mk hinted recently that the OP of a thread might eventually have mod-like powers in their own threads (just like facebook, youtube, twitter, etc). It would be nice if you could prevent people you have ignored from commenting in your threads at all.
I like this idea very very much. My first day here, I had posted a thread where I asked folks to share a fun secret, and I gave some simple examples. I had a couple of new hubskiers post quite graphic and kind of creepy sexual stories. It wasn't what I was expecting, and though I'm not a prude by any means and have certainly "been there done that" as a rather bohemian chick in my late 40s, it was still a bit unnerving, so I deleted the thread because I didn't know what else to do. It was obvious that others weren't participating because the conversation quickly escalated to such a nature. And yes, I SHOULD HAVE REALIZED it would go that way! Ha! Duh! But, I didn't, and had this cute idea that we would talk about the roads not taken or the flowers we secretly left on someone's grave. (Yes, I'm such a "mom.") Of course, now that I am typing this and thinking more about it, I am wondering if this is a good idea. Maybe someone would delete my comment simply because they found me annoying, even if what I said added to the conversation. And yeah, I'm human so maybe I would do that to someone, too. It's complicated. Maybe, now that I really get my brain wrapping around this, the trick - for me, anyway - is to be a better thread crafter. If you ask a question and someone simply answers it, which is what those young men did, then the fault doesn't sit with the honest answer, I guess it does sit with the not-quite-though-out question. Argh. End of the day and I am going to get a shot of whiskey! I will keep thinking.
You're right. I'd hate for my comment to be deleted just because I disagreed with the OP. Not saying that many on Hubski would do that, but someone out there is bound to. If we're trying to foster discussion, letting OP delete specific posts could potentially skew conversations in his or her favor.
But that disagreement between OP and the commenter is what garners discussion. If OP wants an interesting thread full of lots of comments, OP is going to have to leave the posts he disagrees with alone. If OP wants to only speak with those he agrees with, then the thread will be lame and have very few comments. Sure, your comment could be deleted because OP thought you were annoying. But in deleting one comment, how many others could OP have deleted?
I hope we are not allowed to mod our own posts for exactly this reason. In fact, I've wondered many times about the opposite. What if after a few hours, you couldn't even edit your original post? (A little time to catch typos, etc). I don't think I can count the number of times I completely disagree with the OP, or commenters shred me to pieces... And I love it. Not agreeing is why this place is fertile soil.But that disagreement between OP and the commenter is what garners discussion.
The former part of your thought here is exactly the kind of sentimentality that I would hope Hubski could protect and nurture. Unfortunately, many of the best tools we have (loosely falling under the term 'moderation') to aid this leads to the abuses listed in the latter part of your thought. This is why I like blocking to work as I described above to syncretic. I think it may be the best balance, but I'm always open to a better way of doing things.And yes, I SHOULD HAVE REALIZED it would go that way! Ha! Duh! But, I didn't, and had this cute idea that we would talk about the roads not taken or the flowers we secretly left on someone's grave. (Yes, I'm such a "mom.")
Of course, now that I am typing this and thinking more about it, I am wondering if this is a good idea. Maybe someone would delete my comment simply because they found me annoying, even if what I said added to the conversation. And yeah, I'm human so maybe I would do that to someone, too.
