# Ignoring People



## User (3 Aug 2016)




----------



## martint235 (3 Aug 2016)

User said:


> Would it be possible for the ignore function to be made more complete? At present, if I were to put someone on ignore and they post in a thread I am following, I get an alert to new content. If I follow that alert I see a post and a message saying "you are ignoring.....do you want to see it?"
> Ideally, I don't want an ignore list. What I would really like is a facility where I don't get an alert to new content only to find it is going to be some nonsense from a perennial poster of such. The list of such people to be provided by me. I can then skim over their post as and when someone else post something more likely to be worthwhile. Possible?


That's a bit harsh. Just cos I like Stella.


----------



## jefmcg (3 Aug 2016)

That's weird. I don't get an alert when someone I'm ignoring posts. I only see it if I look at the unread watched threads page.


----------



## r04DiE (3 Aug 2016)

I have a rule that I never ignore people. Ignoring people is rude and all people have a right to be heard unless they are spouting hate speech or racist stuff, or something like that; but I am guessing that sort of thing would be moderated pretty quickly on here.


----------



## Markymark (3 Aug 2016)

It is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your eyes and going lalalala when people say something you don't want to hear. Not something I'd ever do.


----------



## jonny jeez (3 Aug 2016)

Markymark said:


> It is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your eyes and going lalalala when people say something you don't want to hear. Not something I'd ever do.


IPhones are shite!!


Just testing


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Aug 2016)

User said:


> Would it be possible for the ignore function to be made more complete? At present, if I were to put someone on ignore and they post in a thread I am following, I get an alert to new content. If I follow that alert I see a post and a message saying "you are ignoring.....do you want to see it?"
> Ideally, I don't want an ignore list. What I would really like is a facility where I don't get an alert to new content only to find it is going to be some nonsense from a perennial poster of such. The list of such people to be provided by me. I can then skim over their post as and when someone else post something more likely to be worthwhile. Possible?


Are you watching threads and, as a result, getting updates about the ignored content? I've never seem the behaviour you describe and though I do, for short periods, put people on ignore, I don't watch threads.


----------



## martint235 (3 Aug 2016)

I've not seen it either to be fair and I know we're not meant to discuss details but I've got a fairly healthy ignore list. The only two things I see are: at the bottom of a page I may see "Show ignored content" and also in New Posts threads will rise up the list if an ignored person has replied. However in my Watched Threads list, a reply from an ignored person doesn't bring it in to the list.


----------



## potsy (3 Aug 2016)

User said:


> I am of the opinion that everyone has a right to express themselves but that does not then translate into an obligation for me to pay it any attention.


Skim reading is your friend, helps keep track of a thread that would otherwise make little sense with a large proportion of the posts on ignore.
I only ignore one person right now, but I can guess 99% of the stuff he would post anyway, and I've rather not seen his face.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Aug 2016)

Can we have a rule that anyone who tries communicate with someone they are ignoring, for example by an aside to another saying "oh, that ignored person must have posted on this thread", or directly "you are on my ignore list" should be punished severely. If you're going to ignore someone, then do it properly. Don't peep out round corners and have a pop at them. Offhand, I can't think of suitable punishments right now, but they shall be the terrors of the earth.


----------



## r04DiE (3 Aug 2016)

User said:


> I am of the opinion that everyone has a right to express themselves but that does not then translate into an obligation for me to pay it any attention.


Well, you are welcome to your opinion and, although I disagree with it, I certainly will not be ignoring any further posts of yours.


----------



## jefmcg (3 Aug 2016)

There is another use for "ignore", someone put me on ignore because he is an idiot and he made an incorrect snap judgement about me. He then kept posting really stupid things, but there was no point responding to him as he had me on ignore. The only way was to ignore him too.

(plus the person who posted a US Republican party talking point about abortion in a thread about a dead lion. I never want to hear anything he has to say again)


----------



## numbnuts (3 Aug 2016)

If you ignore everybody on ths site it becomes very enjoyable


----------



## r04DiE (3 Aug 2016)

jefmcg said:


> There is another use for "ignore", someone put me on ignore


How do you know he had you on ignore?


> ...(plus the person who posted a US Republican party talking point about abortion in a thread about a dead lion. I never want to hear anything he has to say again)


Unpalatable as the person's views might be, I would much rather challenge them than ignore them. You won't change a person's mind by ignoring them, you'll just put them under the illusion that there are fewer challengers to their way of thinking.


----------



## winjim (3 Aug 2016)

r04DiE said:


> How do you know he had you on ignore?Unpalatable as the person's views might be, I would much rather challenge them than ignore them. You won't change a person's mind by ignoring them, you'll just put them under the illusion that there are fewer challengers to their way of thinking.


There have been attempts made to engage with that person, on this and other subjects. There really is no point.

My feeling about the ignore function is that if you tell someone you are using it, you automatically lose whatever argument it was you are having, because it's basically a childish way of getting the last word in. I don't ignore individuals, but if I see certain combinations of people on a thread then I can tell it's going to go downhill and I just stick the whole thread on ignore to avoid getting cross.

There are some people I actually ignore, but not by using the ignore function, just by ignoring them.


----------



## r04DiE (3 Aug 2016)

winjim said:


> There have been attempts made to engage with that person, on this and other subjects. There really is no point.


There _is_ a point, and that point is to openly challenge people that have unpalatable, racist, hateful, or otherwise unacceptable beliefs.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 Aug 2016)

@r04DiE sometimes you want to come on here to chill and take your brain off the hook for a few minutes from the stresses of the real world not enter into repeated and futile battles of words with someone who's views are entrenched and immutable and incompatible with your own. 

There is a time and a place for picking your battles and your enemies and a time to put yourself and your equanimity first.


----------



## r04DiE (3 Aug 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> @r04DiE sometimes you want to come on here to chill and take your brain off the hook for a few minutes from the stresses of the real world not enter into repeated and futile battles of words with someone who's views are entrenched and immutable and incompatible with your own.
> 
> There is a time and a place for picking your battles and your enemies and a time to put yourself and your equanimity first.


TBH I would get more stressed out at the fact that I was not challenging such views. Not that that would especially stress me out, I mean, its only a forum.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 Aug 2016)

r04DiE said:


> TBH I would get more stressed out at the fact that I was not challenging such views. Not that that would especially stress me out, I mean, its only a forum.


Each to their own.


----------



## winjim (3 Aug 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> @r04DiE sometimes you want to come on here to chill and take your brain off the hook for a few minutes from the stresses of the real world not enter into repeated and futile battles of words with someone who's views are entrenched and immutable and incompatible with your own.
> 
> There is a time and a place for picking your battles and your enemies and a time to put yourself and your equanimity first.


I'm just here to talk about bikes really, and the odd light hearted bit of fun, but I occasionally allow myself to get sucked into other arguments, which I usually regret.


----------



## screenman (3 Aug 2016)

Keep the forum as it is it works great.

For those who have problems with a few posters is there a possible common denominator?


----------



## swansonj (3 Aug 2016)

As I recall the site rules, the ignore function is billed as being for people who wind you up to the point that your replies might break other site rules. There is no-one here whose views I am unwilling to read. But there are certainly people whose style of posting and whose approach to other posters I find an affront to humanity and who tempt me into injudicious replies in turn. (@User knows who I'm principally talking about...) If I used the ignore function it would be against such - but I would see it as an admission of moral weakness on my part.


----------



## jefmcg (3 Aug 2016)

r04DiE said:


> How do you know he had you on ignore?



https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/a-week-without-a-helmet.169002/post-3386300



r04DiE said:


> Unpalatable as the person's views might be, I would much rather challenge them than ignore them. You won't change a person's mind by ignoring them, you'll just put them under the illusion that there are fewer challengers to their way of thinking.



If I was at the pub, having a lively discussion about Clarence the Lion and the Dentist of Death, and some stranger came over and said "Abortion is worse", I would snub him. It's just weird.


----------



## raleighnut (3 Aug 2016)

r04DiE said:


> How do you know he had you on ignore?Unpalatable as the person's views might be, I would much rather challenge them than ignore them. You won't change a person's mind by ignoring them, you'll just put them under the illusion that there are fewer challengers to their way of thinking.



