Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
I don't use it, but wholeheartedly support it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It's been a month. Please vote on your thoughts RE: the "thread ban" feature
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
thing1, please cast your vote. you didn't do it.
i think it had good intentions, but overall a negative effect. a few people have abused it to merely ban people they don't agree with politically and that doesn't do the board any overall good and many threads have simply become echo chambers.
in my experience, I haven't seen much of this. Yes, a few people end up being banned, and that's to be expected. Some have banned those that they disagree with, but I don't believe it's BECAUSE they disagree with them. I say this because it's very rare that every single conservative, or even more than 1 or 2, is banned from a thread started by a liberal, and vice versa. The vast majority of those banning people from their threads are banning users that they personally feel would just drag the thread down, derail it, troll it, or simply not be useful to the discussion.
If thread creators were interested in just not having anyone that would disagree with them, more than 1-2 posters would be thread banned. But that doesn't happen. It's usually just problem users.
Last edited:
Thanks for asking our opinion.
The community here and what they think is paramount. As always. JPP would never do anything that the majority of the community would disagree with.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
in my experience, I haven't seen much of this. Yes, a few people end up being banned, and that's to be expected. Some have banned those that they disagree with, but I don't believe it's BECAUSE they disagree with them. I say this because it's very rare that every single conservative, of even more than 1 or 2, is banned from a thread started by a liberal, and vice versa. The vast majority of those banning people from their threads are banning users that they personally feel would just drag the thread down, derail it, troll it, or simply not be useful to the discussion.
If thread creators were interested in just not having anyone that would disagree with them, more than 1-2 posters would be thread banned. But that doesn't happen. It's usually just problem users.
I don't even ban people who ban me from their threads. That's petty stuff for petty minds.
I think it's being used fine. But that's just my opinion.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
in my experience, I haven't seen much of this. Yes, a few people end up being banned, and that's to be expected. Some have banned those that they disagree with, but I don't believe it's BECAUSE they disagree with them. I say this because it's very rare that every single conservative, of even more than 1 or 2, is banned from a thread started by a liberal, and vice versa. The vast majority of those banning people from their threads are banning users that they personally feel would just drag the thread down, derail it, troll it, or simply not be useful to the discussion.
If thread creators were interested in just not having anyone that would disagree with them, more than 1-2 posters would be thread banned. But that doesn't happen. It's usually just problem users.
or simply people they don't like, i should have been more clear on that. like i said, it is just a few people, and it has created somewhat of an echo chamber on this board. i don't know the stats, but it sure looks like posting is way down since this was implemented.
if does not add value and instead inhibits more open discussions. if the people don't want to view someone's posts, the ignore feature seems a more viable option.
or simply people they don't like, i should have been more clear on that. like i said, it is just a few people, and it has created somewhat of an echo chamber on this board. i don't know the stats, but it sure looks like posting is way down since this was implemented.
if does not add value and instead inhibits more open discussions. if the people don't want to view someone's posts, the ignore feature seems a more viable option.
An echo chamber was initially one of my main concerns, but I don't see the evidence for it, one cannot create an echo chamber by just banning 1 or 2 users from their threads. You are trying to create this picture where conversation is stifled, but often times all that is stifled is blatant sexism, racism, crude jokes, trolling, and flaming.
Also I don't think posting has slowed. Though we did just come off the holidays.
Gun related issues just by themselves have gotten > 12k posts in about a month. Just gun talk alone.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, but from my view, I open a lot of threads now, and with a few certain users banned from those threads I notice the discussion in them is more vibrant and not as reduced to name calling and mudslinging. I would honestly describe it as a breath of fresh air, knowing I am going to get to read a thread without it degenerating into crap.
That's just my perspective though and I appreciate others have different points of view.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
It's been a month. Please vote on your thoughts RE: the "thread ban" feature
I think life on JPP is much more enjoyable now that Howey is on IA and perma ban ed
An echo chamber was initially one of my main concerns, but I don't see the evidence for it, one cannot create an echo chamber by just banning 1 or 2 users from their threads. You are trying to create this picture where conversation is stifled, but often times all that is stifled is blatant sexism, racism, crude jokes, trolling, and flaming.
Also I don't think posting has slowed. Though we did just come off the holidays.
Gun related issues just by themselves have gotten > 12k posts in about a month. Just gun talk alone.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, but from my view, I open a lot of threads now, and with a few certain users banned from those threads I notice the discussion in them is more vibrant and not as reduced to name calling and mudslinging. I would honestly describe it as a breath of fresh air, knowing I am going to get to read a thread without it degenerating into crap.
That's just my perspective though and I appreciate others have different points of view.
I think life on JPP is much more enjoyable now that Howey is on IA and perma ban ed
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
An echo chamber was initially one of my main concerns, but I don't see the evidence for it, one cannot create an echo chamber by just banning 1 or 2 users from their threads. You are trying to create this picture where conversation is stifled, but often times all that is stifled is blatant sexism, racism, crude jokes, trolling, and flaming.
Also I don't think posting has slowed. Though we did just come off the holidays.
Gun related issues just by themselves have gotten > 12k posts in about a month. Just gun talk alone.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, but from my view, I open a lot of threads now, and with a few certain users banned from those threads I notice the discussion in them is more vibrant and not as reduced to name calling and mudslinging. I would honestly describe it as a breath of fresh air, knowing I am going to get to read a thread without it degenerating into crap.
That's just my perspective though and I appreciate others have different points of view.
fair enough. but when you have certain users banning poster(s) just for spite, it does not do the board any good. what if it is a hot topic issue, the poster(s) are left out of the discussion entirely as they are not allowed to post another thread on this issue.
that is not what JPP stands for, at least i don't believe it does as JPP stands for being one of the most tolerant boards. yet, giving mod powers to spiteful posters, inhibits more open discussions and truly negates the freedom that JPP stands for. if you want to alter that, then by all means, have at it.
fair enough. but when you have certain users banning poster(s) just for spite, it does not do the board any good. what if it is a hot topic issue, the poster(s) are left out of the discussion entirely as they are not allowed to post another thread on this issue.
that is not what JPP stands for, at least i don't believe it does as JPP stands for being one of the most tolerant boards. yet, giving mod powers to spiteful posters, inhibits more open discussions and truly negates the freedom that JPP stands for. if you want to alter that, then by all means, have at it.
Well I would say in most cases that does not happen. But I think if the vote passes to keep it, the novelty will wear off of "sticking it to people" and more and more it will be reserved for those that are just known to cause trouble. TBH, it's kind of a bother to always type out all the names you want to ban... so I think eventually it will (and to an extent already has) self select to get rid of trolls and not just people one disagrees with.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
I think life on JPP is much more enjoyable now that Howey is on IA and perma ban ed
says the king of the echo chamber
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Well I would say in most cases that does not happen. But I think if the vote passes to keep it, the novelty will wear off of "sticking it to people" and more and more it will be reserved for those that are just known to cause trouble. TBH, it's kind of a bother to always type out all the names you want to ban... so I think eventually it will (and to an extent already has) self select to get rid of trolls and not just people one disagrees with.
the vote will pass, i have no doubt. it is just annoying when there is a hot topic issue and a certain poster posts it first and then i and others can't discuss the topic. as i said, it inhibits more open discussions and limits participation simply based on spite.
howey is the perfect example.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
thing1, please cast your vote. you didn't do it.
Just voted. And the threads are better; there is actual discussion for the first time in ages. I haven't seen one thread that has excluded someone who can really add something, whether they're on the left or right or wherever.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Just voted. And the threads are better; there is actual discussion for the first time in ages. I haven't seen one thread that has excluded someone who can really add something, whether they're on the left or right or wherever.
so you admit darla, rana and howey really add nothing
interesting to know that
the vote will pass, i have no doubt. it is just annoying when there is a hot topic issue and a certain poster posts it first and then i and others can't discuss the topic. as i said, it inhibits more open discussions and limits participation simply based on spite.
howey is the perfect example.
not everyone has weighed in yet, it's actually kinda close. Closer than I thought it would be, actually.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
not everyone has weighed in yet, it's actually kinda close. Closer than I thought it would be, actually.
Trolls can be rather fierce about their right to troll unfettered.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Trolls can be rather fierce about their right to troll unfettered.
LOL I was reading this and thinking something very similar.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
not everyone has weighed in yet, it's actually kinda close. Closer than I thought it would be, actually.
perhaps...14 to 9 against
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Trolls can be rather fierce about their right to troll unfettered.
who has defended the right to troll onceler? let me guess...another onceler "truthiness"
nothing has changed with you, why you changed your user completely is beyond me, you're still the same whiny troll
perhaps...14 to 9 against
technically 15-9. A certain member told me they accidentally voted for neutral on their phone when they meant to vote positive.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.