A change to block/ignore

[lucusloc]

Currently if you block/ignore someone it not only hides their content from you, it also hides your content from them. It should not do this, if they do not wish to see your content they have a block/ignore button of their own. If your content is hidden from them it can make it more difficult for them to continue participating in conversations that other people are having on the topic, as they will be missing half the context of that conversation. This allows someone to fragment small sections of the community without the consent of other members by making certain conversations almost entirely opaque to the blocked member. This should not be a possible function of the block/ignore feature, and for this reason I think that that feature should be one way only. If you block/ignore someone you will not see their content, but they will still have full visibility of yours. They will still be able to quote and interact with that content in order to participate in the conversation with other members, but you will not be alerted to or see any of that content (including not being able to see their quotes by other members, just as it works now). This would reduce the power of the ignore button to fragment the community and would reduce the impact on the blocked user.

For those that like not seeing the content of those that have ignored them, there could be an "automatically ignore back" option on the user profile that would maintain the current functionality.

Read More

 

[lucusloc]

There are plenty of other posts or threads to enjoy. You can't have this girl. She doesn't want you. Move on.

Sure, until they post an answer you need in a thread you are following. It's a simple change that is more in-line with standard practice elsewhere, and for good reason. If you don't block people their blocking of you should not foul up your user experience of the site. Simple as that.

 

[Flopsweat]

Sure, until they post an answer you need in a thread you are following. It's a simple change that is more in-line with standard practice elsewhere, and for good reason. If you don't block people their blocking of you should not foul up your user experience of the site. Simple as that.

We don't have to be like everyone else. Why don't you like diversity?

 

[lucusloc]

We don't have to be like everyone else. Why don't you like diversity?

because "diversity" is just a cover for sub-par garbage most of the time?

 

[Nosferatu]

because "diversity" is just a cover for sub-par garbage most of the time?

I'm seeing the problem now. You're wanting to see if the person who blocked you has posted above-par garbage, therefore validating your choice of club.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I think it works good as is. The only poeple that can defeat it are jerks like 1775USMC who has come back 4 times after being banned again and again. His last logging was trollinwaters or some username like that. Not sure if that one has been banned yet or not.

 

[Dungannon]

I'm seeing the problem now. You're wanting to see if the person who blocked you has posted above-par garbage, therefore validating your choice of club.

I've blocked a half-dozen people since joining in 2016 [two right now]. At the end of the year I unblock them briefly, look at their posts and see if they've grown up. Usually the people I block just disappear from the board, probably because they're not getting the response they wanted. If I block someone it is only after they've been irritating me with their combative BS for some time. Everyone has a bad day once in awhile; a few are born that way.

 

[Nosferatu]

I've blocked a half-dozen people since joining in 2016 [two right now]. At the end of the year I unblock them briefly, look at their posts and see if they've grown up. Usually the people I block just disappear from the board, probably because they're not getting the response they wanted. If I block someone it is only after they've been irritating me with their combative BS for some time. Everyone has a bad day once in awhile; a few are born that way.

I'm happy, and surprised, to have made it past the cuts.

 

[Lilhigbee]

I'm happy with it just as is. Currently have 58 on the list. Mostly trolls or blathering idiots, though some seem to be both. Others just argumentative with no real point. Not even worth the time needed to scroll past them. I'd rather not have them misrepresenting something I said and not know about it. They are mostly predictable. If you read the reply to their invisible comment it isn't difficult to figure out what they said. If I have a slow day I review the list and remove one- or two-day wonders that haven't been back for a few months. Also anyone that's been gone more than a year. Just to keep the list from getting to 176 again.
I still think it would be a good idea to toss people from the site once they get on a certain number of Ignore lists, say 30 or 35. If you've pissed off that many people you probably aren't a positive influence here.

 

[Nosferatu]

I still think it would be a good idea to toss people from the site once they get on a certain number of Ignore lists, say 30 or 35. If you've pissed off that many people you probably aren't a positive influence here.

No, no, no. If that gets enacted, I might actually have to do some work during the day.

 

[Flopsweat]

... I'd rather not have them misrepresenting something I said and not know about it. ...

Good point.

I still think it would be a good idea to toss people from the site once they get on a certain number of Ignore lists, say 30 or 35.

Bad idea.

 

[lucusloc]

I'd rather not have them misrepresenting something I said and not know about it.

But we already established they can do just that if they hop into incognito mode to pull quotes, but worse since the normal quote mechanism is non-functional, they just get to copy/paste. And this also assumes that your more sane fellow community members will not call them out on such BS, which ironically would be harder if they did not use the quote feature that links directly back to the source content. So the current setup makes misquoting easier for anyone so inclined to do that, as now they have a built in excuse not to link back to the source; they can only interact with it from a not logged in browser.

 

[lucusloc]

I see your point. BUT, then I can go incognito and see who has me blocked. At that point I can go back to the thread an call them doo-doo heads (or other derogatory terms) and get a laugh if I choose.

Another point I just remembered; incognito does not work in the Den, you have to be a paid and logged in member to see that. Even direct links do not work.

 

[Nosferatu]

But we already established they can do just that if they hop into incognito mode to pull quotes, but worse since the normal quote mechanism is non-functional, they just get to copy/paste. And this also assumes that your more sane fellow community members will not call them out on such BS, which ironically would be harder if they did not use the quote feature that links directly back to the source content. So the current setup makes misquoting easier for anyone so inclined to do that, as now they have a built in excuse not to link back to the source; they can only interact with it from a not logged in browser.

My pea-brain hurty.

 

[Flopsweat]

My pea-brain hurty.

I think he just really, really doesn't like being talked about behind his back.

 

[Howard1955]

I'm an equal opportunity blocker. Everybody gets to sit in the Penalty Box.

Pretty sure any other way of behaving would be… racist.

 

[solv3nt]

I'm post #36 and I don't see anything.

 

[Flopsweat]

I'm post #36 and I don't see anything.

Rumor has it you're an bubblegum.

 

[solv3nt]

Rumor has it you're an bubblegum.

Only rumors? You need a come to Jesus moment.

 

[Nosferatu]

How come post #36 comes up blank?

 

[Flopsweat]

How come post #36 comes up blank?

Nobody can see that one. Guy's a real bubblegum.