Blocking Issue

I agree about the existence of a feature to block someone. However, I suggest that these features apply a system of disincentives. Whoever is blocked, then he will experience a reduction in points.

This sanction is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the features. This feature would be useful if he has a sanction. A player will not underestimate the threat of blocking the opponent, if he did something unpleasant. Severe consequences of blocking effects will make the players become more cautious.

Furthermore, to avoid the actions blocking undertaken arbitrarily, then each process block must be approved by a moderator first.

Do you agree? Do you have a different idea to make the blocking feature can be more effective?

Horrible ideas.

The primary purpose of the block feature is to allow users to self moderate so that staff doesn't have to intervene in every petty little squabble.  The suggestion that blocks should be approved by a moderator runs completely counter to this.

Also, having a block be punitive beyond the restrictions of the block itself is just asking for it to be abused.

There are a few things that should be changed about the block feature, however:

• The 200 user restriction seems arbitrary and restrictive I don't see why there's a restriction at all (even though I've never blocked anyone myself)
• Blocks should apply to one-on-one interactions only (challenges, notes, PMs, trophies etc.) and not to public ones (forums)
• Block should be immediately and automatically reciprocal (i.e. you blocking me automatically ads the opposite block from me to you as well)

We realized that all this time Blocking Feature has been underestimated . The players aren't worried about receiving threats of blocking. This attitude indicates that they didn't realize their mistake. On different occasions and to other people, they probably will repeat their actions were not pleasant. Therefore, the blocking features must be accompanied the sanction firmly in it so that it becomes more effective.

#1 and #2 seem pretty reasonable; however, I disagree with #3. There are a few people who have blocked me, who I have no intention to block.

Also, another proposed change I've been considering is: you shouldn't be able to block anyone that you've never interacted with - that is, someone that you've never played a game with, who's never sent u a pm and never posted in any of your threads.

Not a great idea, because some really anonoying guy will block everyone on chess.com and everyone would lose rating points...

It's effective by virtue of the fact that it prevents any further interaction between you and the individual you block.  It's not meant to be a deterrent, it's meant to be a mitigant.

I don't know about that -- what problem is it trying to solve exactly?  I can think of scenarios where you'd want to pre-emptively block someone, either through seeing their interactions in general or after they've abused you in someone else's thread.

The reason for the reciprocal block, by the way, is for the "block and abuse" problem.  There have been cases cited in the forums where a member has blocked someone, and then gone on to immediately harass them knowing that any kind of response is impossible.  This would prevent that from occurring (though it wouldn't prevent the "abuse then block" version).

How to prevent the risk of recurrence of unpleasant attitude to the other players?

I know... it's just something I've been thinking about. I haven't decided whether I think it's a good idea or not. I've also been thinking about whether you should receive a notification every time someone blocks you, but I think that would discourage people from using the block function, and make them go to the staff with a problem that could be solved simply by blocking.

Then maybe have a rule that says something like, if you sent someone a pm and they haven't replied, you can only block them x hours after you sent the pm? However, as soon as they reply u can block them immediately.

I block people who say or leave outrageously offensive things to other people even if I have never interacted with them.  I do some investigation to find out why they said what they've said first though.  If I find out that a person habitually goes around saying very offensive things, I am not going to chance encountering him/her.  It's like in real life, you don't want to engage people with psychiatric problems.  It's very taxing to the mind and  there's no point to it.

I think blocking should absolutely apply to forums.  If I see that a person has a penchant for marring people's discussions I don't want them in my thread. 

I also disagree with 200 user ristriction.  (why the limit?)

I'm not sure about the deducting points idea though.  I think blocking is enough. 

I don't think blocking is the tool indended to address the corrective angle.  That's for the moderators.  Report abuse if you feel someone needs to be reminded to play nice.

The problem is that the thread isn't your thread -- it belongs to the community.  Chess.com clearly came out in favour of this view when they removed the ability for the creators of threads to delete them.

I think a better approach for the public forums would be an ignore function that hides an abusive user's content.

In fact, I think an ignore function in general would go along ways towards addressing the issue of trolling here if people used it properly.  Since we all seem to be unable to refrain from engaging abusive users (fulfilling the reason they posted in the first place), perhaps if it were easier to simply turn their contributions off more of us would simply "ignore the troll".

Without the gratification of knowing they got under someone's skin, most trolls would probably stop trying.

I only block someone for a good valid reason. 

You'd think, but how often do you see a thread locked upon the OPs request.

I didn't know that it belongs to the community.  Did someone official come out and say that? I don't see the conneciton between chess.com removing the ability for the creators of threads to delete the threads and them coming out in favor of that view.  If you are right, the grobe, thank you for informing.  I thought that you could not delete you threads so that you watch what you say because there will be a record of it, not because it's a community property.

Oh Glen Beck went away because he was ignored?  I didn't know that.  That's awesome!  lol.  He was scary. 

And, I didn't know that norm ( that the threads are community property).  Thank you.  Now I know :)