Support NeoGAF

[Shifty]

It's handy for filtering out posters whose output consists of nothing but blatant low-quality shitposting, but there aren't too many of those around these days.

The implementation could be better though, ever since the forum upgrade it's started hiding ignored posts entirely rather than behind a 'show ignored content' button- quotes included. This is more effective in the context of an ignore function but also makes it look like people are arguing into the void.

PUT ME ON IGNORE I DARE YOU

who said that

 

[RubxQub]

I generally wouldn't ever use it, despite not liking much of anything some posters say. I played with it forever ago but didn't like that I could never really hide from those posters anyways, as they'd frequently get quoted since they'd always be saying controversial stuff.

Best to just scroll past them than to act like they stopped existing.

But I appreciate some folks would prefer to just not have to see things.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I used it on gaf before the exodus for annoying people that posted too much but I haven't used it since. Coincidentally all those posters seem to have left.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I understand where you're coming from, I'm not saying you are obligated to hear each person's opinion, obviously.

But not listening to them is done pretty easily here, by simply scrolling past their content, not engaging with them. It's the preemptive silencing of any future opinions that irks me. Even the posters I consider the most annoying here occasionally post something that makes me think, and as crazy as it sounds, I like to think that maybe over time people can learn, grow, change their minds on some things. But we won't know that if we've banned them.

You've mixed two things up: people getting banned and me not paying attention to a poster. They can still post. In fact, they wouldn't even know if I ignored them. I actually think that banning is the thing we should be more strict about, not Ignore.

Banning = "get out of my bar"
Ignore = "Please don't sit at my table"

If you can make the case that I will miss a viewpoint by not listening to that specific person, then you'd have to demonstrate to me that the person was offering a viewpoint at all. The rowdy bar patron who is sloshing his beer at other patrons and playing a possibly-dangerous game of darts is fine to enjoy the establishment. I'm just not going to give them any attention.

We're gamers. I'm surprised this is actually a strange concept. You don't mute the loud music over voicechat? You don't mute annoying 12-year-olds?

 

[Nymphae]

You've mixed two things up: people getting banned and me not paying attention to a poster. They can still post. In fact, they wouldn't even know if I ignored them. I actually think that banning is the thing we should be more strict about, not Ignore.

Banning = "get out of my bar"
Ignore = "Please don't sit at my table"

I actually shouldn't have used the word ban there, I meant "banning" them from your Neogaf. I should have just said ignored lol. Of course you ignoring someone doesn't really have an impact on them, and they will still enjoy the forum minus your input on their posts.

What I'm saying is you already have the option to tell these people to not sit at your table, by simply ignoring them (not the feature, but just choosing to not read their input) and engaging with just the members at your table you would like to converse with. The poster cannot disrupt your conversation with members you do like, unlike in the real world where they could make a scene and become unavoidable (they could post stalk you and become a nuisance, in which case they should be outright banned). And the analogy doesn't really hold, using the ignore feature here to me feels more like you sticking your fingers in your ears when the poster in question talks, as they can still speak to all the other members at your table. You're the only one not listening at the table, as far as you know.

If you can make the case that I will miss a viewpoint by not listening to that specific person, then you'd have to demonstrate to me that the person was offering a viewpoint at all. The rowdy bar patron who is sloshing his beer at other patrons and playing a possibly-dangerous game of darts is fine to enjoy the establishment. I'm just not going to give them any attention.

All I'm saying is, if/when Poster X does finally change their mind or make a valid point, you will not know about it.

We're gamers. I'm surprised this is actually a strange concept. You don't mute the loud music over voicechat? You don't mute annoying 12-year-olds?

Honestly I don't really play any games that have voicechat. When I played CoD in the past, I muted everyone without prejudice, because I don't want to hear anyone talk, period.

I think there's a difference though, between deciding certain screeching annoying voices would be best left muted for this videogame match, and potentially permanently shutting out a voice on a discussion forum.

