[Pete Svarrior]

I had a similar thought to Gary’s that someone might want to engage publicly with someone’s posts but not have to deal with whatever content is sent privately. It seems a reasonable thing to do. Is there a way to have separate ignore lists for DMs and posts that is easy to implement? If there is, then that would seem a simple fix to my ignorant ass.

Sure, that should be easy enough to implement. Though I'm not sure what about the current solution is such a deal-breaker. If you ignore someone, you can view their posts just fine. Does a single click on the "hey, you previously indicated that this person upsets you, you sure you wanna read this?" button really cause you much strife?

[garygreen]

You can still see the posts of someone you ignored - you just have to click on them to reveal them.

lol i actually did forget about that. although i can see it maybe getting annoying having to keep clicking that reveal message.

either way, as i said on irc, i don't have a dog in this fight, i just think the request is a reasonable one and not a troll. just my 69 cents.

[Rushy]

fwiw i think it's perfectly logical to suggest that if we're not allowed to spam insults at someone on the forum, then we shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that by sending those messages as pms. no offense my dude, but you are just way way to quick to assign malice to other users simply because they don't agree with the way you see things.

also yes for sure users can just put that person on their ignore list. but it seems reasonable to say "i want to see the things this person posts on the forum but not the insulting private messages they send."

The core problem is that private messages are advertised as private. We cannot moderate messages we cannot see. If you can report a PM to a mod then the whole mod team can read it; that doesn't make it a very private message. I support adding some separate ignore list for PMs versus public forum posts, but I do not support adding public rules to private messages.

I had a similar thought to Gary’s that someone might want to engage publicly with someone’s posts but not have to deal with whatever content is sent privately. It seems a reasonable thing to do. Is there a way to have separate ignore lists for DMs and posts that is easy to implement? If there is, then that would seem a simple fix to my ignorant ass.

Sure, that should be easy enough to implement. Though I'm not sure what about the current solution is such a deal-breaker. If you ignore someone, you can view their posts just fine. Does a single click on the "hey, you previously indicated that this person upsets you, you sure you wanna read this?" button really cause you much strife?

This is a valid workaround but it's just that: a workaround. It's a clunky solution to the problem versus a feature change so that you can ignore PMs from a user but not their public posts.

[AATW]

you need to keep in mind that imposing restrictions on users is something we don't do lightly. As one of our main champions of the "mods shouldn't do anything ever" cause, I'm sure you can see why.

You’re slightly misrepresenting me but I do think you are prone to be a little trigger happy at times. The board I run is a football one and someone on there compared the mods to referees. You need to let the game flow, so to speak, but it can’t be a free for all. Getting the balance right between whistling every 2 minutes and spoiling the game and being so lenient that it ends up in a brawl is a tricky one. There are certain decisions you make which I disagree with. But I’ve been on the other end of that on the other board so I get that there are judgement calls to be made and whatever you do you’re going to have someone moan at you. Such is the life of a mod.

The "why" is very important here. When two members were complaining about abusive PMs, it seemed likely that this would grow into a widespread issue. If it does, then it becomes pretty obvious that something should be done. However, if you actively choose for your problems to continue (for example, by not choosing to ignore the one person that's annoying you), who are we to make you happy against your own will?

My problem hasn’t been one for a while. I started this thread 2 months ago and hadn’t had any abuse from said member since then so I thought the issue had been dealt with. The recent abusive DM suggests not.
If I do “ignore” then what does that do? Does that just mean the person can’t DM me or does it also mean I don’t see their posts in the fora? Because I do want to see their posts. I mean, I find them a bit irritating but sometimes they post something I feel I should reply to. Asking me to take the action feels like “victim blaming” (a phrase I generally can’t stand). Especially if you’re suggesting I take action which isn’t quite what I’m asking. I don’t want to “ignore” this poster, I want them to stop sending me abusive DMs. And I can’t think why closing this loophole where someone isn’t allowed to harass others on any of the the fora but can do so by DM with impunity is a bad idea.

Sorry - that's never going to happen. Rule change or not, it would always be down to you to do something.

Ok, fine. I would have to do something. I’d have to report the problem. Because you can’t see DMs. And I’m not asking you to build a whole mechanism where people can report DMs as they would a post, I just think your suggestion to extending that rule to DMs is the right thing to do.

