Blocks should apply to one on one correspondence only, and should also be automatically reciprocal.
Dangerous flaw in block member system
Sort:
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
woodshover wrote: What's the point of being able to block somebody if they can still post in the threads you start?
+1
-2
The main purpose of blocking is to prevent someone from bothering you on a personal level-- your games, your email, your home page notes, your private messages.
The only reason I have blocked people is to keep them from harassing me by posting in the threads I start.
woodshover wrote:
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
woodshover wrote: What's the point of being able to block somebody if they can still post in the threads you start?
+1
-2
The main purpose of blocking is to prevent someone from bothering you on a personal level-- your games, your email, your home page notes, your private messages.
The only reason I have blocked people is to keep them from harassing me by posting in the threads I start.
It would be even more fun if I could block people from posting in the threads they start.
If I could do that, I would randomly do that to people whether they harrassed me or not, just because I could.
Why would you block a member of the staff? They are definitely not gonna break their own rules (No personal attacks, spamming, etc.), so why would you wanna block them?
I want privacy.
If I block someone, I don't want to see them ever again.
I say keep the forums blocked.
Aug 19, 2011
0
#67
Blocking doesn't keep you from seeing someone's posts. It doesn't even get rid of posts they made in your threads before you blocked them. It just prevents them from adding new posts to threads started by you.
woodshover wrote:
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
woodshover wrote: What's the point of being able to block somebody if they can still post in the threads you start?
+1
-2
The main purpose of blocking is to prevent someone from bothering you on a personal level-- your games, your email, your home page notes, your private messages.
The only reason I have blocked people is to keep them from harassing me by posting in the threads I start.
Have you tried not starting stupid threads?
TheGrobe wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Cystem_Phailure wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
woodshover wrote: What's the point of being able to block somebody if they can still post in the threads you start?
+1
-2
The main purpose of blocking is to prevent someone from bothering you on a personal level-- your games, your email, your home page notes, your private messages.
The only reason I have blocked people is to keep them from harassing me by posting in the threads I start.
Have you tried not starting stupid threads?
Stupid is subjective, stupid.
Evidently.
Is this the dangerous part?
brilliantboy wrote:
checkmateibeatu wrote:
If I were person B, I wouldn't care, because I'd know that that stuff is false (not that what person A did was justified)
But the danger is that other people reading the thread who are less informed might take it as truth
It should be up to the moderators to decide what is and isn't spam/abuse, not individual members. This is after all a public discussion forum and when posting a thread you should know that not everyone is going to agree with your arguments (especially if they're blatantly false and based on nothing more than your own fantasies).
The block system should only apply to private communications and game seeks between members
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
IMDeviate wrote:
...
... members ... lack ... intellectual prowess ....
That's why so many of the threads in these forums are just...stupid.
It's more concise this way.
IMDeviate wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
IMDeviate wrote:
...
... members ... lack ... intellectual prowess ....
That's why so many of the threads in these forums are just...stupid.
It's more concise this way.
Yeah but my use of the word "prowess" will send 78% of chess.com members to the dictionary. My mistake.
IM David Prowess...the guy who does the videos 
IMDeviate wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
IMDeviate wrote:
...
... members ... lack ... intellectual prowess ....
That's why so many of the threads in these forums are just...stupid.
It's more concise this way.
Yeah but my use of the word "prowess" will send 78% of chess.com members to the dictionary. My mistake.
I've blocked four people on here who didn't block me first, and it had nothing to do with chess. It was because of them constantly posting stupid, harassing comments in my threads, after they were told several times to stop. The other one, I just can't stand. Two more are blocked because they blocked me first. No idea why because I had never posted in their threads. If I blocked people just because they knew more about chess than me, I would have to block the whole dang site.
This rule change proposal is absolutely ridiculous. When I block people, they are people who keep voting for Lenny Bongcloud in my threads, and if this rule change happened, they would still be able to do it and I would have no means to take matters into my own hands to stop them.
checkmateibeatu wrote:
This rule change proposal is absolutely ridiculous. When I block people, they are people who keep voting for Lenny Bongcloud in my threads, and if this rule change happened, they would still be able to do it and I would have no option but to whine about it incessantly.
+1
-2
The main purpose of blocking is to prevent someone from bothering you on a personal level-- your games, your email, your home page notes, your private messages.