Naturally. And they’ll eventually catch the cheater, too. But in the eyes of most bystanders, once the damage is done it’s done; they move on, remembering what he said, and not what you would have said. While you remain blissfully ignorant, per your choice.
If that is indeed your choice, so be it. I’m just saying, it’s not a choice I’d ever make. Given the choice between knowledge and ignorance, I choose knowledge.
#11 Yeah i choose knowledge too but still
Listen, chess expert, if someone asks for blocking one's posts, it's quite unlikely that the block is caused by cheating and/or timing out.
There's something called harassment, something that professionals like you don't face due to all occupation with chess.
This is social network besides being a chess platform. Every other network provides the feature of not seeing a blocked person's activity.
"Is this really a power you want to give to people like that? . . . I believe, when you hide people’s words from yourself, you are actually giving them power over you, not vice versa. (Selah.)"
Idiocy. Some people have their lives, jobs and families outside the creepy online world. Online bullies aren't quite worth their time, don't you think?
The ability to block people's post from our field of vision, would end up creating confusion in the forum threads, in the same way as the ability to delete messages have done.
Perhaps something else entirely?
Block people's threads:
If we don't like someone's threads, for example if we think the user is always spamming, or too childish, political or whatever reasons.
Allow us to block the threads, which that player have created.
This would remove a lot of tension from the forums, and simultaneously, less reports to the Mods, less forum drama.
And it might eventually prevent some people from creating a new account, with the sole purpose of evading a chatban.
№ 13,
> Listen, chess expert, if someone asks for blocking one's posts, it's quite unlikely that the block is caused by cheating and/or timing out.
We don’t (currently) block posts; we block users. I already suggested that the reason for blocking be selectable, and the kind or degree of block affected accordingly.
> There's something called harassment, something that professionals like you don't face due to all occupation [sic] with chess.
Thanks for the “compliment,” but I’m not a professional chessplayer. I am an amateur only, and play infrequently. That said, harassment is something that might happen in direct messages or game chatboxes, but not in this forum. If it ever does happen in the forum, moderators already delete the offending post(s) and chatban the offending user. 🤷 But if someone is posting about something that has nothing to do with you personally, you cannot possibly be “harassed” by it. That is purely absurd.
And that’s me being generous with the concept. Personally, physical violence is the only kind I recognize. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” I allow for the existence of verbal violence only because everyone else insists on it; but personally, I disbelieve in the concept. (Who’s letting those online arguments get to him now?)
> This is social network [sic] besides being a chess platform. Every other network provides the feature of not seeing a blocked person's activity.
That is, in a way, precisely my point: If I block someone for bad sportsmanship, that doesn’t mean I also want to block him in the forums. For example, I blocked one user for wasting time in games; but some of my most eloquent forum posts were an argument with him here in this forum, after I had already blocked him. Look for a thread created by jugji. I stand by every word I typed there, and you’re all welcome.
> Idiocy. Some people have their lives, jobs and families outside the creepy online world. Online bullies aren't quite worth their time, don't you think?
As it happens, more than 90% of my life happens elsewhere than this website. Your insinuation to the contrary is uncalled for, and irrelevant to this discussion. When I do happen to be online and reading in these forums, I personally want to see 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 that’s been posted here. (I don’t even approve of the delete feature.) I also don’t find anything “creepy” about it. I thus have no empathy for your position; it is utterly alien to me. All I know is I find the feature you are asking for philosophically abhorrent. I might call what you said idiocy in turn — but I’m a bit more polite than some people here. 🙂
Sure, online arguments may be pretty low on the list of things that matter. But to me, when it comes to the written word, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 matters, even punctuation. I want it all, the full context. Every part of a conversation depends on every other part. If I miss something, I may not understand three other things as a result, including people’s reactions to later comments. I am wary of that cascade of ignorance. . . . As far as I’m concerned, knowledge is power, and ignorance is weakness, period. That’s my considered opinion, based on quite a few life experiences; and it’s why I request that this feature be 𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭. What problem do you have with that request? Why are you so keen to force your brand of censorship on the rest of us? Even those who, like me, want no part of it? Who do you think you are, and what gave you that right? How dare you?
It is not for nothing that we have the old adage “Knowledge is power.” And when it comes to sharing that power, I’m a choosey person. I will gladly share it with any fellow posters whose views I concur with, or at least don’t disapprove of as such — and that may include people I have blocked (just because they were bad enough to block doesn’t mean they can’t do 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 right) — but when it comes to views I disagree with, I mean to defeat those arguments utterly, grind them into dust, and only 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 scatter that dust to the four winds. Not leave what they said hanging there unaddressed.
But that’s just me. I have always been this way. When confronted with conflicting views, if you prefer to run and hide like a coward, that’s up to you. But you can’t force me to do the same, is all I’m saying.
Have a nice day.
#13 + #15
Meanwhile, I just wanna block people who continuously make threads about "Cat Vs Dogs"... what's all this talk about chess?
№ 16,
Indeed, you may as well block whole threads, since there is also the problem that if you hide one guy’s comment, none of the replies to it will make much sense (unless perhaps they quote the original; and if they do that, so much for hiding it). But if you missed whole threads, you’d be missing a lot. For example, even in spam threads, sometimes people’s replies are funny. Isn’t it worth viewing those threads occasionally, just for a laugh?
Again, I’d prefer not to censor anything. I am perfectly capable of navigating through bad comments in order to get to the good ones. And I appreciate having the opportunity to reply to any and all of them — sometimes particularly the bad ones, as that can lead to the most interesting conversations; whereas, if everyone’s in agreement, there is nothing to discuss, and that’s boring. 🤷 You see, I don’t believe in censoring opposing views; I believe in arguing with them. 😉
I guess it depends on your personality. Which is why I think this should be a personal preference, and not a universally adopted behavior.
@pawnedge #17 If, it was possible to block others threads, then I doubt I would miss out on a lot.
Humour I can find elsewhere.
I get your sarcasms. Okay you might personally wanna read threads such as "Cats Vs Dogs" because there might be a glimmer of humour hidden somewhere in the thread.
But I prefer not to.
Self censorship isn't the same as censor.
№ 18,
It sounds like your needs would be better answered by the addition of some sorting criteria for the forums. Something like this
lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/feature-request-drop-down-sort-menu-for-forum-threads, but for the public forums as well. That would, if not enable you to 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 display threads of interest, then at least make interesting ones easier to find, and bury most of the uninteresting ones, based on your chosen criteria. Something as simple as a filter for excluding all threads containing the keywords “cat” or “dog” in their titles may suffice, though you might find that also hides threads about heavy rain, or a certain rare opening, or what have you. 🤷 But at least they’d only be buried, not censored outright, and you could always change your keywords.
Filters & options = control, and I’m all for that. What bothers me about muting people is precisely the consequent 𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 of control I would have over what they said, unchecked by me. 😕 But after all, you can just manually skip past whatever doesn’t interest you. So it seems to me that this would only be a small convenience for users, and you have to ask if it’s really worth the developers’ time to implement.
Cheers
#19 you complicate a simple requests.
Complicated features regarding forums will not happen.
Those who design and test the codes, will not spend their free time on none chess related features.
A simple features perhaps, but not complicated codings.
