EN World Two potential site upgrades

[FrogReaver]

no opinion on threading.

No to blocking. If I’m a member of the site I can bypass that by simply signing out of my account which is what people actually do. And even though it can’t knock you out of a thread with the new version it can still keep you from reading what someone says while logged in, which is annoying and anything that can annoy others can be used as a bludgeon. Thus, I vote no.

Just to add some perspective, if this were a membership only forum to even view comments I could maybe see blocking but it’s not so that’s kind of a moot point.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What is the status on the potential upgrades? Any news?

 

[Mistwell]

This was seen as a hefty negative of the blocking feature. I am not so sure it was that negative. If you want to keep active in a thread, then maybe you should more studiously avoid cheesing folks off.

People can block you for arbitrary and capricious, or even "bad", reasons sometimes. It's not like there is any limitation or even advice on using the feature. It was sometimes used in a vindictive manner. For example, "I don't like your opinion because it might be more popular than my contrary opinion so I am going to block you so you cannot spread your opinion to others any more in this thread" type manner.

And then there was the issue of "get around a block by using the TapaTalk app".

Some gamers play the system (whatever system they're using) in ways we might not expect. That one seemed to attract a lot more unintended results than most add-ons.

The other problem with the old blocking is it broke some functionality of vBulletin which many found useful. You could no longer click on a notification that you were quoted, or the jump-to-first-unread for a thread, because if someone blocked you the counting function used in those features didn't work and it would bring you to the wrong place (sometimes far from where it intended to put you). That, to me, was a serious blow to how I use ENWorld.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

People can block you for arbitrary and capricious, or even "bad", reasons sometimes. It's not like there is any limitation or even advice on using the feature. It was sometimes used in a vindictive manner. For example, "I don't like your opinion because it might be more popular than my contrary opinion so I am going to block you so you cannot spread your opinion to others any more in this thread" type manner.

I don't know what arbitrary or bad reasons even means? Or vindictive blocking?

This is a common feature on the internet. From the description by Morrus, it sounds like it just keeps the two people from communicating or seeing each other (other than the thread starter), but it doesn't stop the other person from spreading their opinions?

I would much prefer that to the system we have now.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't know what arbitrary or bad reasons even means? Or vindictive blocking?

This is a common feature on the internet. From the description by Morrus, it sounds like it just keeps the two people from communicating or seeing each other (other than the thread starter), but it doesn't stop the other person from spreading their opinions?

I would much prefer that to the system we have now.

I believe he's specifically thinking about how a poster could shut out another poster from threads started by the first poster.

The functionality where you can ask the software to hide someone's posts so YOU don't have to read what he or she writes is entirely fine, and necessary even.

But having the power to essentially throw others out of threads is something else, even if it only applies to threads started by you.

Luckily the new forum doesn't work that way.

 

[Umbran]

I don't know what arbitrary or bad reasons even means? Or vindictive blocking?

There was an issue with the previous blocking function - If I started a thread, thre was discussion, and then I blocked you, you would effectively no longer be able to see the thread listed in the forums at all. You could, effectively, be kicked out of the thread.

This new implementation does not seem to have that result, so it should not be an issue.

 

[FrogReaver]

I believe he's specifically thinking about how a poster could shut out another poster from threads started by the first poster.

The functionality where you can ask the software to hide someone's posts so YOU don't have to read what he or she writes is entirely fine, and necessary even.

But having the power to essentially throw others out of threads is something else, even if it only applies to threads started by you.

Luckily the new forum doesn't work that way.

This forum is open to visitors who can see every post. Kind of is pointless to block someone logged in from seeing your posts when they can just log out and see them.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't know what arbitrary or bad reasons even means? Or vindictive blocking?

This is a common feature on the internet. From the description by Morrus, it sounds like it just keeps the two people from communicating or seeing each other (other than the thread starter), but it doesn't stop the other person from spreading their opinions?

I would much prefer that to the system we have now.

Right, I guess some background is lacking.'Sorry about that. [Edit - and I see you already got plenty of answers which I hadn't read when I replied...whoops].

We're not referring to this current proposal for blocking. We're talking about a version which used to exist here which had unexpected technical ramifications which resulted in something more than "keeps the two people from communicating or seeing each other". Umbran was saying (I am paraphrasing) that he didn't know why it was so bad but it was very unpopular. And I was responding it was so unpopular because it did so many weird things other than just keep two people from communicating, and people knew about those unintended things, and were using it to mess with other people's abilities to use the system.

So for example, if someone blocked you under the old blocking system, you could no longer click the "jump to first unread comment in a thread" icon in any thread where the person who blocked you had any posts, or the "view unread threads" icon in any forum here where the blocker had any threads they had started, or the "view post where you were quoted" notification in any thread where the blocker had posted even if they had not started that thread. All of those technical systems broke when someone blocked you. And people knew it had those effects, and could use that knowledge to mess with you. And it was hard for the mods to detect that was being done - it was even difficult to explain the effect sometimes because mods could not be blocked and so had never even seen it in use and how it impacted navigating the message board.

My view on the new proposed blocking is that as long as it does not hamper any other navigational board features, then it's fine. But if it makes navigating the message board more difficult for anyone because it can hamper the use of those tools I mentioned above, then we should not enact that blocking feature because no new feature should hamper old features that people use which have nothing to do with blocking.

Nobody should be "punished" by blocking in a manner which has nothing to do with communicating with that particular blocking person. Whatever underlying system which counts threads and posts to allow you to jump to a point in the system which identifies new threads, new posts, or posts where you are quoted or called out with an @ symbol should still function as intended after the new blocking feature is added. If those counting systems start to function poorly after the blocking feature is added, then I don't want that new blocking feature.

 

[Morrus]

I’ve been unable to get confirmation that either of these functions will work with Tapatalk, despite my best efforts, so I’ve chosen not to buy them. The developers don’t seem interested, which is a red flag anyway.

 

[CapnZapp]

This forum is open to visitors who can see every post. Kind of is pointless to block someone logged in from seeing your posts when they can just log out and see them.

I believe it was by and large a side effect of the chosen implementation of the (now gone) blocking system.

And not intentionally a main feature, I mean.