@michuk said in #4:
> It's called title case mate, look it up bro. lol
And yet, a small 'p' on the problematic.
> It's called title case mate, look it up bro. lol
And yet, a small 'p' on the problematic.
this should probably go in lichess feedback @michuk
I haven't blocked anyone so I don't have an answer other than probably neither. Not a glitch, not design, just the implementation of the blocking feature probably didn't include forum blocking.
I haven't blocked anyone so I don't have an answer other than probably neither. Not a glitch, not design, just the implementation of the blocking feature probably didn't include forum blocking.
@sheckley666 said in #5:
> Why does it feel problematic? It doesn't to me.
I can make it feel problematic if you want :)
I've learned how to piss people off while staying fully within the rules of the forum from some other posters that I will not name for the sake of not public shaming but they know who they are.
> Why does it feel problematic? It doesn't to me.
I can make it feel problematic if you want :)
I've learned how to piss people off while staying fully within the rules of the forum from some other posters that I will not name for the sake of not public shaming but they know who they are.
@Raptor-5 said in #10:
> @michuk
> Well i'd ignore the trolls if I were you, bud. It may be impossible to keep the trolls away currently but eventually lichess will fix this. I for one actually trust them.
>
> They aren't perfect. No one is. In fact they want & need users like us to point out their flaws so that they can fortify the platform.
> So, you don't have to discontinue your monthly patronage.
>
> Cheers
I don't feel confident in Lichess's ability to deal with trolls. Banning is obviously a pretty consequential thing to do and so they tend to set a pretty high bar for what they consider bannable. Fixing blocking people in the forums would help deal with people that love to troll under the radar.
one form of trolling under the radar is to follow someone around and dislike every post they make. I'll admit I'm guilty of this but only because I would be happy if it resulted in Mods admitting that it's a problem that people can do this and thus they start doing something about it. It's a bit Machiavellian I know.
> @michuk
> Well i'd ignore the trolls if I were you, bud. It may be impossible to keep the trolls away currently but eventually lichess will fix this. I for one actually trust them.
>
> They aren't perfect. No one is. In fact they want & need users like us to point out their flaws so that they can fortify the platform.
> So, you don't have to discontinue your monthly patronage.
>
> Cheers
I don't feel confident in Lichess's ability to deal with trolls. Banning is obviously a pretty consequential thing to do and so they tend to set a pretty high bar for what they consider bannable. Fixing blocking people in the forums would help deal with people that love to troll under the radar.
one form of trolling under the radar is to follow someone around and dislike every post they make. I'll admit I'm guilty of this but only because I would be happy if it resulted in Mods admitting that it's a problem that people can do this and thus they start doing something about it. It's a bit Machiavellian I know.
@Raptor-5 said in #6:
> @michuk,
> It's understandable why it feels problematic and why it's possible for this to happen.
> When you have someone blocked, you've only prohibited that person from reaching out to you privately, not publicly.
>
> Whenever you get into a forum, you're strictly stepping into a public room, not a room for two individuals as you know. This may seem like an easy work-around for them but according to how lichess has been programmed, they have every right to say stuff on your own thread. They could even create their own thread and try bringing you into it by calling you out.
>
> As annoying as it can be, it's technically allowed. At least until lichess expands the blocking functionality to both private & public instances, so to speak
Sure but people in public forums shouldn't be prevented to post on a thread because of the thread creator.
It gives way too much power to the thread creator because forum doesn't belong to him and it shouldn't be an echo chamber (someone ill-intentioned could just make crazy claims and block everyone disagreeing).
In custom/private forum created by individuals, sure, that would makes sense but not in public forums.
In public forums a much better way to handle this imo is to hide posts made by people you blacklisted/blocked. I make a difference between blacklisted and blocked on purpose, it could be interesting to have two lists.
This way you don't infringe anyone rights to posts (it's public after all) while still isolating yourself from whomever you want.
Blacklisted user's messages could also still be shown like deleted messages (with the content hided) with a little button to expand it (in case a particular message is cited multiple times or is important to understand other people reactions).
BTW I didn't invent this behavior, just saw it on another forum.
> @michuk,
> It's understandable why it feels problematic and why it's possible for this to happen.
> When you have someone blocked, you've only prohibited that person from reaching out to you privately, not publicly.
