"Breaking faith with the TMP membership" Topic

Today's poll on "Make Stifles Public?" really bothers me.
The fact that the topic is even being brought to a vote shows that the Editor is considering it. IF the list of who has stifled a particular member were to be made public, it would betray the privacy that the members THOUGHT they had when they stifled someone.

Some here seem to think that being stifled is a big deal. Others, not so much.
However, if I were to stifle omeone, it would be for reasons that *I* consider sufficient, and the fact that I have done so is a private matter. It is none of anybody else's business. Why should it be? Because your feelings are hurt? Grow up. It's my business, and nobody else's.

To suddenly publish who has stifled whom is not just an invitation to silly and pointless war. It would also be a betrayal of the confidence and privacy that we have thought we enjoyed up to now.
Everyone seems to be up in arms over Internet privacy. Does that not apply here?
The fact that this is even being considered is unsettling to me.
The fact that it is being put up for a vote is not reassuring, either. Let's just say that some recent elections have not convinced me of the wisdom of the majority.

Your thread will be taken over by another thread in thirty… twenty-nine…

Allen

Ya think?

It seems that both sides are constructing mountains out of molehills to me.

I don't have anyone stifled, and I'm not bothered enough to want to know who stifled me. I'm sure they had valid reasons

…the misguided fools

I agree with the OFM.

I could change my vote from "I don't care" to "No. Keep it private" if you think it would help.

Nobody likes my opinion – make stifles valid for 6 months tops. Most people forget why they stifled someone, anyway. The worst offenders were either banned or shunned as trolls.

"Most people forget why they stifled someone, anyway."

Speak for yourself. And you're right: I don't like your suggestion!

I've stifled the Polls board.

To change it now could be construed as a violation of an implied contract; especially for the various supporting members that have paid to support this site.

Can I find out who did this to me?
No.

From:

TMP link

I read the FAQ's before I joined. The rules seemed reasonable to me, including the rules on Stifles.

At the very least it seems a tad unethical to change the rules midstream.

well i am in 2 minds over this.

I can clearly see OFM's quite valid objections but…..

as i think introducing the whole stifle thing in the first place was ludicrous and i never stifle anyone as even irritating people can be useful/funny occasionally then i'm tempted to vote yes on the poll just to see what happens….

Not to mention i am just a little intrigued as to who i got my own 4 from :)

Maybe having it just linked within the profiles of the people involved (ie the stifler and stiflee) rather than public would be viable.

However not too fussed either way, opioniated yes, going to lose sleep over it, no !

I just picked up my first two stifles on the moving Historicon thread. WooHoo, I have now arrived.

I've never stifled anyone myself as everyone has an opinion that they value as highly as I value mine. They just happen to be wrong (g).

On a personal level, I could care less who has stifled me and don't give a rats butt if my one stifle takes offense but I agree that it is a sure fire prescription for massive pointless disruption and needless conflict that can only harm the community.

The whole system of stifles, the DH, and complaint button are an unnecessary trifecta enabling the thin skinned to be even more over sensitive passive aggressive snowflakes than they would be without.

I strongly agree with the OFM.

I consider it like a secret ballot. Would I like to know who stifled me and why? Sure. Do I have a right to know? no. Do I want people to know who I've stifled? If I do, I'll tell you. If I don't, I won't. That's my right.

Let's face it; we all know there are people on TMP who would use a public stifle list as justification to harass or attack others. Such people deserve to be stymied.

No public list.

Not sure if I've got an opinion on the public stifle list, whole thing sounds silly to me.

But I'm 100% sure I agree with Goldwyrm a few posts back!

That said, at least this gives the thin-skinned something to do with their ineffectual rage. Without the trifecta, they'd be out whining in the streets to make the bad men stop.

I strongly agree with the OFM.

Mike "Bunkermeister" Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

Why on earth would anyone care who has stifled whom? Leave it the way it is.

