Speaking honestly, it would be wrong to be able to block someone completely out of the forums. Imagine if someone went on a campaign to get a bunch of people to block one person - that person would be unable to play in the forums, which is pretty horrible for a game that seems to rely heavily on that kind of roleplay interaction. Curate your experience as you need to, but don't have this affect others. That being said, nobody should harass you over your ability to block. It's imho fine if they ask once, but to continuously harass you over it shouldn't be allowed.
Tiered blocking is one thing, but making a blocked person unable to see your posts is unnecessary punishment for that person. If one is concerned about privacy, kindly don't post it on the internet. It's probably better that way anyway all things considered. There are always peering eyes...
For the blocking sig things and sensory overload, I have a really good tip: I use an extension called UBlock Origin to filter out sensory triggering content. I do it all the time instead of blocking posts themselves. For example, if I wanted to block the user above me's sig (Apologies Greyjoy for using you as an example lol), I would just element picker their sig.
Win win win. (whitelist to support the site itself ofc)
Speaking honestly, it would be wrong to be able to block someone completely out of the forums. Imagine if someone went on a campaign to get a bunch of people to block one person - that person would be unable to play in the forums, which is pretty horrible for a game that seems to rely heavily on that kind of roleplay interaction. Curate your experience as you need to, but don't have this affect others. That being said, nobody should harass you over your ability to block. It's imho fine if they ask once, but to continuously harass you over it shouldn't be allowed.
Tiered blocking is one thing, but making a blocked person unable to see your posts is unnecessary punishment for that person. If one is concerned about privacy, kindly don't post it on the internet. It's probably better that way anyway all things considered. There are always peering eyes...
For the blocking sig things and sensory overload, I have a really good tip: I use an extension called UBlock Origin to filter out sensory triggering content. I do it all the time instead of blocking posts themselves. For example, if I wanted to block the user above me's sig (Apologies Greyjoy for using you as an example lol), I would just element picker their sig.
Win win win. (whitelist to support the site itself ofc)
okay the thing is. The forums are not necessary to play the game. No one HAS to see anyone else's posts except for staff announcements, and I doubt staff are going to go around handing out blocks. For bug reports, idk, people can make duplicate topics or staff can make posts when an issue becomes major enough (they've done that in the past right?) or the user can submit a freaking help ticket. Point is, there is zero reason to force users to interact with users they don't want to and people insisting otherwise need to stop acting entitled to everything.
Lots of people talk about the petty reasons for blocking like they invalidate users who block for more dire reasons. We definitely need tiered blocking, but we shouldn't be dismissing users who need a proper, hard block function.
okay the thing is. The forums are not necessary to play the game. No one HAS to see anyone else's posts except for staff announcements, and I doubt staff are going to go around handing out blocks. For bug reports, idk, people can make duplicate topics or staff can make posts when an issue becomes major enough (they've done that in the past right?) or the user can submit a freaking help ticket. Point is, there is zero reason to force users to interact with users they don't want to and people insisting otherwise need to stop acting entitled to everything.
Lots of people talk about the petty reasons for blocking like they invalidate users who block for more dire reasons. We definitely need tiered blocking, but we shouldn't be dismissing users who need a proper, hard block function.
[quote name="Greyjoy" date="2021-12-27 08:36:57" ]
It's because blocking somebody should curate YOUR experience, it shouldn't affect THEIRS on social parts of the site.
[/quote]
It really can not be said any better than this.
Greyjoy wrote on 2021-12-27 08:36:57:
It's because blocking somebody should curate YOUR experience, it shouldn't affect THEIRS on social parts of the site.
It really can not be said any better than this.
[quote name="Crowbar" date="2021-12-27 14:39:35" ]
okay the thing is. The forums are not necessary to play the game. No one HAS to see anyone else's posts except for staff announcements, and I doubt staff are going to go around handing out blocks. For bug reports, idk, people can make duplicate topics or staff can make posts when an issue becomes major enough (they've done that in the past right?) or the user can submit a freaking help ticket. Point is, there is zero reason to force users to interact with users they don't want to and people insisting otherwise need to stop acting entitled to everything.
