Single post in Implementing A 'Block' Feature

@Whit: I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I meant "you" as in a hypothetical person I have blocked, I did not mean to indicate you directly as a person. The thing is, what you have just described is just as possible with a block function in place. You (both a hypothetical and literal you!) still have the opportunity to not block someone and contact them and find out what they mean. I don't quite understand why you're approaching it from the side of someone who would be doing the blocking, since...you don't have to block that person. And while I do understand people are not perfect....the interaction would go just the same way. Either: A. I block someone and they cannot post in my art thread B. Someone that I would have otherwise blocked posts in my art thread, I tell them to leave and to DNC with any of my future threads In both of these circumstances, yes, I do still have the option of talking it out with that user. I am not forced to use the block option, but I am also not forced to talk it out with that person if a block option does not exist. If I do not want a user to contact me, even if it was over a misunderstanding, that's that. If I do not want to have a conversation with a user, that's that. Even in scenario B, the person who is DNC'd does not have the opportunity to ask why or say there was a misunderstanding. That's that. If a person who is blocked/DNC'd continually tries to talk to the person who blocked/DNC'd them, that's harassment. A person who does not want to speak to another person should not be forced to. (IMO, even if DNC wasn't an official site thing, I believe no one should be forced to give responses, period. I should have the right to walk away from a conversation I do not like. IMO, it is not fair to force people to respond to anything they do not wish to respond to [other than things such as site staff/etc, just in General Conversation™] ) You (general you) have the right to be heard. I have the right for my response to be heard and respected. If my response is "do not talk to me" then that's that. If the conversation starts with "I do not want to have a conversation", that conversation has ended. It's kind of just how consent works. While you may not consent to the conversation ending, I personally believe the person who does not consent to the conversation continuing should be prioritized; and I'm pretty sure this is where our disagreement lies. I just...personally cannot untie this from consent/harrassment IRL. If someone does not want to be touched, they should not be forced to be touched, that's that. If one person does not consent to not touching someone, and the other person does not consent to being touched, I will prioritize the one who does not want to be touched. (edit: i know there are situations IRL where conversations should be prioritized ex: interventions, but on a pokemon egg hatching site, I do not think there are ones dire enough to justify this) @Niet: sick!!! It's nice to know there's possibilities for the userscript to be expanded while we wait in the meantime for a more permanent solution :D