How do you know if someone has you on ignore, is there a function that tells you whom is ignoring you?


----------



## jefmcg (3 Aug 2016)

raleighnut said:


> How do you know if someone has you on ignore, is there a function that tells you whom is ignoring you?


Do you have me on ignore? I just answered that question, for this specific case.


----------



## raleighnut (3 Aug 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Do you have me on ignore? I just answered that question, for this specific case.


That just led me to a closed helmet thread, I can see who follows me on my profile page but not anything about people who have me on ignore.

Just for the record my 'ignore' list is empty.


----------



## jefmcg (3 Aug 2016)

raleighnut said:


> That just led me to a closed helmet thread


It lead to a specific post on a closed helmet thread...


> Mark Twain said "it's better to keep your mouth closed, and let people think you are a fool, than to open it, and remove all doubt". You and everyone else on my expanding list of the 'special' should really take heed. This thread is superb at identifying the one's I wish to avoid at all cost, and there is an ignore function ( which is a very welcome feature).



People know they are being ignored because people tell them. It's the CC equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nah nah nah, I can't hear you"

(To my shame, I have also been guilty of this)


----------



## raleighnut (3 Aug 2016)

jefmcg said:


> It lead to a specific post on a closed helmet thread...
> 
> 
> People know they are being ignored because people tell them. It's the CC equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nah nah nah, I can't hear you"
> ...


I did once 'ignore' someone but kept then looking at 'show ignored content' so thought it was a bit pointless' so un-ignored them.

they haven't been on here for a year now though.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (3 Aug 2016)

@User you could make life easier for yourself by not reading posts by people that annoy you.
Unless even their username in an alert makes your blood boil?
Even if the forum software could accommodate your wishes, you gonna know about the ignored postings by the gaps in the thread.


----------



## winjim (3 Aug 2016)

r04DiE said:


> There _is_ a point, and that point is to openly challenge people that have unpalatable, racist, hateful, or otherwise unacceptable beliefs.


I've just had a quick look back at the threads in question. The poster was robustly challenged, by myself and others, but is either unable or unwilling to actually engage in a debate about their views, or even properly explain what those views are. They just post inflammatory statements and then refuse to discuss the matter further. Both threads had to be moderated, one of them resulted in a thread split. I'm getting cross thinking about it .

You can't use logic to challenge dogma.


----------



## summerdays (3 Aug 2016)

I rarely ever use the ignore feature, only if I'm getting extremely annoyed by a series of posts. I think I've only ever had 4 people on ignore in total and 3 of those no longer post/are banned (before my time as mod), and the fourth I did ignore for a bit, but it became difficult when I realised they were asking me a question, so back at my normal 0 recently. I didn't see any of their messages but knew they had posted on a page as it would say "show ignored content" or I would see the thread on the Recent Posts page without getting an alert for the thread if theirs was the only new reply on the thread.

I don't see the point in telling someone you are ignoring them, just use it as you need to to avoid getting drawn into heated one on one debate. Or at least that is the way I have used it.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Aug 2016)

Ignore thread is a good tool, I use that a lot to avoid bicker-fests from appearing in the new posts. And you can ignore whole subforums too.


----------



## martint235 (3 Aug 2016)

Ok I'll be honest I've just had a look at my ignore list and unignored 3 people as I can't remember why I was ignoring them


----------



## Andrew_P (3 Aug 2016)

Hello Martin, missed me?


----------



## martint235 (3 Aug 2016)

Andrew_P said:


> Hello Martin, missed me?


Might have done. Might not. You'll never know


----------



## Pat "5mph" (3 Aug 2016)

@summerdays can mods ignore posters?
I guess not, otherwise how can they be moderated?
I don't ignore anybody, but I confess to bypass a few


----------



## Andrew_P (3 Aug 2016)

I prefer the challenge of mentally ignoring someone. Also it must disrupt a thread more than the poster does? Especially if they are prolific on the thread, and getting quoted all the time?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (3 Aug 2016)

User said:


> What I want is not to get an alert to new content, when that new content is only going to be trivial nonsense.


