Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Meta
Two potential site upgrades
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 8032233" data-attributes="member: 2525"><p>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].</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 8032233, member: 2525"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Meta - Forums About Forums
Meta
Two potential site upgrades
Top