Not everyone abides by the rules of StackOverflow. Sometimes they abuse the system by insulting other users as well as down voting their questions, among other things. It would be nice if a user could have blacklist, perhaps enabling read-only access to that group of users.

This would not only help the victims of those users, but also moderators, who constantly have to intervene to resolve petty conflicts, becoming a bigger problem as the community expands.

share|improve this question
1  
    
thank... I will look into that question –  Sasha Jul 15 '09 at 22:12
2  
Not exact duplicates, but leading to the same idea. Being able to shield yourself from down-votes is also against the entire system. Ignore users if you don't want to see what they're saying, but they have every right to express their opinions on your posts. –  Ian Elliott Jul 15 '09 at 22:13
5  
"who constantly have to intervene to resolve petty conflicts" - I'll reserve judgement on that; personally, I find the calls to blacklist users far more distracting.... –  Marc Gravell Jul 15 '09 at 22:16
    
There's also one about edit protection as well, which is kind of like this one. –  Axeman Jul 15 '09 at 22:19
3  
I agree with Marc. All the talk about ignoring users or attempting to ostracize users via these posts is getting really tiresome. If you have complaints, voice them to the proper authorities and let those in charge make the decision if something needs to be done about it. –  TheTXI Jul 15 '09 at 22:24
    
And for the record, I think the edit (r2) is a very good one, taking away most of the flamebait. –  Marc Gravell Jul 15 '09 at 22:55
    
@TXI: to be fair, though, he was talking about lightening the mods' load. If the mods don't think they need their workload is that great, then it might not apply. But well said, otherwise. I have (facetiously) proposed that SO be run like a MUD, we earn weapons and spells to win edit duals and temporary "wards" against our "foes".... 'cause it almost sounds like life or death the way some people sound. –  Axeman Jul 17 '09 at 14:35
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Well, if I were sandboxed from their actions, that means I could sandbox myself off from the experts of a particular tag. And if I did that, it might mean that only people with less subject knowledge than you could think your answer was wizz-bang, while an expert might have a serious objection to the answer.

Reputation means that the system trusts you, so you shouldn't be able to be shielded from anybody whose reputation is significantly higher than yours. Unfortunately that means that you could be subject to some high-rep curmudgeons.

But everything's a tradeoff.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Contrary to the alleged opinion here, silencing certain users has made my experience here considerably greater. Keep in mind that the ignore-users script isn't a solution to bad-behavior here. Reporting to Mods is the preferred solution. The ignore-script is a hold-over, or an extra-jump if you absolutely need silence.

share|improve this answer
2  
I sense you're expecting harsh criticisms for this post based on the fact that you wiki'd it. –  Ian Elliott Jul 15 '09 at 22:29
2  
@Ian: Which is pretty much the definition of trolling. –  GEOCHET Jul 15 '09 at 22:35
    
@Jonathan: Sasha's not suggesting an "ignore" feature - he's suggestion a system that would effectively let you choose who could vote and comment on your posts. Ignoring other users is your prerogative - if you use a script to help you do that, fine. But opting out of SO's feedback systems is something else entirely. –  Shog9 Jul 15 '09 at 22:42
1  
@Jonathan - thanks for the script. I can;t wait to start using it –  tim Jul 22 '09 at 21:38
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.