# Ignore Board feature



## Chuffy (14 Apr 2008)

Is it possible to add an Ignore Board feature to the software? I wouldn't dare suggest scrapping Soapbox, nice though that would be, but it would be useful to be able to simply Ignore it.


----------



## Crackle (14 Apr 2008)

seconded


----------



## simonali (14 Apr 2008)

Thirded. Saying that, though, it almost is invisible to me, as so many of the regulars in there have been added to my ignore list!


----------



## bonj2 (14 Apr 2008)

just don' go in it!


----------



## Chuffy (14 Apr 2008)

How about we get rid of it completely? 

Soapbox was conceived of on C+, in order to take up the controversial arguments that usually ended up in Campaign or Cakestop. The problem I had with that was that arguments in Cakestop were modulated by their surroundings. People tend to argue more politely in a cafe. Soapbox, there and even more so on here, was a complete bear pit and that atmosphere does permeate beyond it's boundaries.


----------



## Arch (15 Apr 2008)

no, keep soapbox, it's somewhere for the rants to go and not pollute the rest of the board. And if I don't fancy looking at it, I just don't. No need to have an ignore feature in my mind...


----------



## Shaun (15 Apr 2008)

If I'm understanding this correctly, the _ignore_ part of the request actually means _hide_?

For example when you select new posts, it would _hide_ the new posts from the forums you don't want to look at, and would also remove the _ignored_ forums from search results, etc.

Is that what you're after?

If so, I'll have a look at the VB forums to see if there is a plugin/hack that can do it. 

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## summerdays (15 Apr 2008)

I use the New Posts feature alot - and forget to look at which forum a topic has been posted, and occasionally reply before I realise which one it was in. It would be nice to use New Posts but select not to see soapbox and bunfight for example if possible of course.


----------



## Chuffy (15 Apr 2008)

Admin said:


> If I'm understanding this correctly, the _ignore_ part of the request actually means _hide_?
> 
> For example when you select new posts, it would _hide_ the new posts from the forums you don't want to look at, and would also remove the _ignored_ forums from search results, etc.
> 
> ...


Er, I think so. I don't use the new posts thing myself, I just look at the main page, but anything that makes Soapbox less visible has to be a good thing. Cheers Shaun.

Arch - Fairy snuff, but my point is that if discussion threads were in the Cafe then they wouldn't tend to get so ranty in the first place.


----------



## jonesy (15 Apr 2008)

What's prompted all this 'let's hate Soapbox' from people who can easily avoid it? It serves a different purpose from Cakestop- Cakestop is for casual chat, Soapbox for debate. Both have their places, but they are different places. That's not to say that I don't think it should remain unchanged however.

What hasn't helped, IMHO, is that by making it 'unmoderated' and closed to non-members, it has been given a kind of sin-bin status, putting others off from venturing in, thereby reducing the self-moderating nature of the forum, and also reducing the passing trade of non-members who might previously have popped in if they'd seen something interesting. Also, the increasing use of swear words puts people off from browsing it at work, further restricting the number of participants. So my preference would be to bring it back to how it was on C+ : open to all, appropriate moderation, censoring of swear words.


----------



## Crackle (15 Apr 2008)

I started a debate about swear words a while ago.

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=7563

Most were against moderating them because drawing a line is such a difficult issue.

Anyway, AM would be rendered speechless if there was a swear filter....................Actually, it is a good idea.


----------



## jonesy (15 Apr 2008)

Crackle said:


> I started a debate about swear words a while ago.
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=7563
> 
> ...



It shouldn't be necessary, but unfortunately a small minority of members are abusing the freedom of the forum. I don't see why the tone has to be set by those with the lowest standards of behaviour.  As I said before, it simply puts off people who, for whatever reason, don't want to download long strings of expletives while browsing the forum.


----------



## Chuffy (15 Apr 2008)

mjones said:


> It shouldn't be necessary, but unfortunately a small minority of members are abusing the freedom of the forum. I don't see why the tone has to be set by those with the lowest standards of behaviour.  As I said before, it simply puts off people who, for whatever reason, don't want to download long strings of expletives while browsing the forum.


I think you're mostly right mjones. The problem with having an unmoderated area, not publicly viewable, is that it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Build it and they will come, so to speak. I would have thought/hoped that you could have serious debate and casual chat within the same area, eg the Cafe. That's the way is used to be on C+ and it seemed to work, the serious threads were pretty much self-modding. Soapbox always had a reputation as a bit of a bear pit from the day of it's creation on C+ and it's got worse since. That's not intended as a knock at the way Shaun has set this place up, but maybe it's worth having a bit of a re-think. I don't think it adds anything of value beyond giving people who have little or no interest in anything else a venue to knock lumps out of each other (see the current Bunfight between Linford and Absinthe Minded for example...)