Uhh, that I think is beyond the capability of any software, I think.
How's the software gonna know what you consider trivial?
Maybe you could disable all alerts, then read content from the new posts feed or from your watched threads list?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (3 Aug 2016)

User said:


> But what do I know?


Only @Shaun knows!


----------



## Pat "5mph" (3 Aug 2016)

User said:


> In all honesty, when I started this thread, Shaun was the only person I wanted any response from.


You know he comes to CC in the early hours, you should have started the thread around midnight


----------



## r04DiE (3 Aug 2016)

jefmcg said:


> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/a-week-without-a-helmet.169002/post-3386300


That doesn't say that you've been blocked and even if it did, that person might just be fibbing.


> If I was at the pub, having a lively discussion about Clarence the Lion and the Dentist of Death, and some stranger came over and said "Abortion is worse", I would snub him. It's just weird.


So you say, and I would tell that person that they were weird. So this is how we differ, nothing wrong with that.


----------



## raleighnut (3 Aug 2016)

User said:


> In all honesty, when I started this thread, Shaun was the only person I wanted any response from.


It must be a quiet night.


----------



## r04DiE (3 Aug 2016)

winjim said:


> ...You can't use logic to challenge dogma.


Yes you can.


----------



## potsy (3 Aug 2016)

User said:


> In all honesty, when I started this thread, Shaun was the only person I wanted any response from.


Maybe you are on his ignore list


----------



## winjim (3 Aug 2016)

r04DiE said:


> Yes you can.


Well possibly to an outside observer, not to the person espousing the dogma. Although I think in most cases in an online debate, it's best to imagine yourself trying to convince an impartial observer of your point of view, rather than trying to change the mind of the person you're actually debating. That way lie petty arguments, Godwin and flouncing.



User said:


> In all honesty, when I started this thread, Shaun was the only person I wanted any response from.


Yep, and every time we post another irrelevant reply, you get another notification.  Keep it up, guys.


----------



## jefmcg (3 Aug 2016)

User said:


> In all honesty, when I started this thread, Shaun was the only person I wanted any response from.


Then why did you use a public forum, and not a personal message ("conversation")?



User said:


> I was sort of hoping that, if I were to provide a list of names, if one of those were the new content, it wouldn't alert me on my watched threads list. That doesn't sound too difficult to me.



It's programmatically quite doable, I'm sure. But how to describe it on the UI? It took four pages to get what you meant here, I can't imagine a clear UI that would give that option. 'People that I still see, but their messages don't affect the "new posts", "watched posts", "alerts" fields'? I can't think of a way to express it, and nor can you or we wouldn't have got it wrong in our followups.

(Just stay away for a few hours, then people you regard as important (or "people you don't regard as unimportant") will have add to most of the threads you care about)


----------



## Markymark (3 Aug 2016)

I only ignore one person whose avatar annoys me as it's an injury and I dont like to look at it. 

Can shaun put everyone who doesn't post using an iPhone on my ignore list as their opinions are irrelevant?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (3 Aug 2016)

Markymark said:


> Can shaun put everyone who doesn't post using an iPhone on my ignore list as their opinions are irrelevant?


What about non IPhone users posting from oustide London?


----------



## jefmcg (3 Aug 2016)

Markymark said:


> I only ignore one person whose avatar annoys me as it's an injury and I dont like to look at it.


You don't use an ad-blocker? Quelle Horreur! How can you survive on the internet? If you do, just add the offending avatar to your filter.

I blocked someone because their posts are purple. I couldn't configure adblocker for that. Life is too short for purple prose unless it's "a three-volume novel of more than usually revolting sentimentality".



Markymark said:


> Can shaun put everyone who doesn't post using an iPhone on my ignore list as their opinions are irrelevant?



You know you can't write software for an iPhone on an iPhone? I'm not giving up my macbook just to make you happy.


----------



## slowmotion (4 Aug 2016)

Is technology really the answer to your quest to ignore somebody? Can't you just read the first sentence of their post, mutter "Twat!" and scroll on down?


