Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

655

Hear me out, this is going to sound petty, but it isn't

A user I don't know blocked me.

I found this out because the user made a post, a user that I have never interacted with before, and I thought, eh, I'll make a witty retort like I always do.

It was really funny, too, and in no way offensive to the user, again, someone who I have never interacted with.

I can't comment. Fair.

But if they post something that I can't comment on, and I have never interacted with that user, I view that as spam, which I do downvote.

I don't downvote often, you can see on my account that I have only done it 8 or so times, and one of those was a joke.

I understand being banned by a sub, and not being able to post there, but I feel like being blocked by a user, I should just be made invisible to them, but still be able to comment on their post.

Or be able to downvote them for making posts that don't contribute to the conversation. Because I can't contribute.

TLDR; I think blocking should be more akin to a mute rather than ban on replying to any posts

Hear me out, this is going to sound petty, but it isn't A user I don't know blocked me. I found this out because the user made a post, a user that I have never interacted with before, and I thought, eh, I'll make a witty retort like I always do. It was really funny, too, and in no way offensive to the user, again, someone who I have never interacted with. I can't comment. Fair. But if they post something that I can't comment on, and I have never interacted with that user, I view that as spam, which I do downvote. I don't downvote often, you can see on my account that I have only done it 8 or so times, and one of those was a joke. I understand being banned by a sub, and not being able to post there, but I feel like being blocked by a user, I should just be made invisible to them, but still be able to comment on their post. Or be able to downvote them for making posts that don't contribute to the conversation. Because I can't contribute. TLDR; I think blocking should be more akin to a mute rather than ban on replying to any posts

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (48).
[–] • 1 pt

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?

[–] • 1 pt

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?

[–] • 1 pt

How would a muted user be able to pester you?

[–] • 1 pt

Leaving insults, lies, and whatever else they did to get blocked in the first place.

Have you changed your mind on being able to downvote your blockers?

[–] • 1 pt

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.

[–] • 0 pt

Would you call him popular though?