Regarding ignore functions
Thanks to users 84237 & the Hellish Hedgehog for clearing up my misunderstandings about ignore.

It strikes me there is only one very obvious flaw with Ignore 2.0 - that it is subject to circumvention. In my opinion to make the system perfect, although 'logging out to view all comments' is something that can never be prevented for obvious reasons, the authentication system when a user re-logs in to reply to a post by a commenter who has blocked him/her CAN be improved - the system should reject the attempted reply.

It could be done relatively simply by simply referring to the parent post for every submitted post and checking the parent poster did not have the poster on ignore, or vice-versa

In order not to stifle the possibility of debate this should only be applied to 'parent posts' - iE prevent anyone who is blocked from directly replying to the blocker's posts, but dont prevent them replying to others' replies to those posts

I believe this is necessary and disagree with some analysis of the 'troll issue' as I can see a qualitative difference between comments on QOTWs of 2 years ago or more and those of today, with recently significantly stepped-up irrelevant criticism, posting of deliberately hurtful remarks, and undermining of anonymity. I joined this site after reading the historic QOTWs and wanting to be part of the society that created them. I have no desire to be part of a society based on the art of upsetting people.

Particularly with relation to a handful of users the principle purpose of their presence seems to be to post potentially hurtful remarks about other users. We've established the lack of moderatorial willpower to tackle this issue directly - give us the tools to tackle it properly ourselves.

C
(Carpe Cyprinidae, Fri 27 Dec 2013, 18:41, 10 replies, latest was 10 years ago)

Another alternative, although no idea how difficult it'd be to implement:
every thread remains completely visible to everyone, but posts by anyone you've personally ignored are displayed blank to you alone. It's the hi-tech equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears - everyone else can still hear the banter, it only affects you. If you desperately want to see what any particular bully has written you can do so by logging out. Also, no-one's ignore list will become public knowledge this way.
( drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Fri 27 Dec 2013, 21:35, Reply)

the flipside is it doesnt do the two obvious requirements for a blocklist - doesnt prevent hurtful replies to a comment, and doesn't prevent naming the poster in a way that google or other web searches will link to their own postings.

I think Ignore 2.0 - now its been explained - is broadly an excellent idea, its only failing is not quite going far enough.
(Carpe Cyprinidae, Fri 27 Dec 2013, 21:38, Reply)

Ignore functionality aside though,
if you're a member of this site with a unique username that within a click or two through google will lead to your real life name and details, it's probably best not to post all over b3ta with hilarious admissions of drugs, theft and underage sex. If you look back at some of the qotw answers from, say, 7 years ago, you'll find plenty of dubious stories which would never have been tolerated or even encouraged to the same extent had today's reply police been in place then.

What I'm getting at is, in moderation, less-than-fluffy-r-u-ok-hun replies are a good thing if you're badly in need of taking a long hard look at yourself. As are many members of this site.
( drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Fri 27 Dec 2013, 23:13, Reply)

You make valid points.

I have some, too. We all type things we later think better of - the internet does have a considerable ability to forget stuff as the search engines deem it less current or relevant - and context is everything.

An off-colour remark in a thread of bad-taste comments might well be picked up and criticised at the time but the real danger seen here is of cut-and-paste recontextualisation; remarks that in context can be either discarded as bad judgement or even the fiction of an unwise mind may gain a new life as an accepted truth when constantly repeated; this also defeats the tendency of search engines to forget, or bury them in a sea of inane drivel

If a person took to following you around town loudly repeating things you'd said, out of context and in the most defamatory way imaginable you'd either sue them or get an injunction; on this site such actions are harder to bring and other tools you propose such as an ability to close your own ears to them while everyone else witnesses the full detail, and thus lose your right of reply... are of little use.
(Carpe Cyprinidae, Sat 28 Dec 2013, 1:16, Reply)

oh god yes
no criticism was allowed during the first couple of years after the reply function was introduced, so QOTW became an insufferable orgy of self-congratulation and textual onanism

as the OP would know if he'd been there at the time (inb4 OP saying "oh but I've been lurking for ages really, honest, I have")
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 29 Dec 2013, 18:00, Reply)

Stop weeping, you pompous twat.

( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sat 28 Dec 2013, 10:16, Reply)

Fuck off, cunt.

( Fucking hell Jeff I am not a robot, Tue 31 Dec 2013, 14:03, Reply)

Negative reception is hardly new, anyway
( drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Tue 31 Dec 2013, 14:07, Reply)

Yes, the problem with the original Ignore was that it was too simple,
and 2.0 just didn't complicate things enough!

Pay attention: 2.0 doesn't work because it alerts the subject of the Ignore to the identity of those ignoring them, thus exacerbating things.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 3 Jan 2014, 22:06, Reply)