I love when an OP post something, you reply, then they reply no. then block you. Because blocking people is easier than debating. Which is some reddit tier faggot shit.
Still sounds petty and I am thinking of blocking you.
It might sound petty when your girlfriend catches you glancing at another woman, but it always ends up being a big freakin' deal.
yup.
You would, I am surprised you haven't blocked me yet, kike.
Who?
wolfgang
I should just be made invisible to them, but still be able to comment on their post.
I'm unsure about that. I understand challenging false information or bad arguments, but there's the potential for abuse.
Or be able to downvote them for making posts that don't contribute to the conversation. Because I can't contribute.
Your inability to comment means someone's post no longer contributes? Is that a joke?
Well said jello-bro
Thanks, hon!
yw :-)
I always though starjello was a female. They certainly seem to have feminine thinking to me.
Your inability to comment means someone's post no longer contributes? Is that a joke?
No, the ability to selectively omit people's voices from a general conversation contributes to abuse.
Imagine if a powerful and popular user decided to block you. For the sake of argument, let's say it was @PMYB2. You would no longer be able to comment on any of his posts, regardless of what sub it was on. You would be detracted from any meaningful conversation that the user posted, no matter what your opinion.
I'm not particularly worried about this specific occurrence, but I can see an obvious opening for some established users to quash new, dissenting voices.
And I'm obviously being hyperbolic with my example, but can't you see it?
I understand that idea. I'm still concerned about how it might be used as a way for blocked people to still pester their blocker. I think if we knew if people block more for justified reasons than to block people they disagree with, I'd be in agreement with you on that point.
However, what does that have to do with being able to downvote someone that blocked you?
How would a muted user be able to pester you?
Imagine if a powerful and popular user decided to block you
Power user faggots like @Conspirologist already do this, they shit out a dozen posts a day and I can't interact with any of it.
Would you call him popular though?
This brings up a big problem.
Someone trying to spam, post lies, or push an agenda
They block all of the accounts that downvote their spam and lies.
Now when they post spam and lies, it's more likely to be seen because the accounts that routinely downvote spam and lies can no longer downvote them.
Yeah, this needs to be fixed.
Im totes gonna block you
We all know you are referring to AntiVagina
Nope
Well, I am. He is a faggot, endy story.
Agreed.
I think blocking should be more akin to a mute rather than ban on replying to any posts
I agree, which is why I unblocked all the users I had blocked and won't block any user until it changes back to the way it was.
The only option left is to obviously fight them IRL. Maybe we need an /s/BumFights or something. I'll offer 3 timbits and a double-double for the winner.
I don't downvote often either so I know how you feel.
:)
Though this feature in addition to the downvote suggestion that contradict each other: is hilariously bad. I've said it multiple times before, and while I fucking loathe "muh voat guys!!!!!" kikery; voat's method of counteracting downvote spam was significantly better. Further: there are some topics that aren't opinion and have been exhaustively proven. Suggesting that a user should just re-debate said topic this time, again; rather than downvote is extremely short-sighted. It's not worth it.
Mildsalsa blocked me, so I made an entire sub about him and post stupid shit he says in it.
And he's not blocked from it because I'm not a faggot.
(post is archived)