i actually quite like that mock-up. this suggestion still has my infinite support and i don't have a lot to say other than that i like how this would look and function.

the mockup is very very good ! I think this redone version has included very well everyone's points. I'd also like to see cottoneevee's part of the suggestion, where you can choose what would be blocked.

I like 2.0 a bit better, but I still heavily dislike users not being able to post in other user's created threads. While I don't see it as a problem for most of the forum (things like user shops, contests, etc), important user-created threads such as Suggestions and Type Race threads, I believe, should be able to be posted on by anyone. I believe everyone should be able to post in Suggestion threads because suggestions, if implemented, affect everyone, and so everyone should be able to voice their opinion on them. I would be EXTREMELY frustrated if there are flaws in a suggestion that would hurt my or others' playing experience and I wasn't allowed to discuss them. (I could also see this feature being used to target the more no support-heavy users, and while I know it could be reported as a misuse of a feature, I feel like it'd be extremely hard to prove without being the user yourself and communicating with other users that have been blocked) I believe everyone should be able to post in Type Race threads since they're important, monthly-based events with much more "official" backing than any other user-run event threads, see: having their own dedicated forum section. Especially since PFQ is a bit dry in the Event(tm) category recently, I don't feel it's fair to prevent users from bonding with other users just because the person who happened to make the Type Race team thread found them disagreeable in some way. (There are also a few cases such as the Sprite Discovery Discussion thread, threads created by normal users but frequented heavily by staff in order to give feedback to site features, that I believe should be exempt from the no-posting rule as well, but I understand that's starting to get into the less definitive "what threads ARE exempt? why? why more than X thread over here?" so I'll refrain from going into that.) I propose that in the above two forum sections, even if the creator of the thread has blocked a user, that will not prevent the user from posting in that thread. The post-hiding can still take place (with the option to view as you said), but all users should be allowed to post in those threads. If someone is so adamant about the people they've blocked not posting in their threads, they should avoid making threads in those forums. Your personal comfort is very important, but that should not get in the way of important site features for other users. As for making people aware of these exceptions, this information could be provided when making a thread in these forums. Something like "NOTE: Blocked users will be able to post in the thread that you are making." so hopefully it won't take people by surprise. (While I would rather the not-posting-in-threads feature not be there at all, this is the most compromise i'd be willing to make on the matter ;;v;;'' there's so many organic, important user-created threads that staff frequent or are kind of a feature of the site themselves with how much all users participate in them [meme thread/sprite discovery/discussion thread], and I feel like it's unfair to take that away from a user because one (1) user didn't like them for whatever reason)

@matecocido I did see that before publishing my updated, but chose to not include it in version 2.0. It's not impossible, but it's a little bit... unnecessary? It's by no means a bad idea, but i get the feeling that it's not something that staff would want to code in (lots of extra coding and checks i would assume for that) + it could more easily be taken advantage of. The biggest issue with my initial suggestion was always that "Interaction is the core feature of the game, and if one user is mass blocked, they are essentially prevented from playing the game." There's a bit more to it then that, but TLDR; preventing interactions can and will cause a lot of issues. As much as I personally would like to have a way of blocking interactions themselves from other users, I don't think its realistic for the site's gameplay & what other staff members have discussed in this thread.

---

EDIT; Saw Kiryu's post after posting my above, so I'm editing the post to hope they see this, since I cannot double post ^^' @Kiryu Hey there! Thanks for bringing this up, in all honesty, I had forgotten about those sections of the forums. I know it was brought up in the thread, but I must have missed it while re-skimming the thread for people's points. I am unsure if it's possible to block blocked user's posts in some categories vs others; I don't know enough about coding & the like. I'd like to believe it is possible though, and my solution would be (tentatively) as follows; Personally, I would love if said suggestion only prevented blocked users posting in the categories; Journals, Trades (& Trade Shops), Battles (& Gyms), Pokemon RP (& All subcategories), Pokemon FF (& All subcategories), Pokemon Art (& All subcategories), Other RP (& All subcategories), Other FF (& All subcategories), Original Fiction (& All subcategories), Other Art (& All subcategories), Forum Games, and All the Mature forum categories. This would leave the following forum threads open to posts from any users, despite blocks; Announcements, Dev Log Discussion, Suggestions (& All subcategories), Help (& All subcategories), Bugs (& All subcategories), Discussion (& All subcategories, though I'm not 100% on the Event Discussion since I haven't used it before.), Guides, Contests (& All subcategories), Clans, & Other Clans (& All subcategories).

I'm not sure how I feel about Block 2.0. If I am blocking a user, I wouldn't want them interacting with my 'mons, and I don't want to be giving them clicks, either. 2.0 feels purely cosmetic. If a user is being mass-blocked, which is one of the problems you state, then wouldn't that warrant some sort of investigation as to why, or for said user to take it as an incentive to change their behavior?

Mass blocking can happen in a private group, off site and with ill intention. If we are given block feature, we have the right to use said feature without staff having to constantly investigate. Users could simply dislike user, or wither they lie or tell the truth they have been harassed elsewhere, both of which which staff shouldn't be obligated to investigate and interfere. This post explains well why it shouldn't be preventing you to click. In short, person shouldn't be punished by game if they are not breaking game rules which being unable to give/receive interactions by blocking would do.

@Colorful Howdy! I think that sounds like a wonderful compromise, with forums more focused on the community aspect being available to all while forums for more private interactions have that safety net. I think the only weird mismatch is allowing posts by blocked users in general clans, but not for mature clans, but the rest seem to check out, haha.

I would still rather not have certain people clicking my pokemon, and said people tend to ignore "Do Not Interact" messages and click them anyway. I would rather a "block" function actually block players rather than essentially just censor their usernames.

Why not have it so that in order to block people from clicking your pokemon there needs to be a report? That way mass blocking isn't as easy as one step.