Doug

I agree with John that it is a private decision to stifle someone, and that once you've done so you are entitled for that decision to remain private, if it were changed to public decision it should only apply to stifles made after the change.
However it is not an entirely private decision, since you are putting a "black mark" against the person's name, and that's public, and carries no accompanying reason. So there may be a good reason i.e. the person was driving you crazy, or a bad one i.e. the person is a fine human being and its you that is crazy. It can be a useful tool for the user or a free shot at someone anonymously, and that doesn't seem fair.

Whatever system is used, it would be better either entirely public or entirely private.

Stiffles are silly.

But if people do use them I just hope it will work for them as a useful tool to get closer to the perfect World were all have the same opinions and sensibility, especially on sensible gaming points.

Basically I do not care and might occasionally kick any such sensible point I find now and then, but only inadvertently.

I agree with OFM. Stifles are a private matter. Nobody needs to know whom I've stifled and why. I also agree that stifles should expire after a certain amount of time. I have very few members I've stifled, and I can't for the life of me remember why I stifled most of them in the first place. Although perhaps there should be a way, not necessarily easy to do but doable, to stifle someone indefinitely if they are the kind of person that rubs you the wrong way no matter what they say. But I second the NO on publishing a public list members I've stifled.

My opinion is my opinion and it's unbelievable that someone should care so much about my opinion – right or wrong – to stifle me over it. Grow up is a frequently used sentiment, but completely appropriate. It's MY opinion, if you don't like, you don't have to agree – just skip reading anything I post. Oh, your mind isn't sufficiently large to remember ALL of the people you're trying to ignore…tut tut…

That should earn me a few more! :o)

I say you shouldn't lack the courage of your convictions. If you stifle ok fine but lets see who you are. I don't like people who lurk in the shadows, to me stifles are like someone talking behind your back just grow a spine and tell me why you did it! But the bedwetters will win and the lurkers will be safe from sunlight.

So people who use the stifle function are bedwetters? Is that what you're saying? Let's be clear; if you're going to be insulting to other members, "you shouldn't lack the courage of your convictions." Say exactly what you mean.

Lurkers? For stifling? Stifling like talking behind your back? Does not compute. All it means is that the stifler has decided that you probably don't offer anything of value that he needs to be bothered reading, not even to determine whether or not to skip over it.

Allen

Much as it pains me to agree with the OFM on anything, he's absolutely right this time – publishing who stifled who is both a breach of trust and idiocy of the highest order. If anything stifles should be *less* public – remove the stifle count from people's profiles and there'll be no more fretting over them….

Dom. (Who currently has nobody stifled, for the record….)

I'm with Dom.

Remove the stifle stats completely. Let the stifled blissfully type into the abyss.

I agree with John.

The only ones I have stifles were known spammers. If I do not wish to hear from you it is my business.

All I've learned from this thread is that Irish Marine continues to be obsessed with urine and beds… 8)=

Bill,

Get rid of stifling so that we can can get back to painting.

Dom has an excellent point.
If the stifle count stat is removed from our profiles, we'll never again worry about who it was that stifled us because we won't know about it.

So, I agree with DOM.

Just get rid of the stifle count. Period. I don't need to know that 812 people don't want to read the OFM's posts, or that Irish has annoyed 642. If they don't annoy me, or I want to read their posts, cool. If you don't, or they do annoy you, that's cool as well.

I don't need to know how many people have stifled me, either. Let me type in blissful ignorance, even if I'm trying to help answer a question they have. If they see it, great. If not, it didn't hurt me and might help someone else later.

What Neotacha said.

"Let's just say that some recent elections have not convinced me of the wisdom of the majority."

I had no idea you were so up on Canadian politics!

Alright so I neeed the Blue Fez. I tried to explain to people why I stifled them right before I did it and no I really don't think they get it – am I hiding and wetting my bed – no. Do I not want to read the drivel of some racist loon – yes.

Do I know why people have stifled me – yep. Do I care – nope.

People used the stifle on the understanding their name would not be revealed. Making their name public will probably see some legal action taking place.

I've always thought that a stifle is a self inflicted wound in so far as the the stifler is imposing a limit on his own access to TMP material. I agree with the OFM. To stifle or not is a private decision, and the only one it (should) really matter to is the stifler.

I agree with John. Leave them private. He cares about stifles anyway???

I am with the OFM block here. I stifled folks whose opinions and arguments were of no interest and have not missed their pearls of wisdom. Most of my stifles date to dipping my toes in CA and other boards that no longer exist. In fact I rarely come across a post by someone I have stifled. THe whole process should be private, reasons, who stifled whom, etc.

While I think Dom's idea is simple and brilliant (just get rid of the count), I do often find it useful to check to see if someone is a habitual jerk or if I might just be taking it the wrong way. Stifle counts provide some insight into this. Still, I like the idea of getting rid of the counts.

- Cort

Sleep well ladies and gents. The great stifle debate of 09 will not come to pass. The "no"s are leading by a large margin.

If stifling really is a private matter and no one else's business, why post a stifle count? It's a false argument to claim stifling is a private matter when a stifle count is listed for each member. Remove the stifle count to truly make it a private matter.

I'm with Neotacha… just delete the stifle count from people's profiles.

I have wondered at the time what I picked up one for but never cared who. No reason to change it now unless it's to ditch the counts.

Man, I don't know . . .

Nikki Sixx of the rock group Motley Crue said at least one thing I can really admire (even if I can't live up to it): "What other people think of me is none of my business." I usually don't quote rock stars, celebrities, etc., but I wish I had that kind of attitude myself.

On the other hand, I see the point of those folks who have pointed out that those who stifle are (arguably) putting black marks on the names of others, and that they are lurkers. I think stifling is . . . well . . . . a chicken doo-doo kind of thing to do! (U.S. readers will know what I'm talking about, as well some other folks.)

I could do without the whole stifling thing, and even the stifling count; it just isn't friendly. I'm no angel, but I once stifled a guy once out of anger . . . and felt so foolish, I immediately unstifled him.

I'll still like TMP no matter what happens.

Stifle away. It matters not to me. I think they are silly and petty. I don't use them. So whether they are private or not doesn't concern me.

Stifles? I hadn't really thought about it until I came across this posting. In fact it took me almost 5 minutes to find the stifle list. This was after I voted no. I noticed John there. Good lord John, no wonder you don't want those exposed. You got 63 stifles. Then I went over to the "most posted" list and you were No. 1 (attaboy). I went and took a look at your profile and you have 1 stifle for every 888 posts. Your ratio is a hell-of-a-lot better than mine.

When I first joined I took great pride in not having a single stifle. Although I did feel a bit virginal. Then I joined in the discussion of whether the political board should return or whether the Religion board should return. I was arguing in the negative. BOOM I got 15 stifles. All of a sudden I felt somehow violated. Then I noticed John Holly has way more than me. And I forgot about the whole thing.

Whether the stifles go or stay is something I don't even care about. I've never stifled anyone. I don't think I even know how. I can't think of a reason to stifle anyone. However, if someone took the trouble to stifle me (and 17 have – although that's not enough to even make it to the top 100) I just smile. It is their issue and not mine. However, I do not want to who they are. That will become a negative influence when I read what others say. If I know the guy stifled me, I'm going to approach what he says in a prejudicial manner. I don't need that. But by all means keep the list up. It was interest to see those statistic. But wipe them out every 6 months or a year.

Rich

Don't remove the stifle count. Decouple it from the actual stifles, then decrement it randomly every few days until everyone has a zero stifle count and can feel "special" because everyone pays attention to them.

51st! And I'm with the OFM on this, as well.

Is it page two already? My, how time flies. Oh, I agree, the possibility of catching measles a second time is very high. Clang! Clang!