Nice idea, but that feels like being in a group conversation and one person ignoring all the contributions of a single other member of the conversation, but everyone else not behaving that way. I don’t think it really works. I’m proposing having two separate group conversations, one without the unpleasant-to-the-author user, and one with.
(To be clear I suspect that the author will sometimes choose to engage on the post by the other user, it’s just something they can prepare themselves for, rather than it being the default.)
Nice idea, but that feels like being in a group conversation and one person ignoring all the contributions of a single other member of the conversation, but everyone else not behaving that way. I don’t think it really works.
I’m in a Discord guild where one guy’s posts are nothing more than spam to me.
I just don’t respond to any of those posts, while others do.
After a few weeks of this I decided to try a built-in muting function (I’m not sure I’m using the exact terminology; there are two “shut this user up” options available to non-moderators) and got Discord to collapse those messages. I still see a “1 ignored message” occasionally, but the signal:noise ratio is improved somewhat.
It’s a bit weird for me having a bunch of notifications of posts instead of actual posts, and I know who it is by process of elimination, but it’s not like me not interacting with this guy is super noticeable.
That feels like being in a group conversation and one person ignoring all the contributions of a single other member of the conversation, but everyone else not behaving that way.
This would be a reasonable concern with a flat commenting system, but LW has a threaded system, so this objection seems very odd to me. If Alice dislikes Bob, she can ignore all comment threads and subthreads started by Bob. (Or, if she wants, she can “prepare herself”, and then un-collapse a particular comment thread that Bob started, to see if there’s anything interesting being said there.)
In other words, in a threaded comment system, we already have multiple “separate group conversations”, and you can already just ignore any of those conversations—indeed, any individual branches of those conversations!—that involve someone you don’t like.
As far as I can tell, this solution satisfies all of your stated desiderata.
That doesn’t sound like my universal experience of threads. I feel like it often goes 1-2-1-3-1-2-1-2 where a third person interjects and the second person replies to them and then the author replies again. I suspect I wouldn’t want the convo to route through such a person at all.
Again, I’m not confident that this generalizes, I’m coming around to your proposal a bit, but it still feels like everyone else would be confused about an author not engaging on pertinent threads, and eventually over time infer that it was because they find a person unpleasant rather than because they can’t find a good response/rebuttal.
From the author perspective, I think I’d rather ask them to move to a different conversation thread. But I expect a second, lower down, “unpleasant” comment thread would be quite an unpleasant experience for the folks relegated there, to be blatantly a second-class citizen. Instead, having their own post for a response if they want it seems nicer for them, which doesn’t necessarily imply that they had to do so, and also in that post they would be treated as any other commenter.
I feel like it often goes 1-2-1-3-1-2-1-2 where a third person interjects and the second person replies to them and then the author replies again. I suspect I wouldn’t want the convo to route through such a person at all.
Yes, of course, but the same thing happens on a “response post”, too; an author might want to respond to a third party’s comment on a “response post”, etc. (But then they’d have to expose themselves to the critical post!)
You could even have the ignore feature collapse only the ignored person’s comments, and not any subthreads originating therefrom (perhaps this could even be a toggleable option; I am not sure which setting should be the default, but that is surely something you could iterate on).
(Also, worrying about this seems rather inconsistent with the notion that banning a commenter is a good idea in the first place. Like, if you’re Alice, you’re ok with banning Bob from your posts and thereby unrecoverably losing all the conversations that Bob’s comments would’ve started, all comments by all commenters that would’ve been posted in those comment threads… but you’re not ok with not reading such comments/threads when they’re collapsed? Doesn’t really make much sense. If you don’t think that Bob’s ability to comment on your posts is contributing anything that you don’t care to lose, then ignoring all comments downthread of Bob’s is clearly unproblematic!)
it still feels like everyone else would be confused about an author not engaging on pertinent threads.
Yes, of course people would be confused. This is good! People should wonder why an author isn’t responding to critical comments (if those comments aren’t obviously dumb or nonsensical, aren’t getting answered satisfactorily by other people, etc.). If an author wishes to avoid this, he can write some sort of note, like “FYI: I have the following users on ignore”. (Perhaps you could allow authors to optionally display this info automatically under their posts.)
and eventually over time infer that it was because they find a person unpleasant rather than because they can’t find a good response/rebuttal
Well… that’s one conclusion that readers might reach, certainly. In any case, the point here, I think, is to make all the relevant information available; and then all readers/commenters/etc. could reach whatever conclusions they saw fit to reach.
As an aside, I get the sense you keep insisting the only reason the person doesn’t want to engage with the comments is because it’s criticism. But often I think ppl don’t want to engage with relatively un-critical content because the author is unpleasant in how they conduct themselves. That’s a more central case motivating this.
I… don’t understand what part of my comment you’re replying to with this. And I also don’t understand the scenario that you’re describing, or how it connects to what we’re talking about. I am, on the whole, baffled by how to relate your comment to this discussion.
Nice idea, but that feels like being in a group conversation and one person ignoring all the contributions of a single other member of the conversation, but everyone else not behaving that way. I don’t think it really works. I’m proposing having two separate group conversations, one without the unpleasant-to-the-author user, and one with.
(To be clear I suspect that the author will sometimes choose to engage on the post by the other user, it’s just something they can prepare themselves for, rather than it being the default.)
I’m in a Discord guild where one guy’s posts are nothing more than spam to me.
I just don’t respond to any of those posts, while others do.
After a few weeks of this I decided to try a built-in muting function (I’m not sure I’m using the exact terminology; there are two “shut this user up” options available to non-moderators) and got Discord to collapse those messages. I still see a “1 ignored message” occasionally, but the signal:noise ratio is improved somewhat.
It’s a bit weird for me having a bunch of notifications of posts instead of actual posts, and I know who it is by process of elimination, but it’s not like me not interacting with this guy is super noticeable.
As far as I can tell, it really works.
This would be a reasonable concern with a flat commenting system, but LW has a threaded system, so this objection seems very odd to me. If Alice dislikes Bob, she can ignore all comment threads and subthreads started by Bob. (Or, if she wants, she can “prepare herself”, and then un-collapse a particular comment thread that Bob started, to see if there’s anything interesting being said there.)
In other words, in a threaded comment system, we already have multiple “separate group conversations”, and you can already just ignore any of those conversations—indeed, any individual branches of those conversations!—that involve someone you don’t like.
As far as I can tell, this solution satisfies all of your stated desiderata.
That doesn’t sound like my universal experience of threads. I feel like it often goes 1-2-1-3-1-2-1-2 where a third person interjects and the second person replies to them and then the author replies again. I suspect I wouldn’t want the convo to route through such a person at all.
Again, I’m not confident that this generalizes, I’m coming around to your proposal a bit, but it still feels like everyone else would be confused about an author not engaging on pertinent threads, and eventually over time infer that it was because they find a person unpleasant rather than because they can’t find a good response/rebuttal.
From the author perspective, I think I’d rather ask them to move to a different conversation thread. But I expect a second, lower down, “unpleasant” comment thread would be quite an unpleasant experience for the folks relegated there, to be blatantly a second-class citizen. Instead, having their own post for a response if they want it seems nicer for them, which doesn’t necessarily imply that they had to do so, and also in that post they would be treated as any other commenter.
Yes, of course, but the same thing happens on a “response post”, too; an author might want to respond to a third party’s comment on a “response post”, etc. (But then they’d have to expose themselves to the critical post!)
You could even have the ignore feature collapse only the ignored person’s comments, and not any subthreads originating therefrom (perhaps this could even be a toggleable option; I am not sure which setting should be the default, but that is surely something you could iterate on).
(Also, worrying about this seems rather inconsistent with the notion that banning a commenter is a good idea in the first place. Like, if you’re Alice, you’re ok with banning Bob from your posts and thereby unrecoverably losing all the conversations that Bob’s comments would’ve started, all comments by all commenters that would’ve been posted in those comment threads… but you’re not ok with not reading such comments/threads when they’re collapsed? Doesn’t really make much sense. If you don’t think that Bob’s ability to comment on your posts is contributing anything that you don’t care to lose, then ignoring all comments downthread of Bob’s is clearly unproblematic!)
Yes, of course people would be confused. This is good! People should wonder why an author isn’t responding to critical comments (if those comments aren’t obviously dumb or nonsensical, aren’t getting answered satisfactorily by other people, etc.). If an author wishes to avoid this, he can write some sort of note, like “FYI: I have the following users on ignore”. (Perhaps you could allow authors to optionally display this info automatically under their posts.)
Well… that’s one conclusion that readers might reach, certainly. In any case, the point here, I think, is to make all the relevant information available; and then all readers/commenters/etc. could reach whatever conclusions they saw fit to reach.
As an aside, I get the sense you keep insisting the only reason the person doesn’t want to engage with the comments is because it’s criticism. But often I think ppl don’t want to engage with relatively un-critical content because the author is unpleasant in how they conduct themselves. That’s a more central case motivating this.
I… don’t understand what part of my comment you’re replying to with this. And I also don’t understand the scenario that you’re describing, or how it connects to what we’re talking about. I am, on the whole, baffled by how to relate your comment to this discussion.
Would you perhaps care to elaborate…?
No!