Blocking forum users.

[Illurim.6059]

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > @"Illurim.6059" said:

> > It's a forum. People don't have the right to restrict the posts of others because they find them objectionable or "too much to deal with". They do, absolutely, have the right to pass them over and move to posts they find more interesting though. That's what adults do.

>

> Obviously there have to be limits to certain behaviors. Would it be okay if I post 100 frivolous threads every day? No? How about 99? Still too many? How about 98? See where this is going? Let's skip a few numbers. How about 20? 19? 18? 12? Maybe you want to propose a number?

 

It's not obvious to me that there has to be limits to certain behaviours. The very point I'm making is all about self-control and self-discipline. To answer your question with an example that might give you insight into what I mean: Most of the posts on the forum aren't of interest to me. I ignore them. I respond to the one or two a week that might be of interest or where I think there's civil discussion being had (and not point-scoring discussion, which I have no interest in). So, your limit question makes no sense to me, because I just ignore the things I'm not interested in engaging with. That's what I think other people should do, making limits irrelevant.

[Illurim.6059]

> @"Shirlias.8104" said:

> > @"Illurim.6059" said:

> > > No you were just assuming things, don't worry.

> >

> > I'm unclear on what you think I've assumed. I've specifically addressed blocking and self-control. What assumptions have I made?

>

> You misunderstood that i was refering to a category and not directly to you ( though the sit down part was exclusively meant for you, in order to suggest you to slow down for a while ).

>

> > > Used to see users like you, so as said it's nothing unexpected.

> >

> > There's no need to be rude.

>

> I just answered with the same tone of

>

> > Simply don't read it, you have that right and that capability built into your human DNA. Use it.

>

> But instead of poking you i smiled.

 

You lost me. I don't think you're truly understanding my meaning, but I've definitely lost the thread of your logic. I seriously do not understand what you find objectionable about me saying people can exercise self-control to accomplish the outcome you're after. But, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because you didn't answer anything in the above, other than a couple of jabs at me personally. More power to you.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > @"Illurim.6059" said:

> > > It's a forum. People don't have the right to restrict the posts of others because they find them objectionable or "too much to deal with". They do, absolutely, have the right to pass them over and move to posts they find more interesting though. That's what adults do.

> >

> > Obviously there have to be limits to certain behaviors. Would it be okay if I post 100 frivolous threads every day? No? How about 99? Still too many? How about 98? See where this is going? Let's skip a few numbers. How about 20? 19? 18? 12? Maybe you want to propose a number?

>

> How about 5 that generate positive discussion vs one thread that is intended solely to request a blocking feature? It's not your decision to decide what is or isn't frivolous and acceptable on the forum. If the majority of forum users are responding just fine to it in a positive, constructive, and friendly way, just as they do to any playful or serious thread that's been made and currently on the board, then your complaint of the thread being frivolous is irrelevant.

 

> @"Illurim.6059" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > @"Illurim.6059" said:

> > > It's a forum. People don't have the right to restrict the posts of others because they find them objectionable or "too much to deal with". They do, absolutely, have the right to pass them over and move to posts they find more interesting though. That's what adults do.

> >

> > Obviously there have to be limits to certain behaviors. Would it be okay if I post 100 frivolous threads every day? No? How about 99? Still too many? How about 98? See where this is going? Let's skip a few numbers. How about 20? 19? 18? 12? Maybe you want to propose a number?

>

> It's not obvious to me that there has to be limits to certain behaviours. The very point I'm making is all about self-control and self-discipline. To answer your question with an example that might give you insight into what I mean: Most of the posts on the forum aren't of interest to me. I ignore them. I respond to the one or two a week that might be of interest or where I think there's civil discussion being had (and not point-scoring discussion, which I have no interest in). So, your limit question makes no sense to me, because I just ignore the things I'm not interested in engaging with. That's what I think other people should do, making limits irrelevant.

 

 

 

I couldn't care less about what people post here. I'm just talking generalities. Having no limits is a hare-brained proposition. You can be sure that these forums have limits that will be enforced by moderators. We just don't know what they are, because they don't tell us. Maybe the moderators don't even know what they are until they see something that's crosses a line.

[Cyrin.1035]

> You can be sure that these forums have limits that will be enforced by moderators. We just don't know what they are, because they don't tell us. Maybe the moderators don't even know what they are until they see something that's crosses a line.