>
> Whenever you get into a forum, you're strictly stepping into a public room, not a room for two individuals as you know. This may seem like an easy work-around for them but according to how lichess has been programmed, they have every right to say stuff on your own thread. They could even create their own thread and try bringing you into it by calling you out.
>
> As annoying as it can be, it's technically allowed. At least until lichess expands the blocking functionality to both private & public instances, so to speak
Sure but people in public forums shouldn't be prevented to post on a thread because of the thread creator.
It gives way too much power to the thread creator because forum doesn't belong to him and it shouldn't be an echo chamber (someone ill-intentioned could just make crazy claims and block everyone disagreeing).
In custom/private forum created by individuals, sure, that would makes sense but not in public forums.
In public forums a much better way to handle this imo is to hide posts made by people you blacklisted/blocked. I make a difference between blacklisted and blocked on purpose, it could be interesting to have two lists.
This way you don't infringe anyone rights to posts (it's public after all) while still isolating yourself from whomever you want.
Blacklisted user's messages could also still be shown like deleted messages (with the content hided) with a little button to expand it (in case a particular message is cited multiple times or is important to understand other people reactions).
BTW I didn't invent this behavior, just saw it on another forum.
@Hitsugaya said in #15:
> Sure but people in public forums shouldn't be prevented to post on a thread because of the thread creator.
> It gives way too much power to the thread creator because forum doesn't belong to him and it shouldn't be an echo chamber (someone ill-intentioned could just make crazy claims and block everyone disagreeing).
> In custom/private forum created by individuals, sure, that would makes sense but not in public forums.
>
> In public forums a much better way to handle this imo is to hide posts made by people you blacklisted/blocked. I make a difference between blacklisted and blocked on purpose, it could be interesting to have two lists.
>
> This way you don't infringe anyone rights to posts (it's public after all) while still isolating yourself from whomever you want.
> Blacklisted user's messages could also still be shown like deleted messages (with the content hided) with a little button to expand it (in case a particular message is cited multiple times or is important to understand other people reactions).
>
> BTW I didn't invent this behavior, just saw it on another forum.
In real life public conversations people already exclude others from joining in their conversations.
What's your opinion on real life? Is it just too imbalanced?
people don't really have a "right to post", that's not a thing. If they can't see the conversation, it's hardly any different than taking the conversation off Lichess and onto another platform, would that infringe on their "right to post"? of course not, you should be allowed to choose who you want to communicate with
> Sure but people in public forums shouldn't be prevented to post on a thread because of the thread creator.
> It gives way too much power to the thread creator because forum doesn't belong to him and it shouldn't be an echo chamber (someone ill-intentioned could just make crazy claims and block everyone disagreeing).
> In custom/private forum created by individuals, sure, that would makes sense but not in public forums.
>
> In public forums a much better way to handle this imo is to hide posts made by people you blacklisted/blocked. I make a difference between blacklisted and blocked on purpose, it could be interesting to have two lists.
>
> This way you don't infringe anyone rights to posts (it's public after all) while still isolating yourself from whomever you want.
> Blacklisted user's messages could also still be shown like deleted messages (with the content hided) with a little button to expand it (in case a particular message is cited multiple times or is important to understand other people reactions).
>
> BTW I didn't invent this behavior, just saw it on another forum.
In real life public conversations people already exclude others from joining in their conversations.
What's your opinion on real life? Is it just too imbalanced?
people don't really have a "right to post", that's not a thing. If they can't see the conversation, it's hardly any different than taking the conversation off Lichess and onto another platform, would that infringe on their "right to post"? of course not, you should be allowed to choose who you want to communicate with
@ST4RSCR34M said in #16:
> In real life public conversations people already exclude others from joining in their conversations.
>
> What's your opinion on real life? Is it just too imbalanced?
>
> people don't really have a "right to post", that's not a thing. If they can't see the conversation, it's hardly any different than taking the conversation off Lichess and onto another platform, would that infringe on their "right to post"? of course not, you should be allowed to choose who you want to communicate with
Real life public conversations where you can exclude anyone you want are no longer public but private as soon as you start excluding people because you don't like them or their views.
A better real life analogy would be like an exhibition hall with different stands (threads), everyone in the hall can create a new stand but each stand created belongs to the exhibition creator (lichess forum creator which is @lichess here) not to the user.
In this hall you can't just banish people or forbid them from participating unless they disrespect the rules in which cases you call security/moderators.
> In real life public conversations people already exclude others from joining in their conversations.
