No Thanks A "Block" option in either the "Ignored Members" or "Privacy" sections of the User CP.

After posting this in the Premium section and seeming to get a positive response, I'm posting this here to officially make the suggestion. Also Misty closed that thread because she's a meanie. Okay she was actually being pretty reasonable but still. Oh, and thank you for fixing the title field. That was nice of you.

Anyway...

It's not really a huge deal, but I think it would be nice to have the option of blocking ignored members from seeing our posts. I understand that a feature like this would be very easy to abuse, but I have a few solutions to that.

1. Since it just makes sense, only ignored members should be able to get blocked.
2. Corollary: Blocking a member disables the ability to show their posts with the "Show ignored content" button.
3. Members should have the option to be notified with an Alert when they are blocked and by whom. These alerts would be enabled by default.
4. Blocking would not affect the "blockee's" ability to start conversations with the blocker. This is, obviously, so the blockee can ask why he or she was blocked. It's much easier to ignore a PM anyway. The block would still apply to posts in other conversations.

What does everyone think? I'm mainly suggesting this because at the moment, most of the people on my ignore list (and I'm not going to give names) are there because they clearly find me annoying and are *******s about it instead of just ignoring me, so the most logical solution is to make them unable to see my posts from my side.

 

If there's content you don't want people seeing or replying to--either because it's personal or because you worry about how someone will react to it--then maybe you should reconsider putting it on a public forum. If someone is repeatedly replying to your posts with hostile comments, you can easily report them to the staff. Just because a singular post of theirs might not warrant direct action by the staff, if it is a repeated thing for the user, we will most definitely apply punishment.

There is a modification available for XenForo that forces two users to ignore each other. When I initially saw it I thought it could be useful for the community; however, upon consideration, if a user cannot conduct themselves in a civilized manner even amongst people they have some sort of personal problem with--do they really belong in this community? My thought is no. Likewise, if you find your posts are attracting a lot of negative attention... maybe you should think about what you're saying, or how you're saying it.

People can and have changed their behaviors towards a user after a staff intervention. Sometimes people just need to have that heads up of "hey, what you're doing isn't okay," and then they will modify their conduct. And if they don't, then they'll face further action by the staff.

 

Right now, the block button basically disables users from seeing your posts, I'm guessing? And this would take it a step further so you could control what they see from you?

I guess that makes some sense in the aspect of privacy. But before I come in all "woo staff is the solution" it'd be nice to hear if the suggestion has any merit from other members.

What do you guys think?

 

I really like this. There are a few members who I just can't deal with anymore, and would rather fully block than ignore.

 

There is no "block" button--that's what KS is proposing adding. We have the ignore feature.

I haven't used the Ignore feature in depth so I could have missed some things / been a bit inaccurate but say User A puts User B on ignore. Any posts that User B makes will be hidden from User A, for the most part. At the bottom of a thread that User B has posted in, User A will see a link "Show Ignored Content" link. On clicking it, User A would see User B's posts in that thread temporarily. That way, if User B did in fact post something important or helpful, User A would not be deprived of it simply because they may not like User B personally.

Should User B attempt to start any conversations with User A, they will not be sent to User A. Likewise, if User B quotes or likes anything by User A, I do not think that User A will be notified (but I'm unsure on that part).

Nothing posted by User A will be hidden from User B. The system is designed so that the ignored user (User B) will, ideally, not know that User A has placed them on ignore.

You also cannot ignore members of the staff for obvious reasons (their posts may be important or they may need to contact you).

I never said that getting the staff involved was the end all be all solution, nor did I close this for discussion. I simply think that our current tools for dealing with problem members are adequate. The thread is still open and marked as pending, that means people are fully allowed to sound out.

From an ethical standpoint I still don't love this solution, however. The ignore system is passive--you can ignore someone and have them not know it. It's a rather peaceful solution, imo, if you really can't stand someone. With the proposed "block" option, however, you're hiding your content from a select access list. What if you made some really useful or helpful post? Should someone really be deprived of that just because you don't like them or don't get along? Not to mention that they would know that you blocked them and could easily see your posts by viewing as a guest--and still, potentially, reply to your posts.

You don't have to get the staff involved, either. You are perfectly welcome to contact someone about their seeming personal issue with you and try to sort it out. But if someone knows you've placed them on ignore and is being a jerk about it, I'd consider that an abuse and something the staff can act on. Likewise, it is unlikely that someone is a jerk just to you and a magical sparkling princess to all other members of the forum, which only gives weight to reporting to the staff--it is likely that it won't be our first reported problem with the member and that will expedite us into action. And even if it is, we can shoot them a quick "Hey, we know you're aware that so-and-so ignored you. If you could peacefully respect that they'd like to keep their distance from you and not further harass them, that would be great" (but less condescending, more professional, etc etc, but you get the sentiment). But I don't believe it is acceptable for any member to treat someone in a way that compels them to ask for an in-depth block option. If they are doing so, again, I do not think they are functioning alongside our rules--and the only tools that we need in that case are the ones we have (warnings, infractions, or even bans).

It is worth noting that aside from the add-on I linked to in my first post, there's no feature of this sort available.

 

Yeah, I've only tried it once when dealing with a member inquiry about it, but that's it. I really don't have a lot personal use in it. It'd be nice if those who use it currently pitched in.

I completely understand this sentiment/argument. I just want to hear some member opinions without them being scared that we sort of "swooped in" at the same time with strong arguments, haha.

 

To add more to my statement from before, I would really like it because there are certain people that go out of their way to question what I do or write in my posts. It's annoying because it happens every time (off-site of course). Still, it would save me a lot of headaches with said people if I could block them from seeing anything I post.

 

I don't really see the need for one. Like Misty said, just ignore them. Going to the staff isn't the only solution, it's just one of the best possible. If anything, just ignore them. Ignore the **** out of them. Pretty much everything has an ignore feature nowadays. I'm pretty sure my f'ing microwave has an ignore feature.

Oh dear gawd . . . The ignore whores are coming! lol

 

Ignoring on XenForo completely hides content (threads, posts, etc.) and acts like it doesn't even exist.

Say you were a regular member:

• I ignore you because you annoy me
• I will not be able to see anything from you
• If you try to quote me, it won't work

None of this is true, of course -- I like you! Additionally, if you recall, someone had me on their ignore list once, and when I would quote them, it would just merge my post with my previous one because it's like their post didn't even exist. I can't remember if it showed the quote and my reply or just my reply, though.

 

I have some members ignored, but it doesn't prevent them from replying or quoting my posts and threads, because they do do that, so having such a block feature would be nice.

 

I feel like this would be a really beneficial feature. This has actually been a concern of mine, because there are members I would like to prevent from replying and commenting to my posts and about my person in general, and as stated in my prior post, the ignore feature could be improved. I think having both ignore and block features would be beneficial as the user can decide how to have their information filtered, both ways, instead of just one way. The ignore feature could be improved to make it seem that the user does not exist, because threads typically show if the latest post from an ignored user. I'd rather not know, because their presence is bothersome to me to begin with, I just don't want to see it at all.
Having a block feature would also address privacy concerns, because if I make a thread, or post in a thread, and see, oh hey, there's that person I have on ignore and he's posted there, it's obvious that they are involved with my post in some way. And also, even if it does not appear in an alert, i can still see if the ignored member liked one of my posts, because it's written underneath it. The block feature could also force the blocked user to unfollow you. Again, I would rather not have the person I ignore see my posts.
Both should co-exist as seperate features, because some members may want to block a member from viewing their stuff, but still want to see theirs, or they may want to ignore a member, but it doesnt bother them if they see a post. Or they may want both.
And on the note that "if the users can't sort it out themselves, they need to report it to staff," it's not necessarily a dispute or anything between two members, but one member may just dislike another member and it is a bother to their membership and user experience, and one that they would rather not create a fuss about.
Even if an add-on does not currently exist, efforts should be made to create such an addition as it may ease hostility members have between one another, and may even prevent hostility from occurring if members have the ability to control the information they send and receive in the first place.

 

As much as I understand the positives some members can get out of qn ignore feature, I would like to point out that even if half the features here were included, it's not going to magically mean you're happier or that your problems go away. A social community in any medium such as real life or online means that in reality you won't be able to ignore someone one hundred percet of the time. Imagine this place as a school grounds, as soon as you access yourself to the school you have the potential for encountering everyone in that community, you can see your friends, people you don't know and people you may not like. As much as you might avoid then as much as possible, their name may crop up, or they may post a thread that gets popular or something like that. When you are in that community you have a potential to interact with any member of that community.

Sometimes in life you have to just cope and deal with it, get better at processing your thoughts to ignore the problem and avoid it instead of hoping this feature will do it for you, because like I said it's not a guaranteed success all of the time. And especially if you hear about that member off site, where we have no jurisdiction to implement such a feature, sometimes it's best if that person processes their problem more effectively than we can help them with it.