 

Lol. Forum administration 101. You have to know what your forum's purpose and policy are long before you even think about creating one, especially for a major MMORPG. Forums are not a new thing. I'm sure the admins and most of the moderators know what they are doing and know their policy well. However, some may make mistakes. Limitations should be clearly laid out, reasonable, and not defeat the purpose of the forum altogether.

[Dovienya.6597]

edit: I really wish there were a delete option.

[Gabbynot.2654]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > @"Offair.2563" said:

> > Anet should put restrictions on how many polls one account can start. Like 1-2 per weeks tops so it wont get flooded with stupid polls like if you have your scythe yet or not.

>

> It's an interesting idea. We have an **expectation** that someone will not post multiple polls, but that they will want to / should focus on one at a time. We've expressed that to people who have posted multiples, so they're aware of what we set as an expectation. I don't really want to start handing out infractions about this, but I also believe that the forums should not be too heavily biased in the form of polls -- which engender less conversation -- and that they host far more discussions that surveys.

>

> That said, I'll see how things settle over the next period of time to determine if we need to formalize a limitation on polls by the same author. I intend to review the Forums Code of Conduct after the New Year to determine if there's anything we need to add, detail, or explain more clearly.

 

but still this is something that would be very nice qol for the forums to have. just like ingame. so this way for what ever reason it be any one that feels the need to use it could do so their for saving them from getting infracted or banned from the forums themselves . this way it saves you time banning people and having to give out infractions in the first place . the persons can just put that offender on their blocked list and move on . really would be a win win for all .

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"Gabbynot.2654" said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > > @"Offair.2563" said:

> > > Anet should put restrictions on how many polls one account can start. Like 1-2 per weeks tops so it wont get flooded with stupid polls like if you have your scythe yet or not.

> >

> > It's an interesting idea. We have an **expectation** that someone will not post multiple polls, but that they will want to / should focus on one at a time. We've expressed that to people who have posted multiples, so they're aware of what we set as an expectation. I don't really want to start handing out infractions about this, but I also believe that the forums should not be too heavily biased in the form of polls -- which engender less conversation -- and that they host far more discussions that surveys.

> >

> > That said, I'll see how things settle over the next period of time to determine if we need to formalize a limitation on polls by the same author. I intend to review the Forums Code of Conduct after the New Year to determine if there's anything we need to add, detail, or explain more clearly.

>

> but still this is something that would be very nice qol for the forums to have. just like ingame. so this way for what ever reason it be any one that feels the need to use it could do so their for saving them from getting infracted or banned from the forums themselves . this way it saves you time banning people and having to give out infractions in the first place . the persons can just put that offender on their blocked list and move on . really would be a win win for all .

 

No, it's not a win-win for all, and there's a good reason that people should get infractions and(very, very rarely) banned, it's because they never learn. Most people that get infractions will learn from their mistakes, those that don't will continue to get infractions up to the point that they're banned from the forums either temporarily or permanently. If you have a block function this will never happen.

[Gabbynot.2654]

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > @"Gabbynot.2654" said:

> > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > > > @"Offair.2563" said:

> > > > Anet should put restrictions on how many polls one account can start. Like 1-2 per weeks tops so it wont get flooded with stupid polls like if you have your scythe yet or not.

> > >

> > > It's an interesting idea. We have an **expectation** that someone will not post multiple polls, but that they will want to / should focus on one at a time. We've expressed that to people who have posted multiples, so they're aware of what we set as an expectation. I don't really want to start handing out infractions about this, but I also believe that the forums should not be too heavily biased in the form of polls -- which engender less conversation -- and that they host far more discussions that surveys.

> > >

> > > That said, I'll see how things settle over the next period of time to determine if we need to formalize a limitation on polls by the same author. I intend to review the Forums Code of Conduct after the New Year to determine if there's anything we need to add, detail, or explain more clearly.

> >

> > but still this is something that would be very nice qol for the forums to have. just like ingame. so this way for what ever reason it be any one that feels the need to use it could do so their for saving them from getting infracted or banned from the forums themselves . this way it saves you time banning people and having to give out infractions in the first place . the persons can just put that offender on their blocked list and move on . really would be a win win for all .

>

> No, it's not a win-win for all, and there's a good reason that people should get infractions and(very, very rarely) banned, it's because they never learn. Most people that get infractions will learn from their mistakes, those that don't will continue to get infractions up to the point that they're banned from the forums either temporarily or permanently. If you have a block function this will never happen.