At this point in my thinking, I am against this. I think the ignore feature is good and needed, but needs to be tweaked. Before giving OPs the ability to censor posters in their thread, I think that the power to ignore should be given to individuals. I like the idea where when you ignore a user, their comments are completely blacked out to you, universally. Wherever they appear on the site, you can see replies to them, but not the comments themselves. I think that if you are truly disturbed/offended by a user's comments, they should only be blocked to you. Let other users make that determination for themselves. Furthermore, I think that if you are going to take the extremely drastic step of blocking a users comments, you should truly not have access to them. Users are going to think long and hard, -or at least be given pause, when they can see responses to the blocked comments but not the comments themselves. The conversation may continue to go on without them, but I think that if you are allowed to take the step of blocking a user's comments, you have to be mature enough to accept true disengagement. You shouldn't have the option of chasing down that user's comments through some other, less effective blocking mechanism, and getting drawn back into the tollfest or the heated argument. I think removing the comments universally only for you gives the ban the gravity it deserves. Because censoring comments simply because you disagree with them is so universal (again, see Reddit's down vote usage by basically everybody on the site), I'd like the see the ban be universal as well, as mentioned above. What this does is hopefully avoid a situation where in the heat of the moment or argument, you just ban a user's comments in a thread after declaring you've done so. If the ban is localized to the thread, this will just have the effect of shutting down engagement with people who's views challenge yours, or who's tone often grates you, despite the fact that they may also be great contributors in other ways or threads. kleinbl00 is a good example (for me). His posts are prolific, often challenging, and there is no denying that he is a great contributor with a definite point of view and passion. On the other hand, I find some of his posts just downright appalling in tone. If I had a button that could ban him in a single thread, I would have been tempted to smash it many a time. If the ban was universal, it would give me more than pause....is this discussion/argument/whatever in this particular thread so egregious that I need to deny myself access to this person's thoughts on the entire site? Do I value the sum of this person's content so little that that would be a decent trade off? In the case of klein, the answer would be an easy no. Again, give the ban the gravity it deserves. These thoughts are for the current implementation of Hubski. Depending on what mk has in store regarding user's hubs as personal content platforms.....well, that would change the dynamics quite a bit. Content publishers have different moderation needs. I'm coming from the angle of Hubski as a place for thoughtful discussion primarily. I'm most concerned with making sure that censoring doesn't weed out challenging discussion as well. Edit: Another thought on ignore. If you ignore someone, but can still run into replies to their blocked comments, it sort of serves as a reminder that you've blocked this person. You can infer the quality of the discussion the blocked person is engaging in by seeing the reply. Maybe this will serve to reinforce your decision, or maybe it might, over time, give you pause and have you reconsider your ban. An interesting mechanic would be that if you decide to unblock somebody that you've blocked, there is a delay of 48 hours or more, -enough time to prevent people from unblocking just to jump back into an argument or what have you. It should be a thoughtful and genuine desire to want to see the person's content again, -as thoughtful as blocking them should have been.It would be nice if you could prevent people you have ignored from commenting in your threads at all.
If it makes you feel any better, you've been directly responsible for making me leave the site for months at a time twice now. MY tone downright appalling? Never seeing your name ever again would improve my Hubski experience by an order of magnitude. The ability to banish you from my Hubski experience has been a driving force in my requests for change. And that's okay - we don't have to get along. We don't even have to talk to each other (and we sure as fuck don't need to give each other shout outs - shit like this makes me turn off my email notifications). BUT If this site can't find a way to work for you and for me, it's going to be a site for you. 'cuz I've got better shit to do with my time.
Well I don't normally give shoutouts, but in this case I felt you might chime in and just really underscore no matter how much two users might not get along, and how important it is for Hubski to thoughtfully deal with a) the real need for users to disengage and block comments, while b) not doing so in a way that overreacts to singular disagreements or temporary temper flares. It really does need to be site that works for you, me, and everybody else. But it sounds from your post that if you had the option, you would universally block me (which is totally fine!), but let me ask you: Would it be enough to have all of my comments completely blacked out while still being able to see the replies? Do you view that as an incomplete solution? Edit: Also, It doesn't. I would love for there to exist a type of moderation that would short circuit this dynamic.If it makes you feel any better,
I would like you to not exist. I would like my posts to be invisible to you. I would like my comments to be invisible to you. I would like magic alien space rays penetrate your brain and zap your frontal lobes with gamma radiation whenever someone mentions my name where you can see it. I would like you to go through your entire life like Linda Fiorentino in Men In Black - prone to bouts of amnesia directly related to you-have-no-idea-what. I would wholly erase myself from your fucking world if I could.
