Visible threads from block/ignored users

[vexviron]

There should be a way to ignore forum post by users you ignore. If you block/ignore a user, Steam will block their comments from a forum thread. If the user you block/ignore creates a thread, it's not ignored. My suggestions is to add the feature that allows user to block/ignore threads created by blocked/ignored users.

[Doko]

There needs to be a full on perma block system on Steam, and I already suggested such an idea, but it got shot down by folks claiming others could "easily bypass" it.

Any time anyone suggests Steam support a proper blocking system, someone counters it with the usual petty excuse.

Steam at this point needs a proper block system.

[Mailer]

Threads can be reported, which is the main problem with blocking threads directly based on user-to-user relationship.
Those relationships should often be cast aside for healthy discussions about the platform every once in a while. That is why the forum "is for everyone".

If someone actually comes around to posting a thread on the forums that is either highly enforceable or highly important, such as threads that are pinned, based on your idea you would have no foreseeable clue that they exist, which would either hide genuinely important information or mitigate the effectiveness of the report feature because you had no way of spotting the thread in the first place.

Blocking users obviously extends to those that genuinely do contribute crucial information to the forums, and so users can't really be trusted to cut themselves off of knowing, any more than at least acknowledging that an important thread exists. That is why the option to view blocked responses presents itself regardless with the current system.

[Gus the Crocodile]

I agree, an option to extend it to threads would be welcome.

Originally posted by Mailer:

Threads can be reported, which is the main problem with blocking threads directly based on user-to-user relationship.
Those relationships should often be cast aside for healthy discussions about the platform every once in a while. That is why the forum "is for everyone".

If someone actually comes around to posting a thread on the forums that is either highly enforceable or highly important, such as threads that are pinned, based on your idea you would have no foreseeable clue that they exist, which would either hide genuinely important information or mitigate the effectiveness of the report feature because you had no way of spotting the thread in the first place.

Blocking users obviously extends to those that genuinely do contribute crucial information to the forums, and so users can't really be trusted to cut themselves off of knowing, any more than at least acknowledging that an important thread exists. That is why the option to view blocked responses presents itself regardless with the current system.

Important information won't be in a thread by some random user. Literally no threads people make here are important; if there was something Valve needed to communicate, they'd make an announcement themselves.

Otherwise I "couldn't be trusted" to not check the forum for a few days, I miss loads of threads that way all the time, we all do. It's okay, the world doesn't implode.

As for reporting, there are plenty of other people to do that; a small minority blocking a particular individual isn't a problem. If it was, we wouldn't be allowed to block their posts for the same reason. We aren't Valve employees, we have no obligation to scrape every inch of the forum and report violations.

[Mailer]

Originally posted by Gus the Crocodile:

I agree, an option to extend it to threads would be welcome.

Originally posted by Mailer:

Threads can be reported, which is the main problem with blocking threads directly based on user-to-user relationship.
Those relationships should often be cast aside for healthy discussions about the platform every once in a while. That is why the forum "is for everyone".

If someone actually comes around to posting a thread on the forums that is either highly enforceable or highly important, such as threads that are pinned, based on your idea you would have no foreseeable clue that they exist, which would either hide genuinely important information or mitigate the effectiveness of the report feature because you had no way of spotting the thread in the first place.

Blocking users obviously extends to those that genuinely do contribute crucial information to the forums, and so users can't really be trusted to cut themselves off of knowing, any more than at least acknowledging that an important thread exists. That is why the option to view blocked responses presents itself regardless with the current system.

Important information won't be in a thread by some random user. Literally no threads people make here are important; if there was something Valve needed to communicate, they'd make an announcement themselves.

Otherwise I "couldn't be trusted" to not check the forum for a few days, I miss loads of threads that way all the time, we all do. It's okay, the world doesn't implode.

I understand your point but at the same time Valve isn't seen to do very much of the announcing bit without people needing to figure out ahead of time if something is behaving differently with Steam services or whatnot. I think a good example of that was the extensive thread we did on the profanity filter/content check system that they implemented on UGC. It had a very rocky start but did they ever actually make an announcement out of that?
But I get it that there won't be just one single thread highlighting this, because not all people search for existing threads before posting their own, but at some point those threads have a tendency to be merged into one, because ideally there would be only one thread for any given topic, and it is that ideal state that is particularly troubled by a suggestion like this, because it becomes easy to disregard. And how is a system like this supposed to decide for threads being merged, if one or the other is not something you are expected to see?

Originally posted by Gus the Crocodile:

As for reporting, there are plenty of other people to do that; a small minority blocking a particular individual isn't a problem. If it was, we wouldn't be allowed to block their posts for the same reason. We aren't Valve employees, we have no obligation to scrape every inch of the forum and report violations.

I understand your point here as well but that line of thinking can still apply to everyone, and so what you get is a sequence of people thinking that "something has surely already been done and so I won't bother" and it just ends up stifling anything actually happening at all.
There's basically no assurance of swift action across specific game forums, some with much less traffic than parts of the Steam forums, because moderator coverage can vary so. Much less a concern at first glance, I get that, but everyone has their own way of formulating a report on something.
It just becomes this perspective of trying to clean up and tailor the forums from none but your own perspective when whole threads get involved, instead the community as a whole could just come together and help decide what goes and what doesn't as a thread. Besides, there's plenty of cross-referencing between threads already.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Originally posted by Mailer:

I understand your point but at the same time Valve isn't seen to do very much of the announcing bit without people needing to figure out ahead of time if something is behaving differently with Steam services or whatnot. I think a good example of that was the extensive thread we did on the profanity filter/content check system that they implemented on UGC.

Yes, it's a great example. Millions of Steam users won't ever see that thread. That's entirely normal. Those people are all okay, and Steam is okay. Nothing has broken because people don't see that thread, because people not seeing threads isn't a problem.

Originally posted by Mailer:

I understand your point here as well but that line of thinking can still apply to everyone, and so what you get is a sequence of people thinking that "something has surely already been done and so I won't bother" and it just ends up stifling anything actually happening at all. There's basically no assurance of swift action across specific game forums, some with much less traffic than parts of the Steam forums, because moderator coverage can vary so. Much less a concern at first glance, I get that, but everyone has their own way of formulating a report on something.

Is there any evidence that the block feature has led to a "stifling of anything happening"?

Steam users aren't here to "assure swift action". Taking action against people violating the Steam rules is Valve's job, not ours. If you feel moderator presence is currently insufficient, then that's a problem you can ask Valve to address; it needn't prevent this suggestion from being implemented.

There is functionally no difference between me not seeing a thread because I didn't check a certain forum this week and me not seeing a thread because I have its author blocked. We have to accept that it's okay for users to not see all threads, because the alternative is to disregard the reality of how human beings use forums. And once we've accepted that it's okay for users to not see all threads, there is no problem with this suggestion.

[Mailer]

Originally posted by Gus the Crocodile:

Originally posted by Mailer:

I understand your point but at the same time Valve isn't seen to do very much of the announcing bit without people needing to figure out ahead of time if something is behaving differently with Steam services or whatnot. I think a good example of that was the extensive thread we did on the profanity filter/content check system that they implemented on UGC.

Yes, it's a great example. Millions of Steam users won't ever see that thread. That's entirely normal. Those people are all okay, and Steam is okay. Nothing has broken because people don't see that thread, because people not seeing threads isn't a problem.

Originally posted by Gus the Crocodile:

There is functionally no difference between me not seeing a thread because I didn't check a certain forum this week and me not seeing a thread because I have its author blocked. We have to accept that it's okay for users to not see all threads, because the alternative is to disregard the reality of how human beings use forums. And once we've accepted that it's okay for users to not see all threads, there is no problem with this suggestion.

If there was something disruptively different about the client that significantly hindered people then they wouldn't just wait a week before inquiring about what is actually going on. These forums exist to discuss topics regarding Steam for a reason. But its entirely fine if you feel inclined to wait that long. You can go ahead and address any of the other issues in my response above that I have edited in just now. Like threads being merged.

Originally posted by Gus the Crocodile:

Originally posted by Mailer:

I understand your point here as well but that line of thinking can still apply to everyone, and so what you get is a sequence of people thinking that "something has surely already been done and so I won't bother" and it just ends up stifling anything actually happening at all. There's basically no assurance of swift action across specific game forums, some with much less traffic than parts of the Steam forums, because moderator coverage can vary so. Much less a concern at first glance, I get that, but everyone has their own way of formulating a report on something.

Is there any evidence that the block feature has led to a "stifling of anything happening"?

Steam users aren't here to "assure swift action". Taking action against people violating the Steam rules is Valve's job, not ours. If you feel moderator presence is currently insufficient, then that's a problem you can ask Valve to address; it needn't prevent this suggestion from being implemented.

The mantra goes "report, block and move on" and not "block, report and move on" for a reason. Furthermore, after the report has been filled on a user specifically, there is a very distinct button with which you can take "further action", which conveniently allows you to also block the user in the same form. Meanwhile this is not the case when you are just reporting a thread. Is that not evidence enough to suggest that one approach is more straight-forward and streamlined than the other? Of course the block feature is going to provide some people with the wrong ideas.