>
> What's your opinion on real life? Is it just too imbalanced?
>
> people don't really have a "right to post", that's not a thing. If they can't see the conversation, it's hardly any different than taking the conversation off Lichess and onto another platform, would that infringe on their "right to post"? of course not, you should be allowed to choose who you want to communicate with
Real life public conversations where you can exclude anyone you want are no longer public but private as soon as you start excluding people because you don't like them or their views.
A better real life analogy would be like an exhibition hall with different stands (threads), everyone in the hall can create a new stand but each stand created belongs to the exhibition creator (lichess forum creator which is @lichess here) not to the user.
In this hall you can't just banish people or forbid them from participating unless they disrespect the rules in which cases you call security/moderators.
Starting a thread does *not* make you the owner of this thread. It is still a division of lichess' forum, and it is still lichess who decide who is allowed to write there.
Btw., the title of this thread is not about a general right to post, but about mentioning someone else, which is practically not avoidable, and if it was, it would be abused to silence all critics.
Btw., the title of this thread is not about a general right to post, but about mentioning someone else, which is practically not avoidable, and if it was, it would be abused to silence all critics.
@Hitsugaya said in #17:
> Real life public conversations where you can exclude anyone you want are no longer public but private as soon as you start excluding people because you don't like them or their views.
>
> A better real life analogy would be like an exhibition hall with different stands (threads), everyone in the hall can create a new stand but each stand created belongs to the exhibition creator (lichess forum creator which is @lichess here) not to the user.
> In this hall you can't just banish people or forbid them from participating unless they disrespect the rules in which cases you call security/moderators.
- ok sure then lichess is private conversation already because it excludes all the people not on Lichess or banned from lichess from participating
- sure Lichess creates the "rules" here, but that doesn't make them "good" it just makes them "exist"
like nobody has a "right" to interact with others its a privilege, if you can't engage with them respectfully and take into account their emotions then they should be able to revoke your privilege to interact with them. think about it in real life if someone tried to follow you around to engage with you while you tried to avoid them you'd call the cops on them and have them arrested. and we can't even block someone here in the forums??? that's a step backwards
> Real life public conversations where you can exclude anyone you want are no longer public but private as soon as you start excluding people because you don't like them or their views.
>
> A better real life analogy would be like an exhibition hall with different stands (threads), everyone in the hall can create a new stand but each stand created belongs to the exhibition creator (lichess forum creator which is @lichess here) not to the user.
> In this hall you can't just banish people or forbid them from participating unless they disrespect the rules in which cases you call security/moderators.
- ok sure then lichess is private conversation already because it excludes all the people not on Lichess or banned from lichess from participating
- sure Lichess creates the "rules" here, but that doesn't make them "good" it just makes them "exist"
like nobody has a "right" to interact with others its a privilege, if you can't engage with them respectfully and take into account their emotions then they should be able to revoke your privilege to interact with them. think about it in real life if someone tried to follow you around to engage with you while you tried to avoid them you'd call the cops on them and have them arrested. and we can't even block someone here in the forums??? that's a step backwards
- People not on lichess are not excluded, they just didn't join and people banned yes but they're banned because they disrespected the rules of the mods.
It's different because the rules are the same for everyone, it's like the law of the forum creator, very different from you just choosing who can or can't participate.
- Indeed it doesn't make them good but I do not think the rule you want to add is good either, it will create a lot of echo chambers and unjust censorship.
What I see is you want all the power so that YOU decide what's good or not.
IRL you can call the cops and have them arrested if they disrespect the law, not if they say some random things you don't like.
If you feel the lichess "law" is not perfect then sure yeah it's improvable there could be a blacklist like I said earlier and more strict rules/more mods I don't know exactly but, allowing anyone to basically become a mod is not the way.
It's different because the rules are the same for everyone, it's like the law of the forum creator, very different from you just choosing who can or can't participate.
- Indeed it doesn't make them good but I do not think the rule you want to add is good either, it will create a lot of echo chambers and unjust censorship.
What I see is you want all the power so that YOU decide what's good or not.
IRL you can call the cops and have them arrested if they disrespect the law, not if they say some random things you don't like.
If you feel the lichess "law" is not perfect then sure yeah it's improvable there could be a blacklist like I said earlier and more strict rules/more mods I don't know exactly but, allowing anyone to basically become a mod is not the way.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.