----------



## bonj2 (15 Apr 2008)

people viewing at work that don't want their manager looking over their shoulder at swear words, all you need to do is just hold down control and use the mousewheel to zoom in and out, to make the font a bit smaller.
When YOU walk past someone else's pc, how many words do you actually read on their screen? I'll be it's none. Especially those in small font. You have to actually peer over their shoulder to read stuff.


----------



## simonali (15 Apr 2008)

The fact that the swear words are usually in "look at me" purple doesn't help either!


----------



## Fab Foodie (15 Apr 2008)

I'm for keeping Soapbox as it stands, practically unmoderated in every way, invisible to guests. It is the debating chamber, rather than the place for a gentle chat. mjones, Soapbox does not have to fall to the lowest standard... there is nothing to stop anybody from reporting inappropriate language or behaviour to Admin, we can be more self-regulating. On the question of swearing, I have already stated that I think it is acceptable depending on context. If worried about being seen at work, then avoid Soapbox viewing until the privacy of your own home.


----------



## Shaun (16 Apr 2008)

The reason Soapbox is registered users only, is because it stops Google and other search engine spiders indexing it. Due to the nature of some of the threads and opinions in there I'm sure you can understand why I don't want them indexed.

I will look into an ignore feature, and if it's something that's easy to put in place I'll have a go.

Might not be for a little while yet though as I'm busy managing the final putting-back-in at our house and juggling contractors left right and centre. 

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## Jaded (16 Apr 2008)

I've read this thread and I have decided what to put on my ignore list.


----------



## Jaded (16 Apr 2008)

Excellent.


----------



## ColinJ (16 Apr 2008)

summerdays said:


> I use the New Posts feature alot - and forget to look at which forum a topic has been posted, and occasionally reply before I realise which one it was in. It would be nice to use New Posts but select not to see soapbox and bunfight for example if possible of course.


I use the _New Posts_ feature to keep on top of what is going on here. I don't mind seeing _Soapbox_ threads, but I'd really like to be able to hide _Racing_ when I have recorded something and don't want to know the results. Most people understand the *spoiler* convention but some folk don't seem to...

I was particularly peeved during the Track Cycling from Manchester by:
And now it's 8 Gold Medals!!!!, another 3 golds and Gold for Brad Wiggins !

I _could_ stay away from the forum at such times but that would mean days away during the Worlds, a week for Paris-Nice and 3 absences of 3 weeks for the Grand Tours. I'd prefer to hide _Racing_ ta very much.


----------



## Arch (16 Apr 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Arch - Fairy snuff, but my point is that if discussion threads were in the Cafe then they wouldn't tend to get so ranty in the first place.




I dunno. I don't have so much faith in some folk...

I also don't use new posts, I just click to the board I want to look at and take it from there, so I find it easy to avoid what I want to... I suppose the new posts feature makes a difference - never having used it, I dunno...


----------



## jonesy (16 Apr 2008)

Admin said:


> The reason Soapbox is registered users only, is because it stops Google and other search engine spiders indexing it. *Due to the nature of some of the threads and opinions in there *I'm sure you can understand why I don't want them indexed.
> 
> ...



Shaun,

I wonder then if perhaps we should reflect on whether those sorts of posts are appropriate at all? I would draw a distinction between 'robust debate' and deliberately offensive posts of the sort you wouldn't want indexed. It ought to be possible to have a place for arguing about politics, religion, the environment, etc without descending into personal abuse and other nastiness. 

Perhaps now that we've been trying out the current arrangements for a few months it might be a good time to have another discussion amongst Soapbox users about what sort of forum they want it to be and what level of control they'd accept?


----------



## Chuffy (16 Apr 2008)

mjones said:


> Shaun,
> I wonder then if perhaps we should reflect on whether those sorts of posts are appropriate at all? I would draw a distinction between 'robust debate' and deliberately offensive posts of the sort you wouldn't want indexed. It ought to be possible to have a place for arguing about politics, religion, the environment, etc without descending into personal abuse and other nastiness.


Well yes, but the current set up doesn't encourage that. 



> Perhaps now that we've been trying out the current arrangements for a few months it might be a good time to have another discussion amongst Soapbox users about what sort of forum they want it to be and what level of control they'd accept?


