invitation only threads

[beppe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you want to send a personal message to someone, would it not perhaps be better to send them a PM?

I want everyone that reads the first post to see it:
Somebody might imitate me in not reading the posts of SoAndSo.
Somebody might decide to use that as a reply.
SoAndSo might curb his enthusiasm.
Or it might inflame it more and more.

Better than nothing flat and just letting myself and other posters being pestered.

Better than not starting a new thread.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by beppe

I want everyone to see it of course.

That's what I thought.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

There are others who will join in a thread with the intention of disrupting it.

Yes, you will meet such people in ANY forum. There is a little troll in almost all of us.

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

If we can't get the mods to remove such people,

MR is not a forum where bans are imposed quickly and light-minded without any try to change such people's minds. If MR would turn in such a forum then i would leave for sure.

I'm curious btw.: Who is "we"?

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

Beppie’s way would make a lot of people happier. Don't think so? Look at how many have dropped out of MR.

No, i don't see any solid evidence for your hypothesis at the moment. I think it could make *some* people happier. "Some" is far from being a majority though.

Furthermore, such restrictions would collide with MobileRead's self-conception imho:

Our Aim

MobileRead aims to be a friendly and inclusive forum. [..]

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I don't think it's elitist or childish to think, "couldn't we have just one discussion about piracy or copyright without [that jerk] spewing irrelevant nonsense all over the thread?"

I just don't think we have enough agreement on who the "that jerks" are, to use restrictions to make it work.

Anyhow, if the software does not allow that's it.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I know I'd drop out of MR in a flash if something like this would be implemented. It's elitist and terribly childish. "If we don't like you, you can't join our little group". Actually, the fact that somebody actually asked a question makes we wonder about some people on this forum.

I'm in complete agreement with you.

It's a disturbing suggestion. One should be mature enough to deal with the people around - or else leave. Shutting someone out deliberately is just...

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

I've started threads where immature trolls have jumped in with both feet. Is that not even more divisive? One thread was closed down at my request due to a juvenile minded troll playing around the words teats and tits.

Here's the thread in question-- I doubt that very many people would call it a "troll" but a humorous post-- in what was meant to be a humorous thread.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=104039

All your closing of the thread was a sign of is your very thin skin-- and the personal snipes you've made against me both before and since that thread.

[beppe]

I realize just now that even questioning the possibility of excluding someone from a thread breaks the principle of giving access to everyone. This is much worst that being disturbed by some one. The rules are enough.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by beppe

I realize just now that even questioning the possibility of excluding someone from a thread breaks the principle of giving access to everyone. This is much worst that being disturbed by some one. The rules are enough.

Are you aware of the facility to ignore any given member?

[carld]

I can see the attraction of this method, especially if you're being actively harassed by someone (I speak from experience). But ultimately I agree with others, it's not helpful for the community as a whole and would end up promoting cliques and group think.

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by Pablo

Some of those who left didn't like the reaction they got to some really awful things they had posted. In my opinion they harvested what they had sown, even though I think it would have been better to ignore them.

You're mixing apples and oranges. I'm not talking about those who were banned for just cause, but of those who just say "thanks for all the fish" and leave. Many of them have been very nice people.

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I know I'd drop out of MR in a flash if something like this would be implemented. It's elitist and terribly childish. "If we don't like you, you can't join our little group". Actually, the fact that somebody actually asked a question makes we wonder about some people on this forum.

Sweetpea, "they" (the Mods) do have something like this in place. I've lurked on MR longer than I've been a member, and I've seen people banned for good reasons.

But there is no in between except to put them on your ignore list.

I've just checked my list. There are exactly two people on that list who's comments and actions I've found to be so egregious that I thought banning was the appropriate action. The mods have my permission to verify that fact if any should ask. Although they won’t provide the names.


"If we don't like you, you can't join our little group".

We do such things all the time. YOU do such things all the time. It's called good judgment.

You don't ask uncle Bo to your party because he can't keep his hands off the girls. Or he drinks too much, and gets mean. Or he puts his finger in the cake frosting, or the guacamole dip, to decide if he likes it.

There are a hundred and one reasons why you would think that one person or another might be an unwanted guest at a particular event. Ban? No, Uncle Bo isn't really bad, he's just a pig when he drinks too much (which he will if he can get to the booze), and you don't want him at your daughters graduation party.


There are people that I find to be irritants. But I haven't put them on my ignore list. Don't mistake using discretion with discriminating on unjust grounds.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I just don't think we have enough agreement on who the "that jerks" are, to use restrictions to make it work.

Absolutely true. That’s why it shouldn't be a system wide selection as the ignore list is.

Then too, I've been a bit of a jerk from time to time. When I recognize my jerkiness I do apologize if the recipient wasn't at fault.

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Here's the thread in question-- I doubt that very many people would call it a "troll" but a humorous post-- in what was meant to be a humorous thread.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=104039

All your closing of the thread was a sign of is your very thin skin-- and the personal snipes you've made against me both before and since that thread.

I was trying to be discrete by not naming you.

I do hope that you're very young.

[SameOldStory]

Beppie, I have to apologize. I feel responsible for helping to twist your post in all the wrong directions. I'm sorry.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Are you aware of the facility to ignore any given member?

Oh yes, I have used it a couple of times and said so to the ignored ones. But I prefer not to. I can easily ignore posts, without using the procedure.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

Beppie, I have to apologize. I feel responsible for helping to twist your post in all the wrong directions. I'm sorry.

No, no, do not. Just asking my original question is already violating the principle.

An individual should not substitute the system. There are rules. I do think that excluding someone just because ... whatever reason, is wrong.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

I was trying to be discrete by not naming you.

I do hope that you're very young.

I'll be 38 my next birthday-- I'm just not a humorless stuffed shirt, clutching at my pearls (yes, a mixed metaphor.) To conciser my post to be a "troll", and so bad that you whine to the moderators to shut down your own thread at it's very beginning because of it-- says more about you than it does about me. I don't need to be "discrete" about it because I have absolutely, positively nothing to hide (moderation edit of link and reference )

People, look at the thread linked in post #21 of mine above-- would anyone here, just seeing that thread, have thought that my first post there rose to "trolling" and necessitated a thread closing? If something that minor justifies closing a thread-- and banning a user from posting in a thread started by someone-- then everyone here would have to constantly walk on eggshells, worried that their least comment would set off someone with a hair-trigger temper.