Opt out of being forced to read mass participation threads

[SaptaZapta]

God forbid something take you two minutes to read and make a decision on.

That's fine, but I'd like to decide for myself when those two minutes will be.

[Shidoshi]

I might opt out of it since I always read everything that shows up in the Suggestions and Announcements forums. It usually calls me back to a thread I've already read and replied.

[KhainiWest]

God forbid something take you two minutes to read and make a decision on.

If you decide not to participate, then you lose your voice, which also means your right to complain

That's why I find this acceptable, "WHY DID YOU DO THIS", "Why didn't you object to it?"

A lot of problems solved

[Eos]

If you decide not to participate, then you lose your voice, which also means your right to complain

Funny but that's never stopped people who can't find the time to vote before from complaining endlessly.

[KhainiWest]

Funny but that's never stopped people who can't find the time to vote before from complaining endlessly.

I value a post more than a vote, and this time they are choosing to remain ignorant about it. At least they'll look like idiot's more-so if they decide to complain.

[Stereo]

Actually that's very easily doable, since it's a user group. But I'd need something to use for it.

[Mike]

I read stuff!

[Sorien]

Actually that's very easily doable, since it's a user group. But I'd need something to use for it.

How about an eye sprite with a pupil that follows the cursor like some sort of creeper; though, admittedly, that'd probably be more code than most people would be willing to put forth.

A monocle or a pair of [spectrum] goggles, maybe?

[Sarah]

Nope. This is one that you should "humiliate" those who choose not to participate on. Stick them with the horrible sub-user title.

Why is this different than the chinchilla? Because ads are pineappleing obnoxious and ALWAYS THERE so choosing to view them is an actual sacrifice. Having to view a thread is not an inconvenience. It's why we're here. And if you don't really care then it's two clicks to get out of it. (One to go to the redirected thread, and one to exit it. Don't even have two read if you don't care.)

So, out them. Make the title say "I choose not to read" or something so everyone else is not stuck with these.

[Eos]

So, out them. Make the title say "I choose not to read" or something so everyone else is not stuck with these.

Stuck with what?

[Sarah]

Stuck with what?

I guess you removed it now but if you put it back in (which I kind of think you should because anyone who can't be bothered to participate in site discussion deserves to be mocked and ridiculed (also tarred and feathered)) put the title on those who opt-out.

[Eos]

I guess you removed it now but if you put it back in (which I kind of think you should because anyone who can't be bothered to participate in site discussion deserves to be mocked and ridiculed (also tarred and feathered)) put the title on those who opt-out.

Don't think it's worth the effort.

[Eos]

Effective immediately new "force read" threads will not re-force people who manage to read them in the time between the thread going live and the force going active to read the thread again.

When the "force" is registered it will automatically credit everyone who's already read the thread manually as having read the thread, the way it should've from the beginning, instead of only counting people who've read it after the force-read was enacted.

Note I can reset at will all history to re force people to the same thread in the event of a major change, like the R&R being updated and requiring a re-read, this is just a change to the default behavior to make it less annoying and encourage more people to remain in the opt in list if the only reason for them leaving was potential redundancy.