----------



## martint235 (4 Aug 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Then why did you use a public forum, and not a personal message ("conversation")?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's just levels of blacklisting isn't it?

Default is you see all posts by everyone but in the ignore set up you have fully ignore or don't notify me of posts by this person


----------



## Markymark (4 Aug 2016)

Pat "5mph" said:


> What about non IPhone users posting from oustide London?


The thinnest of thin ice.


----------



## summerdays (4 Aug 2016)

Pat "5mph" said:


> @summerdays can mods ignore posters?
> I guess not, otherwise how can they be moderated?
> I don't ignore anybody, but I confess to bypass a few


Mods can ignore people in the same way as others, but obviously if we needed to moderate a thread with ignored content we would need to show it. And it would probably be unlikely that every mod had the same person on ignore. It's just a useful feature to reduce irritation levels.


----------



## r04DiE (4 Aug 2016)

winjim said:


> Well possibly to an outside observer, not to the person espousing the dogma. Although I think in most cases in an online debate, it's best to imagine yourself trying to convince an impartial observer of your point of view, rather than trying to change the mind of the person you're actually debating. That way lie petty arguments, Godwin and flouncing.


Well, the outside observer convinced otherwise is a good thing, the person espousing the dogma convinced is a bonus. Never say never.


----------



## snorri (4 Aug 2016)

Pat "5mph" said:


> What about non IPhone users posting from oustide London?


For them, a fate worse than death.


----------



## winjim (4 Aug 2016)

r04DiE said:


> Well, the outside observer convinced otherwise is a good thing, the person espousing the dogma convinced is a bonus. Never say never.


Tell you what, next time I notice this particular person write something particularly idiotic, I'll tag you in and you can have a go.


----------



## jefmcg (4 Aug 2016)

martint235 said:


> It's just levels of blacklisting isn't it?
> 
> Default is you see all posts by everyone but in the ignore set up you have fully ignore or don't notify me of posts by this person



If I were developing this feature, the first thing I'd ask from you would be for you to mock up the UI; where you put the option, what phrasing, what would happen if you invoked it etc etc. It's all a bit vague and handwavy.

But as no one else seems to want this feature, I doubt anyone is going to implement it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Aug 2016)

winjim said:


> You can't use logic to challenge dogma.


You cannot reason someone out of an opinion they weren't reasoned into in the first place.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Aug 2016)

r04DiE said:


> Yes you can.


You can. But your attempt to change their mind is doomed to fail in the vast majority of cases.


----------



## r04DiE (4 Aug 2016)

winjim said:


> Tell you what, next time I notice this particular person write something particularly idiotic, I'll tag you in and you can have a go.


Deal


----------



## CanucksTraveller (5 Aug 2016)

The irony here is that Adrian is actually the only person I've ever considered ignoring in about 6 years. I manage to scroll past most of his snide digs. And if I can manage it, I'm sure the wise old elf can.


----------



## Colin_P (5 Aug 2016)

Adrian... Adrian... ...Adrian,

I never had you down as the type who would run a vanity project.



User said:


> What I would really like is a facility where I don't get an alert to new content only to find it is going to be some nonsense from a perennial poster of such.



.... yeh right, you love correcting nonsense, you are on it like a rash, it is your raison d'être . Sometimes you correct my nonsense (with your own nonsense) even before I've written any nonsnese at all. . 

We can all thank you because memes like this wouldn't exist without you. 







Besides what would you do if you were ignoring all the nonsense? You'd have time to go cycling or empty the dishwasher or something...


----------



## swansonj (5 Aug 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You cannot reason someone out of an opinion they weren't reasoned into in the first place.


Surely the number of us who have stopped wearing helmets after looking at the evidence suggests that in at least some instances, you can?


----------



## psmiffy (5 Aug 2016)

The only improvement to the ignore system I can think of would be the facility to ignore people on specific threads - I use the ignore sparingly - typically for the people who post the same repetitive cr*p ad nauseam in lieu of any reasoned viewpoint - it is no coincidence that the same posters indulge in petty handbags often pages long that are often detrimental to interesting or informative threads - The ignore thread facility is useful in that threads that are a total waste of screen space can be despatched to oblivion


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Aug 2016)

swansonj said:


> Surely the number of us who have stopped wearing helmets after looking at the evidence suggests that in at least some instances, you can?