Exactly, although I can imagine how 'civilised' the debate might end up being. 
Given that Soapbox is the most controversial area of the forum, surely any debate on it needs to include other users, not just those people who live exclusively in Soapbox.


----------



## Chuffy (16 Apr 2008)

Arch said:


> I dunno. I don't have so much faith in some folk...


I don't have much faith either, but I do genuinely believe that the setting can influence the tone.


----------



## jonesy (16 Apr 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Well yes, but the current set up doesn't encourage that.
> 
> 
> Exactly, although I can imagine how 'civilised' the debate might end up being.
> Given that Soapbox is the most controversial area of the forum, surely any debate on it needs to include other users, not just those people who live exclusively in Soapbox.



I agree Chuffy, which is why I'd prefer Soapbox to be rehabilitated to the same status as the other boards; however to do that we'll have to find a way to make sure Shaun's concerns are addressed... I agree we will also need to bring in those who don't current use Soapbox, not least because I'd like to invite more people to join in!


----------



## andygates (16 Apr 2008)

But it's not really controversial, it's just a silly shouting match. I hardly ever visit CC because I always use the "new posts" thingy and I'm fed up with seeing a title, thinking "ooh, that looks interesting.. oh no, it's in soapbox, it'll be shouty rubbish."

Occasionally I peek anyway. I have never been wrong on this assessment.
 So I'd _love _"ignore this section".


----------



## Chuffy (16 Apr 2008)

andygates said:


> But it's not really controversial, it's just a silly shouting match. *I hardly ever visit CC because I always use the "new posts" thingy and I'm fed up with seeing a title, thinking "ooh, that looks interesting.. oh no, it's in soapbox, it'll be shouty rubbish."*
> 
> Occasionally I peek anyway. I have never been wrong on this assessment.
> So I'd _love _"ignore this section".


That's pretty much what I mean by 'controversial'. I wasn't referring to the actual content, more to the way that Soapbox itself upsets/annoys/puts people off.


----------



## Shaun (16 Apr 2008)

I've looked into this and there is no feature that allows specific fora to be ignored.

However there is a way of creating public user groups to control access to specific fora and that's what I've done.

To get access to Soapbox you will now need to be a member of the _Soapbox Users_ public group.

You can join / leave the group, here:
*http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/profile.php?do=editusergroups*

If you are *NOT* a member of the Soapbox group you don't have access to it and you don't see any posts from it.

This should stop Soapbox overspilling into other areas of the forum and leave the door open for the Soapbox regulars and anyone who wants to join and see what goes on there.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## andygates (17 Apr 2008)

Perfick!


----------



## jonesy (17 Apr 2008)

andygates said:


> Perfick!



Oh come on, how hard would it have been for you simply not to read threads that don't interest you?


----------



## summerdays (17 Apr 2008)

The problem isn't that the threads don't interest me... its in the way that the people post ... hopefully we can have similar conversation about the same type of topics without the thread disintegrating into a complete slanging match. 
I will pop in now and again ... for a start I'm still following the Ban Cheap MTB thread but lots of the other threads that suddenly disappeared were the ones I didn't want to see.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Apr 2008)

Thanks Shaun, neat idea.


----------



## LLB (17 Apr 2008)

Chuffy said:


> I think you're mostly right mjones. The problem with having an unmoderated area, not publicly viewable, is that it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Build it and they will come, so to speak. I would have thought/hoped that you could have serious debate and casual chat within the same area, eg the Cafe. That's the way is used to be on C+ and it seemed to work, the serious threads were pretty much self-modding. Soapbox always had a reputation as a bit of a bear pit from the day of it's creation on C+ and it's got worse since. That's not intended as a knock at the way Shaun has set this place up, but maybe it's worth having a bit of a re-think. I don't think it adds anything of value beyond giving people who have little or no interest in anything else a venue to knock lumps out of each other (see the current Bunfight between Linford and Absinthe Minded for example...)



When you are being verbally abused in every thread, it is easy to become drawn into it and fire it back (thank you MrP for pulling me up on it). 

As for swear filters, It is easy overcome them as AM does on a regular basis. The only way of dealing with this following an unheeded warning is a temporary ban or permanent if it is continually abused/ignored. This is the way I deal with it on the forums I moderate and admin on. You make the rules Shaun and we have to follow them. I have no issue with this.

As for my ongoing spat with AM, he comes across to me as overtly agressive, and a bit of a bully, I'll not allow him to browbeat me with this type of behaviour, so a defence of my position is always to be expected.

