should we be able to 'BLOCK' people on FORUMS??

Without dropping names... I can think of at least a dozen people, that I would really like, to never see comments from again.....

& I'd bet money on the fact that if block was enabled, we'd all be blocking the same prolific commentors.

Solswerd

If this existed, I would of never seen this poll.

It would be funny, because then I would love to be a mod and someday to look who have been the most blocked guys and figure out why?.

SummonerB2

I would like to block a couple of guys

Another useful option could be block users per threads able for OPs.

If you're creating a thread and you wish block some people then they couldn't post/spam/flag/anything in that thread.
It could be a cool "automod" tool.

Sirnoob

I_am_Groot wrote: »

Another useful option could be block users per threads able for OPs.

If you're creating a thread and you wish block some people then they couldn't post/spam/flag/anything in that thread.
It could be a cool "automod" tool.

Is someone post that theu want to change something that couls affect someones account the otger person has all right to post on that thread

That's okay Solswerd,
I know you wouldnt have seen this, because of my stance on RDTs being needed....but if it existed, I wouldn't have seen your reply.

(& I see u didn't VOTE, but still found it necessary to comment)

wouldn't it also be GREAT to see how many times a person has been blocked?
(Not by WHO, just # of times, they have been, by any1)

I think it would be sporting to see,
How many other people,
Have blocked the person,
that i am about to,
cause they also proved themselves worthy of blocking, by 572 other people.

Think about it... if this was already in place,

The "6* discussion thread" would have 1/2 as many pages to read.....

There's a guy in there, who is needlessly (& literallly) every other comment....
Despite several polite requests for him, to allow others to voice their opinion, without him squashing those views,
he remains defiant & apparently, considers it his job to defend Kabam & be a voice for the voiceless.

I have read the entirety of those post, but half of that novel could have been saved, if I was able to block that person in the beginning of the posts.

Solswerd

UwantUS_toQU1T wrote: »

That's okay Solswerd,
I know you wouldnt have seen this, because of my stance on RDTs being needed....but if it existed, I wouldn't have seen your reply.
(& I see u didn't VOTE, but still found it necessary to comment)

I actually intended it as a little joke (hence the smiley face)

Your opinions on RDTs has never bothered me, you have never been offensive about it.

Did not vote in the poll because it does not matter to me either way. The one or two people on here that annoy me....I just don't read their posts...no sense in me seeking out things that will annoy me....

Sol, my man, I saw the smile & did a wink.

I completely understood it as a joke.
& I hoped you viewed mine the same

(Genuinely confused why you commented, but didn't vote)

I've read enough of your comments, to know you also have never been offensive about anything & you can take a joke.

Tho, I cant say i completely agree with you on everything 100% (but i do, at least 80%)
I have always found your comments to be logical & rational.... U are my Spock!
I truly hope you live long & prosper, both in the MCOC world & the real one.

Solswerd

There may be some validity in Blocking someone who is harassing you, but there's also Moderation for that. However, censoring what people comment on would not happen on this Forum. We see the way the Flag System is abused. The idea would only invite more abuse. Fact is, it's an Open Forum. People have every right to comment and discuss whether people like them or not, aside from extrenuating circumstances where someone is being inappropriate and harassing others, I can't support the idea of censoring who participates.

beaupoem

blocking as in automatically minimizing a certain user's posts so i PERSONALLY don't see them unless i choose to. if this were possible, i wouldn't have needed this comment.

TheMageHunter

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

There may be some validity in Blocking someone who is harassing you, but there's also Moderation for that. However, censoring what people comment on would not happen on this Forum. We see the way the Flag System is abused. The idea would only invite more abuse. Fact is, it's an Open Forum. People have every right to comment and discuss whether people like them or not, aside from extrenuating circumstances where someone is being inappropriate and harassing others, I can't support the idea of censoring who participates.

Agreed but some definitely need to be banned. Because some people (not pointig fingers) are just very adamant that they are always right and make the thread very unconstructive. Ofc players shouldn't get the right to ban them at will just petitioning the mods

Hulksmasshh

UwantUS_toQU1T wrote: »

wouldn't it also be GREAT to see how many times a person has been blocked?
(Not by WHO, just # of times, they have been, by any1)

I think it would be sporting to see,
How many other people,
Have blocked the person,
that i am about to,
cause they also proved themselves worthy of blocking, by 572 other people.

Think about it... if this was already in place,

The "6* discussion thread" would have 1/2 as many pages to read.....

There's a guy in there, who is needlessly (& literallly) every other comment....
Despite several polite requests for him, to allow others to voice their opinion, without him squashing those views,
he remains defiant & apparently, considers it his job to defend Kabam & be a voice for the voiceless.

I have read the entirety of those post, but half of that novel could have been saved, if I was able to block that person in the beginning of the posts.

Na the point of blocking shouldn't be to humiliate someone. We already have flagging for that(even though that's not its purpose).

Blocking should work as simply: You block someone, you can't see any post they make. It just skips to the next poster and you never knew they posted. The person you block should have no idea you blocked them. If someone else quotes the blocked person, then yes you would see what they posted. I'm sure this forum has some sort of blocking functionality built-in, the moderators would just need to enable it.

beaupoem wrote: »

blocking as in automatically minimizing a certain user's posts so i PERSONALLY don't see them unless i choose to. if this were possible, i wouldn't have needed this comment.

Ya see Solswerd, this person voted & implied I would have been blocked,
causing that vicious chicken/egg argument...
But the important part is they voted,
THEN commented....

DefJ123

No. Then none of you could read my amazing comments.

beaupoem

@UwantUS_toQU1T nah i didn't mean you XD

Sirnoob wrote: »

I_am_Groot wrote: »

Another useful option could be block users per threads able for OPs.

If you're creating a thread and you wish block some people then they couldn't post/spam/flag/anything in that thread.
It could be a cool "automod" tool.

Is someone post that theu want to change something that couls affect someones account the otger person has all right to post on that thread

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you, but I'm not against free to speech I'm describing an auto moderation tool.
Moderation is real and nobody is dying, then auto moderation could be fine too.

TheMageHunter wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

There may be some validity in Blocking someone who is harassing you, but there's also Moderation for that. However, censoring what people comment on would not happen on this Forum. We see the way the Flag System is abused. The idea would only invite more abuse. Fact is, it's an Open Forum. People have every right to comment and discuss whether people like them or not, aside from extrenuating circumstances where someone is being inappropriate and harassing others, I can't support the idea of censoring who participates.

Agreed but some definitely need to be banned. Because some people (not pointig fingers) are just very adamant that they are always right and make the thread very unconstructive. Ofc players shouldn't get the right to ban them at will just petitioning the mods

The majority of people believe they're right. That's what makes it a debate. Lol. Even when people are stubborn and assert they are right, that's not what makes it Non-Constructive. What makes it that way is when it becomes personal. People can believe what they like. They can debate in a way that doesn't make it an attack. Saying someone thinks they're always right is actually a form of that. It's the same as calling someone a "know-it-all". Opinions on others are best kept to ourselves because that undoubtedly makes a Thread derail.

I_am_Groot wrote: »

Sirnoob wrote: »

I_am_Groot wrote: »

Another useful option could be block users per threads able for OPs.

If you're creating a thread and you wish block some people then they couldn't post/spam/flag/anything in that thread.
It could be a cool "automod" tool.

Is someone post that theu want to change something that couls affect someones account the otger person has all right to post on that thread

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you, but I'm not against free to speech I'm describing an auto moderation tool.
Moderation is real and nobody is dying, then auto moderation could be fine too.

That's Censorship, not Moderation. Blocking the comments we see is one thing. Stopping people from commenting on Threads is another. When we post, anyone is free to comment.

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

I_am_Groot wrote: »

Sirnoob wrote: »

I_am_Groot wrote: »

Another useful option could be block users per threads able for OPs.

If you're creating a thread and you wish block some people then they couldn't post/spam/flag/anything in that thread.
It could be a cool "automod" tool.

Is someone post that theu want to change something that couls affect someones account the otger person has all right to post on that thread

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you, but I'm not against free to speech I'm describing an auto moderation tool.
Moderation is real and nobody is dying, then auto moderation could be fine too.

That's Censorship, not Moderation. Blocking the comments we see is one thing. Stopping people from commenting on Threads is another. When we post, anyone is free to comment.

