"Do We Need the OverStifle Button?" Topic

Having this sort of functionality seems a no-brainer to me.

If you want to use the button, it'll make your viewing experience so much better for you. And using it has no effect on anybody else, including the person you're hiding.

But if you prefer not to use the button, still just having it there for others to use won't have any effect on you.

In other words – no loss at all to those who don't use it. A gain for those who do use it. No loss for the person it is used to hide. In fact, no loss for anybody – actually, a gain for everyone as it would stop the ongoing rancour and arguments!

Will it also remove the grey boxes? Ideally an OverStifle button (horrible name, but I can live with that) would hide all remnants, including the grey boxes – especially on the frontpage.

I voted YES.
Now, prove me wrong.

It will be interesting to see how this works. I sometimes remove a stifle on the odd chance that someone I have stifled may have something interesting to say.
This may make that a bit more difficult to determine.
It sounds pretty permanent.

I would suggest that the gray box not go away. In a thread that you actually WANT to read, sometimes you need to un-stifle someone to make the responses coherent.
Making the thread/topic invisible is the point.
Two separate functions, and each should be triggered separately. work for it!

And I hope it's listed on our profile too.

I voted yes too, though I'm still not sure if I'll actually over-stifle a certain prolific poster. When I say that he does find lots of interesting stuff, I mean it.

But if this gets implemented, and I don't stifle him, I certainly cannot complain any further about his posting habits.

Let's give this a try, and see if it makes TMP better for everyone.

I voted yes as well, not because I have any intention of using it, but just to shut down the yammerheads once and for all. Were this a democracy, I would also move that, if this is implemented, complaining about another user's posting behavior become a dawghouse offense. Were I the type that hits the complaint button, I would have worn the thing out with the thread-stalking harassment that's currently going on. If the overstifle is available, and people continue the harrassment and the carping instead of using it, send them to the cooler.

Doug

A yes from me. Not for me to use, but hopefully to stop the endless threads on the topic. If it goes ahead there really is no excuse for the recent behaviour. Fingers crossed it gets in!

Rather than calling it 'OverStifle', I prefer the name 'Hide' or 'Stop following'.

To 'stifle' someone implies some kind of muzzling or preventing them from speaking (ie doing something to them).

But that's not what you're doing with this button. You're just hiding their topics and posts from your own TMP (ie doing something to yourself).

PS: @Elsyrsyn – I think that's a good idea. Complaining about a poster who hasn't broken any rules should indeed be dawghouseable once this button is in place.

No.

Merely because of how the question was worded. I don't particularly care how the vote comes out since I'm not interested in using the Overstifle (or the Stifle, for that matter), or in preventing it from being used by others. I accept TMP for what it is, warts and all, and I have a hard time working up any sympathy for those who are frustrated that they can't edit TMP/The Internet/The World to suit their own tastes.

Now, a "Reverse Stifle", which would keep a particular member from reading anything that I post would be much more useful.

I'm intrigued what you mean by the wording of the question, War Artisan?

I see you like to accept TMP for what it is, warts and all, and I have no problem with that. But why then do you feel everyone else has to accept it that way, when the only difference for you would be one additional tiny wart, namely an OverStifle button?

I voted 'no'. Given the example that has been under a lot of heated discussion recently, where I haven't even stifled the poster in question, I wouldn't want to super-stifle him, either.

Besides, some stiflees may still start interesting topics long after whichever argument or offensive behaviour is over, and seeing the titles may be an incentive to unstifle them and see if they are being more constructive.

Indeed, the only members whom I might want to super-stifle would be certain members of the locked account crowd such as "BME". However, their threads tend to disappear rather quickly from the front page, so I don't personally see a need for super-stifling them, either.

Arteis: The question asked whether I would be interested in having that ability. I'm not.

Whether anyone else has it or not is a matter of complete indifference to me, but that was not the question. If the question had been worded "Do you think TMP should have an Overstifle function", I would not have voted since I don't care one way or the other.

