Implementing A 'Block' Feature

None of those snippets have anything to do with the fact we assumed the block feature was over with. Those snippets refer to future scripts independent of the block feature.

IMO, the main reason why people thought that the userscript implementation was meant to be the block feature implementation was because this thread was bumped into "completed" at the same time that the userscript was announced. If that hadn't happened, I think very few people (if any) would have misunderstood. I'm glad this suggestion has been approved, at the very least. Hopefully communication will go smoother in the future : )

If the announcement were only about userscripts, this thread would not have intentionally been moved to completed even for a second. I think that, alongside not mentioning (in the announcement) that the block feature will be worked on, are what led to the misunderstandings. It also feels like you're addressing the userscript more than the block feature. I doubt any amount of userscript will be able to block another user from sending a DM to the user using the script. Niet did not address the block feature in his announcement. Nothing about the feature being moved to approved (or completed) or the feature being in the works right now. It mentions expanding the userscript in the future, but not the implementation of the feature. With no information we are left to guess what is going on, which can lead in many directions. Such as assuming Niet is using someone else's userscript as an "official" replacement for the block feature. We are happy to have received some clarification from Niet and Garthic about the plans for the block feature. Now that that's sorted out.

---

I think sanctioned userscripts are a great idea and good temporary solution, and I look forward to the implementation of an official block feature in the future. For now I think we should focus on this part of the post. Here Niet gives us specific examples that need answers and I believe discussing solutions for these problems is the point of this suggestion thread still being open. Doduo has a great suggestion to solve Niets problem. Additionally there are other things users want the block feature to be able to do. I believe this should be the focus of the thread rather than continuing to discuss the miscommunication that has already been resolved.

---

I agree with Doduo's suggestion to censor usernames. I also agree with the idea about not being able to post in a thread created by a user you've been blocked by, but that's where it starts to get tricky. I think hideboxes with censored names would be the best way to go even though I'd wish to be able to block completely. If someone I've blocked posts in my shop thread I can decline them. If they post something inappropriate or abusive I can report them. I personally don't think I'd mind being able to trade with some of the users I'll block. I believe blocks should be customizable and easy to modify. Preferably the options to censor usernames, disable DMs and disable trading will have individual toggle buttons.

what about bids placed in auctions? i cant exactly decline someones bid dueing an auction. scenario a) im asleep or otherwise afk, blocked user posts a bid, they get outbid, they bid again it goes on and the price gets higher, theyre still highest bid scenario b) blocked user outbids someone, that someone goes on to spend their money thinking they lost the auction anyways since they cant bid higher i can only see a blocking feature working for this otherwise not sure what to do

My two cents: Make PMs appear to go through, yet get filtered into a ‘spam’ inbox that doesn’t give notifications and can be optionally checked. Don’t affect the forums at all. It is a shared space and people have the right to be heard. Be the bigger person and say a polite ‘no thanks’ if someone you dislike posts in a trade shop or something. Also, as a graphic designer and web designer myself it is expected that DrWho should be compensated. I really hope this is the case, either with actual pay or something else agreed upon ( ZC credit, etcetera ) I’m really sorry, I completely appreciate your input and your right to an opinion here, but with all due respect please do not speak for all abuse victims here. I am a survivor of all three common types of abuse, and both online and IRL, and I still am against this feature because it has been used to aide in abuse against me on other websites. Survivors are not a monolith. You’re not speaking for all of us and certainly not for me.

"People have the right to be heard" I'm not quite understanding this since, via the 2.0 version of this suggestion, threads in the discussion forum will not be affected. I really don't understand how people "have the right to be heard" in my art shop. I could understand the argument for something like suggestions and discussion threads (both of which are exempt from the no-posting rule) but my trade shops? My art threads? There's no discussion going on there. If I do not like you, you do not need to be there. You will not be receiving my services either way. Either way, I will ask you to leave my shop and to never post there again. You have not meaningfully contributed to a heartfelt discussion that impacts your life or your time on PFQ, you have just made me uncomfortable and have forced me to be confrontational and create public tension in my thread. "People have the right to be heard" The thing is, if I have blocked you, I have already heard you once. You had your chance. Your voice has been heard, and I responded to it. Why do I have to hear you twice?

