I figured you'd know that I was referring to your reference to Shal.

Going back to your much earlier position that having something scroll past doesn't require that someone read it (with which I absolutely agree) you've essentially admitted that it's entirely possible for any member to ignore a moderator through an act of will.

While I agree, and absolutely, that moderator posts in moderator role should not be blockable, they are ignorable.  Were a moderator to ever declare, in public, that I must listen to them outside their moderator role they'd go on instant "mental ignore."  (Which probably means I'd miss actual moderation-related content, too.)  I am contrary enough to ignore anyone who absolutely demands that I attend to them.  Those demands stopped working when Mom, Dad, and the nuns that taught me were out of the picture.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray

I'll concur with Brian on this one: give the members some credit for common sense. If this is the case then the member wouldn't likely block a person who's frequently a source of important or valuable information.

Getting back to this: "the member wouldn't likely block a person who's frequently a source of important or valuable information"

is patently false. Ask any cats-group owner.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

  Cannot ignore admins or moderators

Admins cannot be ignored

You cannot ignore mods/admins 

Never applies to high level posters, admins and moderators. 

Maybe others can find instances of “ignore user” applying to mods and admins. 
Would seem very unusual to me.

Agreed. I can't think of any conceivable reason to EVER allow "ignoring" (or, basically, "blocking") an admin or mod. 

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

Not to jerk your chain or anything,

LOL! Good job, though. :-) 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

I’ve shared my strong opinions against the “ignore user” proposal and why i think it ought to be optional per group. So I won’t bore you all with those again.

But this might be helpful when/if this feature is considered further. Just as data points, I did some research.
(Obviously, I can only research what I know of, so by no means is this scientifically accurate).

Old Generation Web Forums - have been around a long time ( more than 10 years) - mostly web only/some notification options:
3 came to mind and of these 3:
1 has an ignore user /  Cannot ignore admins or moderators
1 has an official plugin available to ignore users / Admins cannot be ignored / admins can revoke the feature on a per user basis
1 has plugin/s (open script?) / You cannot ignore mods/admins in the ones I saw listed on the support communities

Old Generation Email Groups:
There are 3 that I could think of and none of them had the ignore user function

New Generation Groups and group chats:
FB groups: No Ignore user within groups you are in. If you are a member of a group you see all contributions to that group.
Text message based groups/apps  - don’t allow you to eliminate anyone but yourself from a group chat

New Generation Web Forums (launched in past 5 years)- one includes very robust mailing list features - i reviewed 4:

1 Has taken very active stance against “ignore user”, didn’t offer it and were opposed to it, lots of discussion, until they rolled out “civilized ignore”: only applies to specific kinds of notifications from users you opt to ignore (likes/mentions, etc). Never hides or ignores contributions by ignored users when participating in same discussion. Never applies to high level posters, admins and moderators. And more parameters that limit this feature to what they feel is in line with their philosophy about healthy communities.
1 No ignore user. Probably goes against their philosophy which includes not allowing posts to be deleted /edited from the web interface.
1 Does not appear to offer
1 Only applies to DM’s

Whether the feature is offered  or a modified version offered, in the above examples, it doesn’t apply to mods and admins.
Maybe others can find instances of “ignore user” applying to mods and admins.
Would seem very unusual to me.

Also - if the feature is offered it also applies to DM's generally - although as mentioned some only offer it in connection with DM's.

What I find interesting is that the newer generation web forums I looked at have departed from what was an existing feature in the older generation forums.  In at least 2 of the ones I reviewed I found abundant info available as to the “philosophical” reasons why they aren’t in favor or supportive of this option or why it’s not compatible with the communities/platforms they are trying to facilitate.

Also one forum did a survey on how often the mute/ignore/killfile feature was actually even used by participants.
And people voted and gave feedback - some hilarious...My favorite comments:  
“Why are there no posts in this thread besides mine?” ,
"I don't need a button, I can ignore people in my head.”
"Wait, there's an ignore feature? NOW I know why nobody ever replies to my posts!"

Survey results are here:https://forum.quartertothree.com/t/how-often-do-you-ignore-mute-killfile/71427

Hopefully the above info is helpful when/if this feature is considered.

