For the most part, the people I block, I don't mind seeing them in the forums. It doesn't bother me if they jump on one of my posts or tag me. However, some forum activity is simply exhausting to me. I don't want to see it at all, and I don't want the OP to interact with me in any way. Would it be possible to add such settings, to customize the level of blocking that we want to use to include a toggle for, say, preventing certain users from joining groups that we own and hiding their forum posts and replies (also preventing them from using @ pings)?

This was a common concern on DA back in the day... something that was tested out amongst the same people eager to talk of others where they couldn't reach before making seconds, thirds, etc. of the topics they couldn't interact in. If that's done here (and not saying I'm not indifferent to it), I imagine more than an immunity option would be necessary.

So, I haven't approached doing blocks on the forums for a number of reasons, primarily what does a block on the forums mean? Does it mean you don't see posts by that person? Does it mean that your posts and threads are invisible to that person? What about posts that are already in a thread you're in? What about if that user gets quoted in a reply in a thread you're both in? What if you're both in a thread that neither of you originated? How to handle thread continuity with hidden posts? There is a lot to consider and it's not a simple issue to change in code, either, unfortunately.

That being said, there's been several requests for blocking to extend to the forums, so I've been considering it. It will take a lot of work to implement.

As to the blocking toggles to select where a person is blocked, that's a good idea that I hadn't considered. That too will take a lot of work to implement, as it'll fundamentally change the way that blocking works as it's currently an atomic option. Block all or nothing. But, yeah, I should at the very least consider extending blocking to preventing @ pings and joining groups you own.

-- BK

I've never used CivFanatics' "Ignore" feature, but the way it works is to hide users' posts and disregard notifications. I believe in vBulletin it spoilered the posts so they could still be 'peeked' discretely, but apparently in Xenforo it straight up delists them, including thread OPs. Backroom discussions of a general opt-out protocol were the basis for the Mute proposal, which would be the best way to extend block coverage to the Forums without disrupting thread integrity.

I would advise against cascade blocking on Groups: staff promotions could cause unintended disruption if multiple users hold Owner status. Groups already have a dedicated 'Ban' function.

If I were to give my two cents and offer a compromise system, what if the forums were set up so that, instead of blocked people being programmed out of replying to a blocked person, it sets the reply to approval (or an optional deletion system where there is an element of control by the blocker), similar to the subreddits on Reddit where the post button says "request to post"? And BadKarma can decide if he wants it set up so that it's the mods who approve a post or the blocker (mods make more sense to me). I can sort of see both sides here, you don't want harassers but you also don't want the kind of person who gets kicked out of a bar and enacts revenge by setting up another bar across the street (that never ends well). An absolutist system for forum blocking also isn't a good idea for sites with custom infrastructure.

I don't want someone I've blocked having a say in whether or not my blocking choices will be honored. I'd like absolute control over who does/n't appear to me or get to see what I draw/write/post.

I'd say this is a good start. A good thing to do I think is to look at other places and learn from their mistakes. Selective invisibility adds power to people wanting to do a hit-and-run (to say something and then use a smokescreen). Maybe give the full effects of the ability an intentional 24-hour delay. Ultimately it's up to the people in charge here.

I'm just offering my input on the practicality of an issue that doesn't originate from any one person at this point is all (nothing meant to be a slight). As they say in New York...

A cartoon dog looking pleased with itself as it stands in a puddle of its own urine. I'll leave it at, "thank you for your input."

Who said it was urine (eek)? I just drew a random puddle. But anyways, you're welcome. It is the dream that all bad moods/vibes can be remedied.

I don't see this as desirable: if blocking is extended to the Forums, the expectation should be people are blocked; being asked to screen blockees' content would be at best an annoyance, at worst intentional harassment. Passing it to Staff doesn't help: beyond creating needless busywork, we're then burdened with interpreting intent between antagonistic parties. (There are also considerable structural pitfalls: If a post airs late due to being held for approval, it can disrupt the discussion's flow.)

This also presumes to give users vetting power in the public square that feels inappropriate. This is not Reddit where the OP "owns" the thread, and a protocol by which users can unilaterally censor each other runs contrary to the site mission and the purpose of the Forums themselves.

This is why I believe an "opt-out" protocol is the best approach: the blocker receives peace of mind, while preserving the thread's integrity for the general membership.

I will also repeat my request to please cut quote-blocks down to what's relevant to your reply. Or at the very least, use the Details tags.

I have a suggestion. Maybe a functionality can be implemented that makes replies from blocked users appear hidden to the blocker so the blockee can still participate in the same thread if they wish, but the blocker can't see it? I've been to a few forums in the past that used this feature, and also forums that used the hard-block system that made it so you can't respond to the blocker's thread, and the latter would often devolve to one or both users getting upset and resorting to pseudo-block evasion behavior.

I agree with this.

Sorry, it's a habit that comes from switching between devices. Not all devices can highlight text for removal.

Without delving into its contents since it's a PM, I will say I had been talking with management about my past content and have been wondering as long as this topic is up: now if we do implement normal blocking in the forums, what would be the difference between threads and journals? If one is more "forumy", the block feature in one would be more "forumy", correct? Re-asking here in case maybe I'm underestimating or overestimating incentive and maybe it should be run by everyone.

Yeah, this is more of how I envision blocking would be implemented on here. Not as a total lock-out of someone's access to the forums, but rather as a "make the blocked person's posts invisible to the blocker" methodology. This poses the unique situation of how to handle a thread created by the blocked person. By the above rules, the originating post would be invisible to the blocker, but the thread would be visible and able to be responded to. Posts from the blocked person would simply display something akin to "This post is blocked from view."

-- BK

Well, since you've posed this query publicly, I'll give my answer publicly. Others are certainly welcome to offer their own input.

The forums are a community town square where anyone can post. Journals are your personal posting of which you have more control.

For example, in your journal, you can opt to allow others to respond to your entry or not. As of v5.24 which is rolling out this week, journals also will have ratings, content warnings (if needed), and the ability for the journal's owner to decide if they want their post advertised on the front page of the site. Soon, you'll also be able to make journal entries private, public, or friends-only.

In the forums, you don't have that kind of control. You never will. It's a public meeting place. Blocking is being considered for the forums in a way that doesn't disrupt thread continuity, and is non-destructive. It gives people the ability to no longer see posts from those people that they may have an issue with; some additional peace of mind. Considering the forums are public access, with threads advertised on the front page, this might give people some additional security when posting to the forums.

-- BK