"Stop counting stifles" Topic

Pursuant to the thread here:

TMP link

I hereby nominate we stop keeping track of stifles on the user statistics. It is not beneficial to the site, and it only leads to people complaining that they have been stifled. Eliminating the count would remove the issue, as the person being ignored wouldn't have a running count of how many people are ignoring them.

I hereby nominate that every should about stifles. It's becoming ing tedious and it's giving me ing Tourettes.

I regard my stifles as a badge of honor, and oppose your suggestion. Someday I hope to achieve the lofty heights of a John the OFM.

I think eliminating the count is the best idea for a positive improvement on TMP I've heard in a while.

Rick

Didn't we just vote on this?
Can we PLEASE stop dragging up old Poll topics and voting on them until we get the "right" answer?

WHO DOES IT HARM?????

Did we have a vote on this? I know we had a vote on eliminating stifles, I didn't think there was a vote on not putting the stifle count on the user page.

Instead of a "it hurts the feelings of people", I would like to have one person step up to the plate and tell us, up close and personal, how they have been harmed by having their stifle count published.
I want details, and not "I was saddenned to see that some people think I am not worth listening to."

I certainly won't be referencing TMP on my CV…

@John: I don't think it's an issue of people's feelings being hurt, this time, as near as I can tell.

Rather, it's an idea to completely eliminate the impetus for, and dubious "reward" from, the asinine behaviour the attention-starved occasionally engage in as a method of gaining oh-so-precious stifles, and thereby validating their existence by availing themselves of the lavish lifestyle and seemingly numberless perks that come with being a hardcore, badass rebel with the stifles- and thus street cred- to prove it.

Although, I suppose removing the total from profiles could actually cause some hurt feelings, as the giddy hordes of stifle groupies and digicamp followers would likely move on to more verdant pastures* in pursuit of virile juggernauts of manliness.

C'est la vie.

- Monk

* Such as 4Chan, and the Something Awful forums.

I'd like to know where the stifle as badge of honour types and their groupies live. It's a canard.

'Ignore' exists on most fora. I have accrued ignores here and elsewhere (more here than elsewhere I suspect, thin skins are endemic on TMP). None of it matters, that others don't wish to read my prose doesn't ruin my experience of any site I frequent.

Far too many people chez TMP take trivial things far too seriously.

What can I say of those
that oppose my choice of words
or the style of my prose?

I'd like to comment on their wit,
but I've yet to see a display of it!

* Such as 4Chan, and the Something Awful forums.

Fora.

I'd like to know where the stifle as badge of honour types and their groupies live. It's a canard.

I'm sorry, Connard, but you are mistaken. I can name two just off the top of my head:

Daffy Doug (the self-styled "king" of stifles)
TMP link

Muah ha ha (who changed his display name constantly, for a while)
TMP link

A quick search of the forums for posts by either will reveal multiple instances of them not only trumpeting their stifle counts, but openly admitting they engage in behavior, post responses, and treat others in such a way as to actively, and intentionally, get stifled.

There are a number of others, as well, whose names I can't be bothered to look up- I only remembered Doug and Muah offhand because I've interacted with them directly on a few threads- but I'm sure others could name them.

And for the record, I don't even use the stifle feature- I've only ever stifled two people in my entire time on TMP, and one was Big Mean Elf when he was fully in the throes of being… well, himself, and I can't recall who the other was, because it was simply a short-term thing done primarily to keep myself out of the Dawghouse, as I was in a particularly vile mood at the time and they just irrationally irritated me with a pointless comment or two that they made.

I agree wholeheartedly that stifles don't matter- as I stated, much to Muah Ha Ha's (I believe that's who it was, at least) chagrin, I'm a big boy, and perfectly capable of just not reading the posts if the author isn't worth paying attention to. I'm also far thicker skinned than the majority of the membership, however- 5 1/2 years as a strip club bouncer, as well as being a former musician, and along with occasional stints as a bodyguard (occasionally of people I loathed) and event security, don't leave you with the option of being otherwise.