You are asking for a more complicated process to be implemented, for your sole benefit

I am not. I think that rule 2 is a reasonable one and should extend to DMs. Why should someone be able to harass another poster by DM? How is that a good thing for the board? Even if we agree it’s rare, is there any up side to people being able to do that?

It is difficult to believe that you're doing it for anything else than drama or, as Thork suggested, revenge.

We’ve had the conversation about you thinking the worst of me, I thought we were past that. It’s not about “drama” because I’m not a teenager. And it’s not about revenge because I’m not asking for this poster to be banned or warned. I’m not asking for any action to be taken against them but I am asking for your help to stop them harassing me.
IF the ignore feature blocks said poster from sending me DMs but still allows me to see their posts then I guess that’s an acceptable solution. But I still think that extending Rule 2 to DMs is the right thing. Yes it would benefit me but I also think it’s the right thing to do.

there's not enough evidence of this being a big enough issue to restrict everyone's use of the forum for the future.

Is it restrictive though? Is there any up side to allowing posters to be harassed by DM? Note the difference between abused and harassed. The thread about Tom was there for ages before it was locked. It only became against the rules when he felt he was being harassed. This is the same. I’ve had several abusive messages from this post. I now feel he has crossed the line between abuse and harassment.

I believed you until the post I just quoted. You now made it clear that this is just another complaint about that one time you weren't allowed to break the rules.

No it isn’t. Why do you insist on thinking I have an ulterior motive all the time? I spent a fair amount of time here. I came here initially out of a sense of incredulity and I’ll admit my initial posts here were mostly “FE bad” because I thought you were all crackers. But when I got in to the culture of the place I settled down more and now mostly pass the time of day in the lower fora. It’s a reasonable way of wasting time during down time at work. It’s obviously in my interest that this place is better for me and for others. I don’t believe that a poster should be able to harass other posters in any way. I’ve yet to hear any good reason why this should be allowed.

If you could clarify whether ignore only blocks DMs, it it does then ok, that does solve my issue. If it affects my experience of the fora then it does not.

[garygreen]

I support adding some separate ignore list for PMs versus public forum posts, but I do not support adding public rules to private messages.

clunky wording on my part; i agree with the former as well. a separate ignore list for pms is the thing i think is reasonable. lol sorry if i made that hella confusing.

[Pete Svarrior]

OK, I'm going to ignore whatever AATW just wrote (I'm sure it's a riveting read) and focus on what appears to be the consensus solution.

SMF code is a pile of shit, so it might take a while to figure out the best approach.

[AATW]

and if this was someone else's idea, AATW would be starting thread after thread about how much he hates new rules

Wow. So you really think that if someone else suggested something which I clearly agree with - given that it was my suggestion - then I’d disagree with it?
Seriously, why do you think so dimly of me?
You have posted publicly about how I was initially a pain in the arse but settled down to become a reasonable member of the forum.
And yet when I make what I think is a reasonable suggestion - one which you actually agree with - you start accusing me of trolling and “starting pointless drama”.
All I’ve done is start a thread in S&C, isn’t that’s the right thing to do in this situation?

You can still see the posts of someone you ignored - you just have to click on them to reveal them.

This answers the question I asked in my other thread - I saw this post after I wrote mine.

[Pete Svarrior]

You're not helping your case on the drama front. Since we agreed a solution, I'm locking this thread. I'll update it when the new list is implemented.

[xasop]

The core problem is that private messages are advertised as private. We cannot moderate messages we cannot see. If you can report a PM to a mod then the whole mod team can read it; that doesn't make it a very private message. I support adding some separate ignore list for PMs versus public forum posts, but I do not support adding public rules to private messages.

I don't entirely agree with this. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, we wouldn't act if people were using PMs to coordinate terrorist attacks or share child pornography. Obviously we cannot allow that, so we need to have some level of moderation over what goes on in private messages. The question is just whether this particular case qualifies for moderation.

Personally, I think that for known repeat offenders, putting them in a user group that doesn't allow sending PMs is a better solution than leaving it in the hands of every recipient they might get around to harassing.

[Pete Svarrior]

Just to keep this up to date - the PM-only block list is an absolute nightmare to implement. I've made decent progress at first, but the last few bugs are taking up a lot of time. So, this will happen, but it might not be soon.