Using your Ignore List

[sails]

...I must make one additional point though. I will not look very kindly upon anyone who, after being informed that they have been placed on someone's ignore list, persists in making remarks about that person in their posts, or who continues to respond to their posts, knowing that person cannot see their replies. Once you have been told you have been placed on someone's ignore list, the onus is on you to back off and focus your energies elsewhere...

I have told Whiskers he is on ignore, however, he seems obsessed to reply to almost everything that is posted in the political threads so I end up clicking on "view post" to make sure he's not replying to my posts in a manner intended to bait. At the end of my last post I specifically repeated he is on ignore and requested that he does not reply specifically to me. So, he replies to my post with questions. What part of NO doesn't he understand...

He does put one off posting - maybe that's his intention...

 

[Julia]

I have told Whiskers he is on ignore, however, he seems obsessed to reply to almost everything that is posted in the political threads so I end up clicking on "view post" to make sure he's not replying to my posts in a manner intended to bait. At the end of my last post I specifically repeated he is on ignore and requested that he does not reply specifically to me. So, he replies to my post with questions. What part of NO doesn't he understand...

He does put one off posting - maybe that's his intention...

+1. And he also repeats what he has said before. Once was too much.

 

[waza1960]

Whiskers is the first person I have ever put on the ignore list and I must say its a relief.

Occasionally I might check out a post of his but overall the ignore function works well IMO.
You've just got to stop interacting with him no matter how hard he tries to provoke.

 

[Joe Blow]

I have told Whiskers he is on ignore, however, he seems obsessed to reply to almost everything that is posted in the political threads so I end up clicking on "view post" to make sure he's not replying to my posts in a manner intended to bait. At the end of my last post I specifically repeated he is on ignore and requested that he does not reply specifically to me. So, he replies to my post with questions. What part of NO doesn't he understand...

I have contacted Whiskers via PM and asked him not to respond to your posts from now on.

 

[McLovin]

I must make one additional point though. I will not look very kindly upon anyone who, after being informed that they have been placed on someone's ignore list, persists in making remarks about that person in their posts, or who continues to respond to their posts, knowing that person cannot see their replies. Once you have been told you have been placed on someone's ignore list, the onus is on you to back off and focus your energies elsewhere.

Joe, I don't understand the point of this. Why should person A not be allowed to reply to person B's post simply because B has A on ignore? What you're essentially saying is if I disagree with someone's point of view I just have to tell them they are now on ignore and that shuts them out, regardless of how much they may disagree. If you want to post in a public forum then you have to expect people will comment.

Is it really that hard to just not respond to someone? I mean most members here find most of the discourse in General Chat odious but manage to get by.

 

[Joe Blow]

Joe, I don't understand the point of this. Why should person A not be allowed to reply to person B's post simply because B has A on ignore? What you're essentially saying is if I disagree with someone's point of view I just have to tell them they are now on ignore and that shuts them out, regardless of how much they may disagree. If you want to post in a public forum then you have to expect people will comment.

I think there's a concern that even after a person has been placed on someone's ignore list that baiting or remarks about that person may persist. I can understand how some people find this behaviour objectionable.

However, I do agree that once Person A has been placed on Person B's ignore list, it shouldn't really matter if they reply to Person B's posts, as any response will be met with a wall of silence.

In any case, my PM to Whiskers was a request rather than an order.

 

[McLovin]

I think there's a concern that even after a person has been placed on someone's ignore list that baiting or remarks about that person may persist. I can understand how some people find this behaviour objectionable.

Well if they're personal remarks they should be removed anyway.

However, I do agree that once Person A has been placed on Person B's ignore list, it shouldn't really matter if they reply to Person B's posts, as any response will be met with a wall of silence.

Exactly my point. And if you don't want someone replying to what you're posting, don't post.

 

[Calliope]

Is it really that hard to just not respond to someone? I mean most members here find most of the discourse in General Chat odious but manage to get by.

The solution is so obvious;



It's a bit like feeding the dingos on Frazer Island. Too much encouragement and they find find it hard to distinguish between eating your hand-outs and eating your hand. The difference is that the dingos will survive if ignored, but trolls can't.

