:100: :up:

Unfortunately there is no such feature, but @SophistiCat did make a browser extension a couple of years ago, as described here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5738/ignore-list-browser-extension/p1

The Chrome extension is here: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/thephilosophyforum-ignore/makbinojcaolplmpbneielaccnondnko

It's a genius idea. The great thing about logical fallacies is that they can be formalised, and that means automated. The site could be run by Modbot, and all the humans could be fired. Also, if all posters were limited in this way to 9 posts per week, They'd put a lot more care and thought into them.

we could place bets on who it is. :wink: (I have an idea, but not sayin'.)

//oh, and it seems to work.//

Oh, it's not just one. At least a half-dozen. If the Mods don't do their job, let's have modbot do it for them.

Remember to flag bad posts and PM the staff about serial offenders.

Thanks!

The trouble is they still come up in the mentions section. There's so many crap replies I'm finding it hard to locate stuff I wanted to go back to.

Perhaps what I really want is better search capability.

And Chrome is for Real Life.

Also, after seeing how @SophistiCat's extension works, it is apparent that it's not just the posts of certain folk I'd like to hide, but the replies to those posts. If these could be avoided, whole pages of rubbish would be shortened to something manageable.

I'm reaching for a way to hold a discussion with, say, one or two other members who have written something worth reading, without having to scroll back and forward through pages of junk.

I'm not sure the constitutes a feature, but here goes:

There have been a few what I consider unnecessary bannings recently, in particular of fairly new members. Some of those were for people whose posts I found interesting. I am not here to relitigate those decisions, but I think the forum needs new voices. I think it is worth some effort to keep people here.

I think there should be an intermediate step before someone is banned, suspension. If someone runs afoul of the moderators, they can be suspended for two weeks or a month. That will give everyone a chance to cool off before things blow up and people get offended. In cases of particularly egregious behavior, the moderators can decide to go directly to banning. I know this has been suggested before. I've heard the arguments against it but never found them very convincing.

I’ve seen forums that employ suspensions and it doesn’t appear to be very effective. The suspendee typically never comes back and if they do the suspension only serves to further aggravate them, causing more grief and no benefit for all parties.

The only effective solution I’ve seen is to screen the posts of troublesome members before they are published. I doubt the moderators here would want to take on that workload however, even if it were a good solution.

Does anyone know why the numbers that indicate individuals' total numbers of posts have changed and now seem to show no rhyme or reason?

We turned likes on, and that number is how many you’ve had.

Thanks. That's a surprise! What prompted that decision?

Vodka, probably.

A soundly founded move then I guess!

Vodka, probably — Baden

A six-pack of cheap ice-beer would have effected the same.

Just remember however: though the Persians decided their enactments of an evening in their cups, they didn’t ratify them until the following sober morning.

So have any of you guys sobered up yet? I don't mind the like feature (it's almost invisible anyway), but I would much rather have the number of posts displayed under the member name than the number of likes. It's a more obvious and useful metric.

It is a bit confusing the way it's implemented. But @jamalrob's the one to talk to re leaving it or reverting.

I would much rather have the number of posts displayed under the member name than the number of likes. It's a more obvious and useful metric. — SophistiCat

I agree.

I agree. — Kenosha Kid

Me too

Given that the mods want us to flag suspect posts, would it be possible to add to the flag a pop-up with an list of explanations for the flag? Use the guidelines, eg:

Language
Tone
Off-topic
Trolling

...and perhaps an "other" section that opened to a one-line dialogue box?

Other suggested pop-up flags:

In poor taste
Not funny enough
Posted by NOS

and...
repetative
no original material
pat old junk
same-old same old

...that'd be me done.

pat old junk — Banno

An Ausi term?

"pat" as a term for "boring"? Interesting. Not sure. Might have to look it up.

It's a clause in a Playboy bunny's contract

I'd like to download my threads & posts pleaassseee!

LOL

The internal voice I use when reading your posts is so nasal. Amazing.

and...
repetative
no original material
pat old junk
same-old same old — Banno

Language
Tone
Off-topic
Trolling — Banno

I feel the noose tightening around my neck... :chin: :fear: :cry: