Please give us a REAL "block" feature instead of a useless "mute"

[Dale]

Failure to do so - encourages & promotes the bratty skateboard nitwits here.

I'm talking of the SAME block feature that every social media platform has:
it works BOTH ways - they can't see or respond to the blocker
thus the rest of us won't have to sift thru their bratty, nitwit crap.

You guys REALLY_DO call it a "discussions" platform for a reason, eh?
Instead, it's a prolific "pass hate mail back-and-forth". We're getting tired
of having their "bad childhood" crap shoved in our faces. Sheesh!

[FOXDUDE69]

Автор сообщения: KittenGrindr

Автор сообщения: FOXDUDE69

Not really shocking that some people would be terrified at the idea of a proper block function like this being implement as they'd finally see real consequences for their actions.

Nah, just don't think any user outside of mods should be able to control what others users can see or reply/post too. Which has been explained multiple times.

So you're okay with it as long as the decision to limit who you interact with comes from someone with authority.
Well, if Valve gives users the option to properly block users they find disruptive, that decision is coming from someone with authority that supercedes mods.

And considering mods are not able to keep a healthy discussion environment, reduce the number of negative interactions and simply close down threads instead (which shuts down discussion for everyone. not just the people who can't control themselves), such a decision would be a welcome one for regulars and newcomers alike.

Why should toxic users control what gets to be discussed?

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Автор сообщения: FOXDUDE69

Not really shocking that some people would be terrified at the idea of a proper block function like this being implement as they'd finally see real consequences for their actions.

The Steam Community has thousands of active users at any given time, but they only address specific subjects that are of interest to them - thus leading to a wide-variety of behaviors but a scarcity of game-help in certain topics & games.

You might not be discriminatory but random other users are.

The fact that people are discriminatory means that, inherently under such a system, said consequences will simply occur without the directly affected person needing to take any actions at all to "earn" them other than existing or "having the wrong opinions". ...and this would additionally indirectly affect others as it would affect the rest of the community too, in subjects where voices & perspectives were removed.

There are a wide variety of behaviors in the broad community, but they have specific interests, leading to a scarcity of resources in helpful subjects.

[MagicMight]

I tend to check the forums once in a while and I'll say that most of the time I find the purposefully dismissive and contrarian attitude of certain people... not constructive. And that is putting it kindly. But this is not the solution you want.

Because if the suggestion went through, these would cease to be traditional forums.

As the saying goes you do not want to burn down the house to smoke out the rat.

You think you want this suggestion, but you don't. Because you can't clearly see all the consequences that come along with the 'advantages'. What you really want is moderation that will swiftly bring down the banhammer to any bad faith posts, especially those that are skirting almost within the rules. Of course that is very hard because everyone's opinion of what a bad faith post is different... and thus the existing issue.

I believe that the following post that got pretty much ignored (because it can't be used as ammunition in the flame war occurring right now) is the one that sums it up the best.

Автор сообщения: Black Blade

So I like to point a few points from all I have read so far

1. Facebook: Don't mix a public forum with a social network of Facebook, one is a place to dissucs for the full public and one is a closed circuit comments, I had a few discussions on Facebook (before I mostly closed it) but there not build for it really, long messages get really messed up and stuff, there good for a fast "XYZ" but if you grow over something bigger they really mess up
   Besides that, Facebook areas for talking are groups, you are in a closed area to start with, and it has many issues, just for one the "Blocking mods" issue in groups and the like to try and avoid moderation making the mods need to just kick anyone that does it (if it did don't change)
   
   
2. Block that dose both side is a mess and just makes public discuss impossible to really run places
   I see here over and over, "Why do you care if you can't post on someone else post" the answer is because its not their post, it's a public one they started and their idea that comes up
   If someone is really trolling, as some say, its a moderation that needs to take care of it, not blocking, and that is to block someone that is disturbing the discussion completely
   
   Saying "I will not abuse it" is useless when that is not the point, the question if its possible to abuse, as given the option someone will abuse it
   