 

the very reasons you just made make it more clear why their should be a block function on this forum for all users to use. !! thus putting a end to infractions and bans :# :#

 

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

If it means anything polls seem to be "un-bumpable" after 5-7 days (at least insofar as I have cared to observe). I don't think the same applies to normal threads. By all means correct me if I am wrong. Assuming this is true, then it isn't entirely correct to blame polls for forum dominance, no? Should we not put a cool-down on normal threads? Q & A's? Tough calls! Dwayna preserve us all in these dire times.

 

 

[Cyrin.1035]

> @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> If it means anything polls seem to be "un-bumpable" after 5-7 days (at least insofar as I have cared to observe). I don't think the same applies to normal threads. By all means correct me if I am wrong. Assuming this is true, then it isn't entirely correct to blame polls for forum dominance, no? Should we not put a cool-down on normal threads? Q & A's? Tough calls! Dwayna preserve us all in these dire times.

>

>

 

I think any thread that creates a lot of decent discussion and one that users want to keep responding to, should not be hindered. Why is there a need for restriction on any type of thread as long as it fits policy and creates good discussion? The focus should be encouraging discussion, not preventing it.

 

Every poll I or another has made, whether it was claimed to be biased or not, has always found a wide variety of opinions especially against any "bias" that was claimed.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"GDchiaScrub.3241" said:

> > If it means anything polls seem to be "un-bumpable" after 5-7 days (at least insofar as I have cared to observe). I don't think the same applies to normal threads. By all means correct me if I am wrong. Assuming this is true, then it isn't entirely correct to blame polls for forum dominance, no? Should we not put a cool-down on normal threads? Q & A's? Tough calls! Dwayna preserve us all in these dire times.

> >

> >

>

> I think any thread that creates a lot of decent discussion and one that users want to keep responding to, should not be hindered. Why is there a need for restriction on any type of thread as long as it fits policy and creates good discussion? The focus should be encouraging discussion, not preventing it.

>

> Every poll I or another has made, whether it was claimed to be biased or not, has always found a wide variety of opinions especially against any "bias" that was claimed.

 

Indeed. Regulation of one type of "thread" opens the gates to possible ideological beliefs that the others should be regulated as well. Assuming we're striving for "equality" anyway. Wait what was this thread about? Oh right, blocking forum users. While I can give the warning forming your own echo chambers can damage the intellectual (or is it attention span?) abilities of individuals like with facebook/twitter/etc...this is just a video game forum. So I doubt such effects would be noticeable, if even meaningful outside in the real world.

 

TLDR: Do as you wish.

 

Happy Wintersday! Remember, lizards like the cold too because magic. Huzzah!

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

I asked for something like this long ago on the old forums. Since that time, I tend to ignore certain names or posters. Either way, I'm still not against the idea, but I've learned to selectively read and skip certain postings. Either way, never let some random name on the Internet affect you.

 

In the bigger scheme of things, it's still just a forum where strangers are postings their opinions. Don't put too much thought or stress into it otherwise. It took me some time to realize this, but I've learned not to give treats to trolls.

 

It just makes life sweeter.

[Nick Lentz.6982]

Seriously, getting real sick of seeing these polls every few hours. On top of making a new thread to bump one. Isn't that banable? Anet, please make it happen. Its just to boost an unimportant ego.

[RebelliousChyld.6427]

Blocking users is actually something _most_ forums have as a feature. Due to the simple fact that it can impede upon the enjoyment of others. No, this isn't about being some sort of sensitive snowflake or anything of that nature, but because it's a normal function and feature - with the caveat that moderators/admin cannot be blocked by any user. Before anyone says "well then you're just blocking someone's ability to communicate and impeding their opinions!" Uhm... no, not really. how would I as a forum user impede you as a poster who's content I do not enjoy if I block you?

 

Answer: It doesn't.

 

And just because someone -can- ignore someone's post that they make? If you come to the forum via your phone, and are not logged in (I don't know about logged in because I haven't done that), you can't see who the poster is until you log in. I'm not sure if it shows the author of the posts if you are logged in via mobile. So _that_ option isn't viable either.

 

However, this isn't just a discussion about the ability or inability to block users, this is also about the topic of polls and their content. So here is my two coppers worth:

 

A poll should never be biased from the start - if one were to make it. However, this isn't a perfect world, so that is never going to happen. Instead, the tone that one uses should never be derogatory, inflammatory, or something of that nature. Even if it's "Hey are you sick of the kitten RNG" Or something along those lines, not because it's against the ToS, or against the community rules. But because it's against being a decent person. Also to whit when the originator/creator of said poll comes in and becomes defensive, derogatory, or inflammatory, it creates a toxic place.