 

[Julia]

Joe, I don't understand the point of this. Why should person A not be allowed to reply to person B's post simply because B has A on ignore? What you're essentially saying is if I disagree with someone's point of view I just have to tell them they are now on ignore and that shuts them out, regardless of how much they may disagree. If you want to post in a public forum then you have to expect people will comment.

McLovin, on the face of it what you say seems entirely reasonable. You'd have to actually read some of the examples of what Sails and I are raising to understand. Whiskers will deliver a lengthy monologue in response to some quite brief comment, interspersed with dictionary definitions of some of the words originally used, and demand a response to his spurious conclusions. When no such response is forthcoming, he repeats his demand, reiterates and expands on his previous comments, and essentially continues to harass others.

He seems oblivious to attempts to ignore him and is apparently happy to keep spouting forth even without a responsive audience.
Calliope is correct to suggest not feeding trolls. The difficulty here is that some trolls just keep going without sustenance.

 

[MrBurns]

You don't have to put someone on ignore..................just ignore.

 

[Whiskers]

I acknowledge receipt of Joe's request to not reply to Sails... But since I have been subject to a complaint allegedly against the rules of the forum, I exercise my democratic right of reply.

Firstly, last time I looked we live in a democracy where the rule of law (as opposed to mob rule and internet bullying) prevails and where people are innocent until proven guilty.

Secondly, Joe has already ruled that I have not broken any forum rules.

But a few people persist with complaints which leads me to exercise my right of reply and put the case for a counterclaim of their 'Abuse of Process' (The use of legal process to accomplish an unlawful purpose) with persistent 'Frivolous and Vexatious' complaints.

Frivolous
Of minimal importance; legally worthless.

A frivolous suit is one without any legal merit. In some cases, such an action might be brought in bad faith for the purpose of harrassing the defendant. In such a case, the individual bringing the frivolous suit might be liable for damages for Malicious Prosecution.​

Vexatious litigants
A vexatious litigant is someone who persistently begins legal actions but does not have sufficient grounds for doing so.​

Vexatious proceedings include those cases that are:

• an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal
• designed to harass or annoy, to cause delay or detriment, or for any other wrongful purpose
• instituted or pursued without fair or reasonable grounds.

Outline of argument
For the most part they accuse me (and others) of doing what they are doing themselves, such as:

1. derogatory comments/posts, trolling, baiting and as Sails claiming to have put me on 'Ignore', but demonstrating the contrary, in particular to have made such assertion in bad faith.
2. Some have posted comments from shock jocks or columnists as representing facts and or expert opinion, but resent questioning and analysis of their assertions, and particularly resent the posting of evidence and or proof from official sources and sometimes as simple as pointing to basis maths, that such asserted facts are not true.
3. Some ignorantly and or deliberately misquote personal comments and resent the reposting of comments in full to rebut their assertions, and then in resentment, go on to complain of verbose and or repetitious posting.

What is this all about

Freedom of Speech
While I have expressed critique of both sides of politics such as against the carbon tax and the handling of foreign affairs to the abuse of the intent and wishes of membership in party leader appointment to exaggeration of financial issues and consequences of overplaying the rhetoric... it is noted that the few complainants are all from the same side of politics.

That 'coincidence' of fact goes to motive.

Abuse of process
Making Frivolous and Vexatious complaints against their critics in an attempt to have them muted or banned from discussion on the forum.

Background facts


(To be completed later)

 

[Calliope]

it is noted that the few complainants are all from the same side of politics.

I suppose that's because the Ruddites are inured to long boring diatribes that just go around in circles. Too much detailed programmatic specificity.

detailed programmatic specificity
something the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, says in speeches. Problem is no-one knows what it means.
"No idea what detailed programmatic specificity means." - Mr Turnbull

mindless gibberish rudd-speak words without meaning.

Urban Dictionary

 

[Judd]

Oh dear, dear me. It's Frank all over again.

Hmm, only read the first line. Democratic right. Hmm, privately run forum. Nup, democracy does not apply. The rules of the admin apply; nothing else.

And, more importantly, who the phuck cares reading, or would even bother to read, all that waffle about perceived grievances. Take your supposed battle elsewhere.

 

[sails]

Oh dear, dear me. It's Frank all over again.

Hmm, only read the first line. Democratic right. Hmm, privately run forum. Nup, democracy does not apply. The rules of the admin apply; nothing else.

And, more importantly, who the phuck cares reading, or would even bother to read, all that waffle about perceived grievances. Take your supposed battle elsewhere.

Yup, it's this sort of very lengthy waffle that's been choking up discussion mostly in general chat.

 

[CanOz]

I acknowledge receipt of Joe's request to not reply to Sails... But since I have been subject to a complaint allegedly against the rules of the forum, I exercise my democratic right of reply.

Firstly, last time I looked we live in a democracy where the rule of law (as opposed to mob rule and internet bullying) prevails and where people are innocent until proven guilty.

Secondly, Joe has already ruled that I have not broken any forum rules.

But a few people persist with complaints which leads me to exercise my right of reply and put the case for a counterclaim of their 'Abuse of Process' (The use of legal process to accomplish an unlawful purpose) with persistent 'Frivolous and Vexatious' complaints.

Frivolous
Of minimal importance; legally worthless.

A frivolous suit is one without any legal merit. In some cases, such an action might be brought in bad faith for the purpose of harrassing the defendant. In such a case, the individual bringing the frivolous suit might be liable for damages for Malicious Prosecution.​

Vexatious litigants
A vexatious litigant is someone who persistently begins legal actions but does not have sufficient grounds for doing so.​

Vexatious proceedings include those cases that are:

• an abuse of the process of a court or tribunal
• designed to harass or annoy, to cause delay or detriment, or for any other wrongful purpose
• instituted or pursued without fair or reasonable grounds.

Outline of argument
For the most part they accuse me (and others) of doing what they are doing themselves, such as:

1. derogatory comments/posts, trolling, baiting and as Sails claiming to have put me on 'Ignore', but demonstrating the contrary, in particular to have made such assertion in bad faith.
2. Some have posted comments from shock jocks or columnists as representing facts and or expert opinion, but resent questioning and analysis of their assertions, and particularly resent the posting of evidence and or proof from official sources and sometimes as simple as pointing to basis maths, that such asserted facts are not true.
3. Some ignorantly and or deliberately misquote personal comments and resent the reposting of comments in full to rebut their assertions, and then in resentment, go on to complain of verbose and or repetitious posting.

What is this all about

Freedom of Speech
While I have expressed critique of both sides of politics such as against the carbon tax and the handling of foreign affairs to the abuse of the intent and wishes of membership in party leader appointment to exaggeration of financial issues and consequences of overplaying the rhetoric... it is noted that the few complainants are all from the same side of politics.

That 'coincidence' of fact goes to motive.

Abuse of process
Making Frivolous and Vexatious complaints against their critics in an attempt to have them muted or banned from discussion on the forum.

Background facts


(To be completed later)

Whiskers, you must be retired? Time on your hands?

 

[Whiskers]

Whiskers, you must be retired? Time on your hands?

Not exactly, but can always make a bit of time for a good debate.

 

[CanOz]

Not exactly, but can always make a bit of time for a good debate.

I reckon if we ran a search for the poster with the most lines per post, you would be right up there!

 

[McLovin]

Whiskers, you must be retired? Time on your hands?

I was thinking bush lawyer.

 

[Julia]

Oh dear, dear me. It's Frank all over again.

Hmm, only read the first line. Democratic right. Hmm, privately run forum. Nup, democracy does not apply. The rules of the admin apply; nothing else.

And, more importantly, who the phuck cares reading, or would even bother to read, all that waffle about perceived grievances. Take your supposed battle elsewhere.

Thanks, Judd. That's the first time I've laughed out loud at anything to do with Whiskers. So right that it's "Frank, all over again."

 

[CanOz]

I confess to misusing the ignore list. A while ago (over a year ago) i placed a member on ignore after i was tired of arguing (read:lost the argument).

Recently i deleted a bunch of off topic stuff out of a particular thread. I deleted more than i should have, a bit hasty in my moderation attempt. That member sent me a PM...which i of course did not receive, because they were still on ignore. I was just a bit lazy taking them off ignore even though i would still read their post and sometimes even respond.

Well after their PMs were unanswered they contacted Joe who promptly asked me to re-instate their posts, which i did.

I hope that member accepts my sincerest apologies....