"A post that contains username <REDACTED> has been blocked"

Since I left the forum and returned, the blocking functionality has changed to also block any post that contains the blocked member's name.

I would like to make a formal feature request to make this functionality optional. Just because I don't want to see someone's posts, doesn't mean I do not want to see ANY post about that user or in response to that user. In fact, sometimes a rational or thought-provoking response to someone on my block list is very worth reading.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Since I left the forum and returned, the blocking functionality has changed to also block any post that contains the blocked member's name.

I would like to make a formal feature request to make this functionality optional. Just because I don't want to see someone's posts, doesn't mean I do not want to see ANY post about that user or in response to that user. In fact, sometimes a rational or thought-provoking response to someone on my block list is very worth reading.

A&8s, glad you came back BTW, but....
No doubt the powers in charge will consider your request, they seem to be working hard at looking at requests.
But the blocking feature? blah, as far as I'm concerned. If you don't want to read someone's posts then don't. I think that is a simple concept, one where you have complete control. Now you want to change a feature that you really didn't need, put it in someone else's hands to set it up, not to mention request a change to a feature that would control what you read, when you had complete control all along? I understand the 'block feature' is something that many like, though I really don't understand why in my own little world. One opinion, just mine, the block feature is cool for the people that find it cool.

Let's take an example, EB. I'm not picking on EB, I may have a secret crush on EB. But EB is a good example simply beacause of the number of posts that EB has made. You don't want to read EB's posts, fine don't read them. Or you can already block EB and then you don't have to read any of EB's dreadful posts. Why is that not enough?

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

If you don't want to read someone's posts then don't.

For me personally, making a conscious choice to not read a post that I can see expends more mental energy than just skipping over the message that the post has been blocked.

Quote:

Now you want to change a feature that you really didn't need, put it in someone else's hands to set it up, not to mention request a change to a feature that would control what you read, when you had complete control all along?

I'm just asking for an option. A checkbox one could choose to check or not check. If the developers deem it unworthy, I'll live.

Quote:

Or you can already block EB and then you don't have to read any of EB's dreadful posts. Why is that not enough?

Yes, but as I mentioned previously, sometimes the responses to a member I have blocked I would like to read. In this case I usually skim the initial post (from the blocked member) or sometimes just skip it completely and infer from the response what it was about.

You win, I surrender.
What do you mean you don't allow surrender?
What kind of casino is this anyway?
Don't make me mad....
It could get ugly....

Have you considered just not reading the person's posts? Or do you really need to request an unnecessary change to a silly feature anyway?

Quote: Hittem

Have you considered just not reading the person's posts? Or do you really need to request an unnecessary change to a silly feature anyway?

Have you considered reading my initial reply to 2F? All your concerns are addressed there.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Since I left the forum and returned,

Welcome back A&8s. Your contributions add great value to this forum. Let's not mention that other forum which makes this one seem all the more polite and friendly.

And as to others that get uppity about your feature request: Well. why not raise such requests. Might be a 2 minute one line code change or might be a major exercise. Any webmaster worth his salt would evaluate it appropriately.

I wasn't aware of this programming change (probably because I don't block anybody), but I agree, it's not an improvement to have it keying on content rather than author. I hope Zuga makes the reversion as you suggest.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I wasn't aware of this programming change (probably because I don't block anybody), but I agree, it's not an improvement to have it keying on content rather than author. I hope Zuga makes the reversion as you suggest.

Despite the verbiage which I have quoted in the thread title, it appears that it only blocks the post if it contains a quote from the user.

I.e. if another poster just mentions their name in the text of their post, it won't block. Which would be even worse in my view.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Despite the verbiage which I have quoted in the thread title, it appears that it only blocks the post if it contains a quote from the user.

I.e. if another poster just mentions their name in the text of their post, it won't block. Which would be even worse in my view.

Actually, now I'm not sure if that's true...testing 1 2 3

<REDACTED>

Quote: AcesAndEights

Have you considered reading my initial reply to 2F? All your concerns are addressed there.

I did. And I thought it was so childish that I needed to type the exact same thing.