Moderation

[Peyroteo94]

Yeah, but we have ignore button. What's missing is a button 'I don't want these to see mine'

Our ignore button doesn't contemplate the second option.

 

[AmRacer]

Our ignore button doesn't contemplate the second option.

That's what I wrote, that button is missing.

 

[RedheadDane]

No. If I blocked you, I wouldn't be able to see your posts too.

So, just ignoring with extra stuff...
Why would it matter to anyone if others can see their posts?

 

[TourOfSardinia]

I like the ignore button but I wish it would ignore reactions not just posts.

I don't like the idea of a hide me button - why do you want to hide in an open community?
Better to turn the other cheek.

In any case blocked people get a second look-in every time someone else quotes them
their name and content show up in the quote.

These forums are amazing as they are.

 

[Red Rick]

What the actual *** would be the point of having a shadow ban list. People can just log out and read your posts anyway.

 

[RedheadDane]

What the actual *** would be the point of having a shadow ban list. People can just log out and read your posts anyway.

I guess it prevents the people you've blocked from quoting your posts...

 

[Berniece]

I guess it prevents the people you've blocked from quoting your posts...

Which is only an issue for people that block someone, and then still read the posts of the blocked person. Why would someone care about being quoted if they don't see that?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Discussion of moderation decisions is not allowed: that rule applies to me as well. So questions about a specific ban cannot be answered, so please don't ask: I'll only delete it.

 

[RedheadDane]

Discussion of moderation decisions is not allowed: that rule applies to me as well. So questions about a specific ban cannot be answered, so please don't ask: I'll only delete it.

So, just to be clear;
Civilian posters aren't even allowed to explain to other civilian posters that the rule exists?

 

[red_flanders]

So, just ignoring with extra stuff...
Why would it matter to anyone if others can see their posts?

Outside of this forum, "blocking" is quite common. The "why" seems to be to get an annoying (to the blocker) user to stop responding to the blocker's posts.

It's far more useful on a site with tons of trolls, where community isn't the main goal, like X.

But I could absolutely see where someone on this site got annoyed the the point that they didn't want someone responding to any of their postings. I've never even used "ignore" so I won't be a customer, but I kinda get it. The distinction is significant between "block" and "ignore".

 

[jmdirt]

I don't know where to ask this so I write here.
Can we have in a recent future an option to block people? A little bit like Instagram where people blocked by us can't see our content? I think it would be a great option to get a healthier forum.
Cheers.

There is an ignore option.

Of note, I went from 6 (in 15 years) to13 in just the last monthish.

EDIT: OOPS! I should have kept reading before I responded. I guess I don't care if those who I ignore see my posts and/or quote them because I won't know. The reason I use ignore is to increase my enjoyment here by not seeing their posts.

 

[Netserk]

There is an ignore option.

Of note, I went from 6 (in 15 years) to13 in just the last month.

I also ignore spammers and have some old, inactive accounts still on the list, so it isn't a comparable number, but I have 41 on my list.

Perma-banned accounts: 12
Inactive accounts (no activity at all in 2025): 10
Deactivated accounts: 1

 

[Froome]

I have 0 accounts on the ignore list, but i know some users have me on they're ignore list.

 

[Berniece]

I also ignore spammers and have some old, inactive accounts still on the list, so it isn't a comparable number, but I have 41 on my list.

Damn I really should put more people on my list. I'm only at 5 at the moment.

 

[AmRacer]

Maybe I should change approach and put everyone on the list

 

[jmdirt]

Maybe I should change approach and put everyone on the list

That will make for some interesting discussions!

 

[Tricycle Rider]

I also ignore spammers and have some old, inactive accounts still on the list, so it isn't a comparable number, but I have 41 on my list.

Perma-banned accounts: 12
Inactive accounts (no activity at all in 2025): 10
Deactivated accounts: 1

As per usual your superb organizational skills go unmatched on this forum, I don't suppose you had drawn up an elaborate graph of all the posters you have on your ignore list?

 

[Netserk]

As per usual your superb organizational skills go unmatched on this forum, I don't suppose you had drawn up an elaborate graph of all the posters you have on your ignore list?

I just checked the status of them when I edited my post: https://forum.cyclingnews.com/account/ignored

 

[Tricycle Rider]

I just checked the status of them when I edited my post: https://forum.cyclingnews.com/account/ignored

Fair enough.

Mine says:" You are not currently ignoring any members", I better get to work!

 

[RedheadDane]

I don't need some fancy feature to ignore people!

 

[E_F_]

If neither the ignore-button, nor the report-button does the trick, that leaves the deactivate account-button. I think blocking would break a forum. Anyways, here's an idea: If you don't want someone replying to you just annoy them so much, that they end up ignoring you..!

 

[scribers]

Maybe I should change approach and put everyone on the list

That’s what I do. I like the solitude

 

[Sciatic]

If neither the ignore-button, nor the report-button does the trick, that leaves the deactivate account-button. I think blocking would break a forum. Anyways, here's an idea: If you don't want someone replying to you just annoy them so much, that they end up ignoring you..!

That is a sure way to keep them replying to your posts!

 

[Rechtschreibfehler]

Discussion of moderation decisions is not allowed: that rule applies to me as well. So questions about a specific ban cannot be answered, so please don't ask: I'll only delete it.

So given what has been deleted here the conclusion must be the rule actually is: whoever says anything about moderation decisions get their post deleted? There can't even be discussion among users about decisions in a thread that is there to discuss moderation? I'm sorry but to me this is totally overdoing it, it's just a means to eliminate traces of possible criticism. This is not only a transparency issue. If no discussion about moderation is allowed, and everything related is being deleted it's clear that there is no participation on he side of the users wanted by whoever is in charge of the forum, when it comes to it's organisation.
Moreover this practice of down-the-throat-policing of very stringently applied rules (there seems to be zero laissez-faire) gives the style of moderation an authoritarian taste. Why? Because it a priori throttles any possibility for transparency for and public exchange between members of the board, about it's rules. And I get that a simple message board isn't run democratically, but it should, in my opinion, at least fulfill basic functions necessary for an open society.
Now you could argue: typical overreaction because of imperfect knowledge about the how and why the forum is organised. But that's a root cause of the problem I am describing: I can't even know what exactly the bloody workings of authority are on here any more because we're systemically disclosed from information about it, and now apparently can't even inform each other about it any more without it being deleted.

 

[kingjr]

So given what has been deleted here the conclusion must be the rule actually is: whoever says anything about moderation decisions get their post deleted? There can't even be discussion among users about decisions in a thread that is there to discuss moderation? I'm sorry but to me this is totally overdoing it, it's just a means to eliminate traces of possible criticism. This is not only a transparency issue. If no discussion about moderation is allowed, and everything related is being deleted it's clear that there is no participation on he side of the users wanted by whoever is in charge of the forum, when it comes to it's organisation.
Moreover this practice of down-the-throat-policing of very stringently applied rules (there seems to be zero laissez-faire) gives the style of moderation an authoritarian taste. Why? Because it a priori throttles any possibility for transparency for and public exchange between members of the board, about it's rules. And I get that a simple message board isn't run democratically, but it should, in my opinion, at least fulfill basic functions necessary for an open society.
Now you could argue: typical overreaction because of imperfect knowledge about the how and why the forum is organised. But that's a root cause of the problem I am describing: I can't even know what exactly the bloody workings of authority are on here any more because we're systemically disclosed from information about it, and now apparently can't even inform each other about it any more without it being deleted.

Discussion of moderation decisions used to be allowed, but bad experiences were had, I reckon.