Single post in Implementing A 'Block' Feature

I like the suggestion of being able to give a block function flexibility, tailoring the block and therefore your own experience accordingly to what you need to make the site more accessible to you. I haven't seen accessibility discussed as in-depth as other parts of this suggestion, but giving users a block function that allows them to tailor their own experience more than interfering with someone else's I'd argue makes the site usable by more people, rather than restrictive. I'll argue for this because people who use this function can now ensure a safe and comfortable experience on the site, allowing them to use the site more/at all, and in some cases give them access to features they couldn't before use due to not having any sort of filtering. Say someone has an irrational but debilitating phobia of windmills, being able to hide the about me's/icons/forum signatures with windmills in them will make forums and/or clickback/open 10 functions of the site accessible to them again now that they can filter their experience and ensure they never see the same windmill twice! If you think this example is irrational, I'd just like to remind you that someone does not owe you their trauma/medical records or the like for their needs to be taken seriously (or at least shouldn't). I fully understand the need to ensure a block function wouldn't interfere with gameplay and I am not here to suggest a block function which restricts the play options of the user being blocked, rather than a filtering tool for the blocker, even if I understand the discomfort with not having a hard block. Any blocking feature is better than none, imo. On that note, I like the suggestion that you can block an user from your threads, but only in parts of the forum that do not hinder gameplay/fair discussion (in these instances I like the Discord-esque option of having the post of the user blocked being hidden until you decide to open it yourself, but their post is still in the thread itself). Lastly I've seen -and disagree with- the sentiment of "Not hurting the person being blocked's feelings", which is flawed in a sense that: (a) If you implement a flexible block function, some versions of blocking would be functionally invisible to the person being blocked, ergo they have nothing to be hurt over, and the person who blocked them now has a more comfortable site experience. (b) A block that is flexible is not always a "punishment". If I find out I am blocked by someone, and I know this is a feature used in contexts besides the ones that could count as a "punishment" (disagreements, off-site bad blood, someone simply not liking me etc.), I could go on with my PFQ life knowing that all right, I have one less person to PM/interact with on forums, but I can reasonably assume that unless I am platforming content I know will rub people the wrong way it might just be a matter of said user's personal comfort, and therefore none of my business. If you find not knowing uncomfortable, see right below this section. (c) This comes down to a discussion of who's hurt is more valid, the blocked or blocker's, and a discussion of hurt/discomfort probably shouldn't be value-centred. How do you measure who was hurt "more" without posturing and revealing information that you really shouldn't have to disclose to be taken seriously (see my windmill example again). (d) This could also assume that it is always the person being blocked who's in the right. Why is that? If you want to answer this question with something along the lines of "the person being blocked has no choice in the matter/this is something imposed on them" I want to refer back to a suggestion previously made on this thread: Providing a "reason" for the block. I've mostly seen this suggested as a passive undertaking. You write down your block reason (or don't, I think this should be optional) as you block someone, and whenever someone encounters the block you've placed on them (they find they can't send you a PM or post in your thread) the reasoning for such appears. An example message/pop-up could go somewhere along the lines of "User has blocked you from sending them PMs. Reason: [N/A]/My about me states no PMs, sorry!/Only accepting PMs from friends/etc." If this again is insufficient, I've got something actually new to add to the discussion: Implementing a feature to "contest/question" a block. If you find the reasoning lacking/confusing or you believe the block is the result of a misunderstanding, there could perhaps be a feature to send a note/message to the person who've blocked you where you're given space to apologize/question/ask for clarification. How is this different from just a regular PM? Well, I suggest the ability for the blocker to ignore the message without having to open it, and that's it. If it's ignored it's ignored and the blocker can go about their day. This feature would also either have a long cooldown, or be one time use (One time use could prove difficult if for example one sends a message pre-emptively/halfway finished, which is why I personally lean towards a cooldown). If this feature seems able to be abused, I would like to remind that abuse of the function is valid cause for reporting the user to staff, whether the abuse is malicious or not. The ability to contest a block is just a suggestion of my own, and I welcome any and all comments and criticism towards it. Better a suggestion tried and trashed, than never tried at all. ^^ I hope my reasoning is clear enough, and if it isn't don't hesitate to ask for clarification!