Please clarify.
Anyone could abuse this function. It would cost active moderating time from the actual forum mods to clear up the mess of others.
Yes, you may be able to control your own block lists sensibly, but imagine what happens if I start posting screenshots of people's 1v1 in the Ettens, black out their names but leave obvious hints to who is in the screenshot and accuse them of clubbing, THEN block them or their friends to post in this topic.
Acts like this could ruin someone's reputation, unless they actively report this which could take a mod days to remove/clean up.
I understand what you want and how it can be useful, but the amount of abuse and griefing this could be used for is too much..
I really have to insist in this case that you read my suggestion if you want to understand. I've explained it many times already. It would not be an active function in all subforums. What you've suggested is already violating community guidelines and doesn't need this suggestion to be cleared up.
I find your interpretation very interesting. You contend that you are not preventing anyone from commenting, just not allowing it in your thread.
In my opinion, the flaw in your argument is that it is NOT "your thread". Just because you started it does not give you any special rights over it.
It seems but a small extension to your proposal to say that once you have commented in a thread you ought to be able to make the same sort of restrictions that you are advocating. After all, you wish to restrict those who are permitted to comment on your utterances.
I am sorry, but I find your position fatally and inherently flawed, and without any merit.
I don't think this is a place for semantics. My thread by creation? It's my suggestion. Once I make it does it then become the world's suggestion? There is no trump card there for you. As it exists now, there is no function. I have no control over what anyone comments. I'm proposing to preventatively block people. If that function were added by Turbine, I still wouldn't have special rights over the thread.
Furthermore, it is a very big stretch to assume what you've assumed in the third paragraph and shows that you are disregarding the actual suggestion and extrapolating your own imagined premise despite the fact that I've said time and time again that this wouldn't be a reactionary function and have stated already that this would be only available at thread creation not to mention the numerous times I've responded to exactly the type of thing you're suggesting by reminding the person replying that these types of comments would still be happening on those threads. Inventing your own argument and then desconstructing it as you do in your final statement does not make you right and is in fact the inherent and fatal flaw that eliminates any merit from that post.
It would still be allowed, but perhaps if I was to create a new thread on a different topic, those kinds of distractions might not. They still might, but perhaps not.
I don't think this is a place for semantics. My thread by creation? It's my suggestion. Once I make it does it then become the world's suggestion? There is no trump card there for you. As it exists now, there is no function. I have no control over what anyone comments. I'm proposing to preventatively block people. If that function were added by Turbine, I still wouldn't have special rights over the thread.
Furthermore, it is a very big stretch to assume what you've assumed in the third paragraph and shows that you are disregarding the actual suggestion and extrapolating your own imagined premise despite the fact that I've said time and time again that this wouldn't be a reactionary function and have stated already that this would be only available at thread creation not to mention the numerous times I've responded to exactly the type of thing you're suggesting by reminding the person replying that these types of comments would still be happening on those threads. Inventing your own argument and then desconstructing it as you do in your final statement does not make you right and is in fact the inherent and fatal flaw that eliminates any merit from that post.
It would still be allowed, but perhaps if I was to create a new thread on a different topic, those kinds of distractions might not. They still might, but perhaps not.
You may be misunderstanding me.
The aim of your proposal appears to be to allow the thread creator to impose posting restrictions on the thread. Where I fundamentally disagree is that the thread creator has any greater rights over the thread than anyone else, so why should they have this ability?
My extrapolation is a reductio ad absurdem argument that if one concedes that the creator has greater rights, it is not much of a leap to extend that to subsequent posters. Why should they not be able to restrict who can comment on their comments?
Your fundamental goal my or may not be laudable, but your proposed solution is not, and I and apparently many others, do not find it to be of merit. As I have observed earlier, there is no absolute standard that can be applied here, as this is inherently a subjective argument. I believe you are wrong. You believe I am wrong.
Since neither of us is in a position to impose or block this proposal, the argument is actually pretty much moot. The only value is in laying out the pros and cons as seen by different people in case Turbine should ever choose to consider it.
At a purely practical level I would point out a couple of somewhat relevant issues:
1. There are plenty of existing problems with the forums which I am sure the overrwhelming majority of users would want to see fixed before anything such as this was ever allocated any resources even for consideration.
2. The forums are actually implemented using a third-party techology (vbulletin). This Turbine is primarily dependent on some-one else for the core functionality, and if this is not something those developers support, then it is vanishlingly liokely that it will ever appear here. Making modifications to off-the-shelf software is something that one almost never does as it undermines the whole value proposition of "build vs buy" by converting a "buy" into the equivalent of a "build" solution.
With all that said, this will be my last post on this topic. I have stated my case. There is no point continuing to argue with someone who is not likely to be converted from their diametrically opposite position, and in any case I believe that the entire debate is effectlvely pointless when considered in the context of reality.
Me? I didn't do anything. I can't understand how anyone can think posting like this is okay. I'm not egocentric and everything actually proves MY point, not the other way around.
2. The forums are actually implemented using a third-party techology (vbulletin). This Turbine is primarily dependent on some-one else for the core functionality, and if this is not something those developers support, then it is vanishlingly liokely that it will ever appear here. Making modifications to off-the-shelf software is something that one almost never does as it undermines the whole value proposition of "build vs buy" by converting a "buy" into the equivalent of a "build" solution.
We do agree to disagree, but I will freely admit that if the above quoted statement is true, then discussing my suggestion doesn't seem to matter. I am in no position to debate it so there's no point in trying. I am not familiar with this part of the operational matters of Turbine.
At the center is my belief that many of the people having a knee jerk reaction to this thread didn't read (and some of the posts bear that out) or even try to understand what it is I'm suggesting. I definitely appreciate that it appears you have as of now given it proper thought and still disagree. I don't think there will be any counter-argument about the feature that can convince me that administering it would lead to Turbine somehow choosing to then expand those power, especially if people are making the argument that it would cause more work for Turbine moderators (a point I tend to disagree with once the feature were accepted as part of the site) or that abuse of this feature by troublesome posters would be worse than the current issues I see from...troublesome posters. I for one am willing to trade the one set of problems for the other, especially since the ones abusing it in both cases would, I believe, be the same group of people.
Poster of Note Online status:
Reputation:
Originally Posted by Mystion_EU
Grand Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
