I don't have any problems with any members of the site but I think that this might be useful, especially for new users that made "enemies" with people that can hold grudges.

Ooh, this is amazing! Thank you Gargy :3

I'll have to agree with @Kirn. This is not 4chan. 4chan is full of annoying fucks who /deserve/ to be blocked by script. Most of us, however, are well-adjusted, reasonable people. And as DC said, using this as a staff member is pre' pitiful. Over here, if a person really is a douchebag, they get banned. The community is small and active enough for this to work, no body active here should have a legitimate reason to hate another active user who isn't suspended. It's all about the rabu, etc. etc. There's no stopping people from using that, but sanctioning it as a staff member is pre' wrong, imo. Also I personally won't use it ever. It's best to address the problem directly either by speaking to the people you take issue with or asking for a ban than to just ignore them.

Btw, if you're using that as a staff member, you're doing it wrong.

This is true.

First of all, that is Lethn's idea

No it was not. The concept of forum muting goes as far as the dawn of board software in the late nineties. It's the natural course of things to implement.

Most of us, however, are well-adjusted, reasonable people.

HAHAHAHAHAHA YOU BLIND IMBECILE

Here's a heads-up: A lot of decent users were lost for holding grudges against a particular user. Some were even triggered by their presence, akin to waving a dick around a rape victim's face. This circumvents the issue. Muting is a simple, user-based system to deal with annoying users that haven't quite broken the site rules. It makes our jobs easier, and everybody's lives easier.

@Chestnut_Rice I am afraid I have to disagree. Over the course of time, the problem became really apparent. We may not have the size or mentality of 4chan (and/or its worst boards), but I had countless friends leaving the site driven away by somebody not doing anything against the rules, and yet annoying the balls out of them.

Sometimes, talking it out doesn't help.

This is an option, anyway. That is exactly why it is a browser extension rather than a thing on the site.

@Gargron

Which is good. Making and using it as a staff member is still a no-no, though. Again, staff should, like DC said, address the problem instead of just blocking it out. If talking it out doesn't help, find a good reason or wait until one shows up and hit them with a shovel. :/

Also about them not breaking the rules, I'm pre' sure harrassment is on the no-can-do list. If it isn't, it should be.

As an admin, you shouldn't use this yourself. I hope you don't, at least. For some reason that feels distrustful to the community.

Also is this only for Chrome? Shaaame Gargron, discriminating against mobile, FireFox, Opera, etc.? Shaaame. XFD

@Chestnut_Rice Each browser has its own extension system that differs more or less in structure. I made a Chrome extension. It is open source, so if you're up for it, fork it and make it into a Firefox add-on.

@Lethn

As for staff usage, I do not condone the staff to use this extension, although it is up to the individual and cannot be controlled or proven.

Similarly, accusations that I am using the plugin are silly, because there is no way to prove it other than that I said it in chat and posted a screenshot once. As I am the one developing this thing, I have more than full rights to deploy it to my liking to test anything I need to, when I need to. Again, long-term usage is only something one can speculate about.

And a reminder to everyone who is concerned about me fulfilling my tasks less sufficiently due to this plugin, should I actually be using it: My tasks are development-related. Everything moderation-related is the task field of moderators.

Did I miss the part where it was said that the staff would use this?

I mean I obviously agree the staff shouldn't use it since it's their job to moderate. But I have confidence they will not be using it. They still need to watch out for users breaking site rules, assuming they don't want to watch the site deteriorate into chaos.

@Nandaba pretty much nailed it. Keep in mind that this isn't face to face communication where there are repercussions for being an asshole. This is a site where people can be pretty much as big of an asshole as they want from behind the anonymity of their avatar, and as long as they're not specifically breaking site rules, there's nothing the staff can do. Its similar to a phone call from someone you want to break ties with. This tool gives you the option to simply block the number.

And it's not like users will start just blocking everyone and avoid working issues out with other users. Our users seem to generally like a good discussion, even if tempers are running high.

Finally, keep in mind that anyone with a little programming knowledge could create a tool like this. For all we know, some users have already taken the initiative to create something similar. I don't think Gar or anyone else can be faulted for making a tool that gives more power to the user to control their experience on the site. There's nothing forcing anyone to use it. But I can definitely see some instances where it would be useful.

Particularly in instances where a user has made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in working things out.

Yes, I think I should mention that I think this is a useful feature for those who need it. I just wanted to have that last post said.

no offense, but i think we can all deal with people who are "mean" to us and don't have to act like children who ignore everyone who said something "bad" or stated a different opinion than ours.
if you're unable to read a post without hating the person who wrote it, because of something they said in a different post or you just can't stand them, then you're just immature.
i never really noticed any harassment (except for some spam, that's not happening that often though), i don't even consider DC's "offensive" posts as harassment.
not every post of a person you don't like has to be bad or is not worth to be read, and even if it is, we're all able to deal with such things. well at least we should be able to do that.

