D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[Mistwell]

The situation you describe doesn’t exist, though. You aren’t losing half of 14 thousand posts. Not even close.

I used your starndard not mine. You said half was your line.

And I’ve already, repeatedly, agreed that block needs to be fixed. The notification issues aren’t a necessary component of two way blocking.

So if just not seeing the posts of the person who blocked you would be fine, let’s focus on that, instead of acting like the only way to fix that issue is to ditch blocking.

All I've ever said is fix it. When did I say or imply the only way was to ditch blocking?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FrogReaver]

If I wanted to block you, I would. I stopped replying to your messages in this thread for reasons that don’t really matter.

What’s weird to me, is even wanting to interact with someone who has decided not to interact with you on this topic. If someone indicates they don’t want to, and you keep responding to their statements, addressing the room rather than them, that is incredibly weird and awkward, and fairly rude. Genuinely imagine that playing out in real life. You seriously gonna tell me that wouldn’t be weird and rude?

edit: a typo

If they don’t want to talk to me and my statements aren’t actually to them then it is not weird IMO. I can reference what someone says and talk about what they said without ever speaking to them.

What’s weird IMO is thinking that every quote of your words means someone is talking directly to you. That’s a bit Narcissistic IMO.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What’s weird to me, is even wanting to interact with someone who has decided not to interact with you on this topic.

If I may provide the reasoning as non-confrontationally as possible:

Because you're saying them to everyone reading, and the easiest way to reply to the ideas you've said is to quote them. For your Starbuck framing, it would be like someone that is refusing to listen to you still saying things to people around you on the topic you're all discussing -- must you ignore that and let a point important to you go unchallenged because that person isn't listening to you?

This goes back to the difference in how forums are viewed. You see it as a more private engagement of individuals. Others see it as a public free-wheeling debate of ideas. Neither is entirely right about it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I used your starndard not mine. You said half was your line.

and I made it clear that half was not an absolute line, nor did I think it was particularly useful to try to define a specific line.

All I've ever said is fix it. When did I say or imply the only way was to ditch blocking?

Ok, then we agree and I have to wonder why you replied to me in the first place? Especially asking me where my “line” is where I’d advocate ditching the block function?

 

[Charlaquin]

Thanks for the reply.

It seems that you have a much more personalized view of forum posting than I or others. You seem to look at it as a conversation between friends in a social gathering where others may become friends. In this view, it's important to exclude the unwanted intrusion from the group, not just the individual. Block is more akin to a group shunning, at least from an individual point of view.

That said, is it possibke to grasp that others might have a different view of forums? That, instead of a group of friends it's instead an open square of strangers were ideas are discussed on thier merits and not thier speakers? Where block removes ideas from discussion unilaterally?

Which viewpoint should win with regards to blocking? Why should one point of view be prioritized? I don't have answers to these questions, but I think it's worth considering that the other side has a valid point of view and isn't arguing from bad intentions. This goes to both sides.

Worth noting, an open gathering of strangers where ideas are discussed on their merits and not their speakers is the actual definition of the word “forum.”

EDIT: And for the record, I am saying this with the intent that it be open to everyone in the thread to read, and respond to it they so choose, not to carry on a conversation with Ovinomancer specifically (though they are certainly included in the people I am inviting to engage with my comment.)

 

[Mistwell]

So make the post in the meta forum, and (at) Morrus.

I don't think it will be a high priority, given that my understanding is that we may be moving to a new system, but it certainly is more likely to be fruitful than this discussion.

Oh I have. Multiple times. Morrus reacted with what I interpreted to be a shrug. I don't think he physically sees the issue, and I don't think he thinks it's a very meaningful issue for those impacted by it. Which is a bit frustrating. Which is why other people talking about it together to get a better grasp for how widespread and impactful it is to others is helpful.

 

[Mistwell]

and I made it clear that half was not an absolute line, nor did I think it was particularly useful to try to define a specific line.



Ok, then we agree and I have to wonder why you replied to me in the first place? Especially asking me where my “line” is where I’d advocate ditching the block function?

Because we were discussing the topic of IF the only way to fix this issue is to ditch the existing blocking function THEN what would be your threshold for when you'd be OK with that?

Right now, Morrus seems to either be disinterested or not willing or able to go through whatever difficulties are involved with fixing it. If that remains the case, then the only option available may be to ditch the existing block function (though I will raise the topic with him again).

If you have a threshold somewhere on that metaphorical line which runs from on the far left end "ditch it on principle even if it never impacts anyone ever" to the far right end of "never ditch it even if all posts are completely ruined because of it," then perhaps can you understand why other people's thresholds might be on some other point along that line somewhat to the left of yours. Asking about your threshold begins to establish a means to try and talk about empathizing with those who simply chose a slightly different point along that line. You don't have to agree with them of course...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If I may provide the reasoning as non-confrontationally as possible:

Because you're saying them to everyone reading, and the easiest way to reply to the ideas you've said is to quote them. For your Starbuck framing, it would be like someone that is refusing to listen to you still saying things to people around you on the topic you're all discussing -- must you ignore that and let a point important to you go unchallenged because that person isn't listening to you?

This goes back to the difference in how forums are viewed. You see it as a more private engagement of individuals. Others see it as a public free-wheeling debate of ideas. Neither is entirely right about it.

Here is the most important factor, IMO. For many people, a block function that lets the blocked person interact with them or their posts at all makes the site unusable. They block because someone is abusive or otherwise toxic, but technically within the site rules, or the mods just don’t see it the same way. To me, that is a legitimate concern.

Other people get upset at the idea of not seeing posts they want to see. To me, this is not a legitimate concern. At all. On any level.

As for the personal vs public thing, not really. I view this place as a private, public facing, business. What it literally objectively is. I think we agree on that much. The interaction is most akin to a conversation at a coffee shop, but does not map perfectly to that. It is both personal, because you can quote eachother, and public, because it happens in a place that is public facing and involves group discussions.

Block, notifications, and other forum mechanics, replace a wide range of direct social dynamics that can’t directly exists when people aren’t face to face. Regardless, replying to someone is both individual and exists in the context of the group. Block is important so that when social norms can’t be employed to ensure normal behavior, people can continue to enjoy the site comfortably.

 

[FrogReaver]

Worth noting, an open gathering of strangers where ideas are discussed on their merits and not their speakers is the actual definition of the word “forum.”

EDIT: And for the record, I am saying this with the intent that it be open to everyone in the thread to read, and respond to it they so choose, not to carry on a conversation with Ovinomancer specifically (though they are certainly included in the people I am inviting to engage with my comment.)

Even if this were an in person group conversation no single person can make someone else not respond to them in the context of the group discussion. The most that can be done by a single person is to ignore the other individual or leave. In person you never have the ability to unilaterally stop a person in your discussion group from discussing the things you say in the group. At some point if an individual is to toxic then the group may effectively remove that poster from the group but it’s never a unilateral decision by a single person in the group.