Hmm. Tough feature set to implement. Points 1, 4, 5, & 6 are out of scope for mk to code, and I think that points 2 & 3 alone don't really solve certain real, and common problems. Take trolls or antagonists for example. If someone was antagonizing you, and you blocked them from seeing your comments, they could still see replies to your blocked comments, or references to your conversation in the thread. They could easily just reply to another poster and engage you directly somewhere else in the thread. You've completely opened yourself up to being antagonized. You'd need to be able to block comments from others, not your comments to the site for them to read. If you're talking about blocking a user's comments, as well as blocking yours from them and maybe blocking the responses to your comments as well, then that's starting to get into abuse ban territory where members can indiscriminately block users to public content. For example, a popular user who has a lot of followers posts a link to a major trending story. If that becomes the de-facto place for discussion on the topic on Hubski, then having the powers you are suggesting, you could simply block users of your choice from the biggest major discussions on Hubksi for major news events. I don't think it's going even one step out on a limb to say that that is ridiculous and flies directly in the face of Huski's mission statement. The goal should be to give users the ability to moderate without destroying the user experience that Hubski is attempting to nurture. Your posts being invisible at your whim is a non-starter, but I could see your comments being invisible more plausibly. I personally think that flies in the face of what Hubksi should be and am against it, but I could at least imagine a scenario where some fraction of users might think that it is useful or adds to the goals of the site. But before anything I think you need the ability to hid comments from other users, -maybe you were assuming that in your list above, but I wasn't sure.
Fine. There's a world of psychological difference between "I'm talking to you" and "I'm shouting at you through back channels because I'm being ignored." The fact that this very functionality has been available on the most basic PHPBB and vBoards since the mid '90s illustrates that you know what? It's a manageable compromise. If I'm allowed to indiscriminately post content, I'm allowed to indiscriminately ban content. I owe you jack shit. I owe this website jack shit. I owe MK jack shit. If I decide that I'm not interested in sharing any more, I get to yank what I wrote. If I decide you aren't allowed to comment on my posts, you shouldn't be allowed to comment on my posts. If we're in a world without tags and following users is everything then you know what? I deserve absolute, granular control of who gets to follow me. Fuckin' A. And the fact that everyone is there because they followed that user means it is that user's prerogative to scuttle that discussion. You want to have it not dependent on the user? Then have it fucking dependent on the tag. Oh wait, that's right. We got rid of tags. Guess what? You're my fucking hostage. That's the only way to do it. If you're making me responsible for my content, you're giving me responsibility for my content. Don't like it? Don't follow me. Don't share my posts. I should have Every.Fucking.Right to act as absolutely antisocially as I so choose ( up yours mk) and the site should be able to deal with my antisocial nature by ignoring me. I have damn near five hundred fucking followers. Every time I click on something I have to think "do I want 500 fucking people to see this?" probably not. Would I like to limit the fuck out of that? You're damn skippy. My alternative is sockpuppets. Do I want to hear every cockamamie thing you say? Abso-fucking-lutely not. But now everything you say is sitting here so I can either let you spout off at the mouth or engage you. Or, I can turn off notifications from everybody. My behavior will find a way on the site, whether the site adapts to me or not. The fact of the matter is, I'd given up on the place until syncretic decided that what it really needed was a thousand new people flooding in. His response was to tear away most of the functionality that made it usable and leave a hulk where the cult of personality reigns supreme. FUN FACT: my Hubski page is a hell of a lot more interesting when I'm logged out than when I'm logged in. I think that indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that it's broken. In other words, "what it's about" is a bad fucking idea. And it didn't have to be.If someone was antagonizing you, and you blocked them from seeing your comments, they could still see replies to your blocked comments, or references to your conversation in the thread.
If you're talking about blocking a user's comments, as well as blocking yours from them and maybe blocking the responses to your comments as well, then that's starting to get into abuse ban territory where members can indiscriminately block users to public content.
For example, a popular user who has a lot of followers posts a link to a major trending story. If that becomes the de-facto place for discussion on the topic on Hubski, then having the powers you are suggesting, you could simply block users of your choice from the biggest major discussions on Hubksi for major news events.
