Ignore Function on Message boards

I think your conflating two separate issues.  The fact that the user could simply log out and see what I've posted is irrelevant.  The issue is not with the user being able to see the posts in a read only situation, the issue is with the poster being able to continue a pattern of abuse despite the fact that another poster has taken active steps in which to break the cycle of abuse by the offending poster.  Additionally the issue of the poster being able to long into a separate account to report me illustrates a deficiency in IMDB's user protocol that is best dealt with separately.  It is clear that there are two problems, users abusing the system against individuals who have put them on ignore and sock puppet accounts, but the existence of one should not be used as an excuse not to solve a problem with the other.  Moreover, the fact that eventually the system will catch up to the poster is of little comfort to me.  You are making it sound as if there is nothing that the moderators can do when in fact this is a simple solution that would solve much of the troll issues on the boards and leave moderators free to deal with the sock puppet issue separately.

You stated that id I continue seeing deletions I could "make a couple, completely on topic, non-offensive posts, bookmark them and if/when you see them deleted, send a message to the Help Desk with links to the falsely reported threads."  Could you explain how I would send a message to the help desk?  Practically all links in the help section lead here and it seems like there is no way to send a message to anyone at IMDB.  Additionally how would I bookmark the thread because I do not know of a bookmark function on IMDB.

The idea of making users unable to read each others posts when one poster chooses to ignore another is a simple solution and the fact that certain users have sock puppets is a separate issue altogether that should not prevent implementation of this idea.

bluesmanSF said:  So, you and I clash on a board.  You add me to your ignore list and instantly, all of your posts become invisible (which, incidentally, makes for confusing threads...but that's just another problem your theory creates).  So wondering why, or because I already know why, your posts just disappeared, I log out and can see what you've posted.  I can log into my second account and report you or talk about you behind your back.  That's what I meant.

I think it would be prudent here to repeat the fact that I am suggesting that both parties to an ignore should not be able to see each others posts for the purposes of avoiding harassment from one party to another.  The fact that you can log off an read my posts is not an issue because the simple act of a troll/cyber bully reading comments I have posted on a movie or TV show while they are unable to engage in any harassment does no one any harm.  Further, this is the second or third time you have made the point of saying that the individual could talk about me "behind my back" and frankly saying that is confusing the issue.  The issue is that the one tool given to users by IMDB to end bullying is imperfect and the best way of improving it would be to make it so that one party ignores the other neither will be able to see the other's posts.  Additionally, it would not result in any more confusing threads than there are now with the current system of ignoring.  All that would happen is that with the implementation of this idea neither party would be able to see what the other has posted and there would be less issues with complaining about trolls and cyber bullies.

Also, you keep bringing up the possibility (and I call it a possibility because that is all it is and you are making this seem like it will occur in most if not all of these cases) that this individual could log in through another account and continue the harassment, but frankly all I would have to do is put this alternate account on ignore and my problems would again be solved.  If a troll/cyber bully can post a response or comment about someone they will and they will quietly sit back just pressing report from an alternate account.  Moreover, even if they did do so on a continuous basis as you said before it would trigger the systems supposed checks to abuse of the reporting function.  At that point continuing to create other accounts would not be feasible for the troll/cyber bully because it would take exponentially more time to actually create the other account than it would for the user to simply click a mouse a few times and put this new account on ignore.

bluesmanSF said:  For starters, if multiple account can't be created, children cannot have an account any more and the site loses all those users.  13 Years to 18 years don't generally have credit cards. So, there's that.

Functionally this is not an issue with trolls/cyber bullies abusing and harassing others on the message board.  This is an extraneous point in which you seem to be more concerned about the illusion of traffic on IMDB's site as opposed to users being harassed and abused by other posters.  May I submit to you that some of these children (who you seem only concerned with their ability to increase the traffic on IMDB's site) are also getting harassed by other users and a more powerful ignore function (like the one I am suggesting) would protect them better.  Again, this is an issue of authentication which you introduced here despite the fact that it was at best tangentially related to the initial subject and then you invited me to offer a solution about it which I did.  Functionally I find it funny that you are indicating that you are worried about IMDB losing users because they do not have a credit card (which was only one of the authentication methods I suggested) but you have no problem with IMDB losing traffic due to users becoming fed up with being harassed by other users.

bluesmanSF said:  Also, what you're saying is confusing and contradictory.  You say to stop users from creating additional account, you'd expand authentication to allow more ways authenticate? How does giving more options (which is needed, but not for the reason we're talking about...that's a whole separate discussion) keep them from proceeding?  I don't get that at all.