To say that the "Stifle As A Badge Of Honor" type is a straw man, however, is inaccurate, and as I rather enjoy your posts, I sought to correct (amiably, or so I hope it came across) the misconception, just as I would prefer to have done when I'm mistaken.

(The groupies, on the other hand, were pure mockery, making light of the vaunted stifle)

Cheers.

- Monk

Edit: I just noticed Muah Ha Ha's actually banned/locked out now. He was actually active for a while, however, and that was when the above took place- his comments still appeared in topics I glanced at, though, so I'd imagine any posts he started would, too.

Also, this is what I get for being pseudo-lazy, and just looking up Doug's profile, then retyping the last part for Muah Ha Ha, rather than looking up and C&Ping his, as well. Heh.

Fora

Yes, yes, I know, I know.

It's 11:23am, Thursday.

I've been awake since sometime early… Tuesday, I think? Possibly Monday, but I'm pretty sure Tuesday.

Just be grateful I can still find the shift key, and used the correct terminology for most of the rest. :P

- Monk

Fora.

The nominative and accusative plural of the Latin word "forum" is "fora". There are also genitive, dative, ablative… plurals.
The plural of the English word "forum" can be either "fora" or "forums".

Who cares about them? Really?

The plural of the English word "forum" can be either "fora" or "forums".

In fairness to Jeff, however, I do use "fora" as plural, when referring to multiple sites (and "forums" when refering to a group of different boards on a single site, for whatever reason).

Thanks, though, Ol' Forum Meister!

- Monk

(amiably, or so I hope it came across) the misconception, just as I would prefer to have done when I'm mistaken.

Oh don't mind me, I seldom take offence. Even if it seems that I do

Oh don't mind me, I seldom take offence. Even if it seems that I do

Heh- actually, you struck me as the type who doesn't, but I've been on something of a roll the past day, day and a half- even managed to off the girlfriend, who's known me since '04 and rarely takes offense to anything- so figured better safe than sorry.

Look at it this way, though- at least I cared if I did. That's not something that can be said very often at all. :D

- Monk

I'm for this. It will, as Monk writes, stop certain types of "gentlemen" from engaging in extra "gentlemanly" behavior to increase their counts. It will stop the whiners from whining that people don't like them. It will increase the mystery of it all.

Agree with Monk it will be a private thing that only the person doing the stifling will know.

The plural of the English word "forum" can be either "fora" or "forums".

I was trying to pick up another stifle from Sumatran Rat Monkey! Sadly:

And for the record, I don't even use the stifle feature-

As TMP is set up Stifles are counted.

Bill's house, Bill's rules.

was trying to pick up another stifle from Sumatran Rat Monkey! Sadly:

Heh- even if I did, you'd have far, far better luck looking elsewhere for that all-important Stifle #2, I'm afraid.

Between my job history, general demeanor, and an ego that, in a rare show of kindness to myself, I'll describe as "unassailable," and while I may be incredibly easy to irritate into sighing dismissal, I'm all but impossible to upset, let alone actually offend.

Luckily for the young stud on the stifle-prowl, that's a pretty rare thing here on TMP, and the environment is, in fact, quite rich with Nervous Nellies and the kneejerk outrage types. One might even say rife with them, depending on the boards frequented..

- Monk

As TMP is set up Stifles are counted.

Bill's house, Bill's rules.

Yes, and Bill has always shown not just a willingness to, but an active interest in, listening to any suggestions, honestly given, to improve or adjust TMP.

Were TMP a wholly static entity, none of us would even be having this discussion, because originally, there were no polls, stifles, or even memberships, paid or unpaid.

- Monk

No.

Yes please

Have patience with the slow, be gentle to the wrong, and be understanding of those upset without cause, for some day you will be all of those.

I have been stifled once here (and probably ignored or thought ill of more than that), and it is not a big thing one way or the other. Count them if you like, it matters not.

Yes, eliminate this pointless number.

If it really doesn't matter as a few have pointed out then why bother to measure it or complain if it goes away?

