| A question for Gav 12:41 - Feb 27 with 1042 views | GlasgowBlue |
Is there anyway that you could add a block function when you put somebody on ignore so that they cannot see your posts?
It would really cut down on the people who continue to bad mouth other posters even when they have them on ignore.
If somebody blocks you on twitter then you can no longer see their tweets or reply to them.
Would certainly get rid of the obsessive who exist for no other reason that to cause rows. |  |
| |  |
| A question for Gav on 13:00 - Feb 27 with 970 views | Ryorry |
Have been asking for this for years - it works extremely well on twitter, don't understand why it can't be done here. |  |
| |
| A question for Gav on 13:14 - Feb 27 with 935 views | eireblue |
That would prevent users that don’t log in, viewing the board.
There maybe a significant amount of lurkers, that Gav would not want to dissuade.
It is of course possible to read tweets, if you don’t have a Twitter account, but it may not be so obvious and easy, that having a Twitter account.
So posts would always be viewable, unless, there was also a mode by which you could state you only wanted you posts to be viewed by users that have logged in. |  | | |
| A question for Gav on 14:06 - Feb 27 with 852 views | GavTWTD |
We do have a facility whereby I can force someone to ignore your posts that can't be revoked apart from me. I've yet to use that but you only need to log out or use another browser to get around it.
I get your point about twitter but it also has a protected mode so only approved people can view your posts but we can't do that obviously. I think those facilities work together.
If you want me to block someone for you, PM me and I'll set it up as an experiment. |  |
| |
| A question for Gav on 14:20 - Feb 27 with 817 views | J2BLUE |
| A question for Gav on 13:00 - Feb 27 by Ryorry |
Have been asking for this for years - it works extremely well on twitter, don't understand why it can't be done here. |
Agree and it used to completely delete people from your world and you didn't even see replies to that person. It was great.
Again, more than happy to pay a subscription to delete a certain small group from my TWTD world. |  |
| |
| A question for Gav on 14:57 - Feb 27 with 746 views | Keno |
| A question for Gav on 14:20 - Feb 27 by J2BLUE |
Agree and it used to completely delete people from your world and you didn't even see replies to that person. It was great.
Again, more than happy to pay a subscription to delete a certain small group from my TWTD world. |
I know I speak for many when I say I’d pay a subscription just to see J2’s posts [Post edited 27 Feb 2022 14:57]
|  |
| |
| A question for Gav on 14:58 - Feb 27 with 734 views | Ryorry |
| A question for Gav on 13:14 - Feb 27 by eireblue |
That would prevent users that don’t log in, viewing the board.
There maybe a significant amount of lurkers, that Gav would not want to dissuade.
It is of course possible to read tweets, if you don’t have a Twitter account, but it may not be so obvious and easy, that having a Twitter account.
So posts would always be viewable, unless, there was also a mode by which you could state you only wanted you posts to be viewed by users that have logged in. |
If Admin here are going to give preferential consideration to "lurkers" over loyal board regulars, then I think we deserve to have a 'privacy mode' option, as on twitter.
'Private' mode on there enables you to exclude certain people from reading your posts - something you can't do on here - and which means that you don't get the same people year after year (decade after decade in a couple of instances on here) chucking the same old same old defamatory sh1t at you.
*Edit - written before seeing Gav's post. [Post edited 27 Feb 2022 14:59]
| |
| |
| A question for Gav on 15:02 - Feb 27 with 721 views | J2BLUE |
| A question for Gav on 14:57 - Feb 27 by Keno |
I know I speak for many when I say I’d pay a subscription just to see J2’s posts [Post edited 27 Feb 2022 14:57]
|
I would never charge you Keno. | |
| |
| A question for Gav on 15:16 - Feb 27 with 691 views | hoppy |
| A question for Gav on 14:57 - Feb 27 by Keno |
I know I speak for many when I say I’d pay a subscription just to see J2’s posts [Post edited 27 Feb 2022 14:57]
|
That would set an awkward precedent, as I think it would only be so long before I was having to pay people to read my posts. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A question for Gav on 15:22 - Feb 27 with 679 views | PJH |
| A question for Gav on 15:16 - Feb 27 by hoppy |
That would set an awkward precedent, as I think it would only be so long before I was having to pay people to read my posts. |
That will be three shillings and sixpence please |  | | |
| A question for Gav on 15:31 - Feb 27 with 650 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| A question for Gav on 15:22 - Feb 27 by PJH |
That will be three shillings and sixpence please |
Zero VAT rated? Well that's a surprise. |  |
| |
| A question for Gav on 15:42 - Feb 27 with 626 views | J2BLUE |
| A question for Gav on 15:22 - Feb 27 by PJH |
That will be three shillings and sixpence please |
Are you going to buy the Outer Hebrides? | |
| |
| A question for Gav on 15:53 - Feb 27 with 603 views | PJH |
| A question for Gav on 15:42 - Feb 27 by J2BLUE |
Are you going to buy the Outer Hebrides? |
I am waiting for hoppy to post again and then I will have enough money to buy a single AND have four pence change. | | | |
| A question for Gav on 16:18 - Feb 27 with 558 views | Keno |
| A question for Gav on 15:16 - Feb 27 by hoppy |
That would set an awkward precedent, as I think it would only be so long before I was having to pay people to read my posts. |
Is that like when I pay to watch your videos on the “other” site? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
