Erik from Chess.com here. Ask me almost anything!

Tons of folks have been answering questions since this froum was posted. And furthermore you didnt say who you were speaking too. Didnt the Creator say we are all a community? So, we all can speak. Or, is it only the people that say what you want to hear that can speak?

Now, that is a very "fake" girl thing to do on your part. We are talking and you scream that I am picking a fight with you because I answered your question.

There is a difference between replying in a helpful manner and being antagonistic. The former is OK, the latter isn't. 

This, this this. Someone who starts a thread shouldn't be able to block others from it just because they don't like what someone else says. And it's a feature that is absolutely abused. But at the very least give blocked users the ability to unfollow the thread.

I was being helpful. Does every comment have to have a smiley face after the period? I answered him the way he asked it. 

You accused him of doing something he shouldn't be doing (mass invite scripts) that really didn't even answer the question that was asked. 

Right, take your ball and go home. Don't forget the dude in Post #526.

Let's see how much we can clutter this thread with nonsense.

Account>Alerts and email notifications. I have disabled the automatic tracking of a thread I've commented on. 

Me too but that doesn't fix topics created before that was unchecked. Though I will say,  I haven't had that problem in a long time and it's possible untracking works in v3 in these instances. 

Really important question for erik.

erik

Have you ever blocked any member since 2007?

No, why? I did that because I don't like to receive too many notifications, no matter if I'm blocked or not, but logically it seems to be useful to avoid the issue spotted.

 I agree with having the ability to untrack a thread you are blocked in, but I don't see why you would want to be part of a thread that the OP blocks you in.  I understand that conversations happen with others in those threads you may wish to continue, but then can't you simply PM those people?  I think the current system is not too bad, and I also think the OP should have the ability to change the title of a thread as well.  I understand that truthfully, it would be best to think hard about an appropriate title, but I know there have been times when I have wrote a title that might not be as well suited to the topic as I wished when I made it.  I am more of a fan of giving an OP plenty of ability to fix their own threads, and enough rope to hang themselves, if they run off those who discuss.  Of course, this isn't the intent, but would be a by-product of those who ran people off - the conversations would begin to dry up.

If you edit the first post does it not give the option to change the title. I thought it did.

 As far as I know, the OP can always change the title of a thread

Well, fine then. But don't say that once a thread is started it belongs to the community. If it does then no one should be able to block another "member of the community" except chess.com staff or mods and that for egregious rules violations. 

There are far too many topics where members are debating something and suddenly one stops posting and it is becasue the OP no longer thinks that person should be able to post in "their forum" so they block them. Ridiculous.

 I never stated that they did, nor do I believe they should - that was Erik's take on it.  I am of the belief that a poster should have more power over their own threads:

- To edit the title if necessary

- To block anyone for basically any reason (I would hope this would be used tastefully)

- To delete posts if necessary (only with a note stating that the OP deleted it, and with what reason).  I think this one is highly important, in case someone decides to ruin a good thread.  Too many good threads have been hijacked and taken down before the OP could do anything about it.  I think this puts too much burden on moderators - I believe OPs should have responsibility over these threads, and should be warned if their threads are dwindling into chaos (ie religion and politics), so they have a moment to clean things up. Even perhaps allow the thread to be temporarily locked and a notice sent to the OP, so they can rectify situations with post deletions and bans if necessary.  All of this also takes into account that an OP should be respectful with his topics.  These are just my ideas, not necessarily Erik's.  I have never been of the belief that a thread belongs to the community, simply because it is created.  I think it is more of a 60/40 thing - where the thread is open to the community, but the OP has say over that thread.  

As for debates and blocking, hey, my take on it is, if an OP does such a thing, simply avoid their threads.  I was in the Open Discussion group and certain individuals in there couldn't stand to not have the opportunity to troll threads I created on the Bible.  Solution?  Block them.  I lack time to deal patiently with those who choose to trample on my discussions.  Now, debate?  That is a separate issue.  There were some members who would respectfully disagree, and we were able to walk away from the discussions with a mutual understanding of our worldviews.  

I do believe blocks are a healthy part of our setup here at chess.com, and just like capitalism...if you make a bad name for yourself, you run off your customers.  So, I believe it is important to use discretion with your approach, and I wish chess.com gave more power to the OP.  But those are my thoughts, and I think some other great posters might agree with some or all of my thoughts.

Erik did not answer my questions about the movies PAWN PUSHER 1, 2, 3 and 4...

Sad....................

Never been blocked on any thread, just sayin'