I was not trying to attack but instead say some of my criticisms. Communication that this wasn’t the end all be all would have been nice and then I don’t think that anyone would have started using “cop out” in the manner we have. Apologies.

It was genuinely difficult to tell if this was going to be something that was temporary, Garth, that was not clarified in the inital posts at all, and then not even clarified in this thread until now. I think many people (not all people of course) aren't trying to insult Niet himself for what's going on -- they're just genuinely upset with the site feature and how it was implemented. I don't wish any ill will upon Niet at all, and it's really depressing how he feels he gets attacked every time he shows' his face. That's just... unfortunately part of how this goes, though. Of course people being excessively rude are out of line, but at first it did feel like a cop out. Lots of people are unhappy with multiple things about PFQ, and Niet just happens to be the one delivering the news. It doesn't help that he's one of the sole developers, so lots of people do blame him as a person for things they don't like -- which isn't okay, but I can easily see where that comes from. When it feels like only one person is working on things and not being receptive to feedback, it's very frustraiting.

Garthic - Thank you for clarifying that this isn't the end of working on this feature, but with all due respect to Niet and yourself, we are upset with how the situation was handled. No one is attacking Niet, we are expressing our feelings. I don't understand how we could /not/ be upset with this. This thread has been ignored by mods for MONTHS. Total radio silence. That is not appropriate. Then out of nowhere, Niet adds the userscript, with no mention in the announcement about further plans. When the announcement was made yesterday, it should have been noted that this was not the end product for the block feature. Since it wasn't I feel it's pretty fair for us to assume that this is the end product, and in way, a cop-out. It is helpful to know that this is not the end in development, but this was not gone about in the correct way. At all.

If attacks aren't happening then kindly drop the point. Further communication will come. Thank you. quick note: notice that the update is for 'userscripts' - it's not for the block feature. That should've been a hint. Nowhere did he say that this is it... Because it's not it. Assumptions were made where questions should've been asked.

This thread is here now for feedback, this is feedback. If you don't want to know what the users are feeling, then lock it again, if you do, then you have to be ready for the people who have negative feelings on how it was handled. Edit regarding: As I mentioned before, there are plenty of people who can't read between the lines, and take things as they see them, such as myself, because of my autism, though I do try to keep things in mind it is difficult. The title does not tell us all the information, and it can be seen as just "hey, we've added this userscript for the block function people keep asking for" Clarity is important, for everyone's sake, and if things need to be spelled out, then it should be spelled out.

I really didn't want to post here. But I'm just soooo tired of this aggressive back and forth. Its hard on every party involved, staff, users involved, users just watching. It's stressful on every single person and I'm tired. We're all tired.... If blocking pms can be added to the block feature id be happy. If there was a way to streamline DNC requests via sally that would be good too. I care about one thing here and that abuse victims not having to deal with their abusers in any capacity. *Except Whit appearently* I don't want to argue or point fingers or say so and so mod did 'this' wrong because it feels like beating a dead horse and I'm sick of seeing it. Id really appreciate any addition made to the block feature. The current solution is fine for now and im glad to see confirmation that it'll be worked on. i also hope drwho gets compensated in some way.

Grateful that the thread was bumped into Approved so we can discuss more! Personally the thing I would like that is missing from the userscript is; I don't want to be able to see who clicked me. (I tested this earlier with a friend and when I blocked them, I could still see their name in my clickbacks) this is something I'd like, I don't care if they can still click me, I just don't want to know they've done so if that's possible to add to the actual feature? As for things like seeing who bred what egg/Pokémon in the shelter, as this was a question brought up in the News post, I personally don't care if I can see that "egg bred in daycare by [Blocked User]" because most of the time I don't check timelines unless I hatch a special. Even then, I'm sure people will appreciate the username being censored if that's possible, if it's not possible then it's just something we're gonna have to compromise on, get the block feature but still see their names on bred eggs/pokémon. Edit: Another thing I'd like to see would be having it so the blocked person cannot comment on any of my threads. (Alternatively don't show them my threads at all so they won't be able to tell they've been blocked) This would bring up the issue of "but what about Type Race threads!" in which (and I think this has already been mentioned but I'm far too lazy to go through all of these posts, sorry!!) that only certain forums would have these limitations? So for example; If I blocked [User A], they would not be able to comment on my threads like: My journal(s), my trade thread(s), my trade shops, my art shop(s). They would be able to comment on my threads like: Type Race thread if I was to host it, a joint trade shop where I am NOT the original thread maker. (This is because the owner of the shop might not have any issues with the person(s) I've blocked so won't cut them off from the shop completely)

just popping into rise my biggest concern that hasnt been named yet, i really dont want people who i have blocked to interact with my posts on top of not being able to pm me. the userscript isnt going to stop them instead forcing me to unhide their post so i can deal with it in threads :/

I hate to be that user(tm) but I will be. My post here is directly addressing the concept of "there was no mention of more work being done." All quotes are snipped but from the original post. Emphasis mine here None of these require "reading between the lines" as one user put it, this is all legit from the post as it stands currently. There's no interpretation of the post that you have to do, Niet literally says he's willing to add more, we just have to show him which ones we want. Sorry if staff feels like I overstepped, but this needed to be said in my opinion, and I'm not trying to be hostile here.

It's not about the userscripts, it's not userscripts we want added, it's a functioning block feature that helps users feel safer playing the game. The reading between the lines that I mentioned is the fact they are saying that Neit is still going to be working on a block feature, not about the userscripts.