 

Do we honestly need more of that? Really?

 

Because then whatever good conversation could have come from that poll is quickly dismissed and tossed to the side and nothing will come from it but a spiral of something once constructive being turned into something destructive. And then it splinters even further until we have things like _this_ being posted, and the initial post is _good_ a request straight and to the point. However, it has..derailed a few times with defensive posturing.

 

There's my 2 copper, :)

[Ceridwen.6703]

Huh. I liked those most recent polls. They were just spirit-of-the-season harmless fun, and easy enough not to delve into if it's not your bag. Given threads often degenerate in an attempt to either "win" the thread/argument/internet/awardforbiggestepeen, ill thought-out mean-spiritedness or an inability/lack of desire to debate rationally*, I think a few too many polls was the least of anyone's worries. Again, really easy to avoid them if you don't like them.

 

*Not limited to this forum, and this is one of the better ones. I will never forget ArcheAge's forums for a general lack of humanity. They were a true masterclass in how to behave like a jerk and get away with it.

 

EDIT:

 

On Blocking:

 

On one hand, a nice feature, so you don't have to see anything for particular users. It's not impeding discussion, because let's face it, it's a game forum. There's no need to worry about "bubbles" here, because it hardly matters out there in real life, where the real stuff happens. So block away!

 

On the other hand, it's a game forum. It hardly matters out there in real life what anyone says here, so there's no need to block as it really doesn't stop real life being a thing. Any time anything gets too personal, Anet moderates. Features are already in place to deal with naughty people. You can skip over anything you can't be bothered with, so you self-censor your "bubble" anyway. So no need for a block feature, we can do it ourselves!

 

Sometimes I think there's more important things to worry about before we get entrenched in the small stuff. YMMV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dashingsteel.3410]

This is a terrible idea. Let the forum moderators decide if a thread needs to go. If you don't like a certain posters threads just skip them. This would be a way to shun people off the forums who don't think like you.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

I'm all for automating anything that'll make things easier for me. If I know I'm going to skip something every time, why not let the forum do it for me?

[Illurim.6059]

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> I'm all for automating anything that'll make things easier for me. If I know I'm going to skip something every time, why not let the forum do it for me?

 

This is about the only argument that could sway my opinion. I'd still prefer a downvote system like reddit use over blocking, though. I just don't know what it is, I just really dislike the idea of blocking people on forums, there's just something about it that rubs me the wrong way.

 

Thanks for approaching it from that angle, though, I get where you're coming from alot better.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

> @"Illurim.6059" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > I'm all for automating anything that'll make things easier for me. If I know I'm going to skip something every time, why not let the forum do it for me?

>

> This is about the only argument that could sway my opinion. I'd still prefer a downvote system like reddit use over blocking, though. I just don't know what it is, I just really dislike the idea of blocking people on forums, there's just something about it that rubs me the wrong way.

>

> Thanks for approaching it from that angle, though, I get where you're coming from alot better.

 

Blocking is an action that only effects the blocker. No one would even be able to tell someone is doing it. (Posts gloating about how someone is blocking someone else should be moderated to enforce that.) I don't see how it could rub someone the wrong way, frankly. Downvoting is far more impactful. It can predispose people against someone's posts before they've seen them and it invariably spawns posts only dealing with voting behavior.

 

I've been on forums that have the blocking feature, and all it does is dial back the general hostility on those forums. Blocking is personal, clean and reduces the "member moderation" posts that no one really wants except the frustrated people posting them.

[Vavume.8065]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"Vavume.8065" said:

> > > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > > You'd probably get a warning or not responded to because of your invalid report reason.

> >

> > Spam is a valid reason.

>

> Yes it is. Yet, you can't classify 5 polls, 2 that are completely different and 3 that are split because of the max number of options available, as the intention of spamming the forum.

 

I honestly don't care if your spamming was intentional or unintentional, I considered it spam and clearly so did the mods since most of those polls have now been removed...

 

 

[Maat.3940]

> @"VaaCrow.3076" said:

> Is there a way i'm not seeing where you are able to block a certain forum user so you don't have to view their topics/comments? If not would you please implement one?

>

> I'm rather fed up of the front page of the forum being dominated by one users threads, and would like a way to remove them. Thanks.