Moderation is Censorship too, that people wasn't free to comment and sometimes is not longer to comment or whatever again.
Technically Moderation is always Censorship, despite you could want to use different sticks to measure it.
It's censorship based on arbitrary criteria and arbitrary applications, same every other censorship.
But it's not bad neither an apocalypse.

Talking about when it could be useful, think you create a thread about anytopic then there are some people derailing threads, they're never banned but threads are closed. Then blocking them you could avoid it, people will can talk constructively about your post (either they're agree or not) and neither you neither them will be censored.
And could be many others possible and legit uses for it. It's not necessary to be paranoic neither purist about things we already have because they're not an apocalypse.

There's nothing wrong about some people cannot reply/flag/spam/whatever your threads. It's like you make a party and some people don't have the freedom to go to it. Or you're talking whatever thing with whoever and anyone cannot enter in that conversation if you don't want, no matter if it's happening in a public place. There are millions parties right now and you're not welcome (neither me) and our lives are and will be OK.

I just will rewrite a phrase, "there's nothing wrong about some people cannot reply/flag/spam/whatever your threads", i repeat it because you was a guy weeks ago was crying everywhere because someone was flagging your comments (neither it was your threads, neither it was personal against you because that guy was doing it against everyone online) but your posture wasn't "free will knight" because it was hurting you.

I_am_Groot wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

I_am_Groot wrote: »

Sirnoob wrote: »

I_am_Groot wrote: »

Another useful option could be block users per threads able for OPs.

If you're creating a thread and you wish block some people then they couldn't post/spam/flag/anything in that thread.
It could be a cool "automod" tool.

Is someone post that theu want to change something that couls affect someones account the otger person has all right to post on that thread

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you, but I'm not against free to speech I'm describing an auto moderation tool.
Moderation is real and nobody is dying, then auto moderation could be fine too.

That's Censorship, not Moderation. Blocking the comments we see is one thing. Stopping people from commenting on Threads is another. When we post, anyone is free to comment.

Moderation is Censorship too, that people wasn't free to comment and sometimes is not longer to comment or whatever again.
Technically Moderation is always Censorship, despite you could want to use different sticks to measure it.
It's censorship based on arbitrary criteria and arbitrary applications, same every other censorship.
But it's not bad neither an apocalypse.

Talking about when it could be useful, think you create a thread about anytopic then there are some people derailing threads, they're never banned but threads are closed. Then blocking them you could avoid it, people will can talk constructively about your post (either they're agree or not) and neither you neither them will be censored.
And could be many others possible and legit uses for it. It's not necessary to be paranoic neither purist about things we already have because they're not an apocalypse.

There's nothing wrong about some people cannot reply/flag/spam/whatever your threads. It's like you make a party and some people don't have the freedom to go to it. Or you're talking whatever thing with whoever and anyone cannot enter in that conversation if you don't want, no matter if it's happening in a public place. There are millions parties right now and you're not welcome (neither me) and our lives are and will be OK.

I just will rewrite a phrase, "there's nothing wrong about some people cannot reply/flag/spam/whatever your threads", i repeat it because you was a guy weeks ago was crying everywhere because someone was flagging your comments (neither it was your threads, neither it was personal against you because that guy was doing it against everyone online) but your posture wasn't "free will knight" because it was hurting you.

Moderation is not Censorship in that sense. They censor the content based on the rules we all adhere to by using the Forum. There are rules to the Forum. Rules we agree to. Censorship implies inhibiting people from speaking freely. Which is exactly what you are suggesting. When the Moderation does its job, it applies the rules to Posts. People are free to discuss whatever they like as long as they follow those rules.
What derails Threads is personal comments like the one you've just made. I am not bothered by Flags. Not in the least. I think it's not appropriate when people abuse the use of them. It doesn't affect me at all. People need to have a discussion without making it personal.
What you're talking about is labeling people trolls and stopping them from commenting on Threads, and that's not at all what the Forum is about. Anyone can comment on any Thread, and that is how it should be. As I said, Blocking someone's comments from your view may be plausible. Allowing participants to screen who comments on what Thread is a violation of someone's rights.

I am a big believer in the 1st amendment & individual rights.

This post is NOT about preventing anyone from commenting,...

It's about blocking someone's comment, from being SEEN by the individual person,
who has blocked them.