It is not confusing or contradictory at all.  IMDB themselves indicates that "additional authentication is purely voluntary and will help IMDb produce features to reduce the amount of spam, trolling and other malicious or disruptive activity on our site over time."  The entire purpose of authentication on any site it to confirm that the person is in fact who they purport to be.  Allowing someone alternate methods of authentication simply gives them the ability to confirm who they are by different means.  But the information should be the same.  Once they do that, ideally if they try to open another account with their information they should be unable to.  If they are able to then that becomes an issue of authentication and not ignore.  Once again I do want to point out that your bringing up this subject is confusing the issue with extraneous and tangential considerations that when you do look at them are either not problems or they bring to like other issue which are separate and in and of themselves need addressing.

bluesmanSF said:  You say, "The way it could be implemented is that it would make it so that only an authenticated user can report other users" but that is already the case.  You cannot report a message board message or abusive PM if you account is not authenticated.  You're simply suggesting they do what they already do.

I'm sorry, but that is not the case.  Authentication is voluntary and not mandatory on this site.  As it is any user (authenticated or not) can report a message board post.  Additionally there is currently no way to report an abusive PM that I know of.  Your only two option with an abusive PM from your inbox is currently either to delete it or reply.  IMDB has no easy way of reporting this in the same way that you can report posts on the message boards.  Thus I am not simply suggesting that IMDB do something that they already do, I am suggesting they do something different.

bluesmanSF said:  What I'm saying is it will not solve that problem.  Again, if you and I clash and you put me on ignore, that only affects me if I am logged in to the user account you've placed on ignore.  If I log out, I can still read message board messages and I'd probably notice your messages all just disappeared and I could simply log out and see what you've posted and know I am on ignore.  So, I could create a new account (or use and existing alternate account, or borrow a friend/family member's) and post as a "sock."  Or simply use the ignored name to bad-mouth you, knowing you can no longer see what I type.

And again, I will submit to you that if you are logged out and can read my posts, the simple act of you reading them does not harm me at all.  I am addressing harassment and abuse that is only possible if one is logged into IMDB.  As I said before if a user chooses to create a new account they will engage in harassment before they will engage in reporting and that gives the user the opportunity to put this new account on ignore again.  Clicking ignore takes a few seconds where creating accounts takes more of an investment of time.  My suggestion of having it so that when a user who places another user on ignore that neither can see the other's post protects the poster whereas the current method does not and it will solve the problem or at the very least significantly reduce it.

bluesmanSF said:  Having the site set up to accept registration of new users means there is no way to keep someone from creating a second account.  The more new options you add for ways to authenticate makes it even easier to create a new account...not more difficult.

No it does not.  Authentication is generally used on sites to determine that the person signing up is who they purport to be.  If someone tries to create two different accounts by authenticating in two different ways it will lead to the same information and should be set up within the system to indicate to that user that they already have an account.

bluesmanSF said:  This is already the case.  It wouldn't make too much sense to ask for a credit card for Pro, then turn around and ask for it again to activate those features that require authentication. 

I know it already is the case, that's why I indicated so and used it as an example. 

bluesmanSF said:  So, there's that benefit to Pro, and additionally, Pro users don't have a posting quota.  But, even Pro users are subject to disciplinary actions for violating Terms and Conditions of the site/boards.

Again, this is an irrelevant point.  I never said that Pro users are beyond disciplinary actions for violating Terms and Conditions of the site/boards, I made the point that a possible way to avoid abuse of the report function is to tie it to authentication.

bluesmanSF said:  Authenticating via Amazon account was one of the original three options.  Later on they discontinued that.  So, I am not sure what the issue was, but if it can be done, they'd probably start with it again.  I thought the reason was part of a conflict Amazon had with California over sales tax, which caused them to remove the buy/rent on Amazon links, but that's been resolved.  If it were connected to that, I'd expect they put it back in place.  Since they haven't, there may have been some other problems. Perhaps people having authentication removed started complaining to Amazon...I don't really know.

I'm sorry, but if you do not know then why are commenting on the possible reasoning of Amazon or IMDB on this particular subject? 

bluesmanSF said:  I don't think that's true.  Trolls are trolls because they  post inflammatory comments, looking to upset people.  They don't hide...they're actually quite blatant. But, if they don't "opt to...authenticate," they cannot continue their activities because you cannot post or report abuse without authentication.  They might continue their activities, but it'd have to be on some other website.  They can't do it here unauthenticated. So, again, what you suggest is already in place.

Actually this is incorrect.  While trolls and bullies do look for reactions from other posters, they do hide using the anonymity of the internet.  They know (or at least hope) that they cannot be traced as a result of that anonymity.  Your point that they can continue that activity by opting not to authenticate ignores my initial suggestion to make it so these individuals would be unable to see the posts of the users they harass when they are on ignore as well as my subsequent suggestions of making authentication mandatory or tying reporting to authentication.  Once again, on IMDB authentication is not mandatory, it is optional so people can post or report abuse without authentication.  What I suggested is not in place and the reason this site has such a high incidence of cyber bullying, trolling, harassment, and abuse does have to do with that fact.  Furthermore, I would like to point out that one of the methods of authentication is simply receiving a text on a cell phone.  So if I buy a throwaway phone, use a non users phone, or use an online service where I can receive texts I would still be authenticated.  For the record none of what I have been suggesting has been in place.

bluesmanSF said:  Another note, while having multiple accounts is allowed, using them to abuse (including using as a "sock puppet," which is posing as a different person to gang up on someone) is not allowed.  There's no reason to assume all people starting a second, or third, etc., account are being abusive.  Some I know post on Help forums and end up getting followed around by disgruntled folks, and they just want a second account to post in peace when not on the Help forums. Further, some users have children and want to let them use features requiring authentication, etc.

It really seems like this should not be allowed is the byproduct of an ignore function that allows harassment and abuse to continue.  Additionally if you were really concerned about children having accounts you would insist that parents who authenticate set up accounts for their children to make sure that they are protected and not themselves subject to harassment and abuse from others.

bluesmanSF said:  I completely understood what you posted in the OP of this thread.  I can see how they would have trouble reporting you if they cannot see you.  However, trolls will certainly find ways around it as I've described (and maybe in many other ways...I didn't really think further on the matter) and as I suggested, it creates new ways to abuse.  I hope that made sense.

But you are basing your whole argument on the belief that implementing this idea MAY be circumvented by trolls in some fashion which you can not think of and not that it will.  Further the two ways in which you came up with in which it could be circumvented either did not subject the user to harassment or abuse in any way or allowed them to easily deal with a user with a second account by putting them on ignore again.  This created an easy solution and made the practice of trolling/cyber bullying much more of a labor intensive and concerted effort on the part of the abuser.  Contrary to your claim this does not create new ways to abuse.  The ways to abuse are already there and all this does is make it so that posters can just visit this site in peace without being subjected to abuse and harassment by others.  As a byproduct it also corrects the issue of abuse of the report function. 

Furthermore I would like to ask you something:  Are you a user, an IMDB employee, or an IMDB volunteer?  If you are a user like I am shouldn't you really be giving people that are employed or at least volunteer with IMDB an opportunity a chance to answer this question?  And if you are an IMDB employee or volunteer do you actually have the power to implement changes or suggest changes to someone who can implement them?  I ask because if you are a user and not employed by or a volunteer for IMDB then you are really offering an unofficial opinion and your claims that none of these suggestion would solve anything are nothing more than your opinion and not that of IMDB.  If that's the case, then I do have to say that despite the fact that you have not said that you are an employee or volunteer with IMDB, your responses really do give the impression that you are and it is confusing to other posters who read them and may interpret them as being official responses.

bluesmanSF said:  You reported in the original post that users are abusing you by reporting posts.  You suggest ignore work both ways.  I said the abuser can still abuse by seeing what you've posted with another account (or logged out) and can continue abuse (by reporting you again). 