 

[Grinchy]

There are some people who are just so annoying and post dozens of times per page to argue with every person they can. The ignore list is good for that.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I actually shouldn't have used the word ban there, I meant "banning" them from your Neogaf. I should have just said ignored lol. Of course you ignoring someone doesn't really have an impact on them, and they will still enjoy the forum minus your input on their posts.

What I'm saying is you already have the option to tell these people to not sit at your table, by simply ignoring them (not the feature, but just choosing to not read their input) and engaging with just the members at your table you would like to converse with. The poster cannot disrupt your conversation with members you do like, unlike in the real world where they could make a scene and become unavoidable (they could post stalk you and become a nuisance, in which case they should be outright banned). And the analogy doesn't really hold, using the ignore feature here to me feels more like you sticking your fingers in your ears when the poster in question talks, as they can still speak to all the other members at your table. You're the only one not listening at the table, as far as you know.



All I'm saying is, if/when Poster X does finally change their mind or make a valid point, you will not know about it.

The simple solution to all that is to sometimes check, which I do.

Honestly I don't really play any games that have voicechat. When I played CoD in the past, I muted everyone without prejudice, because I don't want to hear anyone talk, period.

I think there's a difference though, between deciding certain screeching annoying voices would be best left muted for this videogame match, and potentially permanently shutting out a voice on a discussion forum.

The only way that would be true would be if a) everyone held the same opinion as me which this thread shows is not the case and b) if I somehow made my own Ignores known or if it was public knowledge. Otherwise, Ignore is just a private thing. No one is influenced by anyone else's ignore. At worst, there will be quoted posts where the person never responds, which is hardly unusual.

 

[Nymphae]

The simple solution to all that is to sometimes check, which I do.

lol I think the simpler solution is to skip the ignoring and just don't read what you don't want to read.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm not adverse. I don't think I have anyone on ignore at present, but back in the day some people definitely made the list for repeatedly making imbecilic statements/arguments that just didn't hold up to any degree of scrutiny or cross-examination. Time is the one resource we don't have more of so if I'm going to spend some of mine, perusing GAF as is my want, I'd rather not waste it reading posters who have again and again proven themselves to bring nothing constructive or meaningful to the table in terms of ideas/discussion.

 

[Dark Star]

i love everyone here

i'd never ignore a soul

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

There are some people who are just so annoying and post dozens of times per page to argue with every person they can. The ignore list is good for that.

Who hurt you

 

[Arkage]

I considered it a few months ago when a particular user kept creating super conspiracy political threads in OT with a kind of devil may care attitude about the garbage he was putting out. But I debated him most of the time and slogged through it, and now I rarely see him post or make threads. Not sure if he got banned or just stopped, but it is a kind of a relief regardless.

 

[kunonabi]

I used it a lot before the split but only rarely now for the trolls that just constantly shut post.

 

[Kadayi]

I considered it a few months ago when a particular user kept creating super conspiracy political threads in OT with a kind of devil may care attitude about the garbage he was putting out. But I debated him most of the time and slogged through it, and now I rarely see him post or make threads. Not sure if he got banned or just stopped, but it is a kind of a relief regardless.

Try here

https://www.neogaf.com/bans/

 

[nemiroff]

I can easily handle political opinions that I don't like, but I do block people with a continuously trending crappy aggressive attitude (in particular those who only write one-liners with a couple of words in them).

 

[Greedings]

I don't like it one bit. I think it goes against what we are trying to make this forum. If someone is a troll, report them. If you don't like someone's opinions, suck it up and deal with it.

As for drive-by posters, they're easily dismissed.

I'd like the ignore button removed.

 

[Relativ9]

Using the ignore button is like exposing your belly and submitting to a superior opponent, doesn't matter if this is actually true or not, it's how you will be judged by me and likely the rest of the community.

