EN World Privacy Controls: Two-Way Blocking

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
You do realize that I'm merely restating what the ignore system is designed for, don't you?

It isn't about you, personally. The statement holds of the generic "you", not "you, Ovinomancer, in specific".
What is it designed for? Intentionally abusing it so that I can continue to respond to a poster while preventing them from even ever seeing it? Or from my ignoring someone and causing their ability to follow a thread to degrade because I've cut context from other posters' responses?

Again, NO PROBLEM with ignore. Or even a block that removes the blocker's posts. The on-the-fly editing of people who are neither the blocker or the blockee to remove context from their posts is, at the very least, frustrating and does not seem to be what a discussion forum intends. Of course, if the intent is to allow others to disrupt the posting of people not blocked, then, sure, I suppose, but this is verging into punishment rather than just muting someone you don't want to hear anymore.

I mean, I have people on my ignore list, so I don't have a problem with the feature. Just this hacked implementation of it.

EDIT: so far, none of the responses have managed to engage the issue I'm trying to bring up, and instead assume I'm complaining about being blocked. This is NOT IT. If this is your initial assumption, try again, you've missed it.
 

TheSword

Legend
What is it designed for? Intentionally abusing it so that I can continue to respond to a poster while preventing them from even ever seeing it? Or from my ignoring someone and causing their ability to follow a thread to degrade because I've cut context from other posters' responses?

Again, NO PROBLEM with ignore. Or even a block that removes the blocker's posts. The on-the-fly editing of people who are neither the blocker or the blockee to remove context from their posts is, at the very least, frustrating and does not seem to be what a discussion forum intends. Of course, if the intent is to allow others to disrupt the posting of people not blocked, then, sure, I suppose, but this is verging into punishment rather than just muting someone you don't want to hear anymore.

I mean, I have people on my ignore list, so I don't have a problem with the feature. Just this hacked implementation of it.

EDIT: so far, none of the responses have managed to engage the issue I'm trying to bring up, and instead assume I'm complaining about being blocked. This is NOT IT. If this is your initial assumption, try again, you've missed it.
I think where you lost me was when you were claiming it damages the integrity of the thread. Where in fact the only people it affects are the person blocked and the blocker. Both of whom are presumably aware of the fact and can therefore compensate, and neither of which probably garner a lot of sympathy.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Intentionally abusing it so that I can continue to respond to a poster while preventing them from even ever seeing it?

Can anyone find us a verified instance of this happening? Morrus has already noted that third-party applications like Tapatalk may not respect this, and that we cannot help. But otherwise, the point of two-way blocking is to prevent that.

Again, NO PROBLEM with ignore. Or even a block that removes the blocker's posts. The on-the-fly editing of people who are neither the blocker or the blockee to remove context from their posts is, at the very least, frustrating and does not seem to be what a discussion forum intends.

So, you have Poster A and Poster B. They have a spat. A blocks B.

Poster C comes along, and quotes A. Poster B can see the post by C, but cannot see the quote, and doesn't understand what C is talking about.

That's the situation you've observed? Presumably, you are B in this scenario?

I think that's as intended. If B does see the quote from A, then we get into the possibility of passive-aggressive posting at each other through proxies, which is seven different kinds of nonsense.

I will note that A does not put in the block for the purpose of making reading C difficult. It isn't like anyone using this is twirling their mustache saying, "Bwahahaha! Now, I will annoy a person blocking them, and then having a bunch of people quote me! My plan is sheer elegance in its simplicity!" The intent is for A to be invisible to B. Sometimes, you experience the "negative space" of A, and maybe that's annoying. But it is unavoidable. I'm sorry if you find it a problem, but it comes from allowing people to protect themselves.

You may not believe in allowing folks to protect themselves. However, it is an often-requested feature, and Morrus believes in it. So, you may have to just live with being outvoted on this one.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Interstingly, I can, with these settings, use block in a way that let's me continue to see and respond to a poster, but they cannot see any of this. That seems like very unintended operation.
I can't really think of a use-case for replying to somebody with the intention that they not know you've replied. But you can do that anyway by just logging out. If people abuse the system, we'll have words with them and take that specific feature away from them if we have to. I can't imagine it becoming a widespread problem.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Can anyone find us a verified instance of this happening? Morrus has already noted that third-party applications like Tapatalk may not respect this, and that we cannot help. But otherwise, the point of two-way blocking is to prevent that.
As a test, I've ignored Sword, but set the settings so that I can still see their posts. You can ask them if they can see me.
So, you have Poster A and Poster B. They have a spat. A blocks B.

Poster C comes along, and quotes A. Poster B can see the post by C, but cannot see the quote, and doesn't understand what C is talking about.

That's the situation you've observed? Presumably, you are B in this scenario?
Yes.
I think that's as intended. If B does see the quote from A, then we get into the possibility of passive-aggressive posting at each other through proxies, which is seven different kinds of nonsense.
And this isn't already addressed by the mods? Or, for instance, ignoring someone and then continuing to respond to the last point? Ignore has been used passive aggressively for ages -- it's a little late in the game to sudden be concerned about that. Plus, there's nothing stopping this from happening, just now you get to make up the positions, which, to me, seems a tad worse.

But, that aside, why should me making a unilateral choice include you having to do more work to understand a thread that you haven't been moderated in?
I will note that A does not put in the block for the purpose of making reading C difficult. It isn't like anyone using this is twirling their mustache saying, "Bwahahaha! Now, I will annoy a person blocking them, and then having a bunch of people quote me! My plan is sheer elegance in its simplicity!" The intent is for A to be invisible to B. Sometimes, you experience the "negative space" of A, and maybe that's annoying. But it is unavoidable. I'm sorry if you find it a problem, but it comes from allowing people to protect themselves.