[/quote]
I disagree with this. Just because the forum isn't "necessary" to play the game doesn't mean a player should be cut off from them. And in my opinion, the forums are just as necessary for a petsite as Familiars, the Fairgrounds, etc. And no one is forcing you to interact with someone, if you've blocked someone then you can't see their posts, so you can just ignore them.
If someone who wrote a helpful, in-depth guide had you blocked, that would cut off your access to a helpful resource, which would be especially frustrating for newer or casual players. If a dom organizer blocked me, for instance, that would cut off a major part of my enjoyment of the site. You could say "We need tiered blocking so only people who [i]deserve[/i] it get hard blocked," but I don't think someone should have to justify a hard block as the user having done something "really bad."
[quote name="907" date="2021-12-26 13:10:12" ]
I wish I wouldn't be able to see their forum posts from my end. It's annoying to see Blahblahuser is blocked in a thread like what's the point of blocking if I can still see them?
[/quote]
I agree with this, if I were to block someone it would be because I want them out of sight and out of mind. However, I understand how having no post show up at all could be confusing or frustrating. My proposed compromise would be that blocking someone would cause their post to show up as “This post was made by a user you have blocked.” There would be a button on the post labeled “Unblock user?” When clicked, it would pull up a window saying “Do you want to unblock [username]?” Thus, you would be able to opt-in to seeing who the person is, and having a convenient way to unblock them without sorting through your blocked list.
Crowbar wrote on 2021-12-27 14:39:35:
okay the thing is. The forums are not necessary to play the game. No one HAS to see anyone else's posts except for staff announcements, and I doubt staff are going to go around handing out blocks. For bug reports, idk, people can make duplicate topics or staff can make posts when an issue becomes major enough (they've done that in the past right?) or the user can submit a freaking help ticket. Point is, there is zero reason to force users to interact with users they don't want to and people insisting otherwise need to stop acting entitled to everything.
I disagree with this. Just because the forum isn't "necessary" to play the game doesn't mean a player should be cut off from them. And in my opinion, the forums are just as necessary for a petsite as Familiars, the Fairgrounds, etc. And no one is forcing you to interact with someone, if you've blocked someone then you can't see their posts, so you can just ignore them.
If someone who wrote a helpful, in-depth guide had you blocked, that would cut off your access to a helpful resource, which would be especially frustrating for newer or casual players. If a dom organizer blocked me, for instance, that would cut off a major part of my enjoyment of the site. You could say "We need tiered blocking so only people who
deserve it get hard blocked," but I don't think someone should have to justify a hard block as the user having done something "really bad."
907 wrote on 2021-12-26 13:10:12:
I wish I wouldn't be able to see their forum posts from my end. It's annoying to see Blahblahuser is blocked in a thread like what's the point of blocking if I can still see them?
I agree with this, if I were to block someone it would be because I want them out of sight and out of mind. However, I understand how having no post show up at all could be confusing or frustrating. My proposed compromise would be that blocking someone would cause their post to show up as “This post was made by a user you have blocked.” There would be a button on the post labeled “Unblock user?” When clicked, it would pull up a window saying “Do you want to unblock [username]?” Thus, you would be able to opt-in to seeing who the person is, and having a convenient way to unblock them without sorting through your blocked list.
!! signature under construction !!
I think part of the problem presented in this thread is that there are two general interpretations of what the word "block" means:
1. I do not want to see this person ever again, for whatever reason, even in passing
2. I do not want this person to see me ever again, for whatever reason, even in passing.
Flight Rising (and many, many other forum sites) currently operates under Block Model 1, for a number of very good reasons. In my experience, actually, most forum sites operate under this model as I think it's a little less stressful on the software. (In my favorite implementation, actually, there's an option to click to see the content of a blocked post anyway, which is way more convenient than you'd think.)
Social Media sites, on the other hand, tend towards Block Model 2, simply because people put more private information on those sites, and it's significantly more important to be able to stop people from seeing your info. (See Facebook, where you can specifically control who can see your posts).
In my opinion, you probably shouldn't be posting anything on FR that you wouldn't want your worst enemy to be able to see, as has already been said. The block function is there to remove things that are disruptive to your experience on the site, and if people are doing things to harass or disrupt you that can't be stopped by the block function, that's a job for site moderation.
I think part of the problem presented in this thread is that there are two general interpretations of what the word "block" means:
1. I do not want to see this person ever again, for whatever reason, even in passing
2. I do not want this person to see me ever again, for whatever reason, even in passing.
Flight Rising (and many, many other forum sites) currently operates under Block Model 1, for a number of very good reasons. In my experience, actually, most forum sites operate under this model as I think it's a little less stressful on the software. (In my favorite implementation, actually, there's an option to click to see the content of a blocked post anyway, which is way more convenient than you'd think.)
Social Media sites, on the other hand, tend towards Block Model 2, simply because people put more private information on those sites, and it's significantly more important to be able to stop people from seeing your info. (See Facebook, where you can specifically control who can see your posts).
In my opinion, you probably shouldn't be posting anything on FR that you wouldn't want your worst enemy to be able to see, as has already been said. The block function is there to remove things that are disruptive to your experience on the site, and if people are doing things to harass or disrupt you that can't be stopped by the block function, that's a job for site moderation.
[quote name="Crowbar" date="2021-12-27 14:39:35" ]
okay the thing is. The forums are not necessary to play the game. No one HAS to see anyone else's posts except for staff announcements, and I doubt staff are going to go around handing out blocks. For bug reports, idk, people can make duplicate topics or staff can make posts when an issue becomes major enough (they've done that in the past right?) or the user can submit a freaking help ticket. Point is, there is zero reason to force users to interact with users they don't want to and people insisting otherwise need to stop acting entitled to everything.
Lots of people talk about the petty reasons for blocking like they invalidate users who block for more dire reasons. We definitely need tiered blocking, but we shouldn't be dismissing users who need a proper, hard block function.
[/quote]
@Crowbar Ironically I can't imagine a more entitled sentiment about this topic than what's written here lol. No disrespect, but you are legitimately asserting that Forum participation is not a basic right of every user of the site. When people have very openly admitted to blocking people for very superficial reasons here. And where people could very easily be blocked for things like offsite rumors, disliked aesthetic, bad grammar, etc. Even if we had a tiered system, some people are petty. Some people are malicious. You are saying people who wouldn't want others to be ejected fully from the community for things like this are entitled? I really think its more entitled to expect to be able to eject others from the community experience at your own leisure and discretion. No one is entitled to controlling a players site experience to that degree.
I do understand why people are uncomfortable with it, both for privacy, anxiety, and other things. But it would not be functional or fair to bar other people from important site functions, especially the community specifically, over things as simple as this. Truly if someone is that uncomfortable with the block function I think they need to take the initiative and personal responsibility to stop participating in the forums, or severely limit their participation themselves.
[quote name="Greyjoy" date="2021-12-27 08:36:57" ]
It's because blocking somebody should curate YOUR experience, it shouldn't affect THEIRS on social parts of the site.
[/quote]
Yeah.
Crowbar wrote on 2021-12-27 14:39:35:
okay the thing is. The forums are not necessary to play the game. No one HAS to see anyone else's posts except for staff announcements, and I doubt staff are going to go around handing out blocks. For bug reports, idk, people can make duplicate topics or staff can make posts when an issue becomes major enough (they've done that in the past right?) or the user can submit a freaking help ticket. Point is, there is zero reason to force users to interact with users they don't want to and people insisting otherwise need to stop acting entitled to everything.
Lots of people talk about the petty reasons for blocking like they invalidate users who block for more dire reasons. We definitely need tiered blocking, but we shouldn't be dismissing users who need a proper, hard block function.
@
Crowbar Ironically I can't imagine a more entitled sentiment about this topic than what's written here lol. No disrespect, but you are legitimately asserting that Forum participation is not a basic right of every user of the site. When people have very openly admitted to blocking people for very superficial reasons here. And where people could very easily be blocked for things like offsite rumors, disliked aesthetic, bad grammar, etc. Even if we had a tiered system, some people are petty. Some people are malicious. You are saying people who wouldn't want others to be ejected fully from the community for things like this are entitled? I really think its more entitled to expect to be able to eject others from the community experience at your own leisure and discretion. No one is entitled to controlling a players site experience to that degree.
I do understand why people are uncomfortable with it, both for privacy, anxiety, and other things. But it would not be functional or fair to bar other people from important site functions, especially the community specifically, over things as simple as this. Truly if someone is that uncomfortable with the block function I think they need to take the initiative and personal responsibility to stop participating in the forums, or severely limit their participation themselves.
Greyjoy wrote on 2021-12-27 08:36:57:
It's because blocking somebody should curate YOUR experience, it shouldn't affect THEIRS on social parts of the site.
Yeah.
[quote name="FliptheFrog" date="2021-12-27 17:23:23" ]
I think part of the problem presented in this thread is that there are two general interpretations of what the word "block" means:
1. I do not want to see this person ever again, for whatever reason, even in passing
2. I do not want this person to see me ever again, for whatever reason, even in passing.
Flight Rising (and many, many other forum sites) currently operates under Block Model 1, for a number of very good reasons. In my experience, actually, most forum sites operate under this model as I think it's a little less stressful on the software. (In my favorite implementation, actually, there's an option to click to see the content of a blocked post anyway, which is way more convenient than you'd think.)
Social Media sites, on the other hand, tend towards Block Model 2, simply because people put more private information on those sites, and it's significantly more important to be able to stop people from seeing your info. (See Facebook, where you can specifically control who can see your posts).
In my opinion, you probably shouldn't be posting anything on FR that you wouldn't want your worst enemy to be able to see, as has already been said. The block function is there to remove things that are disruptive to your experience on the site, and if people are doing things to harass or disrupt you that can't be stopped by the block function, that's a job for site moderation.
[/quote]
Honestly, I think that this is where the schism is. Those who are used to more social media type sites, probably feel that Model 2 is the more common and more desired, while those who tend to come from other forums, or other pet sites, probably lean more towards Model 1, because that is what feels 'natural' to them.
Since, as said, FR isn't a 'social media' site, and the forums CAN be important (not necessary, but still important), then I feel that Model 1 does work best.
FliptheFrog wrote on 2021-12-27 17:23:23:
I think part of the problem presented in this thread is that there are two general interpretations of what the word "block" means:
1. I do not want to see this person ever again, for whatever reason, even in passing
2. I do not want this person to see me ever again, for whatever reason, even in passing.
Flight Rising (and many, many other forum sites) currently operates under Block Model 1, for a number of very good reasons. In my experience, actually, most forum sites operate under this model as I think it's a little less stressful on the software. (In my favorite implementation, actually, there's an option to click to see the content of a blocked post anyway, which is way more convenient than you'd think.)
Social Media sites, on the other hand, tend towards Block Model 2, simply because people put more private information on those sites, and it's significantly more important to be able to stop people from seeing your info. (See Facebook, where you can specifically control who can see your posts).
In my opinion, you probably shouldn't be posting anything on FR that you wouldn't want your worst enemy to be able to see, as has already been said. The block function is there to remove things that are disruptive to your experience on the site, and if people are doing things to harass or disrupt you that can't be stopped by the block function, that's a job for site moderation.
Honestly, I think that this is where the schism is. Those who are used to more social media type sites, probably feel that Model 2 is the more common and more desired, while those who tend to come from other forums, or other pet sites, probably lean more towards Model 1, because that is what feels 'natural' to them.
Since, as said, FR isn't a 'social media' site, and the forums CAN be important (not necessary, but still important), then I feel that Model 1 does work best.
@
Crowbar Yeah, but, honestly I think it's the players who are trying to block that feel entitled. In the hypothetical that blocking worked that way, they're taking away from the experience of other people no matter how valid the reasons were to block. No other general forum does that kind of thing to my knowledge. As per TOS rule 4"
Do not publish your sensitive information or the information of others" you should not be posting very personal information here to begin with.
I think it's expecting too much to have a total block, and it would kill the experience for a lot of people even if it would benefit you specifically (the definition of an entitled move, sorry...). I am not saying that blocking to curate when you need to is bad, but doing so with the specific intent of shutting other people out will definitely cause problems more than it helps. People with bad intent absolutely exist, but when blocked they already cannot interact with you under the current system to the extent that FR can allow. Totally blocking them would basically call attention to your profile to circumvent, and then suddenly you're a target since now they know you blocked them when it's plastered all over the forums.
Blocking is supposed to curate your experience, not punish other people. That's why I am supporting tiered blocking for the liberal blockers but never a total double-sided block.
The only thing a total double block would serve imo would be to punish people for getting blocked by breaking their forums like all the users above me had said, which I think is a bad idea when everyone has different tolerances and reasons for blocking. The forums would be FILLED with posts about "why they were blocked" or people feeling bad wayyyy more than now. Apparently they tried this version of blocking before and exactly that happened. Double posts, bad feelings, not realizing posts exist, not being able to participate, etc? It sounds like a nightmare.
Kind of like with the whole Unnamed thing I just read, two sides are on this one and one side is not going to be happy with the other but you can't reconcile with both simultaneously. I personally think the blockers are the smaller minority in this case.
I think whatever can be said has been said.
Just a perspective from a newer player.
@
Crowbar Yeah, but, honestly I think it's the players who are trying to block that feel entitled. In the hypothetical that blocking worked that way, they're taking away from the experience of other people no matter how valid the reasons were to block. No other general forum does that kind of thing to my knowledge. As per TOS rule 4"
Do not publish your sensitive information or the information of others" you should not be posting very personal information here to begin with.
I think it's expecting too much to have a total block, and it would kill the experience for a lot of people even if it would benefit you specifically (the definition of an entitled move, sorry...). I am not saying that blocking to curate when you need to is bad, but doing so with the specific intent of shutting other people out will definitely cause problems more than it helps. People with bad intent absolutely exist, but when blocked they already cannot interact with you under the current system to the extent that FR can allow. Totally blocking them would basically call attention to your profile to circumvent, and then suddenly you're a target since now they know you blocked them when it's plastered all over the forums.
Blocking is supposed to curate your experience, not punish other people. That's why I am supporting tiered blocking for the liberal blockers but never a total double-sided block.
The only thing a total double block would serve imo would be to punish people for getting blocked by breaking their forums like all the users above me had said, which I think is a bad idea when everyone has different tolerances and reasons for blocking. The forums would be FILLED with posts about "why they were blocked" or people feeling bad wayyyy more than now. Apparently they tried this version of blocking before and exactly that happened. Double posts, bad feelings, not realizing posts exist, not being able to participate, etc? It sounds like a nightmare.
Kind of like with the whole Unnamed thing I just read, two sides are on this one and one side is not going to be happy with the other but you can't reconcile with both simultaneously. I personally think the blockers are the smaller minority in this case.
I think whatever can be said has been said.
Just a perspective from a newer player.
[quote name="palarian" date="2021-12-26 12:42:20" ]
i've blocked a number of people for reasons that, in my opinion, are not completely harmless. sometimes we've interacted directly, other times i've seen a few forum posts of theirs that make me annoyed or uncomfortable so i blocked them. i find fr's current system really weird, i'd much rather have an "out of sight, out of mind" kind of thing where i don't see anything of theirs and they don't see anything of mine. letting a player i have blocked see my posts (even if they can't see my profile and lair) definitely rubs me the wrong way. ugh. that being said, i do understand that the forums are a public space and i've chosen to post stuff here for everyone to see. but still... i don't know, it just makes me uncomfortable
[/quote]
This is my exact opinion. It's a prickly matter. On one hand I understand that FR forums, being a public space, means that I have made the choice of having everyone see what I post, regardless of blocked status. On the other hand, however, I like being able to hide my posts from genuinely unsavory sorts, and knowing that's not there is jarring. And it's not always as easy as "ignore or report", or "just don't post anything personal".
