"Should the stifle count be visible?" Topic

Do we really need to know how many out of the how ever many thousand visitors to TMP have stifled us? Do we need to know who has the most stifles?

Losing that information could dramatically cut down on some of the angst on TMP, I should think.

Only two ways to vote here:

Yes

No

Edit: Yes means we need to see stifles; no means we don't. Just to clarify.

Who would ever stifle Neotacha?

I never look but I suspect I've got a couple.

I've stifled a couple folks as well (maturity level issues mostly).

I would vote, who cares?

mjc

No.

There was no option for "who cares" and unfortunately, no option for needs more B

I say if we have stifles, then lets have the courage of our convictions and make everything out in the open. It should show who stifled you as well as who you're stifling.

It should show who stifled you as well as who you're stifling.

No. It should not.
Your argument would have validity if a stifle meant anything, or hurt anybody. It does not hurt anybody.

I cannot fathom the resentment that some people have to being stifled. I have 92 of them, and it does not bother me at all.
I don't care who stifled me, nor do I want to know who it was. Their loss, not mine.

Do we really need to know how many out of the how ever many thousand visitors to TMP have stifled us? Do we need to know who has the most stifles?

I think it's a fun fact to know. It is a statistical validation of the fact that everyone irritates someone. I have never altered my posting habits because of them, and I never will.
A stifle gives me the opportunity to not see what some Nazi punk has written. That is all.

Let me ask the stifle haters.
Do you think you should be forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh? Keith Olbermann? A stifle is nothing but the opportunity to change the channel and not listen to some blowhard. Like me.

I say if we have stifles, then lets have the courage of our convictions and make everything out in the open. It should show who stifled you as well as who you're stifling.

Red Dude,its clear you don't get the concept at all… Its really as simple as 1-2-3, follow along below.

1) Bill doesn't allow flaming on his site. He tends to jug people who respond with heat to others postings.

2) some people like to shade the ragged edge of the rules in order to get others goat, hoping to get them in trouble. Lets call them 'bridge-dwellers', though they're usually underneath the span… Or they are thoughtless boors (one of my former classmates was completely oblivious to politeness, it was like he was colorblind to all forms of social eptitude, in short, he was an arseclown all the time).

3) To save some of the angst that some of those bridge-dwellers and arseclowns were causing among the general population, Bill added a button that allows the easily-rritated to simply ignore the aforementioned B-D and AC folks, without in any way abrogating the B-D and ACs ability to post whatever pot-stirrings they wished. It literally has NO Freaking Effect on the B-d and AC posters, except for a counter that indicates that some tiny fraction of the great number of folks on TMP aren't listening to them. This made many people happy, and many more were like, "Meh…"

A tiny fraction of Meh-people and some of the previously cited B-D and AC crowd are somehow bitterly offended that people aren't FORCED to listen to them, one sign of this is the posting of aggrieved questions about why they can't find out who stifled them, and fulminating against the man or womanhood of those evil stiflers – how dare they not listen to the B-D and ACs every posting? I suppose others, like yourself, Red Fox, are suffused with a sense of civil liberty and personal responsibility.

If simply not publishing the number of people who have stifled them would somehow ease the soreness these disgruntled people feel, I am all for it. Like neotacha, I think it would indeed lower the angst level on TMP.

Yes keep the stat visible – it's hard enough to be a rebel these days, but boy do I have street cred with my 21 Stifles (read 'em and weep, oh, sorry, you don't read them, that's the point isn't it….)

Do I need to know who has stifled me ? No ! Don't put that temptation in my way. Who knows what I might do ? I might say things about them that they wouldn't be able to read !!!!!

Seriously, what do I care if 21 of the 70zillion TMPers don't like my posts ? Am I that needy ? (No – we don't need a poll, believe me I'm not).

Simply put – HELL no !

No.

No
I've said as much in the past…
If people didn't know they'd been stifled then it would remove the impetus for "Gosh! Someone stifled me!!!" posts.
Removing it would also remove the punitive joy from the folks who want to 'mark the troublemakers'… and the joy from those marked ones who want to brag about it.

It's either that or also put up a number of how many people you've stifled… so we can all laugh at your inability to use the scroll button.

Yes.

Knowing that one has been stifled after a posting could be an indicator that one is getting to heated in one's discussion. Depending on the topic it could be a wake up call or a 'meh, who cares.'

