jingars Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Any chance that a facility could be added not to display postings by certain user names? I appreciate that such a facility would potentially make for a disjointed looking thread, but unless the undesired poster is the OP I can still happen across their ramblings. I feel my Blatchat experience would be better if I could eradicate the crap posted by a very small number of posters. Sometimes ignorance can indeed be bliss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Jonathan Kay Posted November 8, 2012 Member Share Posted November 8, 2012 I'm not sure I agree. Mk 1 eyeball remains my preferred method of filtering. There have been lots of postings recently that I'd prefer not to have read, but I don't have a right not to be offended. For me they mostly come in two flavours: personal comments and stigmatisation of outgroups. But I'd still prefer a bit more care about netiquette to technological filters. Of course this might be a response you'd have had turned off! ;-) Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jingars Posted November 13, 2012 Author Share Posted November 13, 2012 Anyone from "The Management" care to comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Manager Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Hi Jon, I have thought about it, but there are some issues that I need to mull over eg: 1) Threads and replies or do we need to offer the options of either/both? 2) How would/should we deal with quoted posts? 3) It's another item that would be helped by using some kind of logon procedure, so would involve either: a) adding such a procedure and all associated processes b) moving to forum software that already has this feature implemented in the way we would like it to be I would welcome everyone's thoughts on these options. Barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area Representative Golf Juliet Tango Posted November 14, 2012 Area Representative Share Posted November 14, 2012 I remember that Arnie wanted a similar feature a while ago. He called it by a different term (and I can not remember what he called it ) but what he wanted was a similar facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Lowe Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I think it's a great idea, no one would ever want to see my posts so they wouldn't reply and I would always be right Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jingars Posted November 14, 2012 Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 I am sure not that Arnie and I are on the same track with our suggestions I don't want to limit people's facility to post, I just want a drivel filter on the viewing end of things. Barry, 1. Threads and replies for me, please. 2. Quoted posts - I don't they can be handled; just have to live with 'em I suppose. 3. You already kindly offer me the facility to not see pictures in people's signatures (which I do use to save screen space and repetition), or to not see people's signatures at all. I just see this as an extension of that facility, although technically I have no doubt that it is not remotely as simple as that. Edited by - jingars on 14 Nov 2012 19:12:16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area Representative Golf Juliet Tango Posted November 14, 2012 Area Representative Share Posted November 14, 2012 OK Jon Well done finding that. I was confusing the proposals. Sheer ignorance/bad memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezky Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 The Friday before Penn7s may be a bit quiet........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eugene Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Wow!!! This has to be the best yet - both this and Arnie's idea... Really has brightened a very foggy Thursday! Thanks. 😬 😬 😬 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 Some observations which may be relevant to this discussion, and which were also posted on the 'Googletwit' thread:- 1) If someone found something that I had posted to be questionable, I would hope that they would take it up with me directly and publicly, and give me the right of reply, rather than invite others to join them in collective derision. 2) This could re resolved much more simply by limiting each member to a single on-forum identity, so that we know exactly who is saying what. 3) If we were all required to use our real names on the forum, or if our real names were automatically listed in addition to the forum ID, then everyone would know who was who, and there would be an awful lot less confusion when meeting another member for the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jingars Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 Mort, 1. As far as I am concerned you can post whatever you are prepared to be held responsible for on this forum; whether another viewer find is "questionable" (be that in terms of taste, subject matter, accuracy or - especially on here - spelling and punctuation) is irrelevant. As with some of the nut jobs that post in a couple of usenet groups I frequent, I would like to be able to be able to filter out some of the dross on here. If you have posted on the forum then you should expect the response to come to you via the forum. 2. Scope creep - This suggestion thread is only requesting a viewing filter. 3. I am a keyboard warrior; I have no real life acquaintances. More scope creep. Feel free to start your own suggestion threads for your points 2 and 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdC Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Quoting Mort: 3) If we were all required to use our real names on the forum, or if our real names were automatically listed in addition to the forum ID, then everyone would know who was who... That would end the forum and the club for me. Why on earth would I want my name plastered across the net? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area Representative Golf Juliet Tango Posted November 28, 2012 Area Representative Share Posted November 28, 2012 I have thought about this and, despite the obvious superficial attractions, I am against all of these modifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jingars Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 As a superficial kinda guy, I am very much in favour of the proposed mofification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Area Representative Golf Juliet Tango Posted November 28, 2012 Area Representative Share Posted November 28, 2012 😶🌫️ Very good Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jingars Posted November 28, 2012 Author Share Posted November 28, 2012 Barry, there does seem to be a level of interest in some form of plonktastic killfile facility. If such a a facility exists, then those that do not wish to use it do not have to. I am delighted to find that I am not the only grumpy old sod on here. I am unsure what the procedure and participants would be in getting a modification "approved" for development and implementation; could you please advise? Ta. Edited by - jingars on 28 Nov 2012 09:52:21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougBaker Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Quoting AdC: Quoting Mort: 3) If we were all required to use our real names on the forum, or if our real names were automatically listed in addition to the forum ID, then everyone would know who was who... That would end the forum and the club for me. Why on earth would I want my name plastered across the net? I agree that requiring actual names is not required. But given that multiple accounts for a single membership number are valid maybe they should link to each other in some way. Multiple accounts does make sense, after all some of us have wives who also enjoy driving the cars. Something as simple as clicking the profile link showing all usernames associated with that member for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenny. Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Manager Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Quoting jingars: I am unsure what the procedure and participants would be in getting a modification "approved" for development and implementation; could you please advise? I guess I have to have more of a think about how to implement it. It does mean quite a bit of work, particularly as the best way for this would be to store the information in the database, so requiring you to log on for it to work properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jingars Posted May 4, 2013 Author Share Posted May 4, 2013 Today's events make this worthy of a resurrection, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now