That's not how 2.0 works
It doesn't matter who the OP has on ignore or not, you can still see all the replies. If I put you on 2.0, you can't see my posts and I can't see yours - but everyone else can still see all of our posts.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 15:28, 2 replies)

Yes, but if the OP has someone on ignore, that someone can't post in the thread, and everybody's b3ta experience is fundamentally altered as a result.
All because of a poorly designed feature.
( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 15:32, closed)

But they can post in the thread
I find my threads rapidly fill up with posts from the shitcunts 1337 HaXx0rz I've put on 2.0
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 15:49, closed)

Again, that's only because 2.0 is really poorly designed.
It was a bad idea in every conceivable way, and needed someone much more competent than whichever drooling fucktard they have maintaining the place currently.
( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 15:52, closed)

Well no arguments there - it's a bad idea, badly implemented
but that poor implementation negates all of the issues that the OP is complaining about.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 15:55, closed)

Not really, people shouldn't have to log out to see all the posts, that's completely arseways up from how every other messageboard on the internet works.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 16:02, closed)

If someone really has nothing better to do than abuse another user, it's not exactly difficult

( drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 15:56, closed)

Which is my point exactly

( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 16:20, closed)

so, your point is that ignore 2.0 doesn't go far enough?
i'm not following
( The Doveston haunted by the memory of his own amnesia, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 16:22, closed)

My point is that edjogs was wrong when he said to BraynRot
"If the OP of this thread had you on ignore I would only be able to see BraynDedd's post and not your reply."

It's made even more nonsensical by the fact that Rot apparently has Dedd on 2.0 anyway, yet edjogs can see both their posts.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 16:37, closed)

i think the sentiment is that ignore 2.0 is shit
i'm sure we can all agree
( The Doveston haunted by the memory of his own amnesia, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 16:38, closed)

Well yeah

( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 16:41, closed)

Rot hasn't got me on 2.0, it's a sockpuppet of someone who does, created purely to be upset with me, it seems.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 16:43, closed)

Damn right!
Start posting interesting or amusing stories, you useless cunt.
(ShambolicBadgerRimmer Please don't ignore me!, Tue 20 Aug 2013, 18:48, closed)

Ok Emvee let's try this.
I just put Braynrot on ignore, temporarily.
I could then not see his replies and I assume he could not see this thread or post in it.
This means that Brayndedd's post, which was obviouslly considered incorrect by Braynrot, would remain unchallenged by him. The result of this is that the rest of us could see only one side of the argument. Therefore we get a version of the board that the ignorer wants us to see, not the real version.
Or have I got this whole thing arse about breakfast?
( edjogs Collared doves are shit., Tue 20 Aug 2013, 17:16, closed)

^ This.
The point made about Ignore 2.0 in your op was correct. emvee is correct to say that Ignore 2.0 is easily circumvented, but that's not a good argument in favour of it.

Bring back the pink bars!
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Wed 21 Aug 2013, 8:27, closed)