Option to Block all members of a Group

[An Easy Target]

As title suggests. Some groups attract certain sorts that we'd rather not see anything by or from- mainly a few groups that I'd get in trouble for mentioning here, and rightly so.

Not to tell anyone ELSE who they can friend or not, of course; just for each of us to have our own option. To that end, I think it'd be a rather welcome addition to have a feature that lets an individual user add everyone who's part of a specified group onto a block list with the press of one button.

It needn't be difficult. Just put a "block group" button on each group's main page, the pressing of which makes an optimal arrangement. The one user gets to never see anyone like that or their content again, making Steam a more comfortable place to poke around in, encouraging more usage and thus greatly increasing the chance to buy new games per month; this happens with innumerable Steam users, turning them into money-tossing Steam addicts.

Meanwhile, the groups' users don't even feel one guy they've never met blocking them, and they go on each happily buying games of the sort that they like. Steam gains increased profits and increased status as a place to disappear into for those who want it, giving them a nigh-captive audience. It's a win-win for everyone.

[JD777]

I don't like censorship but if it's completely user side blocking than why not have the option? I would recommend against the user doing this but If they want to ignore whole groups than I see no reason it can't be implemented. The block lists could be on the clients own computer so it would not take up any resources from Steams servers. I mean we are talking about having text files with the names and steam id's and than the Steam client using this list to censor posts from these users. More options and the best part is it can be disabled in the options menu so it won't add more resources usage for the people who would not use this.

I think people are to worried with what others choose to see and what they choose not to see. Maybe some people need to build their own "firewalls" for whatever reason. Their also seems to be this theme of wanting to block = living in a echo chamber. I mean time is limited and in this buffet called the internet maybe some just want to cut out the "fat" and get to the "meat" of whatever they are interested in.

[An Easy Target]

Originalmente postado por Matt:

If a group, such as the trading card group, has 1.7 million members, then you're suggesting a button that would allow blocking communication from 1.7 million accounts?
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/tradingcards

Well, yes. With that same button being possible to press to unblock all those accounts, once one decides they've overcome their dislike of the Steam Trading Card market or whatnot.

Originalmente postado por JD777:

The block lists could be on the clients own computer so it would not take up any resources from Steams servers. I mean we are talking about having text files with the names and steam id's and than the Steam client using this list to censor posts from these users. More options and the best part is it can be disabled in the options menu so it won't add more resources usage for the people who would not use this.

I agree with this. I for one would be all too happy to store the new block data on my computer; I have plenty of spare space, and anyway like I said my thinking's for an algorithm to check a given user for association with a blocked group, not for every single user to be entered into the user's block list.

[76561198407601200]

Originalmente postado por 🐉 Chesmu ☠:

Originalmente postado por The Living Tribunal:

Then make your own group and don't be concerned with other's ?

Once again "Nah It's not needed" people at comments. Please understand threads before replying.

And once again, you could create your own group instead of being concerned with other's. Please understand the reply before typing.

[Satoru]

Originalmente postado por 🐉 Chesmu ☠:

Once again "Nah It's not needed" people at comments. Please understand threads before replying.

If the blocking members is an option, en mass blocking of them should be a user friendly improvement. If you can block one user for any reason, the option to block millions of them without having to do one by one is also a valid action, with one difference, that saves your time and energy.

+1 from me.

Yes but again, as noted in the very first post, how would you implement a system that could potentilaly block 1 MILLION accounts or more.

This block list has to be parsed EVERY SINGLE PAGE you visit to check if a person is blocked and then edit the page to do so. The overhead if you had to parse a million accounts every time would be gigantic.

[Bypass]

The notion of a platform being safer for everyone usually in the end means that the platform is watered down and for no one. So I'd argue that that rationality doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this context.

I suppose I theory if you were to block members from a group, then again I can't really empathize with that sort of train of thought as I'd have to see a situation why it would be necessary. The hentai group example might make sense, however if you are just trying to get rid of that content you can edit the tags and settings fpr that to vanish.

If its in regards to mp games then I can't really symphatize at all, as the steam for everyone applies to that as well.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Originalmente postado por An Easy Target:

I don't propose modifying the world; just our own UI. For example, if I blocked the "Hentai" group (there, I said it), emphatically, those users' input wouldn't show up on discussions, *only* for me. *Everybody else* is free to fraternize with the group and its members and trade messages and Japanime porn or whatnot to their hearts' (and ♥♥♥♥♥) content.

Why are you visiting those groups to begin with? They tend to keep such posts and activity to their own group or similar groups, so blocking all of them would not be needed. Just stop going to said groups to begin with.

Is their posts are in line with a discussion out side the forums, then there is not need to block them there either as they are participating correctly.