I was reasoned into wearing one.... And then reasoned into not. Flawed reasoning is a kicker.


----------



## jefmcg (5 Aug 2016)

A new problem: you have someone on ignore, so you don't see their annoying threads; then people start making parody threads!


----------



## srw (5 Aug 2016)

I'd love an ignore function which completely ignores everything about a person (likes, no "ignored content" popups) but leaves threads they start visible.

There are a few people for whom I dream of an ignore function that simply erases them for ever.


----------



## srw (5 Aug 2016)

jefmcg said:


> A new problem: you have someone on ignore, so you don't see their annoying threads; then people start making parody threads!


Ah yes. It does begin to make sense of a mad world.
[QUOTE 4400404, member: 45"]I'd just like to apologise to anyone who can't read this.[/QUOTE]
Read what?


----------



## Crackle (5 Aug 2016)

Can we ban more people? I don't like this new tolerant CC society, I like people banned and for them to stay banned. 

I have lists and stuff. I have an iphone list, a London list and a couple of others but for some reason I thought of them first.


----------



## jefmcg (5 Aug 2016)

[QUOTE 4400466, member: 45"]self-ban[/QUOTE]
Aka "The Flounce"


----------



## summerdays (6 Aug 2016)

User said:


> A super ignore you mean. Where a person gets to post but no one else sees it?


Now that is one mod power I'd love....


----------



## jefmcg (7 Aug 2016)

Can we add a new ignore feature so we not only ignore threads started by ignorees, but also threads about them?

<shakes fist angrily @User>


----------



## Hill Wimp (7 Aug 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Can we add a new ignore feature so we not only ignore threads started by ignorees, but also threads about them?
> 
> <shakes fist angrily @User>


Oh please please please.
I have just opened two threads to see they are connected to my ignore list.


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (7 Aug 2016)

slowmotion said:


> Is technology really the answer to your quest to ignore somebody?



TWAT!!



> Can't you just read the first sentence of their post, mutter "Twat!" and scroll on down?





To be fair, I imagine I am ignored by many, but I myself only ignore two people at the moment, both of whom are/were nothing but complete and utter trolls. One because he was being a foul idiot and did nothing but get my 'twat hackles' up all the time and the other, because of the way he treated someone else on here. I am not even sure he still posts on here either (last activity was in April 2014, I just checked) but being ignored was the least he deserved.

Yep, I ignore on behalf of others!!


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (7 Aug 2016)

I have had various people on ignore over the years, including at one point, the late Vernon, a fact that would probably just have amused him more than anything else!


----------



## jefmcg (7 Aug 2016)

User said:


> I thought the OP was quite clear.


This was the bit that confused me (and still does)



User said:


> , if I were to put someone on ignore and they post in a thread I am following, I get an alert to new content.



You don't get an alert if someone you are ignoring replies to a thread you are watching, or quotes you in any thread. So I'm really not clear what you mean.


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (7 Aug 2016)

jefmcg said:


> This was the bit that confused me (and still does)
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get an alert if someone you are ignoring replies to a thread you are watching, or quotes you in any thread. So I'm really not clear what you mean.



I sometimes, when looking at thread titles, see that the newest poster in a particular thread is by

'Ignored Poster'

You then click on the thread and when it comes to their post it gives you the choice to look at it. You have no idea what they have posted unless you choose look at it, so they could be replying to you or anything, you just don't know.


----------



## snorri (7 Aug 2016)

The only solution for those unhappy with the status quo regarding posts by Ignored members would be to have an electronic mechanism which would modify posts made by the Ignorees to a form acceptable to the beliefs of the posters Ignorers, only then would the post appear as an addition to the thread. Of course for posters with multiple Ignorers this would require different amendments in order to align with the differing viewpoints of each Ignorer, but I'm sure it could be made to work.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (7 Aug 2016)

snorri said:


> The only solution for those unhappy with the status quo regarding posts by Ignored members would be to have an electronic mechanism which would modify posts made by the Ignorees to a form acceptable to the beliefs of the posters Ignorers, only then would the post appear as an addition to the thread. Of course for posters with multiple Ignorers this would require different amendments in order to align with the differing viewpoints of each Ignorer, but I'm sure it could be made to work.


