<chessgames.com> i don't see any problem with <TD>'s idea.

That would give a member "semi-admin" rights* ... one could do some very silly things indeed. Plus this button should be renamed to <Nomore> instead of the old fashioned <Ignore>, no?

I think it's a very bad idea. This is because I'm pretty certain the huge majority of ignorings across the site have nothing to do with stalking and probably little to do even with personal fighting.

In the huge majority of cases there is no history of mutual and disruptive animosity between the ignorer and the ignoree. Most people who encounter someone so obnoxious he's worthy of ignoring just ignore him up front; they don't go and start a bloody fistfight first and only then put him on ignore. (Which is just as well - bloody fistfights make even less sense on the Internet than they do in a random pub, reason being, you can't hurt the obnoxious guy and he can't hurt you.)

In the huge majority of cases putting someone on ignore isn't like surrender and submission at all <because there's no fight involved for anyone to surrender or submit in.> (Even in the rest I don't think it's like that, but that's another matter entirely.)

In 2009, two users proposed that anyone involved in fighting be banned for a day as punishment. A noble idea on the surface, yet their plan was to tag team people they didn't like and eventually force them off the site entirely. I mention this here to illustrate unintended consequences, if not ulterior motives.

So very true.

For example, let's say you really dislike me for some reason. You post something in my forum. Then you immediately put me on ignore, with the result I'll never realize that post is there.

During my little difficulty with Lennonfan, I too suggested that the Ignore feature was flawed, mainly because it allowed somebody to stalk you without your knowledge. I eventually had to resort to *being nice* to get rid of him -- a once-per-lifetime solution, I admit, and too much for some folk to swallow. But hey, whatever works.

Meanwhile, wiser heads pointed out to me -- along the lines of what Brankat says -- the problems inherent in other versions of ignore.

To me, the main problem with the "lennon fan" war was similar to what <tpstar> was saying about the old <Hayden-Goldsby> dispute:

It was left to go on too long before action was taken.

That said, I do appreciate this site's dedication to free speech and giving people second, third, and in my case, fourth chances.

Try posting at chess.com for example.

They don't allow the word "breast"- not kidding here.

They just zap it.

I would just add that I purposely avoid using the ignore feature because it screws up paging and links to posts. Consequently, I would be very annoyed if someone else had the power to screw up my paging.

~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, I've suggested before that a preferable (IMO) way to ignore people would be to expand on the "favorites" feature:

Currently, you can select a few users to be on your "favorites" list, and then all posts by those users will be highlighted with a background color of your choice.

I think cg.com should allow us to define multiple lists, each with its own color. We could then do things like this:

You could use one color just for yourself, so you can quickly see your own posts. (I would probably use gold because my posts are all of such high quality).

You could use another color (say green) for favorites, and yet another (say gray) for people you generally ignore.

Ha! I'm onto your little psycho tricks. A warning to all, "tedious person"has nothing to do with the famous TD.

Not so! "tedious person" is a sock puppet account which was created solely because of a post <domdaniel> made a month ago, which ended...

"no doubt some tedious person will disagree."

Use the search kibbutz to find his original post- I liked it so much I put it in the "Memorable Quotes" forum.

Incidentally, I fear no legal reprisal, since I retain <hms123>.

If you check the "ChessBookForum" you'll see that I recently got him to sue himself.