded rather than responding and if members do not do that then either a) they are also disrespecting forum rules, and/or b) the staff have not established that they are approachable.

With the PM forwarding system it's incredibly easy to see if someone has been goaded privately, and the report post function serves to alert the staff of any public goading.

He-said, she-said is not a problem on my forum because our expectation of behaviour is clearly outlined. Those who decide they aren't going to follow the rules of conduct find themselves ignored by the community (who know better) and their conduct reported immediately. We reach out to all affected parties, and have discussions in the staff board when we notice this behaviour or get reports of it.

Again: PB has provided tools to effectively shut this down; it all depends on how the administration chooses to portray themselves to their members. If the staff are disciplining the wrong people then that shows a lack of due dilligence which cannot be solved by more software features.

Except that (the bolded) doesn't actually work. I know that first hand (and several cases I know of have been on the forum that mmhmm is so proud of how well the system works {when it provably doesn't}). And I'm not simply talking about my personal interactions with them. I'm referring to PM's I've received with messages of "don't bother telling the Mods, they don't care" when I've mentioned out in public, on a thread, occasionally how they ignore my PM requests and reports. So it's not "just me". If it were, I could say "Hmmm... maybe I'm the problem", but when others confirm that it's happened to them as well... that says it's not "just me".

(for the record, I didn't want to drag my issues with unfair/unreasonable moderation into this thread, but the topic and some statements forced my hand)


Actually that first paragraph gives me another idea for a suggestion regarding blocking members: It would be nice if member self-selected ignoring was bi-directional as well... so when a user blocks someone that person is also blocked from seeing them. NOthing forced on others in this instance, just simply members being allowed to choose who can see their posts.... but without letting them do so with impunity, because being bi-directional they wouldn't see the other person's posts either.

[♥ ℒʊ√ ♥]

What a dreadfully unfair feature ~ bidirectional ignore.

Why should someone who chooses to block a member have the right to force his chosen blocked member to reciprocate that block? What gives that member the right to make a decision for another member simply because of their chosen action?

Honestly, this just sounds like an admin who has lost control and members who have no respect for their authority when they are told to cease and desist the undesirable behavior. 

[Kami]

Jun 7, 2017 19:16:31 GMT -8 RichardInTN said:

Jun 7, 2017 18:31:16 GMT -8 Kami said:

Then I think that is a failure of procedure not the tools at hand.

Members should turn to staff if they are being goaded rather than responding and if members do not do that then either a) they are also disrespecting forum rules, and/or b) the staff have not established that they are approachable.

With the PM forwarding system it's incredibly easy to see if someone has been goaded privately, and the report post function serves to alert the staff of any public goading.

He-said, she-said is not a problem on my forum because our expectation of behaviour is clearly outlined. Those who decide they aren't going to follow the rules of conduct find themselves ignored by the community (who know better) and their conduct reported immediately. We reach out to all affected parties, and have discussions in the staff board when we notice this behaviour or get reports of it.

Again: PB has provided tools to effectively shut this down; it all depends on how the administration chooses to portray themselves to their members. If the staff are disciplining the wrong people then that shows a lack of due dilligence which cannot be solved by more software features.

Except that (the bolded) doesn't actually work. I know that first hand (and several cases I know of have been on the forum that mmhmm is so proud of how well the system works {when it provably doesn't}). And I'm not simply talking about my personal interactions with them. I'm referring to PM's I've received with messages of "don't bother telling the Mods, they don't care" when I've mentioned out in public, on a thread, occasionally how they ignore my PM requests and reports. So it's not "just me". If it were, I could say "Hmmm... maybe I'm the problem", but when others confirm that it's happened to them as well... that says it's not "just me".

(for the record, I didn't want to drag my issues with unfair/unreasonable moderation into this thread, but the topic and some statements forced my hand)


Actually that first paragraph gives me another idea for a suggestion regarding blocking members: It would be nice if member self-selected ignoring was bi-directional as well... so when a user blocks someone that person is also blocked from seeing them. NOthing forced on others in this instance, just simply members being allowed to choose who can see their posts.... but without letting them do so with impunity, because being bi-directional they wouldn't see the other person's posts either.

If members cannot trust the staff, then that is not the fault of the software. Do you see the distinction? You bolded one part of my first paragraph but ignored the followup: if members do not do this then [...] the staff have not established they are approachable. You are welcome to refute what I say to bolster your position, but the context in which it is delivered is important as well.

As I said, I know my experiences are not universal but all of the members of my forum -- current and former -- have felt completely at ease contacting us when things go awry. That you experience such a thing in the community or communities that you are apart of is unfortunate, but again: will not be solved by adding more features to the software. I mean, think about it! If the staff of a forum cannot be trusted by its members to care about their comfort during their membership, if the staff of a forum does not exercise due diligence when meting out disciplinary action, if the tools given are misused, then how would members be confident that a new feature would be used without bias?

It seems that the problem you're experiencing again, is "the mods do not care" as per your own statement. On my forum, we do care. That is the difference, and it is not influenced by the presence of features ProBoards does or does not add. If the mods are not respected and do not respect their members, then that is the inherent, underlying problem. I already said in my first post in this thread that staff-induced blocking would be a stopgap measure that does not address the underlying issue on the forum, and by your very words you have shown me that the problem is not with ProBoards' features or lack thereof, but that members and staff do not see eye to eye and the former feel that the staff are not approachable.

[RichardInTN]

Jun 7, 2017 19:36:52 GMT -8 ♥ ℒʊ√ ♥ said:

What a dreadfully unfair feature ~ bidirectional ignore.