Well this is a somewhat simplified version of our discussion that glosses over several points but for the purposes I will accept it for the purposes of this discussion

bluesmanSF said:  Your reply is, you'd use 'ignore' again.  Explain how you would do that (and how you'd even know what his user name is?).  There is no way to report a user you've never seen, that I'm aware of.

I made the point in the previous thread that trolls/cyber bullies thrive on attention and that they would post rather than report with a sock account.  When I indicated I would ignore them again, it would be in reaction to a post made by the sock puppet account that continues to harass or be abusive.

bluesmanSF said:  You can repeat it as many times as you like...but I can see any point to it.

And you can continue to repeat that this idea would not work as many times as you like...but I can see any point to it either.

bluesmanSF said:  It's simply an additional way abusive users could benefit over changing the policy. An example of why it's a bad idea.  It has nothing to do with any of the other issues you've mentioned. 

But what you do not seem to understand is that if a troll/cyber bully is able to read the posts of other users, without anything more it does not harm anyone.  The harm I am trying to address is when they can read the post of another and have a readily available method of continuing to harass other users.  You are making a specious point about something that is not even really a benefit to a troll/cyber bully and does not involve further harassment.  Furthermore, if this had nothing to do with the issues I mentioned then why did you even make it part of the basis of your discussion?

bluesmanSF said:  If it confusing you, just leave it alone as it's important to the main issue of whether this is a good or bad idea.

The only thing that was confusing to me initially was the fact that you were addressing issues that were at worst attenuated and at best tangential to what I was speaking to in the original post and not related to the main issue.  It got to the point where I had to ask you to clarify because it did not seem that you understood what I was referring to.  You did further elaborate, but in the end the beliefs you espoused about why the method I suggested would not work.

bluesmanSF said:  If you have no input on it, don't address it.  I did not mean to confuse you.

Frankly I think you might want to take your own advice.  But for the record I actually did have input and addressed it in the posts above.

bluesmanSF said:  Yes, it absolutely would.  If there's a thead with invisible comments, the thread is confusing.  If the "ignored" posts are marked as "ignored," you'd know why and skip it (or reply to the comments you can see and not have to ask what the heck the people are talking about).

Perhaps you don't realize this, but the current ignoring function the ignored posts are marked ignore when they are responses in another person's thread.  When the person you have on ignore creates a thread the thread is essentially invisible.  None of this is particularly confusing and it is all fairly self evident and should be part of what the troll/cyber bully has to deal with as a result of their activities.  I'm just failing to see how that is confusing.

bluesmanSF said:  We should all be concerned about the site losing users.  The traffic to the site keeps the ad dollars up and keeps the site free to use.

I agree that we should all be concerned about losing users and this thread is meant to address that concern as it relates to losing users who get fed up with trolling and cyber bullying and whose only method for self help is an ignore function that essentially allows said troll/cyber bully to continue their activities after the fact.

bluesmanSF said:  You appear to think I am interested in keeping abusers abusing...that's not the point. 

No, the point is that the ignore function as it is allows posters to continue to abuse other posters.  You kept bringing up extraneous issues (all of which I addressed) and through that we began discussing stricter authentication procedures which you felt would cause the board to lose users and you cited particularly the example of losing site traffic due to children not being able to meet stricter criteria.  My response was that I was surprised that this concerned you but the loss of users do to not wanting to deal with trolling and cyber bullying did not.  I'm sorry if that confused you, but it was meant to communicate to you that the site will lose users if it continues as is and the site also allows for these same children that you are worried of losing because they would reduce the traffic on the sire to be cyber bullied

bluesmanSF said:  If you reduce it  a little with what you suggest, then lose traffic on the back end you haven't accomplished much.  What I am saying is, what you suggest does not  work.

I'm sorry but your making this point about my comments regarding authentication and not the ignore function.  Further, site traffic will likely be reduced anyhow with users not wanting to be harassed due to asking a question about a movie or TV show.  The fact is that if you tied authentication to the ability to report that would minimize that problem and would not cause the site to lose traffic.  Further your assessment seems to be based on the assumption that children are IMDB users in significant numbers which I do not believe to be accurate.

bluesmanSF said:  You are not the one suggesting use of credit cards. It's the standard policy. 

