Ah well

[Phil Deakins]

How can anyone disregard a test post like that?

And that should tell you whether or not your theory worked

[Aislin Ceawlin]

4 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

How can anyone disregard a test post like that?

And that should tell you whether or not your theory worked

It did!!!!

[Aislin Ceawlin]

Oops, now I have to post another to return the settings, lol!

[Phil Deakins]

How do you know? How did you know that I'd posted here?

[Aislin Ceawlin]

Just now, Phil Deakins said:

How do you know? How did you know that I'd posted here?

I came back to it specifically to see if there were any new replies.

[Phil Deakins]

Aha.

I think I'm getting it. I Don't think it's what was wanted though. I haven't gone back to check but I think it's an 'ignore thread' feature that was requested, which I understood to mean don't let me know that there are new posts in a thread; e.g. don't include the thread in my Unread Content - or summat like that. I think that's different to don't send me any notifications. I need to find the original request to find out what the hell I'm talking about lol.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Aislin Ceawlin]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

Aha.

I think I'm getting it. I Don't think it's what was wanted though. I haven't gone back to check but I think it's an 'ignore thread' feature that was requested, which I understood to mean don't let me know that there are new posts in a thread; e.g. don't include the thread in my Unread Content - or summat like that. I think that's different to don't send me any notifications. I need to find the original request to find out what the hell I'm talking about lol.

You may be exactly right. I may have misread that. At least I learned something new!! lol!

[Phil Deakins]

Yep. How to turn off no longer wanted notifications. We can learn from your test.

[Phil Deakins]

I found it:-

"Is it possible to include an ignore thread feature?  I know sometimes a topic will become very popular with lots of replies but the subject does not involve me.  However, every time it gets a new reply is shows up with unread posts."

I think that Rhonda wants to turn off knowing of any new activity in specific threads, not just notifications, pretty much the same as muting a person so that their posts are no longer displayed, and not selecting a sub-forum to be included in Unread Content. I imagine she'd like it that the thread no longer showed in the Topic Listing page, but at least the black dot and star should remain grey, and new posts shouldn't appear in Unread Content.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

I think that Rhonda wants to turn off knowing of any new activity in specific threads, not just notifications, pretty much the same as muting a person so that their posts are no longer displayed, and not selecting a sub-forum to be included in Unread Content. I imagine she'd like it that the thread no longer showed in the Topic Listing page, but at least the black dot and star should remain grey, and new posts shouldn't appear in Unread Content.

Yes, this is what is desired.

[Rhonda Huntress]

That's it, Phil.  It would be great if I could tag a thread to not show the forum as having new content.  Not just for arguments but often someone make ask for helpand twoor three people are already on it.  I don't need to make it any more cluttered but every hour or so it comes back up as unread content.  I know I can just click the hand to mark it all as read but I don't know if there is other new posts below the one I am not involved with.

It is a minor little annoyance but I like the option when other forums have something similar..

[Madelaine McMasters]

5 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

Hmm. I'd forgotten who it was I'd replied to in that thread and, although your post that I quoted here was a reply to someone else, I have to assume that you didn't appreciate my reply either, or those of others who posted the same view, and you may have come to a conclusion about cliques. Whilst reading the later posts in this thread something occured to me about cliques here.

In the past there appeared to be the odd group of people that could be thought of as a clique, and there used to be the odd group that would be better described as a gang, because they enjoyed ganging up on individuals and laughed about it together behind the scenes. But I'm suspecting that what is being seen as cliques in this forum incarnation is not any kind of group but, instead, is the normal life of a forum. I suspect the word 'clique' enters the mind when a number of people oppose an individual's point of view in a thread, and those people are daily regulars. An extreme and hypothetical example might explain what I mean. Suppose someone posted that the sky is green. Multiple people would say no, it's blue. The green-sky person could easily think that the objectors are a clique because, to that person, it would seem that those forum regulars are banding together to be contrary, in spite of the fact that the sky is obviously green.

When an individual finds him/herself on the wrong end of a thread like that, it would be easy to imagine a clique, especially since almost all of the contrary ones are daily regulars who often post in the same threads, and often post things that seem to indicate that they know each other. All that actually happens is that someone posts something that a number of people don't agree with, and those who post disagreements are forum regulars who know each other in the forum. It's the normal life of any forum, but for the one on the wrong end of opinion, it could easily look cliqueish.

In the case of the thread you linked to, multiple people disagreed with your judgement of one of the people who posted in the thread, and nobody supported your view. Those who disagreed are daily regulars, so, from your perspective, it may have seemed like a clique was against you. I can assure you that there wasn't.

I don't think there are any cliques here. If there are, they are hiding it very well.

In the past, I've used the analogy of a shark approaching a crowded public beach, drawing the conclusion that the fleeing swimmers have colluded against him. We don't flee, so a better analogy might be mobbing behavior. I'm amused when the blackbirds rise from my willow trees to harass a passing raptor. I've a habit of anthropomorphizing everything, so I often imagine the hawk bemoaning the ubiquity of blackbird cliques. Humans also exhibit mobbing behavior, but that's probably not quite what's going on here, as nobody is threatening our offspring.

We are, as you theorize, simply expressing a common sense response. Our sense might be wrong, but it's common. It's been my experience that people who complain of cliques often see them everywhere. If their viewpoint is uncommon, and they're narcissistic or unable to empathize, I imagine they could go a lifetime believing "It's not me, it's them."

Long ago I began to hear a little voice, repeating the phrase "Nooooo, it's you".

[Snugs McMasters]

1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Long ago I began to hear a little voice, repeating the phrase "Nooooo, it's you".

And do you listen to me?

Nooooo.

[Madelaine McMasters]

Just now, Snugs McMasters said:

And do you listen to me?

Nooooo.

Will someone please make her shut up?

Anybody?

Please?

[Drake1 Nightfire]

10 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Will someone please make her shut up?

Anybody?

Please?

Wait wait wait, you want US to take on Snugs?!?!?! You must be joking. I may be crazy but i'm not THAT crazy. 

[Amanda Crisp]

Sometimes you have to be forceful to make the thread stop.......like....pepper-spray the settings or something.....

[Madelaine McMasters]

3 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Wait wait wait, you want US to take on Snugs?!?!?! You must be joking. I may be crazy but i'm not THAT crazy. 

...senses a brewing conspiracy of silence.