>Peter,
>
>>Jim,
>>
>>>Peter,
>>>
>>>>>See What happened to the Thread Spy? Thread #846314 for a discussion of a similar feature once implemented here, then removed. That's my argument.
>>>>
>>>>I have read that thread and do not think it's a similar feature. I think a member here has the right to know which other members have banned him or her. So, at least the banned person should have access to that info. What I suggest is that a member can access a page where the members are listed who have banned him or her.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I see it as a very similar feature - public monitoring of board users' activities. As to banning - don't be ridiculous. No one has been banned from anything. Someone has made a decision that they no longer wish to see or read another's posts. Why should that be public knowledge?
>>
>>What do you mean, 'don't be ridiculous'?! Putting someone in the twit filter actually is interpreted by the twitted person as being banned. It is like your wife who now refuses to talk to you since that quarrel about being late from work again. This silence can upset people quite a bit. It is a way of communicating anger by not communicating. It makes people feel lonely and abandoned. It is a way of punishing.
>>
>
>"Interpreted" - your word. How that person interprets the twit action is a personal problem. By your argument, I would guess that using Caller ID for call blocking is anti-social in the extreme. Guess what - it isn't going away.

"Interpreted" is the very correctly used word here. The words 'attribution' and 'perception' also come to mind. Whatever. What I don't like is that you call this interpreting a "personal problem". Sure, that may be the case, but it is not always so. It is the responsibility of all those who want to be regarded as social to make a serious effort to be perceived the way they want to be perceived.

Your example about call blocking is not good enough for me. Call blocking is useful and justifyable in certain cases, in other cases it indeed is anti-social. It is the context that matters. The problem with your metaphor is that you ignore the context by not including words like 'sometimes' and 'if'.


>>I do not believe in a so called rational decision to twit someone, comparable to the decision to not follow the threads in the dotnet section. I'm sure twitting (a new word here?) is an offensive, agressive act, born out of anger (right or wrong) or arrogance. If it's not out of anger, but indeed rather the rational act you're suggesting here, then it's a very impolite, unsocial action, in my eyes. This is a community here, remember.
>>
>
>Then I suppose building a fence between me and my neighbor is an unsocial action? I live in a community, remember.

And again you use an example that is not good enough for me. It is common rule to have fences. All people have agreed on that. No one regards fences as offensive. Your example is simply not applicable here.

>>
>>>>Moreover, I think that an accompanying, small comment would be nice. I mean, the checkbox that puts someone in the twit filter should let pop up an editbox for a small comment. In the case of Naomi, the comment would be informative to her about the reason why she was put in the twit filter.
>>>
>>>I was waiting for that shoe to drop.
>>>
>>>And what would Naomi do with that information? What would you do with it?
>>
>>What is Naomi doing now? Currently she's having doubts about what she might have written wrong. She's feeling lonely and ignored.
>
>And what would you do with the knowledge?

What knowledge? Do you refer to knowing the arguments of the person who twit-filtered me? I'd try to understand the arguments, possibly talk about it with someone I trust, eventually try to clear misunderstandings, perhaps apologyze. But evenso I might decide to put that person in my own twit-filter. (BTW, my twit-filter is empty and will gonna stay empty.)