Not that it really matters, I noticed that I had picked up three stifles a while back in one day. Presumably due to a post or two that I made on a health care topic that was borderline Fez. One of those disappeared the next day – possibly due to someone wanting to see what I had posted on a gaming or history related topic or merely reflecting a reconsideration. As noted above, it hasn't affected my sleep or digestive tract.

It would be amusing to know who was thin skinned enough to have stifled me, but again it is only a minor curiosity (although the recent 'purges' did reduce my stifles by one which narrows the field a bit).

Stifles are after all merely a way to not go to the effort of simply scrolling past a post by someone who has posted something disagreeable in the past.

Knowing that one has been stifled after a posting could be an indicator that one is getting to heated in one's discussion. Depending on the topic it could be a wake up call or a 'meh, who cares.'

Maybe, if you had any clue as to why the stifle was there… but you don't… chances are whoever stifled you did it for some completely nonsensical reason like 'maturity level issues' (meep?).

Really, the number just means that you've been posting on TMP… and most likely the person who stifle you is just a lurker.

No, and the stifle button should go away as well.

WHO CARES!

Knowing that one has been stifled after a posting could be an indicator that one is getting to heated in one's discussion.

It could, but you don't get a pop-up saying you've been stifled. Often folks don't even realize it has happened unless they look at their "About Me" page. And then we get the seemingly inevitable "Why was I stifled?" post, as if the stifler is going to read the question and answer the stiflee.

Yep, leave it as is!

NO

Yes, we need to see stifles please.

Stifling is rather gutless because it is anonymou. Which I guess fits the spirit of the interweb as some people boldly cower behind their monitor after their "courageous" posting. How many stifles would their be if both parties knew about the stifle?

Stifling is alos rather pointless. It's like saying "I don't have the willpower to not read someone's posts"

If I don't care for someone I just skip over their posts without reading them. No doubt that will bother those "elite" posters who seem to think their number of stifles is some kind of digital badge of courage.

Well that posting seems to have set them off – went to my profile to check some PMs and I've gotten 14 stifles since then.

Oh the ignominy, oh the shame. Not.

Must say I rather like the fellow over at the FAL Files who actually lists the person he is 'ignoring.'

@John, you're right, no one is hurt by stifling. Therefore no one can be hurt by the evidence of who and maybe even why can they? It might even prompt being less blase about it and let people learn what is putting peoples noses out of joint.

@Cpt, thanks for the patronising. If I stifled, you'd probably have got one for that. Funnily enough I don't though. I wouldn't say I'm suffused with anything. I have a healthy dose of common sense which lets me judge whether or not some blowhard (as john puts it) is worth reading. I've learned to skim past some people on some threads. Surprisingly some people are not full of it all the time and have worthwhile contributions to make.

I wonder hypothetically if those that oppose the removal of anonymity in stifling are those who are doing the stifling in the first place and its some sort of defence mechanism. That's one of the reasons I wanted a statistic to show "most stifling" as well as "most stifled". Strangely that thread seems to have gained me an additional 10 so I'm almost up to 20thMaine's greatness. No doubt I'll pick up a few more here.

Option 3.

I couldn't give a monkeys one way or another.

No, and rename it to 'Ignore'. That is more truthful – the stiflee isn't really stifled, but just ignored. It is not an act against the person being ignored.

I may occasionally look at a poster's stats to see how many stifle's they have accumulated. For myself, I don't care if I'm stifled by anyone or not. It just means they deprive themselves of my sometimes less than helpful input :P

I guess overall it's a NO.

Yes, I think you should be able to see them.

It's a reasonably polite way for people to indicate how annoying you are, a thing it is good to be aware of.

And I agree with Henrix, it should be called 'ignore'.

Yes, knowing your stifle count is fun.

Praetorian Historian would threaten you with a stifle if you didn't agree with his views.

I don't see the threat…

For the record, and it's nobody's damn business but mine, here are the people I have stifled:

robinskigrh
skythian
Purple
Cpt Jack Flack
Dusty103
Neidhardt
Little Sorrel
kaneda
dimitriia
eaterofdead
beepybuzzy
Robotic Legionary
BunkerMan
Woodland
ReedTOsucceede
OReally
Harald Bloodaxe
dawghousebound
Rev Nice
victoryDunkirkStyle
Alex2co
thuaim
xeoran
FREEDOMHIRE
Ropeyfella
Kamal Give a work for you
MONGREL1
chopper45
rythemgrl
BillsKnobCheeseLover
007jgbg
benji416
Judas Iscariot
ErnieDingo
Katchemash
User7866
Reader Name 001
TinGuru
PaintsByNumbers

I offer this voluntarily, and NO ONE ELSE SHOULD HAVE TO LIST THEIRS, OR HAVE REVEALED TO ANYONE WHO THEY HAVE STIFLED.
Also. for the record, if the context of a thread on TMP means that, despite all odds, they MIGHT have something interesting to say, I MIGHT unstifle them. MIGHT.

I also have 92 agianst me. Big whoop.

I wonder at these delicate flowers who get offended by the fact that other people find them either offensive, or even worse, BORING. Grow up. I realize that in Kindergarten and Grade School, you were treated like you were special, and wonderful, and unique, and everybody loved you. This is the "Real World". (TMP???) Not everybody loves you, or thinks you are interesting. Grow up.

I also have 92 agianst me. Big whoop

down to 91 – I just had to see what that huge gray box you posted was all about

"it's now become a game for some"

I don't see how that's particularly a problem, if someone wants to go through that kind of trouble it just means you've annoyed a childish person a lot.

I also liked the idea of being able to register approval of someone in a similar low-key way. Perhaps making your stifle/ignore and approval count only accessible to you would mitigate at least some of the silliness.

I stiffle people who for some reason annoy me. That way I do not have to be bothered by them but they and others can have their fun. If more people stiffled instead of complaining perhaps less people would end up in DH.

It's like saying "I don't have the willpower to not read someone's posts"

Well, actually, I don't. I have a hard job not reading text in front of me, the stifle lets me keep my blood pressure down.

Question is, why do those stifled care about the few people who use computer assistance to ignore them, when there are probably dozens more doing it without the aid of the stifle feature?

Now, if Bill could code a feature that would count the number of people who scroll to a member's post, mutter "what a " and keep scrolling *that* would be an interesting number.

If more people stiffled instead of complaining perhaps less people would end up in DH.

That is the wisest thing I have read on TMP in months.

An approval button would be nice – I approve!

I have been stifled 7 times but I have no one stifled myself.

I just don't get stifling. Perhaps it's because people have forgotten self control. Don't like my posting ignore me… skip my posts. I do the same for you if I don't like your post but I don't need to go see what you posted just to get my webfury up.

This is not a personal attack but I ignore every post that John the OFM posts on TMP talk. It has nothing to do with wargaming or the hobby and just gets people riled up. I enjoy his gaming posts but could care less about whatever soapbox he is on for the day.

I've never thought to stifle him. It just seems silly to me have to hide someone to ignore them.

Edit –
Forgot to answer the question. No – why does anyone care of the 1000's of people here if a person doesn't like you? The number just causes people to get upset with no benefits.

There are people who actually use the stifle button?

Someone you stifle today might actually have something interesting to say tomorrow, and you've missed it.

I hate to be the one to tell everyone who doesn't already know it, but no one is going to agree with everything you say one hundred percent of the time or blindly adhere to it if they don't.

JW

Someone you stifle today might actually have something interesting to say tomorrow, and you've missed it.

Not the arse clowns that *I* stifled!

And if by some fluke, one of them DID post something interesting, I can live with the disapointment of missing it.

And before some arse clown hits the [!] on me, I would like to point out that Bill has specifically given his nihil obstat and imprimatur to "arse clown". We agonized over this verbiage back in Scurvy's heyday, and Bill called it equivalent to a Hadockism.

I kind of miss Scurvy. I wonder if he finished that course he was doing, and what he's doing now?

I vote no, don't show it. Keep the button, but why bother with displaying the count?

My own count has risen dramatically and steadily the past month or so and all seeing it does is tell me I've angered more people, but it doesn't tell my why. I would actually like to know what I did that upset one or more people so that I can at least see if I agree with their anger and if I do, to do something about it – clarify my remarks or apologize where necessary.

Actually if anyone could PM me and tell me why they think mine is rising so much, I'd very appreciate it. I'm near the blinking top ten now all of a sudden and I have no idea why.
--
Tim

John The OFM

"Not the arse clowns that 'I' stifled."

There's my laugh for the day.

Since you're leading the way here's the list of people I have Stifled:

JW