And you are not reading my posts because that is not a point I made.  This was the point I made:  "IMDB has a method for authentication that works (with credit cards) and if that was expanded it would solve the issue of sock puppet accounts."  As you can see I advocated expanding it so as to make that a prerequisite to having an account so that it would solve the sock puppet issue, which really ceases to be an issue at all if you adopt my idea about the ignore function.

bluesmanSF said:  Further, you're the one who first mentioned it in this thread.  I had only suggested  how you could report by saving a link and giving it to staff. 

I mentioned it in response to some extraneous opinions you were giving about why this would not work.  You were the one that invited the opinions by stating that:  "...if you've got a suggestion...millions of people will be all for it if it can work."  If you had "only suggested  how you could report by saving a link and giving it to staff" and not offered unofficial opinion on why you did not believe that it would work then we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Frankly, that is the problem when the help section is essentially a message board in and of itself.

bluesmanSF said:  Perhaps you registered prior to "authentication" and were grandfathered in, but new accounts need it and if you're grandfathered and commit abuse, you can have your status revoked, requiring a credit card or cell phone.

I did and I guess I was grandfathered in.

bluesmanSF said:  Yes, of course that's true.  I am not psychic, I can't see the future.  But, then you're doing the same thing, right?  If we both had the same opinion and were on the same side of the issue, we'd not be having this conversation, right?

Please explain how I am doing the same thing?  I am suggesting a method to fix the ignore function based on my experiences on the message boards while you are basing yours on a belief that the idea MAY be circumvented by trolls/cyber bullies in some fashion which you admitted that you cannot at this point conceive.  Forgive me for saying this but if you can't see the future and admit you are not a psychic then why are you making claims to that effect.

bluesmanSF said:  I am a simple, garden variety site user of 15 years.

If you are then I suggest you cease offering commentary on IMDB policy, procedure, and operation when you have no association with IMDB and are in no real position to do so.

bluesmanSF said:  You might be interested in knowing about the Contributors' Charter

Thank you for making me aware of that.

bluesmanSF said:  I know of no reason why an employee would not be able to reply, just because someone else replied to you.  They do so pretty much daily, though it's usually Monday-Friday, business hours, US-Pacific time, and can be less often outside those hours. So that should not be a concern. Actually, to the contrary, they'll be more likely to respond to thread on the top and work their way back.  So, if I had not been replying, your thread might have been down a page or two and might not get noticed.

You are correct there would be no reason nor is it a concern.  My issue is that you are answering the questions of and giving comments on communications that users are attempting to have with IMDB staff when you are really in no position to do so.  If you are not an employee of IMDB or a moderator of some sort I am just puzzled as to why you are behaving like one when you have no way of affecting, implementing, or giving an official comment on policy.  Bear in mind, I am not trying to be mean or rude, in fact you responded to my inquire before an employee did and I think the company would be lucky to have you here working for them because if nothing else you are attentive.

bluesmanSF said:  They rarely respond to matters of abuse on the boards as it's not a priority compared to running a film and tv database (note on the Contributors' Charter page, there is no mention of being a message board site in the company mission).

Noted, but that does not change the fact that the message boards are in fact the most popular part of the site.

bluesmanSF said:  That is completely true.  Good point.

Then may I ask why you offer opinion as if you are a moderator or staff member?  I've looked at other questions or ideas other users have had and you seem to always post in the same manner (as if your opinions are in fact official.)

bluesmanSF said:  The old way was, you'd simply contact staff via the Help Desk.  They had no way of knowing if other users liked the proposed ideas. But, if you simply want to contact staff and let them deal with it privately instead of using a discussion forum, there's a link there for private correspondence.

Notwithstanding, the help desk had its merits because you were speaking to an actual employee whereas here you are just posting on a board.  But thank you for the link to the private correspondence.

bluesmanSF said:  Sorry if my posts confused you.  I'll leave it to you, staff and other users, as you wish unless you have any questions based on anything I just posted.

For the record, your posts did not confuse me, the fact that you were bringing up extraneous and tangential points as well as re-characterizing my point was confusing and that was why I asked for clarification from you.

bluesmanSF said:  Again, I appreciate your efforts at improving things!

I'm just trying to make it so that others don't have to be harassed/abused by others and can peacefully use the boards.  I'm not sure what your goal is here, but best of luck to you.