How to block two users from seeing each other's

[johnkenn]

Posts? I can't seem to find the way to block them from each other?

[D]

Jun 1, 2017 14:25:46 GMT -8 johnkenn said:

Posts? I can't seem to find the way to block them from each other?

Hi,

Members can manually block other members by going into the profile page of the person they wish to block and clicking on the cog icon in their profile, where the option to block appears. What this does, however, is stop the person doing the blocking being able to read the posts of the person they want to block.

However, there is no way for members to block another member from seeing their own posts, and there is no way for the admin to do this - it has to come from the individual members.

There is a useful thread dealing with the same issue here.

[saltin]

Maybe this should be a feature request for V6?
I can see this being a usefull tool for an admin in keeping the peace between some members due to personality conflicts and what not.

[Michael]

Hi,

Blocking is already a feature in v5. Just click on the cog wheel icon inside a users profile and select "Block Member".

[moonbeam]

I think he means making it possible for admins to do it. To be honest, I would love that feature. I cannot tell you how many times I have people battling on the forum, and they refuse to block one another or act like adults. I would love to be able to force that mutual ignoring, and be done with it.

[RichardInTN]

Even though I'd bet good real IRL money that I'm one of the ones that moonbeam is talking about on her forum (LOL), I agree that it could come in handy... especially if used with the add-on CSS coding that completely removes even the appearance that they posted in a thread and you can unblock it to read it!

Maybe as an option for Staff to edit under "Staff Options" on everyone's profiles?

ETA: There are a couple of members on my forum that sometimes (read: always) need a time out from each other... but they won't do it themselves.

[Scott]

Personally I have mixed feelings on this. While I see a benefit as outlined above, I do also see the potential for misuse. I mean my first thought when reading all this is censorship, followed by possible favoritism by staff.

There are already mechanisms available to achieve this, with the simplest being the disable account feature. You can specify a date and time for the account to automatically become active again. It can be set for a few minutes or to any future day.

Another viable option is to setup a 'time out' member group. It can be used to let warring members view threads/posts but not create or reply to threads; and/or it can also limit their access to certain boards.

[moonbeam]

It's definitely true that there's potential for abuse. I've had to resort to threatening bans if the people involved won't ignore each other after I've told them to use that feature. I also occasionally utilize the post choke plugin to restrict people from posting to certain threads where necessary.

I guess I just really resent having to police "adults" and don't even want to deal with it.

[?adwoman?]

Theoretically, can PostChoke be rewritten to choke members not post/boards?

[Scott]

?adwoman?,
The plugin let's you choke based on the member(s) assigned.

[RichardInTN]

Jun 2, 2017 9:33:03 GMT -8 Scott said:

Personally I have mixed feelings on this. While I see a benefit as outlined above, I do also see the potential for misuse. I mean my first thought when reading all this is censorship, followed by possible favoritism by staff.

There are already mechanisms available to achieve this, with the simplest being the disable account feature. You can specify a date and time for the account to automatically become active again. It can be set for a few minutes or to any future day.

Another viable option is to setup a 'time out' member group. It can be used to let warring members view threads/posts but not create or reply to threads; and/or it can also limit their access to certain boards.

The problems with both of those though... Others may not have a problem with "Member A", and so why shouldn't they get to read posts by that person.

Another option, to (somewhat) protect against abuse: something I will call "coin blocking"... you can't have just one side of a coin... right? Well "coin blocking" would be bi-directional. If imposed by an Admin or Moderator, all blocks would automatically go BOTH WAYS. Heads AND Tails. "Member A" wouldn't see "Member B", and on the other side of the coin(block) "Member B" wouldn't see "Member A".

Also wouldn't hurt for enforced blocking to be a permanent notification of some kind. (like on the Summary page, the same way that "Friends" and "Following" work)

[Šcott]

I take off my admin cap and here's my personal take on this:

We can't hand hold every member and keep creating new features to force users to stop bickering (or antagonizing each other) or to get along. These members that go at each other need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions. 

If you have an issue with another member, you work it out, or you block and/or ignore them and move on. If a member won't block another that irks them and continues the fight openly on a forum, then they are purposely choosing to disrupt the forum and are being disrespectful to the staff and the other forum members.

To me if members fight and are "coin blocked" (a term used in a post above), what did this really solve other than forcibly pretending each other isn't there?



I venture to say the members that continue to fight are pushing the boundaries of cyberbullying. (The use of digital-communication tools to make another person feel angry, sad, or scared, usually again and again.) There is a difference between members that have the occasional misunderstanding, or have passionate discussions on a topic, versus those that continually go at each other with the intent of antagonizing the other.

If I may quote mmhmm from this thread (link):

"In short, if they're going to fight, they're going to fight. The best way of handling it (that I've found) is to let them know that if they can't post civilly and responsibly, they'll need to stop posting. I've put our "battlers" on short "vacations" (using the disable option) in the past to make it clear their bickering is not going to be tolerated. That, along with your forum rules, usually clears up the problem. "

I'm assuming forum staff asks these members to behave and recommend the block option. If staff are ignored then temporarily disabling the accounts would be an appropriate measure to enforce the standards of respect on the forum.

The age of hiding behind a keyboard to be a jerk needs to stop.

[val2525]

^^^I wish I could like this a thousand times.  Well said!  Meanwhile, this thread gave me some good ideas. I didn't know about all these options.  Love them!

[val2525]

Talk about timing. I'm about to use some of the features I just learned about today. LOL!

[RichardInTN]

Jun 3, 2017 10:16:46 GMT -8 Šcott said:

I take off my admin cap and here's my personal take on this:

We can't hand hold every member and keep creating new features to force users to stop bickering (or antagonizing each other) or to get along. These members that go at each other need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions. 

If you have an issue with another member, you work it out, or you block and/or ignore them and move on. If a member won't block another that irks them and continues the fight openly on a forum, then they are purposely choosing to disrupt the forum and are being disrespectful to the staff and the other forum members.

To me if members fight and are "coin blocked" (a term used in a post above), what did this really solve other than forcibly pretending each other isn't there?



I venture to say the members that continue to fight are pushing the boundaries of cyberbullying. (The use of digital-communication tools to make another person feel angry, sad, or scared, usually again and again.) There is a difference between members that have the occasional misunderstanding, or have passionate discussions on a topic, versus those that continually go at each other with the intent of antagonizing the other.

If I may quote mmhmm from this thread (link):

"In short, if they're going to fight, they're going to fight. The best way of handling it (that I've found) is to let them know that if they can't post civilly and responsibly, they'll need to stop posting. I've put our "battlers" on short "vacations" (using the disable option) in the past to make it clear their bickering is not going to be tolerated. That, along with your forum rules, usually clears up the problem. "

I'm assuming forum staff asks these members to behave and recommend the block option. If staff are ignored then temporarily disabling the accounts would be an appropriate measure to enforce the standards of respect on the forum.

The age of hiding behind a keyboard to be a jerk needs to stop.

I have an answer to that...

It would create the peace. If you have a nudist family one one piece of private property and a conservative Amish family right beside them, the easiest way to maintain the peace between them is a fence high enough that neither can see or interact with the other... everything else attends to itself.

Let me also put it this way... Question: What good were Nuclear Warheads in the Cold War? We never even used them after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Answer: The knowledge that we had them, and could and would use them if necessary, maintained the peace. It only takes a couple of examples, and then everyone starts behaving better.