Forums / Maintenance / Suggest Ideas

Would it be a good idea to add a block/ignore user option in case of spam, harassment, or even users with rude attitudes?

I don't think so, problems between users should be solved, not ignored, and the rules of the website clearly say that harassment, apam and rude behaviour are against the rules, so if it's proven that any user is harassing or spamming other users he/she should be warned and suspended or banned depending on how often he/she did it, how rude he/she was acting, and if he/she had been previously warned/suspended.

Okay that's a 'no' in the list.

problems between users should be solved, not ignored

1. Not always possible. People are stubborn.

2. Not always logical. How do you resolve "I don't like this user's posts and don't want to see them"?

3. Why would you force users to pretend to like each other when they can ignore each other instead?

I support the blocking idea. If someone doesn't want to be subjected to warrior man's posts then they shouldn't be forced to in the name of social harmony.

1. Being stubborn is only a real issue if a user is breaking the rules, in which case you report them or wait for moderators to do their thing. Just because a user is being themselves and someone doesn't like that doesn't merit creating a whole blocking system.
2. Most people can ignore others. And even though some implementation can be brought about by a minority of people, I don't think that's reason enough for one. That just seems like a person has issues with working with people. We moderate, but we don't babysit. I'd suggest making a blacklist for media based on tags or entry tags before coming up with a system for all of that.
3. I wouldn't. I'd just ask them to be civil and act like adults.

Where I agree that there are just some people we don't like, and there will be differences that can't be reconciled, I think simply being an adult and learning to commune with them in a civil manner just makes more sense than having resources and time spent on a blocking system.

Besides, KYM doesn't have a whole lot of active users. If someone has trouble getting along with everyone, then they might just need to assess themselves before anything else. Or go to another site with like-minded users.

I already asked about the possibility of an ignore user feature, but it was already rejected for the same reasons here.

The issue with a blocking feature is simple: How far do you wish to take it?

- PMs
- Wall posts
- Comment replies
- Thread posts
- Following
- Their sheer presence
- Image comments
- Karma (Ha!)

Can you still see each other and not interact, or are you 100% invisible? How can you avoid this feature being abused, by blocker and blocked?

Our site is too diverse and has too many different areas to make it work out. We're not just a social hub, so you can't go with 100% blocking. It's a witch hunt in the making.

tl;dr Grow a pair.

How could it be abused?

Depends on how it's applied. If it for example forbids folks from posting in your thread, it's just a free trolling tactic. If you simply no longer see their posts entirely, how can we avoid the blocked not publicly shaming the guy on his wall without their knowledge.

Flesh it out, a lot.

This isn't that difficult.

And now the idea is fleshed out in the thread as well ;) Wouldn't want to run off with your idea.

But yeah like I said in the IRC, that middle way is really good.

That manner of implementing this concept is very good and I believe should be done. If people cannot handle what other people say, they should be free to simply not have to view what those people say, instead of having to leave the entire community because of a few people.

However, if someone were to ignore a user, for reasons besides feeling directly insulted, I would call this ignorant. But either way, they should have the right to do so.

Moderators cannot do this or else they cannot enforce rules. Can't enforce what you don't read, so they have to be reading all the comments even from people they dislike to keep rules fair.

The ignore feature would be nice and not horribly difficult to implement in my opinion.

Seconded, including the moderator idea. It'd work well for users and help ease tensions in the comments section.

Also, I'd suggest that if a user you've blocked responds to you in the comments, it shouldn't send you an e-mail, if they have it configured so e-mails send when someone responds to your comment.

Really, we're stooping to the level of hiding opinions we just can't deal with reading? On the site that keeps RR open on the basis that everybody else is supposed to not take it seriously or ignore it altogether? If it's not harassment and it's not spam, you really need to get over the words on the screen.

What does it display when someone quotes someone you have blocked? What does it display when you try to quote a user who has you blocked, or visit their profile, or send a PM? Is it going to let you know this specific user has blocked you? Can you comment on uploads by people who have blocked you? Can they see your uploads? Or entries you make/edit? This site is awfully user-oriented.

I think this would only negatively effect the quality of discussions here.

Like I could just see a thread of people pretty much saying the same thing over and over again, but they have no idea because they've blocked each other.

Really, we’re stooping to the level of hiding opinions we just can’t deal with reading? On the site that keeps RR open on the basis that everybody else is supposed to not take it seriously or ignore it altogether? If it’s not harassment and it’s not spam, you really need to get over the words on the screen.