 

[RokkanStoned]

Never used it (on any forum) and never going to use it. We have good moderation and there's something wrong with using prejudice to assume that a poster is a being frozen in time, unable to improve, if I think their comments are bad or annoying. If there's conversations going nowhere or whereupon I don't have the time or patience to write out yet, I'll just let them hang and possibly write it much later. The forum format allows you to not instantly respond to a subject after all, it's not a direct chat.

So, never gonna use it, as it would be a mark of shame to not be able to handle posts being there, when I can just ignore it in the fashion of an ordinary RL feature, which is just reading through and ignoring it after reading it.

 

[llien]

I use it, although my ignore list isn't that long.
I can't ask mods to do something about people with cringy avatars and threads with OP with single "next Playstation must have 1080Ti level GPU, discuss" are not breaking rules, I guess.

I also don't remember nicknames that well and do not want to waste time with dishonest person.

 

[Makariel]

I'm a little confused by folks who say you should not use ignore because it's so easy to just scroll past a person's posts. So what is the difference between you using the function of the forum and just manual ignoring of people?

This kind of feature is a bit ridiculous, to be honest. If you're going to engage in the discussions with filtering enabled, it's not a genuine participation.

It's a gaming forum, we're not ending world hunger. I've not seen anyone change their mind on the superiority of Nintendo for example. What's the point of shouting into a room with entrenched positions? Your participation there won't change a single mind.

Using the ignore button is like exposing your belly and submitting to a superior opponent, doesn't matter if this is actually true or not, it's how you will be judged by me and likely the rest of the community.

Who says I've been arguing with the person I have on ignore? You can just ignore people without replying to them a single time. So the user does not reveal anything to anyone. And there are topics where it simply does not matter if you "win the argument", like "which console is best console", but I appreciate the option to remove the most crazy fans of certain boxes filled with electronic components.

 

[brap]

I can't ask mods to do something about people with cringy avatars

yeah because that would be hypocritical since you have an anime avatar lmao

 

[llien]

yeah because that would be hypocritical since you have an anime avatar lmao

I do, but what is cringy about it?

 

[brap]

I do, but what is cringy about it?

To me? Nothing. But come on anime is kinda cringy. And what would constitute a cringy avatar to you?

 

[llien]

To me? Nothing. But come on anime is kinda cringy. And what would constitute a cringy avatar to you?

Something that makes me feel uncomfortable just by opening the topic with it in it.
If you are asking username, I won't tell.

 

[EviLore]

I've never used it. Historically among the mod team there's never been a policy against ignore listing users, and some ex-mods seemed to find it helpful to ignore list some users that aggravated them but weren't breaking the rules in order to stay sane on the boards and avoid resorting to mod abuse in a moment of weakness or w/e. That seemed preferable vs the alternative outcomes for them, but wouldn't be appropriate for me to do it. Don't think anyone on the current mod team uses it though. They're battle hardened. Also I agree that it's kiiiiiind of a bitch move in general, especially on a forum founded (in large part) on the premise of challenging debate, but we're also a forum full of derail-oriented annoying assholes. Some of us are bound to rub each other the wrong way, and it's a shared space, so used sparingly it's reasonable.

Just spare us the "OMG IGNORED" or "REPORTED" public grandstanding. Do what you need to do, but do it and move on.

 

[brap]

Something that makes me feel uncomfortable just by opening the topic with it in it.
If you are asking username, I won't tell.

Ohhh that type of cringy. I got you. And nah not gonna ask.

 

[RokkanStoned]

I do, but what is cringy about it?

I'm an anime fan as well, but I'm surprised you haven't noticed that most call outs for "cringy avatars" are aimed at people with anime avatars. Been pretty standard here, at least in the time before the exodus and at other places.

 

[Dunki]

Not using it at all. I think it will disrupt conversations since you never get the full picture of something. Also even if I think it is a stupid post or opinion. You still have the right to say it.

 

[DS_Joost]

The ignore button is for sissies. Don't like someone, just tell them. You can't put someone on ignore in real life. Telling someone off is part and parcel of growing up. It is something you have to learn.

I'm sure I'm on some peoples ignore list though

 

[Hudo]

I try not to use it. I have only used it once so far. It's good that it's there but I see it more as a "last resort" option. I'm no saint either and I'm a massive idiot, so I'm not in a position to pass hard judgments on others. Also, I might have been drunk when I used it, I don't remember...

 

[DonJimbo]

Its bad you can ignore a member who says the truth but you are so ignorant and egoistical that you dont accept his opinion

 

[Musky_Cheese]

I've never used it. Historically among the mod team there's never been a policy against ignore listing users, and some ex-mods seemed to find it helpful to ignore list some users that aggravated them but weren't breaking the rules in order to stay sane on the boards and avoid resorting to mod abuse in a moment of weakness or w/e. That seemed preferable vs the alternative outcomes for them, but wouldn't be appropriate for me to do it. Don't think anyone on the current mod team uses it though. They're battle hardened. Also I agree that it's kiiiiiind of a bitch move in general, especially on a forum founded (in large part) on the premise of challenging debate, but we're also a forum full of derail-oriented annoying assholes. Some of us are bound to rub each other the wrong way, and it's a shared space, so used sparingly it's reasonable.

Just spare us the "OMG IGNORED" or "REPORTED" public grandstanding. Do what you need to do, but do it and move on.

Reported

 

[MilkyJoe]

I can't even bring myself to ignore that fella that likes the last word

 

[Shifty]

I've never used it. Historically among the mod team there's never been a policy against ignore listing users, and some ex-mods seemed to find it helpful to ignore list some users that aggravated them but weren't breaking the rules in order to stay sane on the boards and avoid resorting to mod abuse in a moment of weakness or w/e. That seemed preferable vs the alternative outcomes for them, but wouldn't be appropriate for me to do it. Don't think anyone on the current mod team uses it though. They're battle hardened. Also I agree that it's kiiiiiind of a bitch move in general, especially on a forum founded (in large part) on the premise of challenging debate, but we're also a forum full of derail-oriented annoying assholes. Some of us are bound to rub each other the wrong way, and it's a shared space, so used sparingly it's reasonable.

Just spare us the "OMG IGNORED" or "REPORTED" public grandstanding. Do what you need to do, but do it and move on.

Your everyday GAFfer using the ignore list is one thing, but the notion of the mod team using it is quite harrowing given that the job of a mod is to keep an eye on things and prevent them from getting out of hand.

That's not a job that goes well with wilful ignorance, because you then have the possibility of certain posters being so shitty that they paradoxically end up being mod-proof through ignorance. Yikes!

Spoiler

reported

 

[Nymphae]

So what is the difference between you using the function of the forum and just manual ignoring of people?

The difference is pretty obvious, one option essentially erases a person from your Neogaf, while the other option does not. That person might make good points in some posts, or change their mind on something, but you will never see that if you have them on an ignore list, because you have preemptively blocked anything they will say in the future.

I've not seen anyone change their mind on the superiority of Nintendo for example. What's the point of shouting into a room with entrenched positions? Your participation there won't change a single mind.

If you truly believe we are all entrenched in our positions, why talk at all? No one is going to change anyone's minds, right? You have to believe that on some level other users are arguing in good faith, open to rational arguments, and want fair discussion. If you aren't doing that, then I don't know why you'd even want to be on a discussion forum. If over time certain users prove to be annoying, simply not acknowledging them, or intervention from mods should do the trick.

 

[DS_Joost]

The difference is pretty obvious, one option essentially erases a person from your Neogaf, while the other option does not. That person might make good points in some posts, or change their mind on something, but you will never see that if you have them on an ignore list, because you have preemptively blocked anything they will say in the future.



If you truly believe we are all entrenched in our positions, why talk at all? No one is going to change anyone's minds, right? You have to believe that on some level other users are arguing in good faith, open to rational arguments, and want fair discussion. If you aren't doing that, then I don't know why you'd even want to be on a discussion forum. If over time certain users prove to be annoying, simply not acknowledging them, or intervention from mods should do the trick.

