We have often noticed on the DA blog that the response to outspoken contributors can vary greatly. A particular contributor--especially those with strong right or left views--may on one hand receive 50 "likes" for a particular post, while other readers will react to the same post negatively--reckoning it irrelevant, overly political, or repetitive. In many instances this disdain has devolved into personal attacks and name calling. One solution to all this would be to add a "mute" button, that would allow any DA reader to mute a fellow reader whose comments he/she did not care to see. The "mute" strategy works well on social media sites. Adding a mute option would ensure that those with strong views would have the freedom to keep posting as they see fit; and those who no longer care to see such posts would no longer be burdened with seeing them--or having to scroll through them. This would allow each reader to exercise personal boundaries without trying to control other contributors. What are YOUR thoughts about adding a "mute" option on this website?
Because the people who comes to mind -- those who simply don't have the self-control to stop spouting their polical views, DO occasionally write relavant on-topic posts that I don't mind reading when they're about the topic that people come to this site for. And I don't like silencing anyone.
But when such people think that appropriateness doesn't apply to them, and don't have the internal self control to stop themselves from spamming everyone with political views while we're trying to talk about bank account specials, then there comes a point when one simply starts ignoring them.
I completely skip over posts by certian people automatically now -- a shame, because again, those same people have shown that they CAN contribute with good posts when they want to, if only they had even an ounce of self control.
But the occasional relavant post isn't worth all the political spam, so if a "Mute Button" isn't something Ken wants to put on, I suggest anyone taking this board seriously just skip right over those who haven't shown the basic ability to recognize appropriateness, like the guest who just doesn't know when it's time to leave.
There are plenty of political sites to go to for any one wanting to discuss politics or screwed up economics. So why here?
I guess the scroll on crowd would be happy to expect to see their favorite sporting event repeatedly disrupted by a nudist or flag burner running on to the field every minute or so. Oh, just close your eyes!!!! Think how much time has been lost over the years having to "scroll" by comments that deliberately violate the rules.
Ken, not having a zero tolerance policy for blatant, repeat offenders is just plainly unfair to the readers who want to spend their time on this site digesting and commenting on banking news. We don't need a mute button. We need a banishment button.
Let's say that some users mute a certain poster (call him X) and others don't. X then posts in a particular thread, so of course some users can see that post and others can't. As that thread progresses, users who can see X's post (let's call two of them Y and Z) may post responses. Some of Y and Z's responses will be to the "inflammatory" part of X's post (if that particular post of X's contains such), some to the non-"inflammatory" part, and some to both. Unless all users who muted X have also muted Y and Z, many of those users will now see Y and/or Z responses - responses to a post that they themselves cannot see! This will cause confusion and make the thread less intelligible, and this problem will only increase as the thread progresses.
The analogy between DA and the generalized social media site, which usually does not have a purpose other than allowing people to simply communicate, is a poor one. I'd much rather see Ken's staff work towards more important enhancements to the website.