I don't feel anyone else must accept TMP for what it is, though I might wish they would; they simply will get no sympathy from me, nor will I answer the question falsely in order to give them what they want.

Good point about the wording, War Artisan! However, I'm pretty sure the intent of the poll would've been to inform the Editor whether or not there's sufficient support to implement this button. I think he's just worded it badly – but I may be wrong.

@Editor: Could you please clarify this?

No

We were offered neither Zardoz nor Needs more boobies as choices. This poll certainly can't reflect the true oppinion of the masses

Actually, Arteis, it's a good bet that he intended the wording to convey exactly the message it does. When he asks about a new Board, he doesn't ask if it should exist . . . he asks if the members would support it or not. I believe he wants to know what percentage of respondents intend to actually use the function, not how many think it should be implemented.

Good call, W.A..

This is a tricky one. I have no intention of ever 'Overstifling' anyone – if I wasn't interested in new ideas in my hobby, why would I spend valuable time on TMP!

And now that the option is there to extend your main feed to 400 posts, there should be no meaningful complaint that threads can't be followed, no matter how difficult or distasteful you find it to tailor you board preferences…

But who am I to dictate to fellow TMPers how they configure their TMP experience?

And at least with this option, combined with the doubled main feed, at least any further anti Tango posts will be clearly revealed for what they are…

So, on balance, I will vote for this…I can't be in bad company if John the OFM is voting for it, after all!

But who am I to dictate to fellow TMPers how they configure their TMP experience?

Thank you!

I would loved the "Reverse Stifle"! (smile).
No problem with the OverStifle, really hope not to read anything from some guys anymore (smile).

Amicalement
Armand

I second Sparker's comments. I like Tango's posts but I can see that many don't and it is causing angst and disharmony so I will vote yes so that those upset about his posts will use the function, stop complaining and we can all get back to talking about games with our little miniature army men :-)

Would you be interested in being able to OverStifle someone?

Not personally. Just because someone is an idiot in one post doesn't mean he can't contribute something in another. Some goofballs might even be contrite at a later point, and an overstifle would prevent one from seeing that.

But to each their own. Some folks just want an empty message board. :D

Yes, just to be clear, in my opinion, you should vote 'yes' even if you have no personal expectation of ever superstifling someone yourself, but believe others should have that option if they choose to exercise it…

Why? So that those who wish to remain insulated from posts from sources they dislike can do so without having to post against that source on TMP Talk and causing/partially causing all this recent unpleasantness. Think of it as a vote for peace on TMP, one that discriminates against no-one, albeit possibly at the expense of lessening our shared experience.

A good compromise I think…

Yes, even if you are the most pro of pro Tango – even if you are Tango himself – you really ought to vote "yes" and put all this faff in the past.

I won't use it, but I voted yes. Just vote yes and then this is over and done with (until everyone finds something new to complain about that is).

Yes

Yes, great idea, but for uses totally unconnected with the current witch-hunt.

Yes for me and its an elegant solution in my view.

Quick count today, 32% odd messages on the front page were posted by Tango or about Tango.

This is a simple solution that fixes things for everyone involved.

It's a pity that the poll question "Do We Need the OverStifle Button?" changes to "Would you be interested in being able to OverStifle someone?" in the body of the text. It does cause some confusion over the poll's intent.

I do hope that people will vote 'yes' for this feature even if they may not use it themselves, as some posters above have already said they did. It would make such a positive difference for those who want it, and would have no effect on those who won't use it.

The name "overstifle" seems unnecessarily aggressive though. Someone else suggested calling it "ignore", which seems more accurate.

EDIT: Arteis' "hide" is also a fine suggestion. Though "stop following" makes it sound like we're all otherwise following each other around, herd-like or stalker-fashion…

How many yes votes are needed for this to be implemented?

Out of curiosity, how will the 'over-stifle' button prevent topics from being pushed off the front page? My understanding was that was one of the main problems caused by prolific posting. Will people just see a greyed out front page will all the other topics still pushed down the list?

I voted yes, personally I've no use for it but if it'll stop the near contast anti/pro-Tango topics I'll vote yes, shrug and go back to ignoring the whole argument.

Out of curiosity, how will the 'over-stifle' button prevent topics from being pushed off the front page? My understanding was that was one of the main problems caused by prolific posting. Will people just see a greyed out front page will all the other topics still pushed down the list?

I am assuming that threads will not be visible at all rather than just "greyed out". The latter would not solve the problem as you rightly suggest.

Yes, if it keeps the melodrama and whining away.

I don't believe it will.

Need a don't give a option.

I voted yes but it's really pointless as the Editor is not bound to abide by poles

Ah come on the Editor instigated the poll and surely has nothing against Poles. A decent and good looking people in my experience.

I voted yes. But I still think there will still be issues. The recent posts on tango skirt or ignore outright the FAQ for posting on members. Perhaps the new feature would, for a time, make peace though!

Majority of the anti tango posters are only concerned about their front page, which is fine, to each their own.

You don't have the right to tell them they can't be given a tool to enhance their TMP experience. If the Over Stifle was put in, majority of them would have no more issues, and could be singled out and punished accordingly if they kept up the debate.

The Pro Tango posters could then continue on their merry lives and enjoy TMP in the way they see fit, which does not mean it is fit for everyone.

The fact Tango is not breaking the rules honestly means nothing. Other than a few true dissidents most of the complainers only want their front page back. Even though he is not breaking rules he is obviously hampering TMP for enough people to have this issue trotted out repeatedly.
You have no right to tell them to get over it, just as they have no right to remove Tango from the boards.

This Over Stifle would give everyone what they want. Diplomacy has failed gentlemen. Count the amount of stupid threads over the last two days. Talking will get us nowhere.
This will though. No one is harmed or excluded from the site or limited in any way. All it does is allow people to configure TMP to suit their needs and desires further.

Harmless and a no brainer Yes vote for the interest of keeping the peace.

I voted yes. Perhaps I'll now be able to Over-stifle some of the anti-Tango topics that keep pushing interesting posts off the bottom of the front page…

@Elsyrsyn – good call about dawghousing the whiners if this gets implemented.

There will be bitching and moaning from the "Stifles limit my free speech!" crowd, but that is to be expected.

I just hope that everybody who voted YES is not disappointed when those who want to punish and limit are not satisfied.
Still, it's a good start.

I'm sure it will be fine John. Don't worry.

I just hope that everybody who voted YES is not disappointed when those who want to punish and limit are not satisfied.

John, I fail to see how anyone could not be satisfied if this is implemented. If you've super-stifled someone you will not see anything they post, so they will effectively not exist from your point of view – so what possible reason could anyone then have for wanting to punish or limit them further ?

In order for someone to be "punished" as some claim would not the person so "Stifled" have no idea if they were being "Super-Stifled" if it did not show up on their profile? That term seems to be bandied about a bit. As others have been pointing out it would not have ANY effect on their postings or reputation AT ALL.Would others be prevented in seeing the posts and threads. Not at all.Just wondering how others can show in what way that someone would be "punished". Kinda hard when it does not effect then in any way and no one else would know also. And how would it effect those who like to see said threads and posts? Robert

Interesting question Robert…I have accumulated many stifles over the years, and I do notice that sometimes I post an answer to a question, and then somebody posts exactly the same answer a couple of posts down – so you do start to get a feeling that no-one is listening to you…

Just like being at home really!

Maybe it will settle things down here a bit.

Voted yes and pleased to see that it's 2:1 in favor.

Seems like a win-win to me to have the option to be as choosy in my TMP front page as I can be on my email front page. I'm not interested in "punishing" anyone, just want to have the option to clear certain things out of my TMP should I choose to do so.

Looking forward to it.

Voted Yes but won't use it.

Can it be renamed the UberStifle instead?

umm, not a stifler, and I may sometimes complain about peoples posts, especially when people unintentionally make a mistake and make a truly offensive statement, but who generally are good posters of relevant info.

So no, and I wouldn't want to use it.