I offered him an olive branch to cool it down the other day as I could see he was losing it, but he knocked me back with another foul mouthed rant  Why ??.

In repect to Shauns position which I fully appreciate, I will not respond to any of AMs abuse outside the soapbox, but I will ask if they can be moved, locked or deleted if they cause offence to those who don't want to see it.

LLB


----------



## Tim Bennet. (17 Apr 2008)

> but he knocked me back with another foul mouthed rant Why ??.


Because you responded to him? Being pointlessly provocative or merely 'trying to get a rise' is only entertaining for someone if others are either provoked or rise to the challenge. Self restraint by the majority would go some way to neutralising a lot of the 'wind-up' merchants.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Apr 2008)

Admin said:


> I've looked into this and there is no feature that allows specific fora to be ignored.
> 
> However there is a way of creating public user groups to control access to specific fora and that's what I've done.
> 
> ...


Shaun - for maximum flexibility, how about extending this concept to all parts of CC? Presumably you could set it up so that everyone defaulted to being members of all groups except Soapbox. That way nobody would even notice that anything had changed, but we'd have the option of customising CC to our own tastes.

As I mentioned above - I'd like to be able to opt in and out of Racing depending on whether I have race recordings to watch. I'm sure that there are other forum members who have no interest whatsoever in Racing at any time!


----------



## Crackle (17 Apr 2008)

ColinJ said:


> Shaun - for maximum flexibility, how about extending this concept to all parts of CC? Presumably you could set it up so that everyone defaulted to being members of all groups except Soapbox. That way nobody would even notice that anything had changed, but we'd have the option of customising CC to our own tastes.
> 
> As I mentioned above - I'd like to be able to opt in and out of Racing depending on whether I have race recordings to watch. I'm sure that there are other forum members who have no interest whatsoever in Racing at any time!



Shaun would have to set the default to be 'included' for all boards (except Soapbox) if he did that otherwise it would be very confusing. Might be a bit of an admin nightmare as well, though potentially good. The same thing was running through my mind but I didn't want to push my luck as Shaun has already sorted out Soapbox for us


----------



## Tetedelacourse (17 Apr 2008)

Soapbox is distinct from the other sections of the forum because it's unmoderated and because of the different atmosphere in there. Forcing members to opt into it is appropriate IMO. You're not removing any rights, but segregating it more clearly. I think there is occassionally reasoned debate which presumably was what it was intended for, but there's no getting away from the fact that a lot of it cannot be described as such, and sooner or later descends into an exchange of unpleasantries.

I'm chuffed with what you've done Shaun (raising the discussion if the opt-in doesn't last is still worthwhile). Thanks.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (19 Apr 2008)

The problem now is that any thread that gets 'rude' in any way gets moved to Soapbox which only increases the impression that Soapbox is just defined by rudeness rather than by robust debate. ACF and now YACF has a seperate politics board where robust debate is encouraged but people don't seem to feel the need to be rude for the sake of it. I used to enjoy the political side of things on C+ but here it is getting overwhelmed by pointless insults (as opposed to insults with a point, which can be very effective)...


----------



## jonesy (19 Apr 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> The problem now is that any thread that gets 'rude' in any way gets moved to Soapbox which only increases the impression that Soapbox is just defined by rudeness rather than by robust debate. ACF and now YACF has a seperate politics board where robust debate is encouraged but people don't seem to feel the need to be rude for the sake of it. I used to enjoy the political side of things on C+ but here it is getting overwhelmed by pointless insults (as opposed to insults with a point, which can be very effective)...



I agree FM; you'll have seen that several of us have tried to point this out in various ways over the last few days, to little avail...


----------



## Chuffy (20 Apr 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> The problem now is that any thread that gets 'rude' in any way gets moved to Soapbox which only increases the impression that Soapbox is just defined by rudeness rather than by robust debate.


But that's a bit of a chicken/egg argument isn't it? Threads get put in there if they become 'Soapboxy', because that's the rep it already has. 



> ACF and now YACF has a seperate politics board where robust debate is encouraged but people don't seem to feel the need to be rude for the sake of it. I used to enjoy the political side of things on C+ but here it is getting overwhelmed by pointless insults (as opposed to insults with a point, which can be very effective)...


Perhaps the gradual change from the old days on C+ (and I always thought that the creation of Soapbox was a mistake) has acted like a centrifuge, spinning people out to whichever part of forumland their temperament and gravity are most suited to? Oh and don't forget that ACF was heavily modded.


----------