   
3. "I want to block someone from following me and reporting my posts" this is not going to help on that at all, even i that dose even happen, first of all someone can just make an alt, and report from there, they can also follow from there, as there is nothing tracking the block there
   So if reporting like that happens, well it dose don't matter if they can just not post, and do all the same
   
   Besides that, if a report goes past the moderation and sticks, I think you can get the point that something was done that was not supposed to happen to begin with, so again this is not really an issue if they false reporting, you can reply to that in the comments if it keeps happening mods will likely ban the reporter, again a moderation issue
   
   
4. A post on the forum is not a blog; its a forum; its meant for public discourse, and any type of blocking harms it. The current block helps users that are unable just to ignore someone they can't stand but is not blocking others from joining in, in a way that can be abused

Honestly its hard for me to even understand how someone thinks forums that allow something like that will even work
I don't fear or cant stand the idea of not commenting on someone else topic
I do how ever like to have functional forums without a bunch of blind screams of a echo chambers in echo chambers, even if I will not be blocked by anyone, I will still have to deal with echo chambers on echo chambers as a 3rd party watching form the side, that just seem like a pain that personally most likely kill any use of the forums for me, I was never big on echo chambers personally

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Автор сообщения: FOXDUDE69

...
Why should toxic users control what gets to be discussed?

The IRONY of you asking this when this is exactly what you're advocating for!

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

Автор сообщения: Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏

Автор сообщения: FOXDUDE69

...
Why should toxic users control what gets to be discussed?

The IRONY of you asking this when this is exactly what you're advocating for! :thepro:

^This.

[FOXDUDE69]

Автор сообщения: Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏

Автор сообщения: FOXDUDE69

...
Why should toxic users control what gets to be discussed?

The IRONY of you asking this when this is exactly what you're advocating for! :thepro:

Guess you've gotten your definition of irony from Kusa or that 90's song! Hahaha!

People behaving in a reprehensible way are getting threads locked left and right.

A better block function would reduce the number of negative interactions and act as an incentive for more civil discourse.

These are not remotely the same thing.

[Pierce Dalton]

Автор сообщения: MagicMight

I tend to check the forums once in a while and I'll say that most of the time I find the purposefully dismissive and contrarian attitude of certain people... not constructive. And that is putting it kindly. But this is not the solution you want.

Because if the suggestion went through, these would cease to be traditional forums.

As the saying goes you do not want to burn down the house to smoke out the rat.

You think you want this suggestion, but you don't. Because you can't clearly see all the consequences that come along with the 'advantages'. What you really want is moderation that will swiftly bring down the banhammer to any bad faith posts, especially those that are skirting almost within the rules. Of course that is very hard because everyone's opinion of what a bad faith post is different... and thus the existing issue.

I believe that the following post that got pretty much ignored (because it can't be used as ammunition in the flame war occurring right now) is the one that sums it up the best.

Автор сообщения: Black Blade

So I like to point a few points from all I have read so far

1. Facebook: Don't mix a public forum with a social network of Facebook, one is a place to dissucs for the full public and one is a closed circuit comments, I had a few discussions on Facebook (before I mostly closed it) but there not build for it really, long messages get really messed up and stuff, there good for a fast "XYZ" but if you grow over something bigger they really mess up
   Besides that, Facebook areas for talking are groups, you are in a closed area to start with, and it has many issues, just for one the "Blocking mods" issue in groups and the like to try and avoid moderation making the mods need to just kick anyone that does it (if it did don't change)
   
   
2. Block that dose both side is a mess and just makes public discuss impossible to really run places
   I see here over and over, "Why do you care if you can't post on someone else post" the answer is because its not their post, it's a public one they started and their idea that comes up
   If someone is really trolling, as some say, its a moderation that needs to take care of it, not blocking, and that is to block someone that is disturbing the discussion completely
   
   Saying "I will not abuse it" is useless when that is not the point, the question if its possible to abuse, as given the option someone will abuse it
   
   
3. "I want to block someone from following me and reporting my posts" this is not going to help on that at all, even i that dose even happen, first of all someone can just make an alt, and report from there, they can also follow from there, as there is nothing tracking the block there
   So if reporting like that happens, well it dose don't matter if they can just not post, and do all the same
   
   Besides that, if a report goes past the moderation and sticks, I think you can get the point that something was done that was not supposed to happen to begin with, so again this is not really an issue if they false reporting, you can reply to that in the comments if it keeps happening mods will likely ban the reporter, again a moderation issue
   
   
4. A post on the forum is not a blog; its a forum; its meant for public discourse, and any type of blocking harms it. The current block helps users that are unable just to ignore someone they can't stand but is not blocking others from joining in, in a way that can be abused

Honestly its hard for me to even understand how someone thinks forums that allow something like that will even work
I don't fear or cant stand the idea of not commenting on someone else topic
I do how ever like to have functional forums without a bunch of blind screams of a echo chambers in echo chambers, even if I will not be blocked by anyone, I will still have to deal with echo chambers on echo chambers as a 3rd party watching form the side, that just seem like a pain that personally most likely kill any use of the forums for me, I was never big on echo chambers personally

I like how everyone forgets that Facebook has public groups, you don't even need to be a member to post on them. Closed circuit? More like open circuit...

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Автор сообщения: FOXDUDE69

...
The same way that if someone in real life tells you that they don't want to see you anymore, they are not controlling you either, they just think you have nothing positive to offer.

And that's a valid claim to make when it comes to interpersonal communication, such as mail, and one's home, and even one's workplace in most legal context.

It's not valid for enforcement at town-hall or public parks.
You don't get to kick someone out of the park or make a citizen's arrest to remove them just because you either don't like them or "think they have nothing positive to offer".
That location is not your domain.

Same with town-halls, which are well-known for being real-life publicly-accessible forums.

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

...
You seem to forget profiles can be public too.

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

...

Yes, it's still your profile and you have the choice to make it private or public.

Still, public doesn't mean "anyone can post on it".

You're conflating publicly visible, with publicly accessible.

The word public, is actually an adjective, that is often used as a short-hand noun for either of these two things, but when we don't take shortcuts in communication, and don't cut-corners, there actually is a rather significant distinction between what concept that the word "public" is modifying at any given point in time.

Private spaces can be publicly visible and still be privately accessible.
Conversely, public spaces can have private visibility (only those on the premise can see what what is going on) yet still be publicly accessible.

A good example of the former is someone's profile or un-fenced front-yard, &
A good example of the latter is court proceedings in courtrooms.

If something is private space & privately visible then it's under the full-control of whoever's domain it is, such as the inside of someone's house.

Public parks are both publicly visible and publicly accessible - and that how Valve operate's this forum, even though it's their private domain & they don't have to do that if they don't want to. It also makes sense for them to run it that way.

Valve already gave users their own privately accessible spaces on the platform via their profiles & profile content.

[Pierce Dalton]

Автор сообщения: Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏

Автор сообщения: FOXDUDE69

...
The same way that if someone in real life tells you that they don't want to see you anymore, they are not controlling you either, they just think you have nothing positive to offer.

And that's a valid claim to make when it comes to interpersonal communication, such as mail, and one's home, and even one's workplace in most legal context.

It's not valid for enforcement at town-hall or public parks.
You don't get to kick someone out of the park or make a citizen's arrest to remove them just because you either don't like them or "think they have nothing positive to offer".
That location is not your domain.

Same with town-halls, which are well-known for being real-life publicly-accessible forums.

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

...
You seem to forget profiles can be public too.

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

...

Yes, it's still your profile and you have the choice to make it private or public.

Still, public doesn't mean "anyone can post on it".

You're conflating publicly visible, with publicly accessible.

The word public, is actually an adjective, that is often used as a short-hand noun for either of these two things, but when we don't take shortcuts in communication, and don't cut-corners, there actually is a rather significant distinction between what concept that the word "public" is modifying at any given point in time.

Private spaces can be publicly visible and still be privately accessible.
Conversely, public spaces can have private visibility (only those on the premise can see what what is going on) yet still be publicly accessible.

