Hideboxes are fine in my opinion, as it is similar to what we have in the shared community discord server- it's one ended, doesn't stop someone from posting publicly. Also, thank you again Colorful for being very rational and understanding here and being one of the very few to not jump down my throat at any given opportunity. It's refreshing and I wish more people had your patience and compassion. Edit: @ Cyndalavision At this very moment of the feature's implementation, I'm okay. I'm fine. However people keep pushing for it to be stricter and stricter and that's what scares me. I don't want this to go any further than one sided and cosmetic. I'd rather be ignored than unable to ask in the first place. I'd rather climb halfway up mount everest only having to turn back, than be told im not allowed to even try.

That's all well and good, but no one needs your permission to block you. Yeah, sure, it sucks to not be able to discuss things with people, but their reason for potentially blocking you is their own and honestly, they shouldn't have to justify it. Not to mention, all of the compromises we, in this thread have proposed, would really not impact anyone's gameplay AT ALL. Blocked users would still be able to click the user that blocked them. If someone chose to block you, you probably wouldn't even know. Your point of "I'd rather be ignored than unable to ask" is the same situation. How would you differentiate someone ignoring your PM vs your PM going into a spam box?

I wouldn't, and thats the point. What I'm fighting against is what I've seen some people suggest in the first place: That the option to PM dissapears altogether. And the spam box was my suggestion, so of course I'd be comfortable with it. No justification is needed to simply ignore however when it gets to the point that a user is literally unable to post in a thread that is public and available to everyone else on site- then a justification matters. You cannot pick and choose who you give access to when something is public. You cannot discriminate like that. I find doing so to be immoral.

This is generally @Whit fyi! Though I would like to hear others ideas on a spam box instead of just the DMs being deleted? I think a spam box could be a good suggestion, its a decent compromise. I'm just generally not sure how many people are really that against the idea of PMs just not going through, I suppose. I know for sure you are, Whit, and that's fine, but I'm kind of thinking about majority kinda thing here. Also, other peoples criticisms of how you speak are completely valid. Even if they don't maintain perfect composure like I try too. I agree with most of them, that some of your comments come off as incredibly uncomfortable and at least mildly guilt trippy, and that it's difficult to have a discussion with you without just bending over to your insistence that you're being wronged, hurt, or invalidated in some way -- it's frustrating and exhausting. For the most part, this feature is just kind of going to be a "too bad" kind of thing in a lot of ways. Of course I'd like to try and compromise as much as I can with you and others who may share your concern, but sometimes it's just not fully possible. If there are people who are using the block feature to en mass exclude you, or if they have found a way to weaponize it, I would seriously hope that you're comfortable reporting to staff and having them help out in some way. You should not be harassed and attacked. But if people are uncomfortable with you, or find they dislike speaking with you, and they're not spreading around hate lists or trash talking you, not talking behind your back, and they block you... that's something you're just going to have to deal with. Both on PFQ and off.

If you wouldn't mind explaining in DMs what is coming off as which, I wouldn't mind offering apologies. Communication is not my strong suit and i acknowledge that. Edit: though, i will say... why is telling me to 'deal with it' okay, when i got flack earlier because others assumed I was telling them to 'deal with it?' it does seem a tad hypocritical. furthermore if someone was an abuser in the past: do they not have the repsonsibility, capacity, and right to change? Again, if said wrongdoer ceases their behavior and isn't breaking any rules, what grounds does someone have to exclude them from a thread in the forums? Why punish someone indefinitely for a crime that gets a temporary sentece?

Ok, that does make more sense, I think I just misunderstood a bit, so thank you for clarifying. In my opinion, in public forums, such as Type Race, Suggestions, general things like that, really most forums, users would be able to interact as normal. I like the way it is set up now, where I have the option to see what a user has said even if I blocked them. That would allow for interaction and discussion if desired, and if not, the user could just request a DNC. I do draw the line at personal forums, though. If I block a user, I don't think they should be able to interact with the forums made for my personal use, like a shop, or journal. I'm no programmer, so I don't know how viable this is. It's very likely that the best that can be done is a hidebox and a DNC, which would be fine for me if that's all we can do. I think that personal forums should be off limits to a blocked user. @ Colorful - I think the spam filter is a good compromise. If a blocked user is abusing it, and attempting to harrass the user that blocked them, the blocker would still be able to report it with substantial evidence. On a lighter note, if a blocked user were to reach out, and attempt to make an apology, of come to an understanding, the blocker would still have the option to either continue ignoring them or discuss further with the blocked user to see if they can come to an agreement.

This was my thought process exactly when suggesting that. Im just very very bad with words. I think our defintiions of personal forums are different. I do not see publicly-operating shops, miscelenaious section discussions, and some of the other marked threads as perosnal. I see them as public. and still id prefer the block be undetectable-- meaning the ability to post where any other user can post, so that there is no error that clues you in to having been blocked by someone.

spam filter is cool and all but once again rise this concern. even if i send a dnc, or whatever its called im too lazy to look trough the thread, to everyone i dont wish to partake in any of my auctions (which is a pain and uncomfortable and even triggering to some. what about people with anxiety, people who need to send that to their abuser etc) there's still a chance theyll ignore it and just partake anyways and messing up the bids before i can report them (and even if i report its not gonna get taken care of immidiately). and once again what other solution is there other than stopping them from making a bid to begin with.

I most likely won't be using this feature, as I keep to myself and anyone I'd want to block doesn't use this site, but I do want to keep as much accessibility as I can. If I were to be blocked, how much of an impact does it have? How many threads and trades would I be locked out of? Could I keep making offers in a strictly business sense, if that wasn't part of any confrontations? I mostly care about these aspects, as they would impact my experience the most, though I don't think I'd have to worry about it too much. I feel the best option for forums is hiding everything about a user, making it look just like a random user with the default avatar and "Blocked User" as their name, having a spam box for blocked pms, and hiding their text and such in hideboxes. I'd also consider having an option to flag separate threads you personally made as unviewble to blocked users, such as journals, auctions, and art threads, but not having it be automatic and unchangable. Thread locks already function in the same way, don't they? I'm very happy so far with how the basic gameplay seems to be, though! I haven't noticed any particular changes yet, though I suppose this is an evolving feature currently, so I'll still be keeping tabs on this thread regardless.

I get that, but at the same time, if I were running a shop IRL and I saw my abuser about to walk in, I wouldn't even let them get through the door. Of course it's different online vs irl, but it's the same principal to me. Either way, they are not getting my service, so I'd rather not even give them the chance to waste either of our time. I consider a public shop a personal thread because it's about what I am selling, not anyone else. If someone wants what I have, but I've blocked them, they're going to have to get it from somewhere else anyway, so they may as well not even bother contacting me about it. If the block feature worked in a way that would stop them from messaging on a forum that I made, that isn't directly related to a site-wide event or topic (again, such as type races or suggestions), then that would be what I prefer. In regards to "furthermore if someone was an abuser in the past: do they not have the repsonsibility, capacity, and right to change? Again, if said wrongdoer ceases their behavior and isn't breaking any rules, what grounds does someone have to exclude them from a thread in the forums? Why punish someone indefinitely for a crime that gets a temporary sentece?" Some people don't forgive the people that hurt them. Yes, growing and changing and being a better person is good, they shouldn't be penalized for that, but at the same time, the person they hurt doesn't owe them anything at all. The abuser isn't entitled to forgiveness. This isn't the same as prison. It's personal, and it's up to the individuals to WANT to sort it out, and if one of them doesn't, that's that, and that's fine.