Blocking/Ignoring Question

[Guest]

Hi! Sadly, I have found myself with the need to block someone and I am having some trouble. I added the name to my ignored users list and saw the little 'x' pop up by their name and then I clicked Save Changes, but their name didn't stay. I tried a different name and had no trouble with it. Can someone help me, please?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm not sure why you had a problem with just one user. I've played around with those settings and noticed something that I regard as being a bug (and not a feature). If user X is on your blocked list, then the incrementing post numbers you see in the thread will be different to users with no one on their blocked list. So if you blocked me for example, the next post to this thread would appear to you as being #2, not #3. What is happening is that the algorithm is assigning post numbers after any filtering - they are not fixed based on the chronology of the posts. Consequently, if you happened to refer in a later post to '#2', everyone is going to suppose you mean this post, and not the one that follows.

[Guest]

I'm not sure why you had a problem with just one user. I've played around with those settings and noticed something that I regard as being a bug (and not a feature). If user X is on your blocked list, then the incrementing post numbers you see in the thread will be different to users with no one on their blocked list. So if you blocked me for example, the next post to this thread would appear to you as being #2, not #3. What is happening is that the algorithm is assigning post numbers after any filtering - they are not fixed based on the chronology of the posts. Consequently, if you happened to refer in a later post to '#2', everyone is going to suppose you mean this post, and not the one that follows.

Noted! Feel free to use my thread to log any other bugs for the admins. The person I needed to block really said some awful things, so their name may not be saving because they've already been banned from the reported post. I'm new here, though, so I don't know how quickly the admin slams the ban hammer around here. lol

[jmenges]

Hi StarlitShoal,
Welcome to Casebook.
All of the posts you reported were made in Pub Talk.
If you had read the rules prior to posting you would have seen the following:

We also do not particularly care what occurs in Pub Talk (unless especially egregious such as threats, etc.). We are primarily concerned with keeping the Ripper threads as uncontaminated with personality conflicts and as on topic as possible.

JM

[Guest]

Hi StarlitShoal,
Welcome to Casebook.
All of the posts you reported were made in Pub Talk.
If you had read the rules prior to posting you would have seen the following:

We also do not particularly care what occurs in Pub Talk (unless especially egregious such as threats, etc.). We are primarily concerned with keeping the Ripper threads as uncontaminated with personality conflicts and as on topic as possible.

JM

From Major Rules:

"If you participate in a thread ridiculing another poster, you will also be banned. We will not tolerate this. Do not do it. Not even in Pub Talk."

No one should be attacked the way I was. It was not a mutual argument that I participated in. I could understand this policy if it was a discussion that became heated and both parties started acting like children, but that is not the case. I answered a poster's question on a thread and that person was satisfied with my answer. We both then left the thread for the night. This morning, I woke up to discover that other people had come into the thread and attacked me solely on the basis of my faith. That should not be tolerated. I recognize your right as a moderator to mediate, but in this case, I would respectfully prefer that my case be forwarded to the Admin.

[jmenges]

I recognize your right as a moderator to mediate, but in this case, I would respectfully prefer that my case be forwarded to the Admin.

You're new here.
Ally is the Admin.

JM

[Guest]

You're new here.
Ally is the Admin.

JM

Oh, so that means they can just get away with blatantly attacking someone who did nothing to provoke them and didn't even know who they were at the time? I responded to one person. That person was satisfied with my answer. We both then left the thread and I got up the next morning to find that all three of them had attacked me solely on the basis of my faith when I wasn't even talking to them. Is this how you treat people here?

[jmenges]

I’m sure you’ll get your answer soon enough.

JM

[Ally]

From Major Rules:

"If you participate in a thread ridiculing another poster, you will also be banned. We will not tolerate this. Do not do it. Not even in Pub Talk."

Since you are a "christian" here's some Biblical text for you to ruminate on. Proverbs 12:22 -The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.

It is not trustworty to select text out of context to misrepresent what is said. The full text that you are quoting from states that you are not to CREATE a thread for the sole purpose of ridiculing another poster, nor participate in one. Which no one has yet done to you. But give me time.

No one should be attacked the way I was.

No one attacked you. Here's some more Biblical Truth darling: Proverbs 14:5- An honest witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.

You claimed to be a proponent of "Traditional Christian Marriage" and people made comment on what "traditional Christian Marriage" entails. You then pitched a fit. Claiming you were attacked.

Nobody said a word about you. Nobody said a single thing about you personally. Comments were confined to "Traditional Christian marriage" as outlined in the Bible and which does include literally EVERY SINGLE THING that every single poster mentioned.

If you don't like it, too bad. And Finally for our Final Bible Study of the day, my personal favorite:

James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.