No, I don't think this suggestion needs implementing because people should be able to put their differences, on the basis of blocking one another, aside for a moment, while they are discussing something that affects the community as a whole. Not petty squabble between one another.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Originally posted by Mailer:

If there was something disruptively different about the client that significantly hindered people then they wouldn't just wait a week before inquiring about what is actually going on. These forums exist to discuss topics regarding Steam for a reason. But its entirely fine if you feel inclined to wait that long.

Huh? I wasn't talking about having an issue and then "waiting". I was talking about the fact that it's normal for human beings to not live on forums and see every thread. So I might go a week without seeing a particular forum. A day for others. A few months for others, and so on. Not seeing all threads is normal and healthy, so we cannot act as if it's somehow unacceptable for users to not see some threads. I am constantly choosing not to see threads, simply by not visiting every forum on Steam. Choosing not to see threads isn't a problem.

Originally posted by Mailer:

You can go ahead and address any of the other issues in my response above that I have edited in just now. Like threads being merged.

I don't see an issue with merged threads. You ask how the system is supposed to "decide", but there's no decision to make. All threads, merged or not, have one user identified as the thread creator. The suggestion is to allow people to hide threads by certain creators. Merged threads change nothing about that.

There is no information so vital that Valve would put it in a forum thread and expect everyone to see it. But more important stuff would likely be posted by the mods anyway, who people are unlikely to have blocked. If it is really a problem on this front (I suspect it wouldn't be, but hey), Valve could make moderator threads, or pinned threads, or both, immune to being hidden. That'd be fine. I'm sure you could have come to that conclusion yourself if you took a moment to think about solutions to the problems you identify.

Originally posted by Mailer:

The mantra goes "report, block and move on" and not "block, report and move on" for a reason. Furthermore, after the report has been filled, there is a very distinct button with which you can take "further action", which conveniently allows you to also block the user in the same form. Is that not evidence enough to suggest that one approach is more straight-forward than the other?

I'm not in a cult, so I don't run my life by a mantra, but I'd say the very fact that "block" is part of it at all is evidence that blocking communication by particular users is normal, expected behaviour, not something users of this mantra consider a problem.

I will ask again: is there any evidence that the block feature has led to a "stifling of anything happening"?

[Nx Machina]

If a thread is created by someone you have blocked you can clearly see who created it before you ever click on it to view the contents. The question is "are you unable to control yourself enough to not click on it?"

Or are you intending to join the discussion knowing who created it? Obviously not as you blocked them, so again what is the issue?

[Tolkien Book Fan]

I have much better things to do with my mind than track blocked Steam users. Also, memory doesn't help when someone changes their username, or has it changed by the moderators, or Steam is glitching and everyone's name is a number. That's when it would be useful to be able to see, or not see, threads by blocked users.

[Nx Machina]

Originally posted by ElfSeeker:

I have much better things to do with my mind than track blocked Steam users. Also, memory doesn't help when someone changes their username, or has it changed by the moderators, or Steam is glitching and everyone's name is a number. That's when it would be useful to be able to see, or not see, threads by blocked users.

Profile name changes auto update all known posts etc and therefore the user is always blocked.

If you post as Elfseeker and change it to Dwarfseeker all your posts will auto update but anyone quoting you when you were Elfseeker will remain. In fact if you click on Elfseeker in
a quoted post after updating your profile name to Dwarfseeker it will jump to a post with Dwarfseeker if you made anymore posts on the thread.

[Matt]

Valve time

[Naelson Moura OF]

so sei que nada sei

[Garou]

Agreed. I don't want to see ANYTHING from some people.
No posts, no comments, not even their names or avatars.

[Garou]

Originally posted by davidb11:

Originally posted by T-800:

Agreed. I don't want to see ANYTHING from some people.

The fact of the matter is doing what you suggest is problematic at best.
And it will take a thousand years for Valve to do anything. :P

That's true. I don't expect them to do it anytime soon. Probably years down the road.

[Tolkien Book Fan]

Originally posted by Nx Machina:

Originally posted by ElfSeeker:

I have much better things to do with my mind than track blocked Steam users. Also, memory doesn't help when someone changes their username, or has it changed by the moderators, or Steam is glitching and everyone's name is a number. That's when it would be useful to be able to see, or not see, threads by blocked users.

Profile name changes auto update all known posts etc and therefore the user is always blocked.

Yes, they are still blocked IN a thread, but I won't know they are a blocked user with a changed name until I enter their thread.