(Hopefully, the end result is less conflict & more progressive conversation)

[quote="Hulksmasshh;c-101796"

Na the point of blocking shouldn't be to humiliate someone. We already have flagging for that(even though that's not its purpose).

Blocking should work as simply: You block someone, you can't see any post they make. It just skips to the next poster and you never knew they posted. The person you block should have no idea you blocked them. If someone else quotes the blocked person, then yes you would see what they posted. I'm sure this forum has some sort of blocking functionality built-in, the moderators would just need to enable it.
[/quote]

EXACTLY... except flagging doesnt really work & I didnt imply humilating anyone....

I truly expect to personally get ..??
a few dozen blocks?..
(Specifically, because of my views & inability to agree with everyone & remain quiet about it)

but IF the system was in place, & IF I discovered that I had been blocked 100 times or more .... personally, that would cause me to reflect & evalute my statements, perhaps think twice, or even a third time, before commenting on someone else's post, while convinced other people want my perspective.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for people to act in groups in these situations. Evident by Flags. The number of people who agree or disagree with someone's comments does not determine whether they have the right to participate or not. The Forum is not meant to be a popularity contest, and people can be in unison for the wrong reasons just as easily as the right ones. Taking stock in the metrics is not an indication of validity. Numbers aren't meant to influence people and their Posts. Showing the amount of people who Block someone is borderline exploitation and humiliation.
TL:DR - People have a tendency to hate on others in groups. That doesn't mean their feedback is any less valid or warranted. It just means that many people don't agree with what they say. Therein lies the problem with personal views on others. It is not supposed to affect their participation.

phillgreen

The right to participate does not provide the freedom to be inflammatory whether deliberately designed around attracting negative response or relieving boredom by continually playing devil's advocate, nor does it offer those who thrive on posting opinion on subjects in which they may have little direct knowledge a safety net whereby they cannot be directly challenged on the validity of that opinion and by what mechanism they are qualified to offer it.

Rules about abuse BEING abused is a problem in itself and a topic that can't be addressed properly without breaching the rules (high degree of irony) and is a powerful weapon in the hands of those who can abuse it with a high degree of subtlety.

I for one would welcome the ability to filter out posts by those whose input I deem unnecessary.

On the contrary....
Pressuring someone into not participating,
Is what happened to me, when I took a few weeks off of the forums, after I had realized how futile it all was,
As a direct result of trolls & now-it-all's with delusions of grandeur, bogging down the flow of information & communication, & eventually, either intentionally or unintentionally, causing the thread to get DERAILED & shut down, usually before i obtained the answer i was looking for......

& i highly doubt the ppl guilty of this, really feel "pressured" about anything....

The kid (i assume he cant be legal drinking age, based on the way he taunts ppl)
in 6* discussion post, has openly bragged about how many flags he's recieved & seems to thoroughly enjoy all the attention.

Having the freedom to block him & not be bombarded with nonsense like that, would actually keep me participating,
Cause i already want to take another break from forums, because I just dont wanna see comments from some ppl, ALL THE TIME.

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

They censor the content based on the rules we all adhere to by using the Forum. There are rules to the Forum. Rules we agree to.

Censorship definition don't discriminate whether or not were rules and/or whether or not someone was agree.

Censorship just implies inhibit people from speaking freely whatever was the reason stated, as yourself then admit just one oration later.

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Censorship implies inhibiting people from speaking freely.

So even rules are censorship, technically inhibiting people for speaking freely.

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Moderation is not Censorship in that sense.

Just because you want use different sticks.
Whatever.

It's the last thing I'll write about this topic, because sadly I'm working with you derailing this thread.

My suggestion I think was very clear and it's not a human genocide, despite some people want to play the freedom knight role.
People everyday can and do block another people in Twitter/Facebook and that people cannot post again in anything of that person and nobody of us is "wording a strong freedom fatwa for the universal human right bs" neither overreacting anything.

My suggestion could have been a good tool to keep the forum clean and discussions contructives.
But I'll let the thread to the real suggestion now.

UwantUS_toQU1T wrote: »

This post is NOT about preventing anyone from commenting,...
It's about blocking someone's comment, from being SEEN by the individual person,
who has blocked them.

Sorry guy, that is the real topic.