I mean, as staff, in the past, i've had problems with members who can get aggressive or insulting and in a professional and personal manner i can not just ignore them away, i'm sure many staff here and elsewhere know what i mean and it's just developing yourself and enhancing your abilities to develop the ability in order to cope with people causing you problem.

 

The staff are not the members parents. A members decision to cope or not to cope with a situation, is on the members shoulders, not the staffs shoulders. It isn't up to you guys to try and raise the members and give them morals and ethics. Either they have 'em or they don't, or they may have DIFFERING ethics and see it differently than you do. This may be the best way for them to cope with the situation, especially if they have tried other methods. This may be the final option people would have, it may be the first choice for others. It is poor choice to assume that every member is going to have the same attitude about the feature. And your role as staff is a poor comparison as that was your decision to have those responsibilities, and I'm sure you were aware of those responsibilities when you took on your position (absolutely no offense intended, just trying to be factual). Even though it was a decision for members to join the forum, we are not in the position to sort out everyone's problems, as they may come up. I'm not saying you are wrong, because I've got my own responsibilities and I have to cope with jerks and douchebags, and we all do, and I know exactly where you're coming from, but really, this is not a moral or ethical issue. It's just a matter of improving member experiences. It's a forum for Pete's sake, really not the place to try and be everyone's mum and make sure they grow up to be well-behaved adults.

 

I wasn't making it a moral or ethical issue, I was telling you the facts. You can't avoid someone completely and wholly if you both go to the same place and know the same people, you're going to cross paths in some form, that's almost inevitable. It wouldn't change even if you blocked the member entirely, because if you go on Skype with other KHVidians or read posts of others mentioning a member you don't like, we can't blacklist their name out or tell people to be quiet about talking with or about said member.
What I'm saying, is that when you do cross paths, especially in the tiniest ways, we can't tell someone to go away for you if they are doing nothing rule breaking. That is when each individual will have to deal with it themselves in their own way, because if members consistently asked us to deal with problems like some you don't like waid your name or tried to reply to you civilly, we would definitely be 'mummying' members.

At the end of the day, most of the staff are responsible for dealing with rule breaking and enforcing said rules. I'm not coming from a place as staff of KHV when i'm telling you this (i was making an example of members interacting mainly) but someone who has been on this forum for over five years. The way I ignored members was by dealing with each individual poster, and back in 2007, you had to ignore people of your own accord as much as possible, we had no ignore button when someone would make jokes at us or insulted us, we had to deal with it. Having an ignore feature in place is a great step to people who rile you up or irritate you and don't ruin your experience on the site. But Staff can't forcibly police and monitor what individual members posts about each other than we already do, and we won't take action until we see it fit.
At some point and in some capacity members have to have their own ability to deal with things, like other members and I had to do in the past, like not opening posts up of members you have ignore, we can't control if you want to open up their posts, that's up to the individual.

 

...

 

friendly reminder i was here in 2007.

anyhow, i'm tired of writing giant walls of text, so i'm gonna keep this short and since we're getting fairly off topic, I'm gonna try and approach this a little differently. This would be a way to keep staff from "mommying" members over little instances. If the member had control over how posts are sent, received, etc, it would be a way to completely circumvent that sort of bs. That is all beside the point, because I know an add-on does not exist for a block feature. If one does come around with the next Xenforo update, I would like to see it implemented.

On terms of the ignore feature, like I was saying earlier, it is broken. I do not want to see the posts of members I have on ignore. I should not have to see the latest post being "Ignored Member", it should be of the latest non-ignored member. Updating this feature would be greatly beneficial as it would actually work like an ignore feature, rather than a hide feature. It would give me a bit more control of what I see. And if I go on Skype, and other members are talking about a member I ignore, then that is my issue to deal with with my friends, it does not in any part affect how my browsing experience should be on KHV.[DOUBLEPOST=1375010163][/DOUBLEPOST]

Just want to touch on this a little. For me, it is not a matter of whether or not they SEE the post, it's rather to prevent them from replying. Because it's rather obvious when an ignored member replies to my thread or post, since I will go into it, and at the very bottom, it shows, the block of the post, showing the username, avatar and everything, just not the content of the post. This is not a true ignore feature, just a hide feature. I feel this at the very least should be fixed.

 

But why should it matter if they're replying unless rules are being broken? Some members may be sarcastic, but no one can decide who has or doesn't have any right to reply to them. I may ignore members, but they can reply to me if they do wish, I just won't see it. And as for the like thing... It's a stupid like. It's not a big deal or anything. It's a one-button way of saying "I agree" with someone. Wanting an ignore feature for something as trivial as this is fairly dumb and a grave misuse of the feature.