@Malaise@colonelkilgore I agree with both of you and I can see how maybe my opinion on this could be construed as harsh but there comes a point when you acknowledge others opinions but they still try to go for the kill. If somebody ignores me then that means I have nothing they want to hear so why is it even an option for them to still be able to read my comments? It makes little to no sense. If somebody decides to block another person then why do they have to give a reason as to why? Surely it benefits all concerned and prevents future confrontations. Its an option that's been taken off the table and as I said it really is the last resort I'd use and certainly never as a way to sabotage this sites comment sections and I say this site because its the only one I actually enjoy. I'm not going anywhere as I've met some really cool guys on here and a few I actually have added to my psn list so I'm not about to let a few malcontents force me off..👍
If somebody decides to block another person then why do they have to give a reason as to why?
Because it impacts the user experience of someone else and fragments conversations.
I would turn the question around: why should you be able to have that power over another user when there's no real benefit to it that you don't already get with ignoring them?
Moreover, there have been multiple instances of drama arising specifically from people being blocked and feeling excluded, Not just recently. So not only does it not really add anything that the ignore feature doesn't already give you, but it has demonstrative negative impacts socially.
@Ralizah OK I can understand that. If I block somebody then it only affects me. I won't be able to see or interact with those people. It wouldn't affect anybody else other than myself and the person involved. It wouldn't fragment the conversation for you or anybody else reading the comments. So if you find yourself in a situation where you feel that the only option available to you is to block them but first you have to explain yourself and hope you have given a valid enough reason for your request to go ahead but then somebody makes the decision for you..how is that fair? If you block somebody on your phone etc,etc do you have to provide a reason there? What's irking me is that the freedom of making a choice has been removed. I'm not trying to be argumentative here but I'm obviously looking at this from a different perspective and one that's not getting across.
Ignoring means you can't see their posts.
Blocking also means THEY can't see YOUR posts.
Ignoring only affects you. It only impacts your user experience. That's fine.
Blocking means you've extended your will through the internet and negatively affected someone else's user experience for whatever reason.
To me, it's as simple as the basic liberal principle: the freedom to swing my fists ends where your nose begins.
Putting aside its demonstratively negative impact on social cohesion across the forums, and the risk of overuse creating factional experiences that divide the community, I just don't see an argument to be made for it that's reasonable. You SHOULD NOT have the default option of negatively impacting someone else's user experience.
Let's say you don't like me, for whatever reason (I'm not saying you don't, I'm just positing a hypothetical). So you decide to Ignore my posts. Fine. My thoughts aren't polluting your feed and adding to your stress. Why should you also have the ability to make it where I can't read your posts, and fragment discussions you're involved in?
I think there's edge cases to be made for blocking, which is why I'm fine with mods being able to grant them, but there's no real reason for users to have full control over them.
@Ralizah I get you honestly I do and I think this is one of those discussions that I think we will have to agree to disagree upon. The option should not have been there in the first place if it was going to be taken away later on down the line. When I discuss things with rational people like yourself and get their perspective on things I take them on board and respect them even if I don't agree with them. I'm not everybody's cup of tea and I do get straight to the point and I also speak my mind as I don't like to let things fester..just tear that band aid off and be done with it. Not everybody likes it but I try not to leave anything open to interpretation..I hope.
@Ralizah A person who got blocked shouldn't have negatively impacted that user's experience to begin with. If you can't behave in a decent way, then you deserve to be blocked and be omitted of that person's conversations. Also, a person can still behave in an indecent way and not break any rules, which means your only option is taking matters into your own hands.
Basically, don't behave in a poor manner and you won't need to worry about being blocked. It really is that simple. If you've been blocked by someone, then contemplate on what you've done wrong and try to change your behaviour.
A counterargument would be that people block others with either no reason or a good reason, which this change helps rectify. The block feature hasn't gone away, it's just not as easily carried out, which I think is a good idea.
I also think that the existence of a block feature is good in terms of functioning as a deterrent against members who behave poorly but still want to be part of this community. It encourages them to behave well in order to avoid being left out of conversations.
@LtSarge the trouble is everyone’s perception of poor behaviour is different. So for instance… hypothetically… you could’ve blocked me (and many others) back in… oooh around December 2021 for behaviour you felt was indecent, when 99.999% (recurring I might add) of users on here felt you were acting totally irrationally by doing so… and the blocked parties were merely chatting in good faith on a public forum. This is why a forum like this has mods who can ban… and shouldn’t have users who can block willy-nilly due to their own subjective perspective on personal behaviour.
The option should not have been there in the first place if it was going to be taken away later on down the line.
I agree with that. That said, this sort of free blocking functionality is available on services like Twitter/X, so I imagine they didn't think it'd cause a stir.
The difference being, of course, Twitter is a much more impersonal platform than this cozy little community we have here. So things like this impact social cohesion differently.
Even if we can't really see eye to eye on this topic, I hope you'll understand why I feel strongly that limiting its access is a good thing.
@LtSarge Unfortunately, people claim to be getting blocked by users they've never even spoken to, which would suggest that some of the people making heavy use of it aren't doing so responsibly. Several regulars here have had drama related to being blocked. And, by and large, the regulars here are almost all pretty reasonable human beings.
I see your argument for it being a deterrent against bad behavior, but... is it really? There's a particular user that frequents PS and NL who is inarguably pretty toxic in his interactions with people, and if he is getting blocked by people, it doesn't seem to impact him at all. Actually, I'd argue people who are as uncivil as you posit are generally getting banned or pushed back against by the community anyway. So I haven't really seen evidence of its use as a deterrent. Not saying that doesn't happen, mind, but what I've seen is primarily the feature making nice people feel unwelcome, which is a very bad thing.
Also, considering blocking someone means you wouldn't see a change in their behavior even if it happened, it seems less like a way of positively modifying interactions and more a way of making an example out of someone.
And even if it did have a deterrent effect, there's a reason we have mods. Normal users shouldn't be able to hold that much power over the user experience of others.
I'm fine with blocking being situational and arbitrated by a third-party. I think there are probably uses for it, but it's clear that blocking is too much power for normal users to wield responsibly.
@Ralizah of course I understand your stance. We all have different views on things but it's how we discuss them that matters. Seeing how this discussion between you and myself and the others contributing is panning out has made me reflect on my original post and maybe I've over reacted a touch but at least I'm aware of others opinions and makes further discussions easier to navigate.
I'm so confused by this discussion to be honest. As Ralizah said, there is nothing supporting the blocking feature needing to exist when the ignore feature already exists and does everything you would need to control your exposure to someone you find problematic for whatever personal reasons you may have.
Why do you require a block function, if you can just ignore a user anyway? I don't understand what people who are against this change are really arguing for? Unless you actually think it is your right to break the forum experience of another user cause you don't like the cut of their jib? And if that is the case, have you stopped to consider maybe you are the problem?
@Pizzamorg nobody was arguing but we were all discussing in a mature nature without insulting each other. We all accepted that we have differing views and agreed to disagree etc. Not quite sure what your beef is and maybe read the posts again. The context is there.
@Northern_munkey Do you not know what "arguing for" means? Because it doesn't mean two people insulting each other over beef. I don't know what you are talking about to be honest.
Hey everyone, just catching up on this thread... the discussion was actually really great between @Ralizah and @Northern_munkey.
I think it's clear that most people understand why we've taken this step and we're very happy with the reception to the change. We're more than happy for the block feature to still exist, still as a last resort.
The Ignore feature solves 99% of problems, however in that rare situation where someone is ignored but still frequently comments on or tries to engage a user that has ignored them, it can disrupt things for others... this is where the block feature is useful as it means that user will no longer see said posts to engage with.
If the user has genuinely been harassing the other, then it's easily solved with a ban, but often these conflicts are quite grey and not clear on either side, so banning seems harsh.
However in practice allowing people to block without approval has resulted in situations where people have been blocked without any direct interaction between the two parties, which obviously doesn't make sense in a public forum. This has then caused knock on issues. If we boil down the purpose of the block tool, asking for a reason to justify the block makes sense to us, it also means our community team is more aware of conflicts and therefore can act much better — we previously had no notification of the 100s of blocks in place.
Anyway, thanks again for the discussion, it was really helpful and if anything confirmed to us that this is the right way forward.
Forums
Topic: Changes to our 'Block User' feature
Posts 21 to 40 of 41
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic