- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 26,280
- Reaction score
- 23,969
- Location
- PNW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Is this where I can raise this issue publicly? Doing so privately had been to no avail. I would like to have a genuine, respectful discussion about rule interpretation. Is this where one does so?
Specifically, this forum provides an "ignore" function, which I greatly appreciate and use liberally to avoid the abundant trolls and unserious partisan posters on both extremes of the spectrum. I have been "advised," however, that mentioning the use of the ignore function in public is, like fight club, strictly verboten, as this is considered "baiting", that it has been so interpreted by the Mods for some time, and "is not going to change." I suggest this interpretation be changed.
My reasons are as follow:
1) It is an authorized function. Sanctioning mention of it is counterintuitive. "You can do it, just don't tell anyone you're doing it." This leads to convoluted efforts to "not say" you are ignoring someone, but conveying the message obliquely. That corrodes the discussion, and ability to enforce the rules, worse than being able to say the quiet parts out loud.
2) It is the opposite of baiting. The rules identify "baiting" as
3) Finally, How did the Mods reach such a counterintuitive interpretation? Perhaps if I could understand the logic, I might not have such difficulty reconciling it with reason. Is it based upon some experience, or a particular circumstance, and has merely been broadened to cover any contingency? Maybe someone can explain how we got here.
Thanks in advance,
NWRC
Specifically, this forum provides an "ignore" function, which I greatly appreciate and use liberally to avoid the abundant trolls and unserious partisan posters on both extremes of the spectrum. I have been "advised," however, that mentioning the use of the ignore function in public is, like fight club, strictly verboten, as this is considered "baiting", that it has been so interpreted by the Mods for some time, and "is not going to change." I suggest this interpretation be changed.
My reasons are as follow:
1) It is an authorized function. Sanctioning mention of it is counterintuitive. "You can do it, just don't tell anyone you're doing it." This leads to convoluted efforts to "not say" you are ignoring someone, but conveying the message obliquely. That corrodes the discussion, and ability to enforce the rules, worse than being able to say the quiet parts out loud.
2) It is the opposite of baiting. The rules identify "baiting" as
telling someone that your are ignoring them, or even generally announcing that you use the ignore function, does not "coerce some form of response", it ends it. It makes no logical sense to respond when one knows they are being ignored. It can't possibly be "baiting," and should not be interpreted as such.
3) Finally, How did the Mods reach such a counterintuitive interpretation? Perhaps if I could understand the logic, I might not have such difficulty reconciling it with reason. Is it based upon some experience, or a particular circumstance, and has merely been broadened to cover any contingency? Maybe someone can explain how we got here.
Thanks in advance,
NWRC
Closing thread pending mod review.