Hey, how can I get Discourse to do X?


White supremacy is not mainstream politics. There are a few posters who are pretezeling themselves trying to convince themselves that his obvious racist and white supremacy remarks are not exactly that so they can talk about these other things, but the guy is clearly in that park, like way in it.


Yet you have a flag function. fuckin’ use it

I guarantee you that squeaky wheels get grease. This is the way the world works, has always worked, and will continue to work long after both you and I are gone.


No. I will not flag a post and annoy the mods here every time I am pissed off because a Trumpet says something that pisses me off. But I would really like to mute them. If you can’t see the difference we are at an impasse. You don’t understand why I want this. Or you don’t care.


The new “who will think of the shareholders” is “who will think of the mods”?

God forbid they, y’know, moderate a forum.

Which brings me back to thunderdome.


Okay, now you’re being obtuse on purpose.


I’m really not. Forum moderation is a thing, even though Tom fervently wishes it wasn’t. I kinda wish Tom had had kids at some point so he’d get a taste of that as well. Turns out, humans need grownup intervention a fair bit… at all ages.


This is not a moderation issue. It’s a simple fix. Give us the ability to mute people. I don’t need to tell someone that I don’t want to hear shit if I can ignore shit.


So let me get this straight.

Multiple regulars have reported a consistent problem with one specific person. So rather than having the moderators deal with that person, we need to build a special feature in the software for these multiple regulars, that they all invidiually need to invoke, locally on their devices …

… all to prevent the moderators from being bothered?

What about new users who sign up, read through those topics and see this kind of topic asshattery on regular display and nobody responding because all the regulars have ignored this person? Is that a good and welcoming outcome for qt3?

I ignore you, you ignore me, we're a happy family

I don’t know who other people might be talking about but I stay out of P&R. I want ignore because of a couple of people I won’t name but who seem to get on fine with most people here. Just because I find them intensely aggravating doesn’t mean they should be removed from the community.

(And also, because, in general, it’s a useful feature in internet communication software.)


Wait. I’m unclear on what, exactly, we should be modding. “Hey, man, even though you haven’t broken any forum rules, we’d sure appreciate you not expressing your opinions in P&R.”

I ignore you, you ignore me, we're a happy family

Call me old, call me cranky, but my 6th sense is telling me this person joined explicitly to troll us. It may be more than one person. They have almost exclusively posted in P&R after an entry into the BF thread which supposedly drew them into P&R. I think it may be a college experiment or a russian experiment to test out new arguments and theories.

It’s tiresome. This person has said a few things that clearly call out their racists / xenophobic tendencies, but nothing that would garner a ban. And people can’t stop raising to the bait, although I applaud dave perkins ;-)


Sure, why not? Qt3 wouldn’t be the first place to gate a specific poster from a particular sub-forum, if only to make life easier on the Management.

Does Discourse allow for it?


Because I don’t want to?

The guy isn’t doing anything wrong. He’s in P&R, or in topics with a heavy P&R slant, and posting within our rules. He’s courteous - frankly more courteous than some of our regulars were to him - and he’s even posted a couple of times that his mind was changed on a point. He thanks people for corrections and he seems sincere to me. That he comes from a political perspective that the majority here doesn’t endorse isn’t really something I’m comfortable banning from participation.

It wasn’t long ago that @Timex and @Strollen were swimming against the current of the Qt3 majority in P&R, and they still sometimes disagree with the popular opinion. Technically @ArmandoPenblade has violated more posting rules in P&R than anyone but we let it go because we know he’s not seriously advocating totalitarian rule or rounding up Republicans and shipping them off to an island. (Okay, maybe he is serious about the latter.) I’m not going to start banning those members because I disagree with their politics.

Leaving Quarter to Three (and no longer sponsoring the site)

Sure, I get that.

But if your community is telling you that dealing with the guy is a burdensome pain in the ass, and no tools are available to ignore him…


Sorry. I’ve seen a bunch of complaints and flags on his posts, but I’ve seen a pretty fair number of “I don’t agree, but I want this guy to continue posting” type comments.

As for the ignore feature, that’s not my deal.


I think it’s not uncommon for people to think it’s a minor thing to chum it up with a local racist. I guess that often depends on whether or not it’s your race that racist targets or… .not.


Oh, I’m not asking for it to happen. I haven’t been into P&R in years, so I have no personal stake in this. Just making the observation that lifting someone out of a particular mix is a valid moderation tool.


Tools are available in the form of muting notifications, the disagreement is about whether muting notifications is “enough” versus total erasure from their worlds.


I take it you just did a drive-by skim of P&R to see what the fuss was about.

I’m sure @Dave_Perkins will agree with you on the polite thing. He’s very polite. He even thanks people too.

If you’re okay with a whole subforum going to shit, that’s your call. That’s why we would like an ignore feature so we can get on the best we can.


I do agree. Agreement is polite. It is harder to argue against someone who is polite when they are looking for ways to save white culture.