Challenging people to prove a negative does not help. All it does is, frankly, make you look foolish and waste others’ time.
3 Likes
Hasn’t happened yet despite the tools being available the whole time.
But as pointed out, you’re deflecting from how utterly weak your attempted points are by trying to force me to do the impossible.
1 Like
If I have to provide specific evidence then it seems only fair that you give me something in return.
You’re the one making the claim that this thing will happen, despite all evidence showing that it hasn’t happened. The onus is on your to prove your point in that case.
2 Likes
What evidence?
We’ve thought-experimented on the idea quite extensively far earlier in the thread. Since it is not implemented, that is the best means for determining how it will function when implemented.
The forums have an ignore function, it hasn’t turned into an echo chamber in any sense of the term. This isn’t adding anything new to the forums or to your scenario, all it does is remove some repetitive steps if someone can’t stand the idea that people don’t want to listen to them.
So go on, explain your proof for so definitively stating your claim.
1 Like
To extend, the way that the ignore feature works at the moment, it’s too easily bypassed by someone who wants to keep reinserting themselves into either a given conversation, or into the sights of someone who has no further desire to interact. It’s Whack-a-Gnoll at the moment.
More like Whack-a-troll, all things considered
2 Likes
I’d argue that the substance of this post was made in the spirit of former ones where one side entirely blames the other for their closure.
If that isn’t an attempt to create an echo chamber-like environment to push changes to the potential overall determent of the forums then I don’t know what is.
So, you’re basically saying, if one side, when their point gets trolled into getting locked, doesn’t shut up like the other side wants them to, that they are the ones pushing an echo chamber?
Sounds a lot like you not wanting other people to say stuff. Which fits in with your attitude of wanting a lot more things to be punishable by bans rather than letting people ignore minor things and everyone still being able to use the forums.
2 Likes
I’m saying that by attempting to pin all the blame on one side either intentionally or unintentally creates an enviroment comparable to an echo chamber.
That’s a stretch there, and nothing to do with a qol change to the ignore function.
2 Likes
If those threads hadn’t been closed and proper action taken by the admins then this topic wouldn’t exist today.
You’re doing the thing where you ignore what I’m talking about to blather on trollishly about something completely unrelated AGAIN.
3 Likes
Simply understanding the fundamental difference between ignoring someone and silencing them.
1 Like
Well I don’t necessarily agree with your line of thought so disagreements will occur.
This isn’t a disagreement, this is two entirely separate issues. I’m talking about ignores, you’re talking about what, people posting things you don’t think they should on the forums like it’s somehow an echo chamber? When you’re here mussing it all up endlessly?
2 Likes
One poster you dislike isn’t going to stop whatever Blizzard is going to do.
Let me also reiterate the call for a place to explain flags again.
So that when someone is doing something outwardly innocuous but deliberately aggrovating, like continually responding to attempts to have a discussing with irrelevant platitudes that have absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed, that it can be noted in the flag why you are doing it.
Especially when it’s someone who makes big claims but runs away with their tail between their legs when they get even slightly close to having to explain their point and just try and distract and annoy people with their topic changes.
2 Likes