The Ethics of Two Way Ignore

[Umbran]

It’d also be interesting to see what the percent of total blocks are from people with no posts and between 1 and 50 or so posts, etc.

Please do not get the idea that we would ever release such data for the site.

 

[FrogReaver]

Please do not get the idea that we would ever release such data for the site.

Why not? I mean it’s your data you can do with it what you want. Just curious on the rationale.

 

[Umbran]

But like, aren’t the same cliques more or less just as likely to block the same people as they are to like each others posts?

You can only block someone once. You can like someone's posts as often as they post. So the number of blocks is low, but number of likes can be arbitrarily high.

It seems that most arguments against using likes as such a metric apply just as easily to using blocks as one?

I just said we don't generally use blocks as a metric in day-to-day operation.

For the same purpose high blocks get brought up in these conversations.

And what purpose do you think that is, exactly?

If you cannot articulate it clearly, you don't have clear criteria for the metric.

That’s great! Though that leaves me a bit confused by the emphasis on them here.

If you don't understand the emphasis on them here, maybe you aren't in a position to advise how to use them or not use them.

 

[FrogReaver]

I just said we don't generally use blocks as a metric in day-to-day operation.

Right. I said that’s great!

And what purpose do you think that is, exactly?

Instead of asking me to make public assumptions why not just share the actual purpose?

If you don't understand the emphasis on them here, maybe you aren't in a position to advise how to use them or not use them.

Okay. Then please enlighten me as to the emphasis here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough, but if you are truly villifying the person who was blocked like that, why are they allowed to stay on the site at all? Are we assuming that any time a poster chooses to block another poster, the one blocked must be a harassed? And if that's the assumption, shouldn't greater action be taken?

The problem here is this assumes the moderation views the situation the same as the person doing the blocking, and if they don't, the person doing so is just out of luck. That's probably a very, very aggressively bad approach.

 

[Umbran]

Are we assuming that any time a poster chooses to block another poster, the one blocked must be a harassed?

Who is this "we"?

Because, to be blunt, the decision to block doesn't involve you. Nor does it involve me. There is no "we" here assuming things. The function is to allow some measure of control to the individual. "We" are not part of it.

 

[J.Quondam]

Fair enough, but if you are truly villifying the person who was blocked like that, why are they allowed to stay on the site at all? Are we assuming that any time a poster chooses to block another poster, the one blocked must be a harassed? And if that's the assumption, shouldn't greater action be taken?

The blocker is the one doing any "villifying", not the community or the mods. Moreover, it's not necessarily "villifying" that's happening. As Umbran hinted, while stopping harassment is a main concern of blocking, it's not the only use case. Sometimes people just get tired of reading certain others' posts for being too long, too numerous, or just being grating in some undefinable way. Sometimes blocks are temporary, or accidental. Sometimes they get forgotten. So using them as a gauge of motive doesn't work.

Blocking is for the benefit of the blocker, period. It's a safety tool, and how it affects others' understanding of discussion or metrics is just not important. THe function is available to promote peace of mind and civility, not unlimited discussion for everyone everywhere at all times.

 

[FrogReaver]

The blocker is the one doing any "villifying", not the community or the mods. Moreover, it's not necessarily "villifying" that's happening. As Umbran hinted, while stopping harassment is a main concern of blocking, it's not the only use case. Sometimes people just get tired of reading certain others' posts for being too long, too numerous, or just being grating in some undefinable way. Sometimes blocks are temporary, or accidental. Sometimes they get forgotten. So using them as a gauge of motive doesn't work.

Blocking is for the benefit of the blocker, period. It's a safety tool, and how it affects others' understanding of discussion or metrics is just not important. THe function is available to promote peace of mind and civility, not unlimited discussion for everyone everywhere at all times.

I can get behind this message, but I think you may be missing some very relevant parts of the conversation that explains why @Micah Sweet raised that point in the first place.

 

[Umbran]

Instead of asking me to make public assumptions why not just share the actual purpose?

I wasn't the one trying to define its use as a metric! Defining it as a metric is not my goal.

 

[FrogReaver]

Defining it as a metric is not my goal.

Okay. What is your goal?