What are the chances that we could get y'all to add a BLOCK feature? What I mean by that is a function that would make a poster invisible to whomever they set it for? Thanks. If this has been asked before, sorry to duplicate. 

On 1/31/2024 at 10:45 AM, Donna L. Bridges said:

What are the chances that we could get y'all to add a BLOCK feature? What I mean by that is a function that would make a poster invisible to whomever they set it for? Thanks. If this has been asked before, sorry to duplicate. 

That's literally what the ignore feature is for. The only way you can see their posts is if someone, by chance, quotes their post. Beyond that, I'm not wasting my time, resources or energy on such a thing.

6 hours ago, Errol said:

That's literally what the ignore feature is for. The only way you can see their posts is if someone, by chance, quotes their post. Beyond that, I'm not wasting my time, resources or energy on such a thing.

Okay, but just to clarify what I am talking about prevents the other person from even seeing you. So, invisible both ways, not just one way. I am not arguing with you just being more clear about what I meant. 

Donna,

There is no argument.

I'm just telling you that there is no need for me to waste any further time, energy or resources on a feature that's pretty much already built into the forums by the developers.

It is not my duty or obligation to provide what even a court of law can't, which is to make people invisible wherever they go. The best option is the ignore setting. It can't stop someone from quoting posts that become visible when shared by non-ignored posters, but it can help stop them, or you, from responding to their posts.

Think of it this way... you have a restraining order against someone for some reason. All the police and the courts can do is state how far said person has to stay away from you; they can't stop the person from physically SEEING you unless the distance noted in the order is far enough that it would be impossible (very rare). The same goes for the message boards in that you won't see their posts nor feel the need to respond to their posts unless YOU decide to engage based on seeing their post quoted. If not quoted, you shouldn't ever see their posts. The same goes for the other poster.

10 hours ago, Errol said:

There is no argument.

Honest, I'm not trying to argue. 

10 hours ago, Errol said:

The same goes for the message boards in that you won't see their posts nor feel the need to respond to their posts unless YOU decide to engage based on seeing their post quoted. If not quoted, you shouldn't ever see their posts. The same goes for the other poster.

Here, what do you mean by the part I have bolded? I ask because the other poster can see & read & choose to post about, etc. on the content of any & all posts you make. Ignore only works one way, to prevent me from having to see them except as you said in cases where they are quoted. And don't misunderstand me, I appreciate Ignore for what it does do. It's just that Block would double it, so to speak. Anyway, don't worry. This is my last post on this subject. 

3 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Honest, I'm not trying to argue. 

Here, what do you mean by the part I have bolded? I ask because the other poster can see & read & choose to post about, etc. on the content of any & all posts you make. Ignore only works one way, to prevent me from having to see them except as you said in cases where they are quoted. And don't misunderstand me, I appreciate Ignore for what it does do. It's just that Block would double it, so to speak. Anyway, don't worry. This is my last post on this subject. 

Ideally, the other poster would also ignore someone they don't want to engage with, but at the same time, if someone posts something ON TOPIC they want to respond to, they should have every right to respond to said post. That said, yes, ignoring someone goes both ways and is inevitably the best solution for conflicts. However, if the other person chooses not to ignore you, too, it becomes clear they want the fight, and that should be something we need to look at more closely as admins/moderators.

I leave people to be themselves and not police their speech in any capacity regardless of whether I agree with them or not. In return, I expect people to act like adults.

My always emphasizing the ignore setting is not to be taken lightly. If one can't do that and it becomes a problem for the board, only then will I step in and take action (i.e. ban someone), which I almost always never do -- I'm not a dictator or tyrant like I was back in my early 20s.
I like a stress-free life as much as possible, so if I have to ban someone for any reason...that person truly fucked up. That's not to say that I'm the good cop to @Toups bad cop or that one of us is the one to watch out for in terms of handling the tough calls because we are equals in that regard, but these days I almost always hesitate in stepping in to issue system warnings on posters, ban accounts, etc. Toups has no problems, lol.

But circling back on the ban topic, blocking is not a problem solver. All it does is provide a false sense of anonymity. Just because they or you can't "see posts" (which the ignore feature more than enough accomplishes) doesn't mean they can't open an incognito window (browser) or, while logged out of the community, still see your posts anyway. Even the supposed block feature you're suggesting won't stop it. 

What you are suggesting is a block feature that would stop someone from seeing all traces of your content across the site. That's not possible right now and I'm not looking into adding it. If it ever becomes a thing by the developers, then by all means. But until then, I'M not investing any further in anything than what has already been provided.

30 minutes ago, Errol said:

Ideally, the other poster would also ignore someone they don't want to engage with, but at the same time, if someone posts something ON TOPIC they want to respond to, they should have every right to respond to said post. That said, yes, ignoring someone goes both ways and is inevitably the best solution for conflicts. However, if the other person chooses not to ignore you, too, it becomes clear they want the fight, and that should be something we need to look at more closely as admins/moderators.

I leave people to be themselves and not police their speech in any capacity regardless of whether I agree with them or not. In return, I expect people to act like adults.

My always emphasizing the ignore setting is not to be taken lightly. If one can't do that and it becomes a problem for the board, only then will I step in and take action (i.e. ban someone), which I almost always never do -- I'm not a dictator or tyrant like I was back in my early 20s.
I like a stress-free life as much as possible, so if I have to ban someone for any reason...that person truly fucked up. That's not to say that I'm the good cop to @Toups bad cop or that one of us is the one to watch out for in terms of handling the tough calls because we are equals in that regard, but these days I almost always hesitate in stepping in to issue system warnings on posters, ban accounts, etc. Toups has no problems, lol.

But circling back on the ban topic, blocking is not a problem solver. All it does is provide a false sense of anonymity. Just because they or you can't "see posts" (which the ignore feature more than enough accomplishes) doesn't mean they can't open an incognito window (browser) or, while logged out of the community, still see your posts anyway. Even the supposed block feature you're suggesting won't stop it. 

What you are suggesting is a block feature that would stop someone from seeing all traces of your content across the site. That's not possible right now and I'm not looking into adding it. If it ever becomes a thing by the developers, then by all means. But until then, I'M not investing any further in anything than what has already been provided.

Thank you, Errol. I hear you & understand. I take what you say to heart, and to head.