Implementing A 'Block' Feature
Forum Index > Core > Suggestions > Under Consideration >
Meant to do this a while ago, finally got around to it, haha. Thank you for the easy format!
Question #1
Question;
If a user has interacted with you before you blocked them, and then you block them, how should this affect the Clickback list of both the blocking user and the blocked user?
Originally posted by Niet
Personal Answer;
The blocking user should not see the blocked's name in their clickback list. The blocked can see the blocker's name in their clickback list as if nothing had happened.
Question #2
Question;
If a user has blocked another user, but then finds an Egg from the Shelter bred by the blocked user, should they be able to see it? Adopt it? What about its timeline?
Originally posted by Niet
Personal Answer;
The blocker should be able to see/adopt eggs released by the blocked user.
I, personally, don't feel like it's worth the lag to put checks in the shelter. The only thing I can think of is that this could be abused by releasing a pokemon with a changed name/description in hopes of targeting a user, but that would be extremely unlikely and easily reportable. (as is already the case for DNC)
The timeline can have a censored/placeholder name, like "****" "Blocked User" or so on.
Question #3
Question;
If a user blocks another user, it is fairly trivial to prevent most interactions just by blocking access to the Profile and Summary pages. However, it would not be feasible to block forum posts (as doing so can lead to crucial loss of context in a thread). This means the pkmnpanel cannot be blocked, and so interactions would be possible through there. How would you resolve this, bearing in mind that Interactions are already the most server-stressful feature of the site and adding more checks onto them is a Bad Idea™?
Originally posted by Niet
NOTE; This question was asked BEFORE version 2.0 was put in place. This question can be skipped, unless you have further insight.
Personal Answer;
No further input, since 2.0 allows interactions both ways.
Question #4
Question;
Should a blocked user be able to buy items from the Marketboard put up for sale by the user who blocked them? Or vice versa?
Originally posted by Niet
Personal Answer;
Yes, as the Market is completely anonymous, I see no reason to add checks in place for that.
Question #5
Question;
Should Wonder Trades be able to randomly pair you up with a user you have blocked? If not, additional checks will need to be added that could potentially result in Wonder Trades remaining unmatched, or worse it keeps trying to match you with the blocked user and never resolves. Since Wonder Trades can't be cancelled either, there's no way out of such a loop.
Originally posted by Niet
Personal Answer;
Wonder trades should work just as they work now. Similar to my answer for the shelter, if the blocked were to use wondertrades to try and contact the blocking user, that could be easily reported. (as is already the case for DNC)
Question #6
Question;
Some users may want blocking to result in the blocked user effectively "disappearing" from their gameplay experience. How would you reconcile this with the fact that Tournaments have a leaderboard with a limited number of places?
Originally posted by Niet
Personal Answer;
The blocked user should show up as a placeholder name on the leaderboard, like "****" or "Blocked User" or "User Hidden." I don't think it needs to be more complicated than that.
Question #7
Question;
Same question for Pokérus. How would you handle someone wanting to hunt for Pokérus, only to find that a person they blocked currently has it? Remember they can't interact with them if they've blocked them.
Originally posted by Niet
NOTE; This question was asked BEFORE version 2.0 was put in place. I recommend ignoring the last sentence.
Personal Answer;
Just to reinforce, I support version 2.0 which has no restrictions on interactions either way.
It's not clear if you're talking about the blocker or the blocked. If the user is blocked by the RUS haver, the blocked user should have no changes on their end. They should be able to click the RUS haver no problem.
If the user has blocked the RUS haver, I would be fine with two approaches when the RUS link is clicked:
Approach 1: The blocking user is taken to a warning page of sorts. It could say something along the lines of "The link you've clicked goes to the userpage of someone you have blocked. Do you wish to proceed?" With a yes/no option. Yes takes you to the blocked user's page, no redirects you to your previous page.
This page could also be used any other time when the user visits a blocked user's page, but that might not be necessary.
Approach 2: No changes to what currently happens. The blocking user is taken directly to the blocked user's page.
I would prefer Approach 1, but if that is not possible/would create problems Approach 2 is acceptable.
Longer Question #1
Question;
1. Site performance. As you may have noticed, the site already suffers from occasional lag spikes that refuse any attempt to diagnose or fix. It's something that's been a real thorn in my side. Or Lego brick under my foot.
There are about 5k users who visited the site in the last 24 hours. That's a total of about 12.5 million possible inter-person links. Of those, I would estimate that maybe a few hundred to a thousand blocks would be made. After all, most people either get along just fine, or are content to ignore each other. Even if I generously round up the number of blocks, you're still looking at less than 0.01% of potential inter-person links being blocked.
For such a tiny fraction, it is absolutely not reasonable to add extra database lookups to the Shelter page, for example. The Shelter is highly optimised to work the way it currently does, and adding a "block check" to that would slow it down by several orders of magnitude. All of that, for a less than 0.01% incidence.
Similar logic applies to other parts.
On the other hand, blocking the Profile page is super easy, barely an inconvenience. This is what I mean when I say it's about compromise.