Why should someone who chooses to block a member have the right to force his chosen blocked member to reciprocate that block? What gives that member the right to make a decision for another member simply because of their chosen action?

Honestly, this just sounds like an admin who has lost control and members who have no respect for their authority when they are told to cease and desist the undesirable behavior. 

The fact that it's their post should be reason enough to give them the right to control who can and who cannot see it.

[RichardInTN]

Jun 7, 2017 19:43:50 GMT -8 Kami said:

Jun 7, 2017 19:16:31 GMT -8 RichardInTN said:

Except that (the bolded) doesn't actually work. I know that first hand (and several cases I know of have been on the forum that mmhmm is so proud of how well the system works {when it provably doesn't}). And I'm not simply talking about my personal interactions with them. I'm referring to PM's I've received with messages of "don't bother telling the Mods, they don't care" when I've mentioned out in public, on a thread, occasionally how they ignore my PM requests and reports. So it's not "just me". If it were, I could say "Hmmm... maybe I'm the problem", but when others confirm that it's happened to them as well... that says it's not "just me".

(for the record, I didn't want to drag my issues with unfair/unreasonable moderation into this thread, but the topic and some statements forced my hand)


Actually that first paragraph gives me another idea for a suggestion regarding blocking members: It would be nice if member self-selected ignoring was bi-directional as well... so when a user blocks someone that person is also blocked from seeing them. NOthing forced on others in this instance, just simply members being allowed to choose who can see their posts.... but without letting them do so with impunity, because being bi-directional they wouldn't see the other person's posts either.

If members cannot trust the staff, then that is not the fault of the software. Do you see the distinction? You bolded one part of my first paragraph but ignored the followup: if members do not do this then [...] the staff have not established they are approachable. You are welcome to refute what I say to bolster your position, but the context in which it is delivered is important as well.

As I said, I know my experiences are not universal but all of the members of my forum -- current and former -- have felt completely at ease contacting us when things go awry. That you experience such a thing in the community or communities that you are apart of is unfortunate, but again: will not be solved by adding more features to the software. I mean, think about it! If the staff of a forum cannot be trusted by its members to care about their comfort during their membership, if the staff of a forum does not exercise due diligence when meting out disciplinary action, if the tools given are misused, then how would members be confident that a new feature would be used without bias?

It seems that the problem you're experiencing again, is "the mods do not care" as per your own statement. On my forum, we do care. That is the difference, and it is not influenced by the presence of features ProBoards does or does not add. If the mods are not respected and do not respect their members, then that is the inherent, underlying problem. I already said in my first post in this thread that staff-induced blocking would be a stopgap measure that does not address the underlying issue on the forum, and by your very words you have shown me that the problem is not with ProBoards' features or lack thereof, but that members and staff do not see eye to eye and the former feel that the staff are not approachable.

I didn't say it was a fault of the software though, did I? I said "Moderation doesn't always work the way it's supposed to or people like to believe that it does"... and that's why software should be available to alleviate these problems.

As to what you bolded. In some cases it's a case of "they are not approachable" in other cases it's a matter of "they don't give a damn" and in still other cases it's a matter of "Only those that they like can approach". The issues vary with the moderation team, the forum, and the membership make-up itself. I'm not really sure which it is on YMAM (which is the board that mmhmm mistakenly believes has moderation nirvana, where everything supposedly ticks along with nary a hiccup)... some days it seems like it's one thing, then on others it seems like it's something else.

Regarding your "If the staff of a forum cannot be trusted by its members to care about their comfort during their membership, if the staff of a forum does not exercise due diligence when meting out disciplinary action, if the tools given are misused, then how would members be confident that a new feature would be used without bias?" question... It's not a matter of trust so much as a matter of hope. And it's harder to misuse something that's bi-directional than it is to misuse something that only harms one member while letting the other get away Scott-free (no reference to PB Admin Scott is inferred or implied... just want to make that clear).

[♥ ℒʊ√ ♥]

Jun 7, 2017 19:47:31 GMT -8 RichardInTN said:

The fact that it's their post should be reason enough to give them the right to control who can and who cannot see it.

Allowing disruptive members to not only remain but have the power to take away another member's blocking choice would seem to be escalating the situation rather than diffusing it.  Yes, their post but the admin's board. Admin trumps member.

But since this is support and not a discussion board, that's it from me. Have a good evening. 

[Kami]

I wish only to say that I have seen the response to my post, but I have no further wish to continue such a circular argument. My point of view has been stated, and that should be sufficient enough for others to come to their own decisions.

[Scott]

RichardInTN ,

On your own forum your rules state:

Arguments between posters are expected to be handled BETWEEN posters. Should posters be unable to keep arguments to/between themselves, they will get ONE warning from a Moderator to take their argument elsewhere and if it continues after that, they will get a two day ban (This won't count against them towards a "perma-ban"... think of it like a seatbelt ticket... pay your penalty and put it behind you). "Personal arguments" can be handled by taking it to PM if you really, really, REALLY want to continue the argument. link

Based on the above and your previous comment in this thread link, it appears to me you are just debating an issue for the sake of debating, rather than truly fleshing out the merits of coin blocking versus using the tools already available and which you use.

Anyone wishing to discuss ways to deal with member issues may of course start and/or participate in a thread on the Managing Your Forum board in a civil, informative and productive, non-circular manner.

----------------------------------------------------

Thank you everyone for your feedback. This thread is now closed.