Jefe's new min-ignore feature

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Webmonkey has something similar, but instead of putting a particular poster on ignore by everyone, after so many posters have ignored someone it will make that poster's comments look like a bunch of nonsensical jibberish by eveyone but that poster. We also have the option to turn that off if we choose.

I wouldn't use Utefans as a model. That place is like feeding time at the zoo.

[El Jefe]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Webmonkey has something similar, but instead of putting a particular poster on ignore by everyone, after so many posters have ignored someone it will make that poster's comments look like a bunch of nonsensical jibberish by eveyone but that poster. We also have the option to turn that off if we choose.

I don't like the way Webmonkey implemented it, although some of the benefits are nice. I was trying to make some improvements to the way it worked, based on feedback from some people who use the Ute board frequently. I'll continue to tweak the algorithm as I find improvements that can be made.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by El Jefe

I don't like the way Webmonkey implemented it, although some of the benefits are nice. I was trying to make some improvements to the way it worked, based on feedback from some people who use the Ute board frequently. I'll continue to tweak the algorithm as I find improvements that can be made.

The Utefans trollizer doesn't kick in until a poster has 50 ignores. Since Utefans has one-fourth as many people average on line as CB you might consider kicking your threshold up from 25 to 200. Then it will be comparable. Because of this, only the craziest, most abusive posters get trollized on Utefans. Provocative posters like Mr Crimson (a rough Utefans analogy to MikeWaters) are far from being trollized. Certainly no Ute fan has ever been trollized, as is happening to Waters and ExUTe, for example, on CB. I haven't even seen the utefans trollizer functioning for months. Another consideration: Utefans doesn't banish posters, or, except in extreme cases, delete or edit posts, so the trollizer is the only means of limiting abusive posters (in a democratic way). Thus, it's clear your mechanism is far more oppressive than the Utefans trollizer.

[creekster]

It seems to be an answer to a question no one asked and something that no one likes.

[El Jefe]

Originally Posted by creekster

It seems to be an answer to a question no one asked and something that no one likes.

You're assuming that nobody asked that question, and that nobody likes it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by El Jefe

You're assuming that nobody asked that question, and that nobody likes it.

Of course, it's your board to do with as you please. And if you and your friends like it, it's your choice.

However, as outsider looking inside, it appears to be a better option to opt in, than to opt out.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by El Jefe

You're assuming that nobody asked that question, and that nobody likes it.

True. What was the question and who asked it?

It isn't that big of deal as a concept. IF you are too lazy to figure out who you don't like, then go ahead and let the code do it for you. The only probelm is that many people, such as newly joining board members, may never become aware of the spectrum of opinions or personalities out there unless they act to opt out, as opposed to being required to opt it. Does this serve them? How can they know without seeing what they are missing?

I agree it is your board, and you can do what you want. the strange thing, from my point of view, is that this will eventully serve to isolate people from others without them ever being aware of it. Sort of creating a board where many people are little 'Trumans' living in a copasetic world not of their choice or understanding. I realize this is a bit dramatic and overstated, but it makes the point that the presumption, as in our society at large (inclduing the gospel) is access with a choice to opt out (especially appropriate where, as here, there are so many other means of protecting members from inappropriate material).

I have mine set to zero. can you tell what percentage of people who have changed their setting have changed it to zero?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by El Jefe

You're assuming that nobody asked that question, and that nobody likes it.

The question is how can we further manipulate the board to take out dissenting voices so that all who reads the board will come away with an image of BYU and LDS church that we think is proper. It's our job to protect the image of the church and we know what's best for it.