 

I think that if you guys ignore their posts then they will eventually go away. Take the attention away from them instead of feeding their behavior by creating yet another thread post about them. See where this is going wrong? Don't feed it and it will go away to eat someplace else.

[Rauderi.8706]

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> I've been on forums that have the blocking feature, and all it does is dial back the general hostility on those forums. Blocking is personal, clean and reduces the "member moderation" posts that no one really wants except the frustrated people posting them.

 

That would be the biggest benefit. There are still quite a few forumers who think that just because they don't violate a profanity filter that it's acceptable to be rude and insulting. Against the TOS, but moderation doesn't seem to act on it. If there were a way to block a perpetually-negative person, it would clean up the forum experience and probably root out some of the more extreme opinions, since those would get less attention.

 

Buuut, from Gaile's statement, that's more of a technical impossibility, at least anywhere near the foreseeable future. The best one can do is *try* to scroll past the typical offenders. Try. I'm not sure the "just ignore it" proponents realize how automatic reading is, and some things are going to slip through. So the second step is to keep our adult britches on, take a breath, and not respond with the same negativity.

 

[VaaCrow.3076]

> @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > @"Offair.2563" said:

> > Anet should put restrictions on how many polls one account can start. Like 1-2 per weeks tops so it wont get flooded with stupid polls like if you have your scythe yet or not.

>

> It's an interesting idea. We have an **expectation** that someone will not post multiple polls, but that they will want to / should focus on one at a time. We've expressed that to people who have posted multiples, so they're aware of what we set as an expectation. I don't really want to start handing out infractions about this, but I also believe that the forums should not be too heavily biased in the form of polls -- which engender less conversation -- and that they host far more discussions that surveys.

>

> That said, I'll see how things settle over the next period of time to determine if we need to formalize a limitation on polls by the same author. I intend to review the Forums Code of Conduct after the New Year to determine if there's anything we need to add, detail, or explain more clearly.

 

Thanks gaile, i hope you manage to impose some sort of soft restriction that isn't punishing, but proves capable of reducing spam. have a nice Christmas.

[VaaCrow.3076]

> @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > @"Illurim.6059" said:

> > > It's a forum. People don't have the right to restrict the posts of others because they find them objectionable or "too much to deal with". They do, absolutely, have the right to pass them over and move to posts they find more interesting though. That's what adults do.

> >

> > Obviously there have to be limits to certain behaviors. Would it be okay if I post 100 frivolous threads every day? No? How about 99? Still too many? How about 98? See where this is going? Let's skip a few numbers. How about 20? 19? 18? 12? Maybe you want to propose a number?

>

> How about 5 that generate positive discussion vs one thread that is intended solely to request a blocking feature? It's not your decision to decide what is or isn't frivolous and acceptable on the forum. If the majority of forum users are responding just fine to it in a positive, constructive, and friendly way, just as they do to any playful or serious thread that's been made and currently on the board, then your complaint of the thread being frivolous is irrelevant.

 

I've not asked that they remove you from the forum, Just to be given a way to remove you from *my* view. i don't think that is too petty. Either way Gaile has responded and there may or may not in fact be a solution that satisfies both parties on the horizon.

[Haishao.6851]

> @"VaaCrow.3076" said:

> > @"Cyrin.1035" said:

> > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > @"Illurim.6059" said:

> > > > It's a forum. People don't have the right to restrict the posts of others because they find them objectionable or "too much to deal with". They do, absolutely, have the right to pass them over and move to posts they find more interesting though. That's what adults do.

> > >

> > > Obviously there have to be limits to certain behaviors. Would it be okay if I post 100 frivolous threads every day? No? How about 99? Still too many? How about 98? See where this is going? Let's skip a few numbers. How about 20? 19? 18? 12? Maybe you want to propose a number?

> >

> > How about 5 that generate positive discussion vs one thread that is intended solely to request a blocking feature? It's not your decision to decide what is or isn't frivolous and acceptable on the forum. If the majority of forum users are responding just fine to it in a positive, constructive, and friendly way, just as they do to any playful or serious thread that's been made and currently on the board, then your complaint of the thread being frivolous is irrelevant.

>

> I've not asked that they remove you from the forum, Just to be given a way to remove you from *my* view. i don't think that is too petty. Either way Gaile has responded and there may or may not in fact be a solution that satisfies both parties on the horizon.

 

And how are people supposed to have intelligent discussion if everyone just block each others?