This is actually a very good example. Nymphae and I vehemently disagreed on something in another thread, but putting him on ignore would've made me unable to completely agree on the very good point he is making here.

 

[Kadayi]

The mistake many of the detractors make is the assumption that its about ignoring people because the ignorer somehow lost an argument. Far from it, its about tuning out people who bring nothing quantative to the forum repeatedly. Lime and the Snitch were prime examples of posters who were complete wastes of time when it came to meaningful discussion or novel insight. They might not have been shit posters in the typical sense, but after a while it seemed sensible to just tune them out because they never would concede.

 

[DS_Joost]

The mistake many of the detractors make is the assumption that its about ignoring people because the ignorer somehow lost an argument. Far from it, its about tuning out people who bring nothing quantative to the forum repeatedly. Lime and the Snitch were prime examples of posters who were complete wastes of time when it came to meaningful discussion or novel insight. They might not have been shit posters in the typical sense, but after a while it seemed sensible to just tune them out because they never would concede.

And yet I would still not hide them from view with an ignore button. I would tell them to kindly eff off. Propably wouldn't make a difference, but at least I spoke my mind instead of hiding behind a button that doesn't even tell the user I have ignored them.

To speak my mind about things is a principle of mine and one I force myself to not shy away from. Just like I speak my mind with myself as my avatar. It is very important for me to not be another person on the internet just because the internet allows me to be that way. I do not want to divide myself into two different people. I know I run the risk of making a fool of myself, but THAT is exactly the point. I want to take responsibility for what I say and who I am, in real life, and here.

The only time where I might want to do seperate my real life and the internet is for things like NSFW content, where something can completely damage your life and that of your partner and/or kids.

 

[Makariel]

The difference is pretty obvious, one option essentially erases a person from your Neogaf, while the other option does not.

I can still just ignore anything a person says "manually" and simply not read any (good) points they might make in future. An ignore button just makes it easier, so it's really not changing much IMO, hence I really don't see the fuzz. If someone wants to ignore me so be it. I'm sure I'm on some folks ignore lists, so what?

If you truly believe we are all entrenched in our positions, why talk at all?

Ah, great work of taking a specific example and make a sweeping generalization out of it Yes, that's exactly what I said: talking is useless because all of our brains are set in stone at birth. No other interpretation is possible. I really should not be on a discussion board because I don't know how words work.

If over time certain users prove to be annoying, simply not acknowledging them, or intervention from mods should do the trick.

So instead of simply ignoring someone I should send the forum police after people in the hope they get banned?

 

[DonJimbo]

The mistake many of the detractors make is the assumption that its about ignoring people because the ignorer somehow lost an argument. Far from it, its about tuning out people who bring nothing quantative to the forum repeatedly. Lime and the Snitch were prime examples of posters who were complete wastes of time when it came to meaningful discussion or novel insight. They might not have been shit posters in the typical sense, but after a while it seemed sensible to just tune them out because they never would concede.

Look at my posts in the germany specified threads and tell me youre opinion

 

[Nymphae]

I can still just ignore anything a person says "manually" and simply not read any (good) points they might make in future. An ignore button just makes it easier, so it's really not changing much IMO

Of course even without the ignore feature you do have the option to simply be prejudiced against people at your own discretion lol. But I was assuming you were a member of the forum wanting to converse with others in good faith.

Yes, that's exactly what I said: talking is useless because all of our brains are set in stone at birth. No other interpretation is possible.

You said - "I've not seen anyone change their mind on the superiority of Nintendo for example. What's the point of shouting into a room with entrenched positions? Your participation there won't change a single mind."

I agree, there is no point in arguing in a room full of entrenched positions. If you think that is what Gaf is, I would ask why you are here. If you do not think we are all entrenched in our beliefs, great, argue in good faith and assume the same of others until shown otherwise.

So instead of simply ignoring someone I should send the forum police after people in the hope they get banned?

