RQ Trietsch 11 Jan 2005

I like the Ban idea. Just like in the "chat rooms" when you get annoyed with someone. Just click the ban/ignore button and Walla!

Richard Murch 11 Jan 2005

. . . . RQ - Thanks for your input. It also means that bans can be an individual choice.

Richard Murch 11 Jan 2005

. . . Here is another thought. The details of the indviduals that are banned would be sent to the AW management. From this, they can see trends and numbers of the offenders and then take action, specifically warnings then termination.

Devin Harris 11 Jan 2005

I like both the idea of allowing people to protect themselves by banning someone, and of having AW alerted, so they can investigate. Might lessen the drama.

Mike Sankey 11 Jan 2005

I'd be against it - there's always a reason generally to ban someone, due to having riled them. Lowballers you cant catch. It would also give people the power to lay into someone and not have that person fairly asses their work.

Gayla Drummond 11 Jan 2005

Although I seriously haven't had a much in the way of trouble with lowballers or people leaving nasty comments because of whatever, I like the ban idea, especially if AW gets some sort of report on trends of frequent ban-ees (is that a word?).

I can see Mike's concern, but one of the things we're always going on about is how if everyone would just act like mature, reasonable adults, none of these measures would have to be implemented.

Personally, I probably wouldn't ever use the feature UNLESS I had someone decide to start spamming my comments sections. While I can only speak for my own actions or possible actions in such instances, I think the majority of members will only ban those who spam comments with a bunch of nasty remarks.

There might be a small minority who runs through and just bans away, making a list of several people...but if there's only one or two doing that, then the trend reports AW got wouldn't be heavily influenced to terminate the accounts of all of those people...most especially if a quick look at the banner's pages shows those banned haven't left nasty comments, or possibly never commented at all.

Hm, I don't think I made much sense there, but maybe y'all get what I meant, lol.

I'd love to see the feature implemented, this go 'round of it being suggested.

eileen martin 11 Jan 2005

this could also alert persons when they are out of line, if you get banned several times, then maybe you would rethink your actions and words.

Richard Murch 11 Jan 2005

Many thanks for all your input. It has been healthy to air all different views.

What I like about this is that it gives artists a choice. If you don't like the feature then don't use it.

Now AW what is your decision?? A response please~!

This is not rocket science or brain surgery. The computer code to implement this could be constructed quickly and it is not expensive.

Maybe the next step is a TRIAL RUN OR DEMO??

RQ Trietsch 11 Jan 2005

I've been here on AW for over a year now, and as with human nature, have come to really dislike some of the members. So I refrain on commenting on their works, and I'd prefer not to have them comment on mine.

You have to admit, there's at least one someone(s) within this populace you don't like, and find really annoying. So if AW ever does a poll or just installs an option for ban/ignore...it will get my vote!

It will help eliminate responses to the "thin skinned" who really don't want an honest opinion, and the psychos who like to rant and rave if they get anything lower than 10's. Not to mention some of the other insecure personalities.

As the old saying still goes....familarity breeds contempt!

RQ Trietsch 11 Jan 2005

Now looking back on this particular thread, it shouldn't be ban, but IGNORE.

Ban seems to imply removal from the site. I like the idea, which I do already, is just ignore.

Nina Kuriloff 11 Jan 2005

Whether to "ban" or "ignore" ~ I think this idea is a good one! :)

Gayla Drummond 11 Jan 2005

Not to quibble, RQ *grin* but if the feature was implemented, we would be banning them from our portfolio if we used it. Saying 'ignore' makes it sound as though they are still being allowed to comment and rate...we're just not choosing to see it.

Just a matter of word choice, really. =)

Richard Murch 11 Jan 2005

A rather tongue in cheek response would be to choose any one of the following.

Ban, Ignore, Choke, Silence, Strangle, Stifle, Throttle, Gag, Eliminate, Smother ..... and so on. . . . and so on.

The purpose is to PREVENT an action from taking place. And one that is under the control of the member.

Mike Sankey 11 Jan 2005

Every action causes a reaction, and you sound like you are trying to dodge the reaction mate.

RQ Trietsch 11 Jan 2005

You are right on the basic thought Gayla. But me being from the "old" chatrooms, the "ignore" did eliminate any and all responses from being viewed by anyone in the "room", including the person who initiated the block/ban/ignore/mutilate/gag/choke/get home address/get SS#/last of kin/next of kin/ local chapter of spca/peta/ anyone elses cousin, aunt,uncle, I might have forgotten...LOL

But seriously, in the "old chat rooms" once you applied the "ignore", no-one saw any comments directed to the person who initated the block, including the person typing the comment. It would never appear on screen, just on the message bar of the person typing.

And yes Gayla, that would basically be banning them from commenting on your portfolio if you implement the "ignore" status

ArtWanted.com Staff 11 Jan 2005

Keep the comments coming about this topic, we want to hear your feedback on this issue.

One thing to consider with a 'ban' feature, would mean that you would not be able accept any e-mail from people that are not registered. E-mail from interested buyers or people that just like your art would never get to you. This is because the person you want to 'ban' may not be logged in and could still attack you, unless you required all corrispondance from registered members. Just something to think about.

sher richardson 11 Jan 2005

Hello Richard...

Good idea.. and what might make it fair, would be a limit on how many each artist could put onto the ignore feature.

Maybe 10 at the most?

The bad thing would be hurt feelings.. so i have a mixed emotion.. the outcome might be artists ranting on the threads about whos banned them from commenting.

But it would give AW less headaches with mail and complaints of icky comments and ratings .... : )

Anthony Mottram 12 Jan 2005

A bright light shines into a darkness that has long begged for curtailment.

This is a great idea :-) I think it was bandied a while back, but to no avail. Bravo AW for seeing it this time :-)

As for the fears of banning potential buyers (AW) and hit and run crews (Mike), the concept of banning/silencing is that the tool to do this is in the hands of YOU.

If I ban everyone to the point of not being here for clients then thats my own silly fault. In the extremity, yes there are plonkers on here will look for new inventive ways to exploit it, but overall, Why would I want to ban people of my own ilk ??? and they me ????

I see the idea as fool proof.

Here's hoping this comes to something very soon. Laz

Patrick Miller 12 Jan 2005

With every new "device" comes just another form of abuse. I see this used as a rating improvement tool more than a nuisance avoidance thing. I don't know....building walls has never solved anything.

Richard Murch 12 Jan 2005

Firstly, thanks for all your input. It has been helpful and healthy to have this discussion. It might all boil down to one thing.

That is, - it could be made available to any one who wants to use it.

Artists that object to it,do not have to use it.

That way we all have a choice, and for me that is what it is all about.

Choice.