TL;DR, it's tricky and weird and I have no answers.
palarian wrote on 2021-12-26 12:42:20:
i've blocked a number of people for reasons that, in my opinion, are not completely harmless. sometimes we've interacted directly, other times i've seen a few forum posts of theirs that make me annoyed or uncomfortable so i blocked them. i find fr's current system really weird, i'd much rather have an "out of sight, out of mind" kind of thing where i don't see anything of theirs and they don't see anything of mine. letting a player i have blocked see my posts (even if they can't see my profile and lair) definitely rubs me the wrong way. ugh. that being said, i do understand that the forums are a public space and i've chosen to post stuff here for everyone to see. but still... i don't know, it just makes me uncomfortable
This is my exact opinion. It's a prickly matter. On one hand I understand that FR forums, being a public space, means that I have made the choice of having everyone see what I post, regardless of blocked status. On the other hand, however, I like being able to hide my posts from genuinely unsavory sorts, and knowing that's not there is jarring. And it's not always as easy as "ignore or report", or "just don't post anything personal".
TL;DR, it's tricky and weird and I have no answers.
I can see both sides of this, and I'll admit it is a conundrum too.
But there is one thing I feel for sure, and the OP is unclear if this is how it would work or not. The scenario I'm seeing is that Player A blocks Player B. Then Player A makes a new thread. Can Player B even post in that new thread with just the first post being hidden? Or is Player B barred from the entire thread? The latter I strongly disagree with. Because in barring B from the entire thread, A is dictating that B cannot speak with Player C or D or E on that thread. And that's overstepping boundaries. Blocking one person should not inhibit that player's interactions with unrelated parties.
For example, say Player A (who has blocked B) posts about a bug or a glitch. Players C and D and E report a similar issue. However, Player B has a solution. "Guys, this is like something that happened to me in Maplestory. Have you tried temporarily turning off your antivirus software to see if that helps?" If A were to allow B to be completely blocked from all communication on that thread, B wouldn't be able to help C or D or E. B wouldn't even know there was an issue to give feedback on. And in forums like the Bug forum (or Discussion where FR routes people to specific hubs), starting a new thread isn't possible due to the hub-nature of those forums.
So, I do fully support tiered and/or modular blocking. Arcanist knows FR needs more privacy settings. But I don't support any system in which Blocker A prevents Blockee B from communicating with other parties.
I can see both sides of this, and I'll admit it is a conundrum too.
But there is one thing I feel for sure, and the OP is unclear if this is how it would work or not. The scenario I'm seeing is that Player A blocks Player B. Then Player A makes a new thread. Can Player B even post in that new thread with just the first post being hidden? Or is Player B barred from the entire thread? The latter I strongly disagree with. Because in barring B from the entire thread, A is dictating that B cannot speak with Player C or D or E on that thread. And that's overstepping boundaries. Blocking one person should not inhibit that player's interactions with unrelated parties.
For example, say Player A (who has blocked B) posts about a bug or a glitch. Players C and D and E report a similar issue. However, Player B has a solution. "Guys, this is like something that happened to me in Maplestory. Have you tried temporarily turning off your antivirus software to see if that helps?" If A were to allow B to be completely blocked from all communication on that thread, B wouldn't be able to help C or D or E. B wouldn't even know there was an issue to give feedback on. And in forums like the Bug forum (or Discussion where FR routes people to specific hubs), starting a new thread isn't possible due to the hub-nature of those forums.
So, I do fully support tiered and/or modular blocking. Arcanist knows FR needs more privacy settings. But I don't support any system in which Blocker A prevents Blockee B from communicating with other parties.
Pings are disabled.
If writers are supposed to "show not tell," why are we called "storytellers" and not "storyshow-ers"?