Nobody is forcing anyone to block anybody. You can stick to your own moral high ground all you like.

What does it display when someone quotes someone you have blocked?

It would display just like when someone quotes a deleted post.

What does it display when you try to quote a user who has you blocked

It would be normal. Why wouldn't you be able to quote someone that's blocked you? People still need to take responsibility for what they post.

or visit their profile

It would be normal.

or send a PM

It would prevent you from sending the PM, saying you've been blocked.

Is it going to let you know this specific user has blocked you?

Sure, why not?

Can you comment on uploads by people who have blocked you? Can they see your uploads? Or entries you make/edit?

Yes.

This site is awfully user-oriented.

That's the idea, yeah…

I think this would only negatively effect the quality of discussions here.
Like I could just see a thread of people pretty much saying the same thing over and over again, but they have no idea because they’ve blocked each other.

There is no evidence at all to support this theory.

There is no evidence at all to support this theory.

Well, we haven't gone through the trouble of implementing the idea, so of course there wouldn't be evidence. But as Iamslow said, it does make perfect sense that a conversation on a forum gets disjointed if a user has blocked 10 active users on a forum with 50 active posters. Even with just 2 active posters blocked.

Let's say you blocked me.

You would have missed me saying that it's more important to come up with individual tagging blacklists before blocking users on a site with only a few users.

You missed that without blocking me, and you never addressed those points.

So I guess there is evidence now.

At a certain point, like I said, a user should probably just consider using a different site.

And considering that you're not active in the forums anyway:

• you've posted in about 3 threads 20 times in about 30 days. One serves your own interests that only you're fixing for, one has an old user who also isn't that active outside of their thread, and one telling another user to "shut up." Literally, nothing else. Just "shut up.
• compared to me, who is admittedly not that active, posted 20 times in about two weeks in more than 10 threads.

I'm not really sure that the need or desire is there for the community. Again, some things can be implemented for a small portion of users, but this just seems to be you vying for this. Even OP dropped out of the discussion.

It seems to make more sense to just ignore those users. If you can do it with me, then you can do it with others. Or just stick to the IRC. It doesn't seem like you even participate in the forum community, so I'm not seeing why it would even benefit you.

@Taryn

I don't see how that wouldn't happen honestly. In addition to what Verbose said if you just shut someone off because they're posts annoy you in casual threads there's no way in hell you're gonna want to put up with them in serious discussions.

Even if this was limited to wall posts or something it would still be kinda pointless because people can just delete anything that appears on their walls if they don't want to see it. Maybe that wasn't enough for Gaben but I'm not convinced his case is a typical one. I didn't know him personally but I heard he was kinda high-strung.

That's actually a good point. I am now against this idea, for the reason that this community is so tightly knit that a feature like this may threaten to censor too many users in a manner that discussion would be held back.

@Verbose

You missed that without blocking me, and you never addressed those points.
So I guess there is evidence now.

Different issue. I didn't reiterate your point unbeknownst that you already said it. I just ignored it. Didn't really "disjoint" the conversation. Maybe I'm just a shit user for ignoring you, but you shouldn't assume all users are shit.

At a certain point, like I said, a user should probably just consider using a different site.

I'm sure the admins would love the idea of losing site traffic based on your guidance. Maybe they should frontpage it.

And considering that you’re not active in the forums anyway

Pointless, irrelevant. Now you've actually disjointed the conversation.

It doesn’t seem like you even participate in the forum community, so I’m not seeing why it would even benefit you.

Because I want the site to have a better UX. Ever heard of… selflessness?

@Iamslow

If you literally can't see how that couldn't happen, you have a very poor imagination. Good site design requires you to assume good faith. We don't just take out comments and forums because a user might harass someone else, we just discipline the user. I'm not really sure how reiterating the same point is a bad thing to begin with since it's done purposefully in many discussions.

The needs of the user should outweigh the needs of the forum and comment section as a whole. Everyone that actively participates is a user, but not every user actively participates. It is almost undeniable that there are far more users that just lurk the site and never post. It seems very unlikely for them to cause chaos within a discussion because they didn't want to see someone's post (that they could just click a button and look at anyway).

I didn’t reiterate your point unbeknownst that you already said it. I just ignored it.

…I think you just made my point, boss. Just ignore the users you don't want to talk to. No coding involved at all.

I’m sure the admins would love the idea of losing site traffic based on your guidance. Maybe they should frontpage it.

I'll take you up on that.

The site/community will request (usually informally) that a user be dismissed, so if it just comes down to one, then that happens. I wouldn't want a user who didn't want to be here to be here. They're not going to be happy with us or the site, and they're not going to help create an inviting community atmosphere. Some changes can be made, but at this level of the discussion, I don't think there's been a strong case made for these changes.

So yes, I would defend it as such. You could frontpage it, but that really has little to do with online phenomena or any notable forum thread topic. I suspect you meant that as a threat of sorts.

But as you know, I'm not one to back down if I believe something. If I'm wrong, then it's an honest mistake. I don't like making them, but I think through everything, and I have a reason for everything. I'll get over being wrong. But I'm pretty sure I have a point here.

And considering that you’re not active in the forums anyway

Pointless, irrelevant. Now you’ve actually disjointed the conversation.

Not really.
 
See, like I've been saying, there are times when a minority asks for features and whatnot, and the community deems it to be a good idea. For example, spoilers for images that might cause epileptic seizures in some people. That affects a small portion of our userbase, but we felt like it was important to implement and encourage the use of specific spoilers for that.

I'm saying that that's something to be considered when implementing something. Who's going to benefit from it, how much would they benefit from it, how many will benefit from it, how hard is it to implement, etc.

Since you're not that active, you're not going to benefit from it all that much. And it's true that there are lurkers. I tend to lurk myself. But if they don't put in their two cents, then the sensible thing to assume is that the status quo is OK. We shouldn't assume there is a problem until we've identified it ourselves or someone else speaks up and helps us become aware of it.

So no. It's not irrelevant.

It doesn’t seem like you even participate in the forum community, so I’m not seeing why it would even benefit you.

Because I want the site to have a better UX. Ever heard of… selflessness?

…I have heard of selflessness, actually. That's a very simple word.

"Self" is the root, and it denotes one's own person and/or interests. "-less" and "-ness" are just added suffixes to change the meaning based on the root and to adjust the part of speech, respectively. So even if I hadn't heard of the word until now, I could probably piece it together.
 
 
 
 
 
Why do you ask? Did it seem as if I didn't know the meaning of it?
 
 
 
 
 
The problem here is that you're the only person that's making a case that this would have a better interface. As such, it's fair to assume that it's something only you feel strongly about to defend.

To be honest: Your posts don't give most anyone who's seen you reason to believe you're all that concerned about the well-being of the forums or its users as a whole. It's perfectly fine if you're here because you're bored. I'm not saying everyone needs to post so much, or that people who don't post very often can't bring up great ideas. Entries have frequently been used as an example of what can happen when a relatively unknown and inactive user posits their opinion. But let's not make it out to be an altruistic matter.

As such, there's no hard reason to believe that the site would be improved. Now if someone makes a point that I can't refute, then I'll acknowledge that. But until I see that, then I can't say it would improve the site.

I'll leave Iamslow to defend his own points if he wants, but I don't think your rebuttal is very strong there either. You may want to rework your stance on whether or not the needs of one outweighs the needs of many with regards to an environment based on multiple people interacting with others.

…I think you just made my point, boss. Just ignore the users you don’t want to talk to. No coding involved at all.

I still read through your entire post.

I wouldn’t want a user who didn’t want to be here to be here.

If a feature were implemented that would prevent them from having such a bad time, then all the better, yes?

I suspect you meant that as a threat of sorts.

I'm not sure how you could perceive that as a threat in any way. Just highlighting how idiotic it sounds to openly drive away users on a site that makes money from them staying.

We shouldn’t assume there is a problem until we’ve identified it ourselves or someone else speaks up and helps us become aware of it.

What you are speaking of is this very thread, which already exists.

So no. It’s not irrelevant.

Yes. It is. My activity has nothing to do with whether a feature of the site should be implemented. This thread existing is evidence enough that other users want it, unless you're implying only Gaben has ever had this idea.

I'm not sure why you went on that tangent about understanding the word. It was clearly a joke.

The problem here is that you’re the only person that’s making a case that this would have a better interface. As such, it’s fair to assume that it’s something only you feel strongly about to defend.

No, it wouldn't be fair to assume that. It wouldn't even make sense to assume that since I quite clearly just explained that most users lurk and not post. Not to mention most users don't even go to the forums…

To be honest: Your posts don’t give most anyone who’s seen you reason to believe you’re all that concerned about the well-being of the forums or its users as a whole. It’s perfectly fine if you’re here because you’re bored.

OK… Assume all you like, doesn't detract from my point at all. This benefits some and detracts from none.

But let’s not make it out to be an altruistic matter.

That seems to be your only purpose in even mentioning it. You were the first to imply I don't care. Why would I even bother responding if I care so little?

As such, there’s no hard reason to believe that the site would be improved.

Yes there is, since it would benefit some users and not hurt anyone else. That's improvement.

You may want to rework your stance on whether or not the needs of one outweighs the needs of many

If you had read my post, you should have come to the conclusion that the needs of the many do indeed outweigh the needs of the few, since there are far more people who don't post than do.

an environment based on multiple people interacting with others.

Where far more are not interacting at all. Logistically it would be unwise to appeal to only forum posters and commenters. Regardless, it doesn't matter how many people it benefits as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Arguing over whether it's important enough or not makes no sense because A) Someone is being paid to add these features and B) Any feature could be argued as unimportant. The forums are a prime example, since I doubt they bring in nearly as much cash as the entries themselves.

@Taryn

Not only could the same points be repeated – people could potentially clog threads with the same videos, links, or images relevant to the topic (especially in meme research) as a result of blocking people. While I realize this wouldn't happen in every single thread the occasions in which it did happen would be especially annoying for people who elect not to block anyone – resulting in someone actually being negatively effected by the addition of the feature.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Okay, I didn't really wanna post here, since I always seem to just shoot down ideas, but seeing as there is a bit more discussion than I expected, without bringing up much on what I thought was important when I first read the title I guess I'll post.

I do think something like this could be useful if used correctly. Someone who only trolls, keeps posting about how ponies killed a meme, or other users that contribute nothing but general annoyance to other users but hasn't done enough to be banned I can see wanting to block without any issue for the most part. Sure, I bet some people would object, such as the Admins who have made it clear they do not want to do anything that appears to censor free speech but, as a whole I believe this is what the people advocating for this have in mind.

The issue is, if it were to come into place, users could block any other user for any reason. Blocked because they didn't like being told they should properly tag their image. Blocked because they proved and augment wrong. Blocked because they said they were a feminist. Blocked because they made an offensive post in Riff Raff. Blocked because they have an anime avatar. If I could feel I could trust users not to be complete idiots with it, I wouldn't have too much of a problem. However, despite things like a notice on literally every gallery upload page saying not to use the entry name as a tag, people still upload images with only the entry name as a tag. If users can do that despite literally being told on every upload page not to do literally that exact thing, how to you think many of them would treat a feature like this?

Eypc Wyn wrote:

Moderators cannot do this or else they cannot enforce rules

I agree fully, and no matter what happens with regards to this feature, I don't plan to block users. However, to see if from the other side, can users block mods? If there is a thread that is beginning to go off topic, and a mod posts saying to stay on topic or there will be consequences for derailing, and a user decides to respond to posts that were going off topic, then what? "Oh, I had you blocked, so I don't deserve this warning?" Sometimes, depending on the offense and how new the member is, I try to comment or PM with issues instead of sending a warning. But I'm blocked because I said something the guy didn't like 3 years ago on an image they saw. Guess it goes straight to a warnings on their record to make sure they actually get the message (assuming PM warning messages don't get blocked too)

in response to "what would blocking to to PMs?"
Taryn wrote

It would prevent you from sending the PM, saying you’ve been blocked.

Fantastic. "Hey, here's a suggestion to improve your entry/thread/image uploads that would help the rest of the site-"
You have been blocked
"Why did you bock me?"
You have been blocked
"What can I do to be unblocked?"
You have been blocked

I don't normally agree with Lisa but yeah, what exactly are we hoping to accomplish with this? If you don't like a user or their posts, you are probably ignoring them anyways. If you have a real reason to dislike what they said, chances are pretty good that there are other people who feel the same way and the post becomes buried (functionally the same as Taryn's blocked feature). I get you guys wanna make the site a better place, but I can easily see a user just downvoting all the posts by blocked users whenever they see their blocked post (again, assuming that they show up as Taryn suggests) even when said user makes posts that are objectively good. If a user is really being a problem tell the mods about it. This feature feels more like a way for users to shut out any voice they don't like for the simple reason they don't like it. To think we were creating threads oh how to prevent circlejerks prior to this.