You may not believe in allowing folks to protect themselves. However, it is an often-requested feature, and Morrus believes in it. So, you may have to just live with being outvoted on this one.
You'd be surprised. The person that has blocked me has expressed explicitly in the past that they like block because it does include a punishment factor in making threads more difficult to read. This was under the old system, where post counts got thrown off and made threads show many more pages than could be read can so caused some navigation issues, but they were very happy about that at that time because they enjoyed the idea that blocking caused some small misery. I can't imagine they've changed their opinion here.

And, again, to be perfectly clear, I have no real issue with a block feature -- I mean, so long as it doesn't break board functionality (like the last one) or as long as it doesn't create issued for the blocked person in being able to follow a thread (as this one does). The idea, to me, is that blocking should be a one to one engagement -- it should not, ever, impact my ability to have conversations with others.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I can't really think of a use-case for replying to somebody with the intention that they not know you've replied. But you can do that anyway by just logging out. If people abuse the system, we'll have words with them and take that specific feature away from them if we have to. I can't imagine it becoming a widespread problem.
Really? All of the stupid, passive-aggressive bad behavior you've dealt with for years and you can't see a use case for someone doing this? And it's hard to detect -- if I note it happening from someone that's blocked me, it's not like I can report their post -- I can't see it!

I'll agree it's not a serious concern, though, outside of those interested in bad behavior already. However, I'm not sure that the functionality here is useful -- is there a strong enough case for disrupting posts of others just to prevent someone from even seeing quoted text? To me, this is the issue -- my posts are being edited by the software without my knowledge. If I happen to quote someone, and another poster has been blocked by them, then my posts are then edited for that person and I'm not aware of that.

Again, the old block system was better than this, and it broke functionality to a small degree. I'd rather have that feature. Or, alternatively, a block feature (since it appears this is a necessary thing) that doesn't edit people's posts without their knowledge.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
And this isn't already addressed by the mods?

We recognize that the site rules don't cover everything. A person can bug the crumbs out of you, without that person violating the site rules in an actionable way. It is often based on individual approaches to conversations, such that two people can rub each other the wrong way, but no third party has much of an issue with either of them. Blocking covers this space in ways that moderation can't.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
We recognize that the site rules don't cover everything. A person can bug the crumbs out of you, without that person violating the site rules in an actionable way. It is often based on individual approaches to conversations, such that two people can rub each other the wrong way, but no third party has much of an issue with either of them. Blocking covers this space in ways that moderation can't.
No, I meant acting in a passive-aggressive way sufficient to disturb board functionality. I'm all for an ignore feature -- as I've noted, I use it.
 


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Really? All of the stupid, passive-aggressive bad behavior you've dealt with for years and you can't see a use case for someone doing this? And it's hard to detect -- if I note it happening from someone that's blocked me, it's not like I can report their post -- I can't see it!
If it becomes a widespread issue, we’ll do something about it. If there’s an occasional case of somebody abusing the function, we’ll do something about that too. I suspect that we’ll spend more time posting about hypothetical problems like that than actually dealing with them. I don’t really have anything more to say about that topic unless something changes.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Honest answer? You won't like it. I'll give you a chance to not read it...

Because, if this is done, it is probably because you have been extremely annoying or aggravating. Maybe not in a way that red text and warning points were brought to bear, but in a way that motivated someone to do their best to cut you out of their lives.

Maybe that's not so great a moment to consider yourself the victim of the piece.
Yes the person blocking is definitely always in the right. 🙄

I mean, I'm just happy that I can set it so that people who would deny my humanity will no longer be graced with my incredible content :sneaky:
Yeah this, at the end of the day. I don’t like that I’m seeing posts that don’t even reference the fact that content is being hidden, and thus I don’t even know that they’re quoting someone. It’s annoying as hell. But at least I can properly block people now.
 

Gradine

Final Form (she/they)
Fun fact though; of the three people who were previously on my block list, one appears to have been disinvited and the other two haven't "graced" us with their presence in almost a year.

It seems to me that if there does become a problem it will ultimately become self-correcting.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Nice that people have the option, but I've generally found it easier to just scroll past posts I'm not interested in. My main desired use to block people would be to remove completely off-topic conversation that derail threads so I can just read the on-topic posts. But you can't block people on a thread by thread basis, so I just give my index finger a work out on the old scroll wheel.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
I can't say I've been a fan of the unilaterally-imposed two-way block, either in the previous version of the boards or this one. People should manage their own blocked list, not each others'.
 



CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
There's some interesting discussion going on about this feature...mostly interesting because of the stance that a handful of people are taking against it. Either I'm incredibly naive or hopelessly optimistic, or both, but I don't see a problem with it.

I like the feature, @Morrus . It makes it harder for problematic people to circumvent moderation, and I think that's a good thing.
 

Gradine

Final Form (she/they)
Sure, except you took the time to imply outright state I was behaving badly merely because I was blocked. I'll accept this as an apology, then?
He already said he that he was using a general "you" not talking about you specifically, so why continue this bad faith line of argument?
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
He already said he that he was using a general "you" not talking about you specifically, so why continue this bad faith line of argument?
Post #19, in the spoiler block, not post #21, which is where he has that qualifier. I have no real issue with post #21.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top