@Paratoxical And anyone who uses it in that manner will only be harming themselves. People will be immature not because of this tool, but regardless of it. For users that are simply looking to have a good time on the site, if they know another user intends to intentionally bother them, then this is a useful tool for them. Not everyone comes here to work out their issues, participate in mature discussion, or argue with other users just for the sake of argument.

You can think of it as being similar to an mmorpg. Most modern day mmo's give the option to ignore another players. They do so because you're looking to have fun, not argue with some jerk that won't leave you alone. It comes back to what each user sees as the site's purpose. It's going to vary for each person.

Hurray, I'm gonna use this tool to ignore @Dave who always comes into my harmless threads to insult me!
Thanks, @Gargron!

I don't get why we don't have this feature in the first place. This should be a standard feature of the colorless instead of an extension.

Plenty of forums have an ignore user option, so this isn't such a terrible idea to me. It is quite silly that this feature was considered a priority to make, though.

Just to clarify this was not a priority. This is not a site feature. This is something I did in my free time and shared with you bunch. :P

Oh dear lord guys, why in the hell are you making such a huge deal out of this?

• Gargron had some free time, someone suggested it to him, he made it an extension.
• The staff has already spoken this through and brought up every point you guys are making.
• We don't want to have features that facilitate negativity towards others, so this is something off-site, not part of the code.
• I still dislike the thing and will not be using it. You may remember me being the main person against a mute feature in Lethn's old threads, and I am still against it.
• Gargron works on development much. much more than moderation. I do a little bit of both. The mods moderate and contribute no code. If Gargron does happen to use this (though he says he is not) then why the hell should you care? This doesn't block any of the normal channels of communication with the staff.

and the skype logs

[3:09:44 PM] Eugen: dl.dropbox.com/u/2074967/colorless-blacklist.crx

[3:10:04 PM] Eugen: test plox

[3:15:22 PM] acostoss: whoop de doop

[3:15:44 PM] acostoss: seems to work well.

[3:15:52 PM] acostoss: I will now ignore Gargron's posts on the forum

[3:20:25 PM] Eugen: \o/

[3:20:39 PM] Eugen: please feel free to host/link this plugin officially

[3:21:08 PM] Eugen: i can't Upload it to the chrome web store because i'd need to pay $5 via a credit card i don't have to verify my account

[3:21:58 PM] Eugen: oi but isn't this extension idea brilliant

[3:22:22 PM] acostoss: I am against it, really, but welp

[3:22:25 PM] acostoss: I just won't use it

[3:24:12 PM] Eugen: "we are against censorship on the site, that is why we will never block anyone's posts just because we don't like them. but each person has the right to control what he wants or doesn't want to see. that's why this plugin"

[3:25:26 PM] acostoss: It blocks worthwhile communications, and can be used to block us.

[3:26:07 PM] acostoss: A user that dislikes seeing another can either just ignore their posts (easy) or report the user if they are doing something especially egregious.

[3:27:22 PM] Pato: What about people who are triggered by other people and can't use the site out of their sheer presence? We had many of those

[3:27:55 PM] acostoss: I doubt that this plugin will help them much, though it is worth a shot

[3:28:06 PM] acostoss: I don't know if that's enough reason to overthrow reasons against it, though

[4:23:51 PM] n1xx: I guess it depends what kind of stance we decide to take on this issue.

In real life, you can choose to cut ties with certain people, but it is impossible to make them disappear from life in itself. In other words, at the end of the line, we have no choice but to deal with the individuals that have a negative effect on us.

Now, when applying this online, we have the choice to either let this kind of normal above-stated behavior take place, or to simply apply the plugin suggested by Gargron.

However, since many forums do offer user-muting, I don't see how it cannot work for us, as well. Maybe difficulties will show up at first, because we would have implemented it quite late, but other than that, there should be no long-term difference.

What needs to be discussed is if it is morally acceptable for us to implement something like this, now that the community is absolutely not used to these kinds of changes.

[4:25:17 PM] Pato: Any kind of user-chosen post filtering has been time and time again effective measures against shitposting.

[4:25:38 PM] n1xx: That is indeed true.

[4:26:03 PM] n1xx: If our priority is to reduce these kinds of posts, then it can be a good idea.

[4:30:11 PM] n1xx: How was the reception of chat muting, when it was first implemented? It might give us an idea of its acceptance when applied to the forums.

This site needs more support for my old walkman phone which I have to use till I fix my desire. :v @gargron congrats on your new creation. I have no need for it however as everyone loves me :P