Originally posted by Niet
NOTE; This question was asked BEFORE version 2.0 was put in place. This question can be skipped, unless you have further insight.
Personal Answer;
As I said in my previous answers, I don't think blocking should disrupt how the shelter works nor how interactions work.
Longer Question #2
Question;
2. Game mechanics. PFQ is a game where every user is massively inter-connected with every other user. Most features involve interaction with other players in some form. Every single one of them will need to be tweaked to account for possible blocks.
Many of them can probably be "fixed" by just anonymising the blocked user's name. ***** can work quite well because that's what we already use for censoring inappropriate usernames, so technically you don't know if it's a blocked user on the Timeline, or just someone who named themselves something rude. That's a good idea.
What I might be able to do is add a filter to the Clickback list, such that blocked users won't appear on it - but they can still interact with you. That way you can benefit from their interactions, without even being aware of it and without the need to reciprocate. However, this may need some kind of limitation on it to keep things reasonable performance-wise. There may need to be a cap on how many people you can block, just to ensure it doesn't become a performance issue again, but that cap should easily be higher than anything you'll actually need.
Originally posted by Niet
Personal Answer;
I find no big issues with this...it's not really a question but these statements/musings. Anonymizing names in timelines and hiding them in clickback lists are great. I would prefer there be no limit, but if that's not possible, it would be nice if it could be like forum subscriptions, at least 100.
Bump.
I'll be honest, I'm disappointed in the moderator's lack of communication on this thread. The thread is currently inactive because we are waiting for answers to questions and further prompts on what there is even left to talk about. I'm worried it's going to be deleted for inactivity eventually because we never get any answers or communication to discuss with. I try my best to be as understanding and civil on these threads as I can, but I feel like it's only getting me ignored.
★ Zachary ★ They/He ★ 22 ★
Quiet nature collector.It really does feel like the mods are ignoring this and it's getting really annoying. I'm not trying to be rude or anything but a lot of people really want some feedback (myself included) and it's been a month since a mod has even posted in this thread. And the post that was made was just telling us that this thread was going to be temporarly locked.
Pfp made by me.
I feel like there's no more questions to be answered, I don't understand the point of having this thread in suggestions when it has been stated this feature was given similar to an OK (if I understood it correctly). I don't understand why it hasn't been moved to accepted already :/
Agreed. From my understanding, this feature has been approved. It should be moved to accepted.
As for the radio silence from staff,,, Like, I get that there are wrinkles to be worked out, but the fact that we as users are both posing our own questions and answering ones made by staff, yet staff hasn't given an an update on this in over a month? That's not the way to go. No shade, but let's be mature and communicate with each other.
avatar made on picrew with this creator
In my opinion, them ignoring us and not moving this to the accepted section feels immature and maybe even a little passive aggressive in a way. How much and how long do we have to complain before we get an answer of some kind? My intention is not to be rude, I'm just getting tired of this.
I think staff have been through a lot this year just like we have because of the pandemic. Many staff have been personally affected by the COVID-19 and quite a few have quit the team.
I think they're still going to implement the feature, but have other stuff on their mind right now.
They still have personal stuff to work through and jobs and families to take care of. Remember being PFQ staff is volunteer work they can only do in their free time.
The Galar release and moderating the site are probably higher on their priority list than adding new features to an already working site.
I want this feature just as much as you guys do, and it is a bit frustating that it hasn't been moved to approved yet. And that the questions haven't been answered yet. But we honestly cannot do anything but wait.
Here are my answer since i can see that only about 4 people answer them for what i can see.
Doesn't anyone else think that they are waiting for more feedback on the questions before they post?
I am currently taking a break from pokefarm due to hoildays and something else so I am pretty sure that some of the mods are getting ready for them too.
Question 1 A: could just use * or something to hide the blocked name in clickback.
Question 2 A: Not sure how many look at egg timeline but just having * should be fine
Question 3 A: No input
Question 4 A: Marketboard is already unknown so there no problem there
Question 5 A: just having * is fine. Unknow on how many people look at timelines on pokemon
Question 6 A: Using * is fine leaderboard has a limit on how many can be viewed at a time so they may never see the blocked user.
Question 7 A: I can not find where version 2 and version 1 states things. So I am skipping this one
Long Question 1 A: No input
Long Question 2 A: This is mainly Niet talking here on possible things. The last bit on the cap brings to mind where someone has talking about how a user had a good bit of subscrice threads and everything said user got on it caused something to happen. Having a cap would be good, since it is unknow how many people it will affected. It can started of with 40 cap limit and can be revisted in the future.
QUOTE originally posted by Snowtiger
Here are my answer since i can see that only about 4 people answer them for what i can see.
Doesn't anyone else think that they are waiting for more feedback on the questions before they post?
QUOTE originally posted by Vixony An
I think staff have been through a lot this year just like we have because of the pandemic. Many staff have been personally affected by the COVID-19 and quite a few have quit the team.
snip
Cannot post: Please log in to post