Because people aren’t machines. They don’t spit out infallible, coherent messages all the time. Nor do they receive them accurately. Someone could misword and misinterpret and a relatively innocently intended interaction could go sour. I would rather talk to someone and figure out what they really mean and are trying to get across than assume they have malicious intent and cut all contact. Especially if the person in question is neurodivergent and prone to communication hardships. Also I’m not sure if you’re referring to me as “you” or someone else / a general “you” but I’m confused as to where I’ve ever done this. If I have, I apologize.

See, one of the cool things about making a userscript "official" is that it means I can start doing things like add fancy hooks into PFQ's code. Today I've added the first of these hooks: $.pfqHook.notifications I'm not sure if Tampermonkey userscripts can access this, since those generally can't access functions from the site they're run on, I think. I don't know, I've never actually used it. But sanctioned ones most certainly can since they're run in PFQ's context directly. So what's this all for? Well I've just made it so that the Block Users script also blocks notifications, filtering out names of people you've blocked and also removing PMs from them from the total count. So if your only notification is a blocked person PMing you, you'll see "0" and "Someone sent you a PM." Unless I outright say I'm done with something, I'm not done with it! I'm not making promises, mind, but piece by piece I'm sure we'll find something we can all be satisfied with.

@Whit: I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I meant "you" as in a hypothetical person I have blocked, I did not mean to indicate you directly as a person. The thing is, what you have just described is just as possible with a block function in place. You (both a hypothetical and literal you!) still have the opportunity to not block someone and contact them and find out what they mean. I don't quite understand why you're approaching it from the side of someone who would be doing the blocking, since...you don't have to block that person. And while I do understand people are not perfect....the interaction would go just the same way. Either: A. I block someone and they cannot post in my art thread B. Someone that I would have otherwise blocked posts in my art thread, I tell them to leave and to DNC with any of my future threads In both of these circumstances, yes, I do still have the option of talking it out with that user. I am not forced to use the block option, but I am also not forced to talk it out with that person if a block option does not exist. If I do not want a user to contact me, even if it was over a misunderstanding, that's that. If I do not want to have a conversation with a user, that's that. Even in scenario B, the person who is DNC'd does not have the opportunity to ask why or say there was a misunderstanding. That's that. If a person who is blocked/DNC'd continually tries to talk to the person who blocked/DNC'd them, that's harassment. A person who does not want to speak to another person should not be forced to. (IMO, even if DNC wasn't an official site thing, I believe no one should be forced to give responses, period. I should have the right to walk away from a conversation I do not like. IMO, it is not fair to force people to respond to anything they do not wish to respond to [other than things such as site staff/etc, just in General Conversation™] ) You (general you) have the right to be heard. I have the right for my response to be heard and respected. If my response is "do not talk to me" then that's that. If the conversation starts with "I do not want to have a conversation", that conversation has ended. It's kind of just how consent works. While you may not consent to the conversation ending, I personally believe the person who does not consent to the conversation continuing should be prioritized; and I'm pretty sure this is where our disagreement lies. I just...personally cannot untie this from consent/harrassment IRL. If someone does not want to be touched, they should not be forced to be touched, that's that. If one person does not consent to not touching someone, and the other person does not consent to being touched, I will prioritize the one who does not want to be touched. (edit: i know there are situations IRL where conversations should be prioritized ex: interventions, but on a pokemon egg hatching site, I do not think there are ones dire enough to justify this) @Niet: sick!!! It's nice to know there's possibilities for the userscript to be expanded while we wait in the meantime for a more permanent solution :D

it's great to see this being worked on and in approved, thanks a lot, Niet + staff. I'm sure it's not on anyone's mind to attack anyone and I hope both past and future criticism doesn't come off as personal. Feedback is how we improve after all.