Matt Colville's Community

[Micah Sweet]

I've found that there's enough people who manage to just skirt that line that makes the two-way block a necessity.

Like I said, everybody has a different line. It's just as subjective as any other opinion on this site.

 

[Scribe]

Ok. The way I see it, anyone who's so bad I don't want to see their posts will get kicked altogether soon enough, but everyone has a different line.

Different line indeed.

FYI, I believe the mutual check is the default behavior.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Different line indeed.

FYI, I believe the mutual check is the default behavior.

I suspected as much. I don't care for the assumed position being you are supposed to keep others from reading your posts, but it's not my call.

 

[Scribe]

I suspected as much. I don't care for the assumed position being you are supposed to keep others from reading your posts, but it's not my call.

Yeah I dont care if people see my posts, I also dont care enough to even bother to change the default behavior.

I ignore people so I do not get banned responding to stupidity.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah I dont care if people see my posts, I also dont care enough to even bother to change the default behavior.

I ignore people so I do not get banned responding to stupidity.

Fair, I'm sure my responses to posts have no gone well for me either sometimes.

I think a lot of people don't bother to change the default when they use ignore, which is why I wish the default wasn't 100% lock out on both sides. Seems overly punitive for the intended purpose.

 

[Scribe]

Fair, I'm sure my responses to posts have no gone well for me either sometimes.

I think a lot of people don't bother to change the default when they use ignore, which is why I wish the default wasn't 100% lock out on both sides. Seems overly punitive for the intended purpose.

I dont see how its punitive. The intent is to make someone disappear. Most other sites dont have such a strong ignore feature. If I put someone on ignore, odds are very very very good that I do not need them to exist in my online space anymore as they are adding nothing to it.

 

[Gradine]

Fair, I'm sure my responses to posts have no gone well for me either sometimes.

I think a lot of people don't bother to change the default when they use ignore, which is why I wish the default wasn't 100% lock out on both sides. Seems overly punitive for the intended purpose.

It's not punitive at all. Nobody owes anybody else their attention. When I put someone on block, I no longer want to interact with that person. Why would I then be totally fine with them continuing to interact with me?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I dont see how its punitive. The intent is to make someone disappear. Most other sites dont have such a strong ignore feature. If I put someone on ignore, odds are very very very good that I do not need them to exist in my online space anymore as they are adding nothing to it.

My point is you're not just making their presence disappear from your experience (which IMO should be all that matters to you when you move to ignore). You are making your presence disappear from their experience, as well as any interactions you have with anyone who isn't also ignoring them. Since that second effect doesn't affect you, I see it as punitive.

 

[Umbran]

I suspected as much. I don't care for the assumed position being you are supposed to keep others from reading your posts, but it's not my call.

I think the logic for having it mutual by default is stronger, because the block is probably less about opinions, and more about interaction style.

If you have had negative interactions that call for a block, knowing that they may continue to interact with your posts, even when you cannot see them, may tempt/lead you to drop the block to check... thus negating the usefulness of the block.

 

[Aldarc]

I would point out that sometimes putting people on ignore is also to the benefit of the ignored. It also prevents them from likewise getting them into a heated argument that could earn them unwanted attention from the mods.