Not to be rude, but neither of these points make any logical sense. If you block your type race teammates because they choose not to do it, all you're doing is making it so they can't interact with you either. What you're doing here is really just hurting yourself, and by extension your own team. And the same thing with rus. For whatever reason you're blocking a rus hunter (again, doesn't even make sense to randomly block if you don't have a different reason as well), you're also hurting yourself when it goes the other way and you can't interact with them when they have rus. You should be able to cater your own site experience, and that should include blocking interactions from people you don't wish to see. Having a handful of people not be able to receive your interactions is not going to hurt their experience. Even if 50 people have you blocked for whatever reason, that's still hundreds of others who can. Nobody is ever going to amass so many blocks that they can't properly enjoy the game, and if they do than quite frankly that's a problem with them and not the people who are blocking them.

to the above posts: I'm okay with receiving interactions from them, I just don't want to send interactions to them. I'm not going to stop other people from giving me interactions but maybe I just don't want to interact with them! Who knows, maybe I just intensely dislike them or I don't want to see their names show up when I'm massclicking.

so you are saying that if I block someone it's my fault and I am runining clicking because I have personal issues with that person. staff just doesn't implement it and that's solves it. it's completely unnecessary. just not seeing the blocked person's name on clickback is enough for me. I agree w this though.

Again, since I think this needs to be said a lot: I am not stopping them from interacting with ME, I just don't want to interact with THEM. Sorry if I'm getting spammy but seriously, if there was an option to only block them from getting interactions from you, they could still interact with you, only they wouldn't show up in the "Users Online" or maybe just as BLOCKED USER, and wouldn't show up in clickback or the "Open 10". Then there would be no problem with them not being able to interact with you; they could freely interact and you didn't have to.

No idea where you're getting this from. It was on the assumption that the sole purpose for blocking was to not click teammates who aren't participating/keeping rus hunters from getting rus. The person mentioned abusing these features, it has nothing to do with if you have an actual reason for blocking; if you do then you obviously accept that some team members won't click you and sometimes you may miss out on rus.

I honestly feel like some people's gameplay being potentially inconvenienced is a far smaller problem than people with trauma not having the option to enforce their own boundaries, but I don't care whether someone I've blocked can click me or not as long as I don't have to see them. As far as being able to unblock later on--I feel like that's a given? A blocklist (from which you could remove and possibly add users) could probably go in either the "options" or "other links" section of the farm page.

sorry for bad grammar today, its been a rough day. lets goo; Reading through the replies since I last posted; Lots of stuff was already covered, but I would like to say a few things. - In my mind, an unblock feature is a given. I hadn't even considered it being permanent. - The reason I proposed all interactions to stay in-tact was because of the overwhelming amount of feedback i got from version 1.0 that discussed how much that would impact gameplay. again, i personally would love to be able to block all interactions and act as if my blocked user virtually doesn't exist, but the biggest thing that convinced me otherwise was this example. even if you have the mentality of "well, if someone's being mass blocked, shouldn't staff look into it?" I'd have to ask you if thats really reasonable. what can staff do? they can comb through forum posts and private messages for anything potentially rule breaking, but if this user isn't breaking any rules and is just generally an easy-to-dislike person... that ruins the site experience for them, if even just 100 people block them. It's the most controversial part of version 1.0, so i removed it, thinking it would be easier for everyone to agree on... silly me :P - im taking notes / thinking about the appearence of blocked users in your clickbacks; thats the only place i can see taking them out not really affecting anything but your personal experience. it's probably a wise idea to take their name out of clickbacks, but im not 100% on that yet.