----------



## winjim (8 Aug 2016)

jefmcg said:


> This was the bit that confused me (and still does)
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get an alert if someone you are ignoring replies to a thread you are watching, or quotes you in any thread. So I'm really not clear what you mean.


Right, I'm doing an experiment. I'm going to put a few of you on ignore for a bit, and see what happens if you reply to the thread.


----------



## Dogtrousers (8 Aug 2016)

snorri said:


> The only solution for those unhappy with the status quo regarding posts by Ignored members would be to have an electronic mechanism which would modify posts made by the Ignorees to a form acceptable to the beliefs of the posters Ignorers, only then would the post appear as an addition to the thread. Of course for posters with multiple Ignorers this would require different amendments in order to align with the differing viewpoints of each Ignorer, but I'm sure it could be made to work.


Well, in these days of Big Data the system should be able to build up a reasonable profile of each of us, from our likes and so forth and should be able to come up with a good stab at what will please us. If it finds it has insufficient information it could just default to a picture of a kitten.


----------



## User32269 (8 Aug 2016)




----------



## shouldbeinbed (8 Aug 2016)

Limahl on a bad day.


----------



## winjim (8 Aug 2016)

winjim said:


> Right, I'm doing an experiment. I'm going to put a few of you on ignore for a bit, and see what happens if you reply to the thread.


Right, I've got what I needed, you're all back off my ignore list again .


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (8 Aug 2016)

winjim said:


> Right, I'm doing an experiment. I'm going to put a few of you on ignore for a bit, and see what happens if you reply to the thread.



winjim is a nobber... There did you get it??



Oh, hold on, I'm too late


----------



## winjim (8 Aug 2016)

Mad Doug Biker said:


> winjim is a nobber... There did you get it??
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, hold on, I'm too late


On second thoughts, back on the list you go.


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (8 Aug 2016)

winjim said:


> On second thoughts, back on the list you go.



Yeah yeah...


----------



## Pat "5mph" (8 Aug 2016)

winjim said:


> Right, I'm doing an experiment. I'm going to put a few of you on ignore for a bit, and see what happens if you reply to the thread.


----------



## winjim (8 Aug 2016)

Pat "5mph" said:


>


Oi! I can see you, you know!


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (8 Aug 2016)

Pat "5mph" said:


>





winjim said:


> Oi! I can see you, you know!



But he said he's ignoring me, so on your behalf:


----------



## winjim (8 Aug 2016)

@Pat "5mph" could you please tell @Mad Doug Biker that I know what he's doing.


----------



## raleighnut (8 Aug 2016)

winjim said:


> @Pat "5mph" could you please tell @Mad Doug Biker that I know what he's doing.


You must be one of the few then, most of us haven't got a clue half the time.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (8 Aug 2016)

Well done guys: @User's thread "ignoring people" is now on his ignore list.
There was no need for complicated Mystic Meg software after all


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (11 Aug 2016)

[QUOTE 4405771, member: 45"]I have everyone on ignore.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Shaun (17 Aug 2016)

User said:


> Would it be possible for the ignore function to be made more complete?


Sorry, no, it's a built-in feature that cannot be customised. It may be made more complete by the software developers in the next major version, expected sometime late this year or early next.

PS. I wasn't _ignoring _you, I've been away.


----------



## stephec (21 Sep 2016)

Crackle said:


> Can we ban more people? I don't like this new tolerant CC society, I like people banned and for them to stay banned.
> 
> I have lists and stuff. I have an iphone list, a London list and a couple of others but for some reason I thought of them first.


Veloriders used to be hilarious about five years ago before it all blew up.

Two opposite camps who were forever bitching at each other, with at least two people from either side banned at any one time.


----------

