Why the 200 block limit?
Sort:
It means that the person who blocked them no longer has to deal with whatever they didn't want to deal with. I understand that some people have different opinions on whether or not blocking people is needed, but no offense, but I have never understood why they all take so much pride in not doing so, almost as if their empty block list is some kind of trophy. I don't get it.
Sep 8, 2011
0
#22
No worries. People are different. Perhaps to you it is as strange as it would be to me if someone said they had 0 member points and were proud of it.
Course how would they say that... ?
Yeah, that pride would be short-lived...
Sep 8, 2011
0
#24
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
Why is it unreasonable to want to block more than 200 people?
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/blocked-users?page=1 In this thread only windows comes slightly close to 200. I highly doubt anyone actually has 200 people blocked. Doesn't this tell you something?
I agree that 200 blocks should be more than enough. I've been on chess.com since March, and the number of people I've blocked is: zero.
As for trolls, just laugh (to yourself) about how deluded and sad they must be.
And remember, don't be too serious! It's the internet, after all 
Sep 8, 2011
0
#26
I'm not sure why I'm even having this conversation. It should be obvious that 200 is a hugely excessive figure.
The point we are making is, there is no point on the limit. If people think that 201 people are block-worthy, they should have every entitlement in the world to block those 201 people.
Sep 8, 2011
0
#29
Perhaps a more interesting question than "is 200 an ok limit" would be "what exact limit would you propose".
I'll start.
I don't really see a need for a limit actually. All of the things that you can't do are rather peer-to-peer. If I go to user XYZ's page, then the site just needs to look up whether they have me blocked. The one tricky one seems to be the auto-matchup in live chess. Obviously it would get rather tricky if you had 3000 people all logged in at the same time with seeks, each one of which had a block list of several hundred people. But even that should be okay performance-wise, because it's not like you're re-querying the database every time. Or at least you shouldn't be.
That being said, there might be some wise guys on the site who would push their lists up to the upper limit regardless of what it was, just to see if performance became a problem. So maybe 1000 or 1500?
Sep 8, 2011
0
#30
That being said, I really like the idea of putting someone on your block list with an expiration. That way you could fire and forget. It could even notify you when someone came off the block list, though that might be a little much.
I think that would be better as a setting (i.e. when you block someone, you can customize how long you want them to be blocked and when you want some kind of reminder).
Sep 8, 2011
0
#32
Exactly!
Like if someone is just bothering you a little bit, you can block them for a week, and let's face it, in a week you'll probably forget about them anyways. And on the reminder, it can ask you if you want to renew the block. And at that time you can have a new expiration. Like maybe they've been okay in the meantime, or maybe you forgot about them (they didn't log in much or whatever), or maybe they really ARE a pain in the hoo-hah.
All of these things would be covered.
Sep 8, 2011
0
#33
If the block were imited and you are unhappy about it does that mean you expecting or looking for trouble ?
I am not looking for trouble, I just think it doesn't make sense that there is a block limit.
Sep 8, 2011
0
#35
I didn't say you were looking for trouble, I was talking to anyone in general.
If someone was blocked because of opposition (non-aggressive) to their opinion, they could make a new thread if they wanted.
fissionfowl wrote:
No, I just can't believe that any sane person would block 200 people.
Why should the site limit its members to sane people? Money's money, and helps turn the wheels here.
Besides, some of the more interesting topics (I'll refrain from mentioning any obvious examples to avoid embarrassing anyone) are by not quite so sane members.
sftac