Maria

I agree that special notices shouldn't be "ignorable." But I also
would not want, in my group, to let anyone stay as a member who has
elected to "ignore" me or any other moderator.

Not all of our moderators' posts are in the special notice category.
But many of them make important factual corrections to incorrect (and
potentially dangerous) medical information or advice that has been
posted by non-moderators.

Dear me!  I hope you don't think I was either chastising you or accusing you of being the sole perpetrator of the drift.  Certainly we were all drifting away from shore in the last bunch of messages in the thread.  Ok, that's enough from moi!

Ro

With Silk and the gang applauding mom's decision to shut the heck up and Silk hoping for an evening snack

Seems like some philosophical questions on how best to run a group, and not about whether Mark ought to implement an "ignore" feature. 

You're right.  It's commonly known as thread drift.  I'll openly admit that I've not only allowed myself to get sucked into it on this thread but have actively contributed to it.  If someone else brings up philosophical issues it's reasonable to expect that others will offer their opinions on those.  Everyone gets to make their own decisions in the end.

At this point I'm out simply because any and all arguments that I can think of for and against an "ignore user" feature have already been made.  It's up to Mark if one is to be implemented and, if so, exactly how.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray

In answer to what may be your unspoken question ("why don't you ban those people"), at least in my group we tend not to ban them unless it's absolutely necessary because of a philosophy not to "punish the cat for the sins of the owner." If we ban the owner, the cat may not get the help he or she needs.

If their behavior is genuinely boorish and beyond the pale, you had ought to be asking yourself how many people have "turned and run" after reading a few threads involving these characters.

Those who have "turned and run" likely have ill cats, too.  It is a matter of balance, and allowing toxic participants is simply never a good idea.  And it takes a lot before I'll dub someone toxic.  I've just had a private discussion with another moderator who I thought was entirely too quick to put an entire group on "moderated lockdown" because a small flame war broke out among two or three regulars/semi-regulars on two threads out of many.  An occasional flare up, to the point of being very rude, does not rise to the level of toxicity.  Going on rant and disparagement campaigns and/or dogging other users with the express purpose of belittling them or their contributions does.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray

we DO sometimes get people who don't respect a lot of what goes on.

In answer to what may be your unspoken question ("why don't you ban those people"), at least in my group we tend not to ban them unless it's absolutely necessary because of a philosophy not to "punish the cat for the sins of the owner." If we ban the owner, the cat may not get the help he or she needs.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

People simply don't hang around in groups, literal and cyber, where they don't respect the majority of what goes on there and most of the membership.

I think the flip side of what you're talking about is that in our cats groups we DO sometimes get people who don't respect a lot of what goes on. "Ignoring" a mod would be an example of that. I'd want to know if it's happening and deal with it. Hence my request at least for notification, failing a setting that disallows it. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

The bottom line is respect.

Couldn't agree more.  This was at the heart of my earlier response to Ro.

People simply don't hang around in groups, literal and cyber, where they don't respect the majority of what goes on there and most of the membership.  [Still, there's always someone you might like to avoid, if possible. . .]
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray

If it is impossible to ignore a moderator then I'd hope that those who exercise that option be very, very circumspect about posting outside the role or establish a separate ID for doing so.  It's the office that gets the respect.

That is very true. I would not be able to joke around in my group if someone hates my jokes (for example) but is forced to have them in front of their face just because I'm a moderator. OTOH in my group it boils down to respect for the group and the people who have created and work hard to run the group - and I'm not just talking about moderating it. I'm talking about the resources we have gathered for members, the veterinary professional(s) we have recruited for their benefit (at no cost to them), the long conversations we have with them to educate them, the information that (basically) they can't find anywhere else, etc.  

The bottom line is respect.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

All it takes is a simple switch for a group to disallow 'ignoring' a moderator.

You say potato, I say po-tah-to . . .

In the end we're talking about precisely the same result.  If it is impossible to ignore a moderator then I'd hope that those who exercise that option be very, very circumspect about posting outside the role or establish a separate ID for doing so.  It's the office that gets the respect.

By the way, I've seen the worst cases occur.  This isn't my first time at the dance.  In the final analysis I don't think it's possible to prevent the worst cases since they somehow keep occurring.  

Nothing can be made foolproof because fools are just too ingenious!  (and when you least expect it, I might add)
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu