Blocking from being read

[RichardInTN]

Forum URL: politicsandstuff.proboards.com/

Full disclosure: I am NOT the Board's Admin nor am I a Moderator or anyone with any power...

There was some discussion happening on the board I referenced regarding blocking members, and it gave me an idea for a feature request.

I think that an option should be added to the already existing four blocking options... currently there are:

Hide this member's posts.

Do not let this member start new conversations with me.

Do not let this member follow me or my activities.

Block notifications from this member.

I think that an option should be created that would "Hide my posts and threads from this member"... and they would NOT have an option to be opened by the member. If selected, the member that is put on "ignore" would not even see that posts or threads had been started by the person that put them on "hide my posts" Ignore.


Something to think about.

[Craig]

Hey Richard

Should have posted yesterday when I marked this as a feature request.

The only problem i can see with that is the possibility of them seeing the posts when not logged in, assuming the forum is not locked down to members only.

[RichardInTN]

Oct 13, 2021 3:52:07 GMT -8 Craig said:

Hey Richard

Should have posted yesterday when I marked this as a feature request.

The only problem i can see with that is the possibility of them seeing the posts when not logged in, assuming the forum is not locked down to members only.

It's an imperfect world with imperfect solutions for imperfect problems... LOL

It would work great though on boards that didn't allow "guest" access... or areas of public boards that were blocked from public view.

[Derek‽]

This has been requested several times in the past and it's always been met with a tepid response at best.

Opposition has tended to revolve around the idea that a user shouldn't control what another user can access, as it isn't conducive to a healthy community.

PMs are like private conversations, but a thread is an open discussion in a crowded room; anyone can witness it and anyone can participate. You can ignore when someone else has spoken or you can ask a moderator to intervene if that person gets belligerent, but you don't get to exclude them from an open discussion.

[moonbeam]

You must not have people who refuse to block or ignore the other person. It just ends up being a moderating nightmare, often resulting in short term "timeouts" for both members. And then, when they get back, it starts right back up again. Thanks, but no thanks. I would love to reduce this sort of childishness.

[RichardInTN]

Oct 16, 2021 15:42:00 GMT -8 Derek‽ said:

This has been requested several times in the past and it's always been met with a tepid response at best.

Opposition has tended to revolve around the idea that a user shouldn't control what another user can access, as it isn't conducive to a healthy community.

PMs are like private conversations, but a thread is an open discussion in a crowded room; anyone can witness it and anyone can participate. You can ignore when someone else has spoken or you can ask a moderator to intervene if that person gets belligerent, but you don't get to exclude them from an open discussion.

"Opposition" is wrong. Sorry. Users absolutely should have some say in who can see their content... otherwise they may not feel as free to post as they could.

It's actually MORE conducive to a healthy community because it opens up more WANTED dialog without unwanted snark interruption and insults.

I agree that PM's are private conversations (that's what the "P" in "PM stands for). Boards/threads with this ability wouldn't be "private conversations" they would be more like "establishments that let anyone in except known troublemakers"

[RichardInTN]

Oct 16, 2021 16:10:55 GMT -8 moonbeam said:

You must not have people who refuse to block or ignore the other person. It just ends up being a moderating nightmare, often resulting in short term "timeouts" for both members. And then, when they get back, it starts right back up again. Thanks, but no thanks. I would love to reduce this sort of childishness.

It would also reduce the number of times you have to ban people simply for defending themselves from unwarranted attacks.