ignore command

[erulak]

[Aureus]

Ignore is for your personal benefit in terms of blocking people you don't want to hear. (Ideally I would like to make it persist over logouts, but that requires player-file updates that are difficult to make currently.) I do not like the idea of it preventing others from hearing the things you say, or really see the point of that. Seems like it might encourage Houseguest Rule skirting.

What's the use case for the change?

[erulak]

Ignore is for your personal benefit in terms of blocking people you don't want to hear. (Ideally I would like to make it persist over logouts, but that requires player-file updates that are difficult to make currently.)

But "ignore" isn't a really "blocking" people, it's muting them. The distinction is relevant and one a good number of multiplayer games and most social media and forums draw between "block" and "mute". What I am asking for is effectively making the "ignore" command function more like a traditional block command, and that seems to be in line with your idea to make it persist over logouts, which strikes me as closer to a "block" function. I'm sure people have also just accomplished "persistent ignore" on the client side of things with MUDLET or ZMUD, and internalizing easily replicated client-side QOL functions to the game itself is worth doing, so kudos for that.

That aside, I think calling it a "benefit" would be more accurate if WoTMUD was a chatroom (like Discord, with its famously half-baked block-feature-that's-really-half-a-mute-feature) and the unrelated things you say on globals couldn't bring a bad actor right to your room/zone, even if you are ignoring them. In the current system, if you've gotten to the point of putting someone on ignore, you are also opting out of interacting with the broader game and the rest of the who list because of one person.

I do not like the idea of it preventing others from hearing the things you say, or really see the point of that. Seems like it might encourage Houseguest Rule skirting.

I don't really understand the House Guest rule skirting thing, esp. through the lens of the current system -- are we saying that if Player A ignores Player B and Player B continues to harass/talk dung on Player A, that Player B is then *not* breaking the Houseguest rules simply because Player A doesn't hear it? That seems incorrect. Maybe it makes sense from the perspective of not having to enforce stuff (after all, if Player A is not hearing it, they have nothing to report, and then nothing enforce -- unless a third party reports it), but I don't see how that'd be any different if ignore was less mute and more block.

What's the use case for the change?

The use-case is any scenario where you'd currently use the ignore command. The only thing it goes beyond into "one bad actor shouldn't have a chilling effect on your interaction with the rest of the game and playerbase because you've opted into a communications asymmetry with person" and, in other situations, the pretty straightforward principle is that if you want two people to cool off, you separate them from each other, not just make it one-way communications where one can still hear the other.

[Ominas]

Ominas doesn’t like Areolas. He ignores him. Ominas has friends that then also ignore Areolas. Now if Areolas wants to participate on ls the game seems more dead. He’s confused because he sees people talking to others but isn’t sure who. He has issues pking because he cannot see callouts. The actions of one or more are now potentially impeding his ability to play. It would be easy to weaponize a system like that, I imagine that’s what he means in reference to the houseguest rules.

Fun discussion, just passing through!

[erulak]

Ominas doesn’t like Areolas. He ignores him. Ominas has friends that then also ignore Areolas. Now if Areolas wants to participate on ls the game seems more dead. He’s confused because he sees people talking to others but isn’t sure who. He has issues pking because he cannot see callouts.

Again, if the specific intent is to weaponize communications among your buddies and friends and pals and boys, there are way easier ways to accomplish that with fewer limitations, bigger advantages, and zero oversight.

Now imagine a slightly different scenario where Areolas is being obnoxious or doing something obnoxious and Ominas and other people who happen to be playing the side with him and *aren't* buddies and friends and pals and boys with the option to take it to Discord. They all might put him on ignore, but then who knows what Areolas is doing with the comms? If anything, that scenario is encouraging people to splinter off into external groups even further and take it even more out of the game. And then the default is people nobody actually intends to block or ignore logging on to dead air with no way to communicate unless they are allowed into some Discord group, which IMO is worse than the bolded happening to somebody who has been intentionally ignored for whatever reason.

The actions of one or more are now potentially impeding his ability to play. It would be easy to weaponize a system like that, I imagine that’s what he means in reference to the houseguest rules.

That's what I thought he may have meant as well, but since we do not consider shutting the whole game out via specific Discord groups a house guest rule violation, nor do we consider the act of ignoring somebody (i.e. muting) them a house guest rule violation, I'm not exactly sure why this (which amounts to blocking somebody) would be considered a house guest rule violation. Let's say you work your magic and coordinate the whole who list to ignore somebody - is screaming into a void while everyone just talks around you really any more houseguest friendly or welcoming than dead air? That seems arbitrary.

BTW - good to see you around/popping by, hope things are all good!

[Elysia]

When I read the post I was weighing all pros and cons and basically had the content of the discussion between Rig and Nevaeh inside my head, arguments and all. It was really funny to see those pop up from someone else later in the day.

Ultimately though, I think the potential to ignore someone and then talk dung about them, even if it's continued jabs that may or may not be remotely truthful, is too great and not conducive to having a good atmosphere. Yes, I get that you can do the same on Discord. You can do the same through forum DMs. But the game is our uniting factor and there is a tool that lets you block out asshattery/ idiots/ drunken ramblings/ things you just don't want to deal with right now, which is geared towards continuing to play unimpeded -for both sides-, not exclusion. It's the potential for exclusion that has me worried. Plus as imms, we'd be dealing with variations of "mommy, they're not letting me play with them" and, well... ugh. Imo it's bad enough that people are voiping.

[vittak]

The problem statement and suggestion both make sense to me but I think the implications for a smaller community are much higher. In addition in my experience most ignore functions are at an account level where as here I assume it would be at a character to character level. Which makes the combinations and number of blocks significantly higher. I also wonder if the situation has escalated to the point of needing to block if this stops anything. There is nothing stopping the person from logging on another character or creating a new character for the purpose of monitoring communications or engaging in an unhealthy exchange. If your concern is communication monitoring how do you know if someone is doing it? The only solution in that case is to block every character you don't recognize every time you log on. Either way interesting concept and discussion hopefully a neat solution can be found.

[erulak]

Ultimately though, I think the potential to ignore someone and then talk dung about them, even if it's continued jabs that may or may not be remotely truthful, is too great and not conducive to having a good atmosphere.

This is a good point, but it also strikes me as exactly the reason why most block functions are two-way streets. The general atmosphere (for everyone) gets better when neither can hear each other. Do you have more or fewer reasons to continue jabs if, from your perspective, the target of your ire (who may or may not have ignored you) is not saying anything at all?

But the game is our uniting factor and there is a tool that lets you block out asshattery/ idiots/ drunken ramblings/ things you just don't want to deal with right now, which is geared towards continuing to play unimpeded -for both sides-, not exclusion.

What is the functional difference between muting someone (current ignore) or blocking them (proposed ignore), exclusively as far as "excluding" them goes? In either case, *you* (as the ignorer) are opting to exclude them from dialogue. The mute just leaves the door open to more bullshit or continued antagonism of some variety or another vs. a straight block that treats both "participants" the same.

[Nylen]

As someone who has never used the 'ignore' command, I don't really see why we would need a specific coding change to make it block even more. I can't think of a single person that I would dislike enough that I'd even need such a thing, and I would hope that nobody would ever feel the need to use it on me... If they did, I would like them to be able to communicate with me to resolve the issue.

If someone is being so detrimental or distressing to your mud experience that simply ignoring them with the current command and moving on with your day isn't enough, then that sounds like their behavior is worth bringing up to staff. Otherwise, like Ominas said, it just seems like something that has more chance for abuse and negatives than benefits to the community.

[Elysia]

Ultimately though, I think the potential to ignore someone and then talk dung about them, even if it's continued jabs that may or may not be remotely truthful, is too great and not conducive to having a good atmosphere.

This is a good point, but it also strikes me as exactly the reason why most block functions are two-way streets. The general atmosphere (for everyone) gets better when neither can hear each other. Do you have more or fewer reasons to continue jabs if, from your perspective, the target of your ire (who may or may not have ignored you) is not saying anything at all?

But the game is our uniting factor and there is a tool that lets you block out asshattery/ idiots/ drunken ramblings/ things you just don't want to deal with right now, which is geared towards continuing to play unimpeded -for both sides-, not exclusion.

What is the functional difference between muting someone (current ignore) or blocking them (proposed ignore), exclusively as far as "excluding" them goes? In either case, *you* (as the ignorer) are opting to exclude them from dialogue. The mute just leaves the door open to more bullshit or continued antagonism of some variety or another vs. a straight block that treats both "participants" the same.

I don't see the blocking as a fix for continued nonsense, it would just be directed towards the game in general, because people are just like that.

Wrt the exclusion, if a group of people want to pk together, especially during low numbers times or on DS, yes it would be possible to exclude others, which would actively harm other people's enjoyment of the game. We already have a problem with people not narrating and we'd up the chances of fights being reported on globals if doing so wasn't a lag factor. People feel there's nothing going on, when in reality, there sometimes things going on and people are already being hush hush about it. It sucks.