Forced Ignore List

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Apparently this forum has a new feature called the Forced Ignore List where "the staff" can add members to your ignore list without consulting you or without your permission. "The staff" added anonymous to my ignore list without asking me. The funny part is all I have to do is click on an icon and I can still read his posts "What?".

I think this may be crossing the line. If I want to ignore 407 I will----if I choose to interact with him, which I normally don't, I will---this should be my decision, not once dictated to me by "the staff".

A PM asking both of us to chill out would have been sufficient.

 

[upschuck]

The different personalities is what makes this site what it is. I could see a "cooling off" thing that the mods could impose where the mods could put no interaction between members for a certain amount of time for conversations that got out of hand would be a good alternative.

 

[cheryl]

My fault. When I got online this morning there were a couple of messages from other members about the ongoing squabbles on the forum. Maybe I'm just lazy but it seemed to be the simplest way to discourage all the negativity.

I'm the only one that can force ignores so if you have a problem with it blame me, not the mods.

 

[CharleyHustle]

When I got online this morning there were a couple of messages from other members about the ongoing squabbles on the forum.

I can't see myself ever messaging the moderators over someone else's squabbles. To each his own.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I can't see myself ever messaging the moderators over someone else's squabbles. To each his own.

It wasn't me. I can deal w/407 or any other member by myself.

 

[Bubblehead]

My fault. When I got online this morning there were a couple of messages from other members about the ongoing squabbles on the forum. Maybe I'm just lazy but it seemed to be the simplest way to discourage all the negativity.

I'm the only one that can force ignores so if you have a problem with it blame me, not the mods.

That's ridiculously lazy Cheryl!!!
This isn't Disney World, is it?
In the end, there is one common denominator to 99% of "squabbles".

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

That's ridiculously lazy Cheryl!!!

That's a bit uncalled for, isn't it?

 

[Brownslave688]

I can't see myself ever messaging the moderators over someone else's squabbles. To each his own.

Exactly. I mean sure I think it's entirely childish when I've and BB completely derail a thread with comments a 5 year old would find immature but would I ever complain hell no. I just choose not to respond.

I do believe they should learn to use the private message function though.

 

[Johney]

Apparently this forum has a new feature called the Forced Ignore List where "the staff" can add members to your ignore list without consulting you or without your permission. "The staff" added anonymous to my ignore list without asking me. The funny part is all I have to do is click on an icon and I can still read his posts "What?".

I think this may be crossing the line. If I want to ignore 407 I will----if I choose to interact with him, which I normally don't, I will---this should be my decision, not once dictated to me by "the staff".

A PM asking both of us to chill out would have been sufficient.

Uh it's her forum she can do with it as she pleases. Don't like it.......move along.

 

[Bubblehead]

Why is UpstateNYUPSer allowed to start a thread questioning a moderators decision?
Isn't that a violation of the beloved TOS?

 

[Bubblehead]

That's a bit uncalled for, isn't it?

It was in reference to her statement, so no.

 

[Jackburton]

This place is like NASCAR to me. Stuff comes and goes in a never ending circle, once and awhile you see a fiery crash that makes it all worth while.

Take away the crashes and I'm gunna stop watching.

 

[Catatonic]

In the end, there is one common denominator to 99% of "squabbles".

anonymous is is a well established member with the rights to post here and I will defend him to the death!

 

[bleedinbrown58]

Exactly. I mean sure I think it's entirely childish when I've and BB completely derail a thread with comments a 5 year old would find immature but would I ever complain hell no. I just choose not to respond.

I do believe they should learn to use the private message function though.

A 7 year old.

 

[Jackburton]

Exactly. I mean sure I think it's entirely childish when I've and BB completely derail a thread with comments a 5 year old would find immature but would I ever complain hell no. I just choose not to respond.

I do believe they should learn to use the private message function though.

Using the private message function would work for 99% of the crap posted on Facebook, but we see how that works.

 

[cachsux]

A 7 year old.

"5-7 year old would find immature"

......and a immature 40+ year old finds funny.

 

[Catatonic]

Why is UpstateNYUPSer allowed to start a thread questioning a moderators decision?
Isn't that a violation of the beloved TOS?

Upstate, and other members. when you observe a behavior and believe it to be the actions of the BC Staff, please do not start a thread, post or otherwise discuss the action on the public forum.

Unfortunately, this thread has gained life and deleting it is probably not the optimum solution at this point.

 

[bleedinbrown58]

"5-7 year old would find immature"

......and a immature 40+ year old finds funny.

Exactly! Thanks Cach

 

[Catatonic]

"5-7 year old would find immature"

......and a immature 40+ year old finds funny.

Understanding you have a problem is the first step.

 

[Brownslave688]

Using the private message function would work for 99% of the crap posted on Facebook, but we see how that works.

So as long as we don't use private messages Cheryl will be a gazzilionaire one day?