Blocking is intended as a tool for users to stop/reduce harassment, not as a means to stop seeing post from a specific group of people who may have a difference of opinion on a subject.

[An Easy Target]

I am pleasantly surprised that this discussion is still going, even and especially as the majority opinion is against my suggestion. Thank you everyone. This is the sort of discussion we need: Rational expression and making of a case as opposed to some other individuals not to be named- none of whom have posted on this topic, thankfully- who seem to opt for redundant mud-slinging.

Again, thanks to everyone who has shared an opinion here- to each of you who disagree with me, rationally making your case in conjunction with this, and to those few on board as well.

[JD777]

Originalmente postado por Nero del Metallo:

The notion of a platform being safer for everyone usually in the end means that the platform is watered down and for no one. So I'd argue that that rationality doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this context.......

Well that would be true if the OP's suggestion was about effecting everyone else on the platform but I believe the op is talking about individual block lists. If the individual wants a "watered down" social platform than let them decide. Each person has their own perspective .

So if this option existed than one could block all they want but it would ultimately only effect them while everyone who chooses not to use this added functionality will not be effected. So the only problem I see is will Steam add this for the individual user and the how. All this can be done client side. Who cares why someone wants to block as long as it doesn't effect others? Right?

I'm not for censorship imposed on others but I see no problem with self imposed censorship. I have faith in most people that they can make their own grown up decisions if given the proper tools on Steam in this case. While some may live by the idea of being exposed to every idea doesn't mean this is the way everyone must live.

[Gwarsbane]

Originalmente postado por JD777:

Originalmente postado por Nero del Metallo:

The notion of a platform being safer for everyone usually in the end means that the platform is watered down and for no one. So I'd argue that that rationality doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this context.......

Well that would be true if the OP's suggestion was about effecting everyone else on the platform but I believe the op is talking about individual block lists. If the individual wants a "watered down" social platform than let them decide. Each person has their own perspective .

So if this option existed than one could block all they want but it would ultimately only effect them while everyone who chooses not to use this added functionality will not be effected. So the only problem I see is will Steam add this for the individual user and the how. All this can be done client side. Who cares why someone wants to block as long as it doesn't effect others? Right?

I'm not for censorship imposed on others but I see no problem with self imposed censorship. I have faith in most people that they can make their own grown up decisions if given the proper tools on Steam in this case. While some may live by the idea of being exposed to every idea doesn't mean this is the way everyone must live.

No actually this would not all be done client side. It would effect the database. And I can see how this could go really bad with groups of people trying to see if they could crash things by going into the biggest groups they can, and blocking everyone in the the group. Imagine 10+ people going into a group and trying to block 400,000 people at once. What do you think that would do to the servers? No what about 100+ people doing that? 500+ people? 1000+ people?

Yes there are groups of people who would try to do that. And yes there are groups with hundreds of thousands of people.

How do I know it would not be limited to client side? Because you can go to any number of computers, log in and your blocked list is there.

[dynastystar]

Originalmente postado por JD777:

Originalmente postado por Nero del Metallo:

The notion of a platform being safer for everyone usually in the end means that the platform is watered down and for no one. So I'd argue that that rationality doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this context.......

Well that would be true if the OP's suggestion was about effecting everyone else on the platform but I believe the op is talking about individual block lists. If the individual wants a "watered down" social platform than let them decide. Each person has their own perspective .

So if this option existed than one could block all they want but it would ultimately only effect them while everyone who chooses not to use this added functionality will not be effected. So the only problem I see is will Steam add this for the individual user and the how. All this can be done client side. Who cares why someone wants to block as long as it doesn't effect others? Right?

I'm not for censorship imposed on others but I see no problem with self imposed censorship. I have faith in most people that they can make their own grown up decisions if given the proper tools on Steam in this case. While some may live by the idea of being exposed to every idea doesn't mean this is the way everyone must live.

I just have a feeling that if this was implemented, the forums would be FILLED to the brim with people complaining how the client/site is so slow. If they are able to block millions of people to not see what they post

[|> Neo <|]

wou

[1986Hz]

this is a great topic could a script be made to iterate over each member in a group load up members profile and click the block user button in a few miliseconds ? and repeat for each member in said group

[dynastystar]

Originalmente postado por Back4LinuxFacts:

this is a great topic could a script be made to iterate over each member in a group load up members profile and click the block user button in a few miliseconds ? and repeat for each member in said group

but why would you?

[1986Hz]

why wouldnt you

[Gwarsbane]

Originalmente postado por Back4LinuxFacts:

why wouldnt you

Because if you don't want any communication from anyone in that group... you leave the group... after all why are you in the group if you don't want to talk to anyone from the group...

It would not block anyone that joins after that point, so you would still get communications from that point anyway if someone bothered to look for you.