No, you should "simply ignore someone" by doing exactly that and not taking the bitch move (as Evilore apty described this lol) of plugging your ears to what they have to say. Harassment will be policed by mods, if it's not truly harassing you, then suck it the fuck up, don't read it, and move on.

Edit: I will say though, I do like what Evilore said here

Also I agree that it's kiiiiiind of a bitch move in general, especially on a forum founded (in large part) on the premise of challenging debate, but we're also a forum full of derail-oriented annoying assholes. Some of us are bound to rub each other the wrong way, and it's a shared space, so used sparingly it's reasonable.

Like I can sort of understand people using this on posters who day in, day out, produce the same low level of content, and demonstrate clearly they aren't worth reading, I'm not going to tell people what they have to read here.

I still will not ever use the feature myself though, just doesn't feel right when I can simply move past the content without taking action to further silence a person.

 

[Akuza89]

I'm still quite new here, but don't intend on using it unless someone becomes abusive or something...

As others have said, your closing off conversation which defeats the purpose of being on here really, your here to discuss not get support in what your saying and nothing else!

 

[NahaNago]

I've used it before for folks I will probably never even come close to agreeing on and if I get irked by someone's blind and extreme view towards an issue. I just checked and I think all of my ignores left neogaf. Like if I think something is actually wrong with that person's head and I think they are either trolling or crazy I would ignore them but I would need many repeated instances of this happening. I think I did eventually ignore one of Lime's comrade since they would destroy any thread with the slightest bit of sexuality in it and maybe Lime as well.

 

[DonJimbo]

I'm still quite new here, but don't intend on using it unless someone becomes abusive or something...

As others have said, your closing off conversation which defeats the purpose of being on here really, your here to discuss not get support in what your saying and nothing else!

I like youre pic is it vegitto ssgb level ?

 

[iconmaster]

Using the ignore button is like exposing your belly and submitting to a superior opponent

The ignore button is for sissies.

GAF is the gaming forum for the manliest of men, got it.

 

[-Minsc-]

I've never felt I've had an online stalker so I've never felt I needed to use the ignore user feature. For the views of each user, I try not to attach them to specific user (with varying degrees of success). If I come across something I don't like I either read it anyway or walk away.

 

[Pejo]

I only ever had a few users on ignore, and that was before the big gaf Exodus. Lime and Bish actually. They would both enter threads and completely derail them.

 

[JimmyJones]

Shouldn't be a thing, it will just turn the place into an echo chamber again.

 

[Kadayi]

And yet I would still not hide them from view with an ignore button. I would tell them to kindly eff off. Probably wouldn't make a difference, but at least I spoke my mind instead of hiding behind a button that doesn't even tell the user I have ignored them.

From what I can tell you're pretty new here so so I'm not sure you understand what this forum was like pre-exodus and just how rife with bad actors it was back then, or how if you did tell them to 'Eff off' you'd have probably found yourself perm banned in short order for doing so by a sympathetic mod. I think it's all very well to grandstand, about what one would or wouldn't do as an abstract on principle but what we are really talking about at the end of the day is ignoring maybe at tops a dozen fairly infamous posters out of a several thousand active members at the time. This isn't creating a personal echo chamber, it'd just muting imbeciles If it's any consolation there are at least two active posters presently who I consider fairly pointless given they just regurgitate well-worn groupthink in relation to their particular fascinations with eye-rolling frequency. Neither of which I've yet felt the need to set to ignore because since the advent of the Politics sub-forum I rarely encounter their vacuous pontificating for the most part.

 

[paparazzo]

Sure, I used it pretty extensively pre-exodus, and I still use it sometimes now. It’s got nothing to do with shutting off people I disagree with but because I’m not interested in lazy, low-effort arguments and those who essentially post like the board is a group-text with their buddies. And while they tend to get banned for it, I have seen a couple of hardline, alt-right sympathizing types that I’ve got no interest in seeing or arguing with.

Time is money, and after years of reading forums I just don’t feel the need to deal with every opinion under the sun.