deactivation suggestion

We need a feature where if a poster has is flagged with 

 "post has received too many downvotes to be displayed"

more than perhaps twice, they are blocked from further contributions to that thread. Is that possible? Not really an outright ban, but something to stop good threads from going off the rails and shut down. Lots of good people get worked up about one subject but are totally fine and worthy contributors on others. Or if not that then a lock on posts to that thread for a week or something. Any thoughts? 

Eh, probably just needs to auto-tag a moderator.

Not sure I like the idea of temp-bans being done automatically. 

That's a good idea. I hate that our otherwise good and knowledgeable web forum sometimes gets cluttered with flat-out false information.

I would also love a filter to completely hide posts from a certain user. Call it "filterd". 

maschinenbau said:

That's a good idea. I hate that our otherwise good and knowledgeable web forum sometimes gets cluttered with flat-out false information.

I would also love a filter to completely hide posts from a certain user. Call it "filterd". 

Agreed. I use a very manual process for that today. It would be great to be able to hide all posts by X.

Meh, it's pretty easy to scroll past without reading their post. If you don't care about or respond to whatever they post, it's really a non-issue. 

Though I admit it is sometimes fun to poke the bear to see if it still knows how to dance. 

I have a personal policy that I don't interact with some posts.  Its as if "I don't know what" or 'je ne sais quoi.'

I also scroll by. I don't care to read all of the noise, but my bigger concern is that if there is too much noise in a thread the whole thing gets shut down.

bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:

I also scroll by. I don't care to read all of the noise, but my bigger concern is that if there is too much noise in a thread the whole thing gets shut down.

Which absolutely happens.

In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :

If no one responded to them, they would move on. Every time someone responds, it encourages them because they have proof that someone is actually listening. 

There are a couple of people on here I generally ignore except for the occasional jab in passing. Yes, that makes me a bit of an ass, but that's a part of my personality I've found fairly easy to live with. 

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Just for some people. Mostly the ones with a constant stream of E36 M3 running out of their mouths. 

This is me being an ass.   

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

So you all support censorship?

In some cases, yup. 

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Yes.

 You can't get away with walking into a kindergarten class and start talking about zits on your dick. But free speech, man!

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

So you're not afraid of words but you want to censor them?  Explain.  

https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/forum-rules-welcome-to-the-party/104340/page1/

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Freedom aint free, bro

yupididit said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Freedom aint free, bro

That is true. And we as a society have decided that there are limits on “free speech.” Some examples:

Child pornography

Items protected under doctor/patient confidentiality

Copyrighted works

Items protected under lawyer/client privilege

State secrets

Hate speech

Libel

Slander

In reply to maschinenbau :

That's a good idea. I hate that our otherwise good and knowledgeable web forum sometimes gets cluttered with flat-out false information.

I would also love a filter

to completely hide posts from a certain user. Call it "filterd". 

I think this is a horrible idea. Who gets to decide what is good and what is false info?More positive votes makes something correct, more negative makes it false? Deciding what is good or bad info based on mob rule/popularity contests is a great way to increase the spread of misinformation by shutting down critique. 
 

Had you specified the behavior of the poster, I'd somewhat agree. If we had a good way of flagging people for being blatant shiny happy people on the board, and posts were flagged for things such as name calling, then that would make some sense. But if a post is downvoted, there is no way to differentiate if it was for behavior or for an unpopular (and not necessarily inaccurate) opinion. Or fact. So with the current board configuration, I suggest we either scroll past or correct whatever is believed to be misinformation, and leave it up to the Mods if someone is being a shiny happy person towards others. 

And for a timeout of sorts, I’m going to press pause on this thread.

Thanks, everyone.