Except in reality what you'd have is a trending news story showing from multiple submitters, but the conversations gravitate to the threads with the largest number of comments. It isn't so much the value of the submitter that determines the number of comments (especially in cases of really popular news stories) but rather factors like who posted first, number of followers they had based on other unrelated posts, which thread happened to be the one where the most comments started out in or where a poster made a particularly salient point, etc. In short, for major news events, it isn't the virtues of the submitter that give the thread value in each instance, though true maybe in the aggregate. So while it's all fine and good to swear up a storm and claim Hubski users as your 'fuckin hostages', it lets submitters lock other users out of discussions that are happening not by virtue of the submitter alone in many cases. I get that you don't care about that, but I'm guessing you're in the extreme minority. Well as outlined, I think we both agree that you should be able to universally block comments from users, right? I don't think there's any controversy there, and I can't think of a really good argument against it. On a side note, I'm having a serious discussion about features, but I get the feeling that it's just upsetting you and you really don't want me to answer you. Kinda hard when you keep replying with passionate points!If I'm allowed to indiscriminately post content, I'm allowed to indiscriminately ban content. I owe you jack shit. I owe this website jack shit. I owe MK jack shit.
Fuckin' A. And the fact that everyone is there because they followed that user means it is that user's prerogative to scuttle that discussion.
Do I want to hear every cockamamie thing you say? Abso-fucking-lutely not. But now everything you say is sitting here so I can either let you spout off at the mouth or engage you. Or, I can turn off notifications from everybody.
That's a bug, not a feature. My post, my content, my responsibility. It's almost like maybe the value of the submitter shouldn't be the only thing that people are allowed to pay attention to. No, in short, the way you want it to work is the way it would work with tags. The way you think it should work is by deprecating the value of the submitter. The way it actually works is that the submitter is now king, 100% and without equivocation, which means my way or the highway. I could spike this fucking discussion right now. mk has seen it 'cuz he's in the code and he'll do what he damn well pleases anyway. No, what you don't get is that I don't want to lock everyone out, I want to lock your ass out. If you'd take one for the team, I could leave things how I want them. mk (who is now thinking about how many times he wants to be mentioned every time he gets a shout-out - mk mk mk mk mk - is forcing the "all or nothing." 'cuz I can still delete content. I can still deny things to everyone. I've always been able to do that. What I'm not allowed to do is kick out the shitheads and leave the straights alone. It's like having a nightclub with no bouncers but with a never-ending supply of tear gas. What upsets me is that you can't have an argument without going straight to ad-hominem. What upsets me is that you think you're the reasonable one when I just want to be able to shut you the fuck up. What upsets me is that you can see that you make my fucking blood boil but you don't understand why I might want to be able to contribute to the site without having to deal with your ass. You're not having a "serious discussion about features" you're arguing why Hubski, unlike every other user-based platform on the Internet, shouldn't give content control to content creators. You're playing Instagram here - "you don't actually own what you provide." Because you haven't used a cuss-word yet you think you're the reasonable one. Try harder.It isn't so much the value of the submitter that determines the number of comments (especially in cases of really popular news stories) but rather factors like who posted first, number of followers they had based on other unrelated posts, which thread happened to be the one where the most comments started out in or where a poster made a particularly salient point, etc.
In short, for major news events, it isn't the virtues of the submitter that give the thread value in each instance, though true in the aggregate.
I get that you don't care about that, but I'm guessing you're in the extreme minority.
On a side note, I'm having a serious discussion about features, but I get the feeling that it's just upsetting you and you really don't want to answer you.
Kinda hard when you keep replying with passionate points!
If this were to come to fruition, it's important to note that re-posts of the same link would be permitted. I only mention this because it always seems to be the next question. -justifiably. It would be unfair to not let someone comment on a link to an article by ignoring them when it is of interest to them. They could then repost this article themselves and discuss it with people in another thread. While I don't see this happening much now, it could be more prevalent in the future.
Not currently, no. If you post a link someone else already has it automatically redirects to the original post.
Personally, as someone who reads more than I'll ever likely post, I kinda prefer that in a way. One of my problems with reddit has actually been when big news breaks and you want to get a bunch of different perspectives on it, you need to hunt down posts about the news across several different sub-reddits. This also nips reposts (and the incessant complaints re: reposts) in the bud as well as promoting discovery. Kind of a neat bug if you ask me.