A good example of the former is someone's profile or un-fenced front-yard, &
A good example of the latter is court proceedings in courtrooms.

If something is private space & privately visible then it's under the full-control of whoever's domain it is, such as the inside of someone's house.

Public parks are both publicly visible and publicly accessible - and that how Valve operate's this forum, even though it's their private domain & they don't have to do that if they don't want to. It also makes sense for them to run it that way.

Valve already gave users their own private spaces on the platform via their profiles & profile content.


:redcircle: :ycircle: :gcircle: :bluecircle: :pcircle:

Public is an adjective and a noun. Of course, in this situation, it is the first.

Anyway, like I said there are public forums on Facebook...

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Автор сообщения: Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏

...
You're conflating publicly visible, with publicly accessible.

The word public, is actually an adjective, that is often used as a short-hand noun for either of these two things, ...

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Автор сообщения: Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏

...

Public is an adjective and a noun. Of course, in this situation, it is the first.

Anyway, like I said there are public forums on Facebook...

Your'e missing the point.
The noun only ever refers to concepts that include the adjective form modifying one of two other subjects (visibility & accessibility).

Something that's publicly visible is not the same thing as something that's publicly accessible.
These two concepts are independent of each other & can be mixed & matched with privately visible and privately accessible, to get a variety of situations.

Something being publicly visible but not publicly accessible isn't the same thing as something which is both publicly visible and also publicly accessible.

[Pierce Dalton]

Автор сообщения: Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏

Автор сообщения: Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏

...
You're conflating publicly visible, with publicly accessible.

The word public, is actually an adjective, that is often used as a short-hand noun for either of these two things, ...

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Public is an adjective and a noun. Of course, in this situation, it is the first.

Anyway, like I said there are public forums on Facebook...

Your'e missing the point.
The noun only ever refers to concepts that include the adjective form modifying one of two other subjects (visibility & accessibility).

Something that's publicly visible is not the same thing as something that's publicly accessible.
These two concepts are independent of each other & can be mixed & matched with privately visible and privately accessible, to get a variety of situations.

Something being publicly visible but not publicly accessible isn't the same thing as something which is both publicly visible and also publicly accessible. :seewhatyoudid:

Facebook public forums are both publicly visible and publicly accessible, keep the verbiage for your students, please.

[queen 💜]

Автор сообщения: Pierce Dalton

Facebook public forums are both publicly visible and publicly accessible, keep the verbiage for your students, please.

Reddit would probably be the closest thing to these forums, and this is how blocking works there:

Redditors you block won't be able to access your profile or see or reply to your post or comments in communities, unless you are a moderator in specific situations.

But I think it's been mentioned in this thread how the system is broken

[Pierce Dalton]

I've noticed many people here insist in commiting the same mistake over and over:

To say forums ≠ social media

Funnily enough, forums are social media and vice versa. This article may help you to understand that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media

Here's an interesting excerpt from it:

"While the variety of evolving stand-alone and built-in social media services makes it challenging to define them, marketing and social media experts broadly agree that social media includes the following 13 types:

Blogs (ex. Huffington Post, Boing Boing)
Business networks (ex. LinkedIn, XING)
Collaborative projects (ex. Wikipedia, Mozilla)
Enterprise social networks (ex. Yammer, Socialcast)
Forums (ex. Gaia Online, IGN Boards)
Microblogs (ex. Twitter, Tumblr)
Photo sharing (ex. Flickr, Photobucket)
Products/services review (ex. Amazon, Elance)
Social bookmarking (ex. Delicious, Pinterest)
Social gaming (ex. Mafia Wars)
Social network sites (ex. Facebook, Google+)
Video sharing (ex. YouTube, Vimeo)
Virtual worlds (ex. Second Life, Twinity)"

[queen 💜]

yah it's a blanket term. or an umbrella term 🤔

[Pierce Dalton]

Автор сообщения: homem brasileiro quente eardente

yah it's a blanket term. or an umbrella term 🤔

Nice username. Are you brazilian?

Yes, the term covers a lot of stuff.