I want to give more reasons why "blocking would give mutual clicking inability" goes beyond "some people's gameplay being potentially inconvenienced". First and foremost, just because you (speaking in general not replying to anyone in particular) would use the block feature responsibly, only blocking users who are malicious, doesn't apply for other users who, even in this thread, expressed they would block and maybe even report for simple "I dislike them" reason. They are within their right to dislike someone, however, they should have no rights to affect someone's gameplay regardless of the reason. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but site is not responsible to take actions against user who didn't break site rule, or did bad stuff that didn't happen on site, and users shouldn't have power to negatively impact someone's gameplay. Remember this thread? Pokerus feature was abused by a small group of users to the point of making almost whole userbase unable to get it, and staff had to interfere. It's a site feature, a very useful site feature, and it is based on click-backs. Blocking can get out of hand and it could come to a point where again, only a group of people are able to have pokerus, while others would be locked out. What then? It may seem small and insignificant but people already once successfully abused this, blocking would only make it easier and make staff's job harder. A lot of people hunt Pokerus and it would be ridiculous to give someone power to disable another user from using this feature for whatever reason. Speaking of impact - this can have a ripple effect, with consequences that can show up in the future, making staff unable to change it back or fix it as damage is permanently done. I am talking about whole userbase, not just a group of people, and not individual cases. How many different people are petty about other people getting melans? How many people dislike other people for their statement in trainer card? How many people dislike resellers? How many people have various problems with other people? You don't see all this, even staff can't see all this, it's impossible to track user's dislike against other users. Interactions will drop and impact Niet and Garthic counters. Slow hatching also slow down Ravyne counter and Shelter adoptions, and it will eventually impact site's economy. Now we are not talking about one user being petty, or small group of users, but actions done by whole userbase, and endless various situations that staff can not physically in any way control. You are giving people power to impact someone's game play and a lot of people will use it to spite others if given opportunity. It happened in othermultiplayer games, and this one is no exception. To continue my point - how many people on site would silently disagree and block you for what you put on trainer card? Is it fair to be punished for different opinion for something that has nothing to do with site? And since some stuff are quite serious, we are talking about large number of people and you can tell by upvotes in journal posts some people have. You will end up having a group of people being blocked by other group of people and it'll only spiral down. (Again, "You" in general, not pointing fingers at anyone.) Egg timer is intentionally changed to only fill with party interactions. You can argue there are 195,899 on site, and in last 24h 4,568 active users but you have to take into consideration that user activity per hour is what counts and it drastically varies through the day. Not everyone is active and clicking whole day. At server's time noon and almost more than half a day there are barely 400 people active. Some of them don't have full party, others have empty party. For someone who can only play at that time of the day, or is limited to play at certain times where activity is low if not lower, they can't get enough interactions to even max out egg radar, let alone get enough click backs to hatch multiple parties quickly. Add to that them blocking 10 users, and 10 other users blocking this person, and game can become almost unplayable. You can't score in tournament due to inability to hatch enough eggs, you can't have egg timer bonus, you can't get extra interaction points from clicking eggs, etc. People are already leaving the game for various reasons. Drop in activity would only make more people leave or become even less active than they already are. One last thing. How many times you check clickbacks? I'm asking because I don't understand the argument "I don't want this user to click me". There are a lot of users on Today's Interactions, some even being cut off as page can only show 200 links. Unless you are actively looking for one username, I don't see how you can know someone you dislike clicked you back. Argument against showing up in open clicklist - there is a css code that hides trainer cards and about me. You also don't have to look at names of people you're interacting with. And if usernames are ****, it's even better since if you pay attention, you won't at least have to read their username. Edit: Just to be crystal clear - I support block feature as long as it doesn't actively impact gameplay. Censoring username, hiding userpage, and making user unable to contact me is something I support. However blocking interactions and seeing threads like suggestion is what I disagree with.

tossing in my 2 cents again bc its been like 2 months since I posted here. still very much want some blocking feature implemented. deeply disappointed this discussion is still going on, ngl. this is a feature every site on the internet should have, (in some capacity!!) given the amount of children online nowadays. blocking features are a must for everyone's safety and comfort. most of what I wanted to say has already been said since this thread is relatively active, but I'll just add on that I'm not very pleased with some responses to this feature being added. why should people have to break rules to warrant a block? sometimes we just don't want to see certain people or mindsets. every social media site allows for blocking whoever you want and the site usage isn't affected whatsoever (at least it shouldn't be). being blocked is NOT a punishment, it just means someone does not want you to interact with them (whether you did something to deserve that block or not). if your "different opinion for something that has nothing to do with the site" is negatively related to irl issues it is NOT an opinion. online is not some bubble where words don't harm, especially in this day and age. I understand that the site does not want to "punish" players but I personally think some things are more important than gameplay being impacted negatively...Either stop allowing anti-blm sentiment on-site or give us a block function, please.

Major agree with alcremie! And on the subject of trainer cards and abouts, yes! I would block someone over having certain things in their trainer card/abouts. (Just as I suspect I would also get blocked.) I've seen a lot of sus things in those sections. If there's no hammer brought down on hateful rhetoric disguised as difference of opinion so that their prejudices aren't seen as a reportable offense, then I at least want the option to not see or run into these people. This is the first website where I can sign up for an account and socially interact with other users where there is no block function. Implementing a block feature probably won't be easy, infact I could see a new staff position just to oversee and review blocks for abuse. Two different block types could exist too, a soft block, which hides all their forum posts under a hide and makes their trainer card and abouts appear blank but still allows you to click and be clicked by said user, as well as them posting in public forums owned by you. And then a hard block. Which is obviously a no interaction at all option. It would also serve to have a warning pop up that asks if the reason for blocking is a reportable offense along with a short list of simple to understand examples with a yes or no option. If you hit yes you make the report and if you hit no it will ask you one more time to confirm the action before doing it. Blocking is a basic function.