Eliminate the number and the ratio Bill, and you will eliminate at least a quarter, if not half, of the strife on your forum.
Stifles are the core of the contention on this site.
Someone told me you were a religious man.
That means you know who the Father of Contention is.
Reduce his hold here be getting rid of the stifle stats!

Yes, get rid of it. Tis a silly thing.

God hates a stifler ?

Well, that's news.

no. i think it is best for someone to know when they are stifled so they can perhaps moderate their posting behavior in a positive manner. if people cannot see that they are being stifled, they'll continue with boorish postings which will NOT improve TMP. their inappropriate postings may actually escalate over time. interestingly, the posts from some of the more vocal on this subject, i cannot see, because i'm happy to say i've stifled them…

There you go. I don't like stifling and now we have proof that God doesn't either. I think that can count as a concensus.

no. i think it is best for someone to know when they are stifled so they can perhaps moderate their posting behavior in a positive manner. if people cannot see that they are being stifled, they'll continue with boorish postings which will NOT improve TMP

You've clearly never met Dave Hollins then.

Just get rid of stifling.

…except we've proven the benefits of stifling. And I'm pretty sure measures to eliminate stifling have failed in the past. Yet it still remains a sticking point for a… select few, which is why I want to improve the system.

How has the benefits of stifling been proven?
If you do not know for what you are being stifled, how can one improve one's postings.

(E.G.) just picked up a single stifle in the last 36 hours, but in the same time period, I have been active on numerous boards, polls, merchant annoucements, and so forth.
Where or what is the stifle about?
No idea!
Therefore, how can there be any benefit affected if one does not know what the stifle is about?
ONE CANNOT!!
Therefore, stifle counts/ratios are of no workable function whatsoever.

Bill, please get rid of the stifle count and ratio.
These statistics do no good at all for TMP.

When did God get involved 20th Maine?
You lost me there.

"When did God get involved…?"

Tuesday. Pay attention, please.

If you do not know for what you are being stifled, how can one improve one's postings.

The benefit is for the stifler, not the stiflee. If someone has proven to me that they aren't worth reading, I can make it so I no longer have to. No one else is impacted.

I don't count them. I do ck regularly to see if I have offended someone else.

"No one else is impacted."

I did suggest a reason (in the related thread TMP link ) for how everyone participating/reading a thread could possibly be harmed by stifling. It's not much, I admit, but it does counter the 'no one is harmed' position to some degree.

or not. I mean…a discussion about toys is already pretty far down on the 'this is important' scale – a discussion about the discussion is, I assume, even less critical and/or deserving of more than 'this is moot' effort?

or…I go get some coffee, read the paper, and then see about doing something about that pile of figs in the cellar…? ; )

I could change it to 'No one else is significantly impacted' if that would help cover such obtuse circumstances, but I think the point remains.

I did suggest a reason (in the related thread TMP link ) for how everyone participating/reading a thread could possibly be harmed by stifling. It's not much, I admit, but it does counter the 'no one is harmed' position to some degree.

Yes, as did a few. Patently the OFM's stiffled us all as he's still seeking enlightenment

Instead of a "it hurts the feelings of people", I would like to have one person step up to the plate and tell us, up close and personal, how they have been harmed by having their stifle count published.
I want details, and not "I was saddenned to see that some people think I am not worth listening to."

I was distracted by wondering who I'd upset after checking my count. In my absentminded state I got up from the desk too quickly and knocked my knee into the side of the desk. It hurt.

There John. Harm directly caused by stifles!!

Happy now ?

John, re-reading the above I realise it probably comes across as petulant; it was meant to be humerous with tones of sarcasm. Apologies if any…err…harm? …was caused.

Wow, I can't imagine how I got TWO stifles!
Everybody who knows me thinks I'm a wonderful person and a sweetheart of a guy!
Well, except for the two ostriches who obviously couldn't stand me being right about something…
XD

Wel, pulpace, I think it was you who brought in the scriptures :

"For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
"

If (stiflers are stirring up contention = TRUE)

And if (the devil is the father of contention = TRUE)

then God hates a stifler = TRUE

Else

God hates a stifler = FALSE

ENDIF