‘I am not a developer, but my guess is that it is probably close to impossible to implement a messaging system that offers what you are asking for. Unless of course they would simply remove the possibility to block people completely. But this would come with another set of disadvantages.‘
At the risk of repeating myself, this is not really what I’m asking for...it’s got nothing to do with removing the blocking function completely or anything like that. It’s the abuse of the messaging system whereby you can send an insulting message and then instantly block the person. I’m asking for that feature to be removed, nothing more than that.
‘I am not a developer, but again: How do you envision that to work? If your intended system really does remove blocking, then I am pretty sure that it will not happen.‘
Ok, well I see two possibilities.
1) As I mentioned before, the sender of a message can be fairly assumed to be wanting to start a conversation. So why can’t the initiator of conversations not be allowed to block, but the receiver still has that option? If the initiator eventually wants to block then it could be at moderator request.
2) Allow a minimum conversation length before blocking is allowed. Let’s say 5 messages.
Is this really so difficult to implement?
‘You keep saying this as if it were a thing. I have never heard of such a "right to reply", and I honestly doubt it exists anywhere. Definitely not in my country, otherwise I would have been in jail long ago. I constantly violate people's "right to reply"‘
Sorry, there seems to be some confusion here...I’m not talking about a legal right or anything like that, I’m talking about the issue of fairness.
‘ The fact that you do not see any consequences does absolutely not mean that there are none’
Not really sure what warrants this cryptic reply. Are we dealing with state secrets here? Why can you just answer in plain English what these punishments are then? Frankly, this comes across as so defensive, that I’m wondering more and more if this behaviour is even punished at all...happy to be proven wrong on this point tho!
At the risk of repeating myself, this is not really what I’m asking for...it’s got nothing to do with removing the blocking function completely or anything like that. It’s the abuse of the messaging system whereby you can send an insulting message and then instantly block the person. I’m asking for that feature to be removed, nothing more than that.
‘I am not a developer, but again: How do you envision that to work? If your intended system really does remove blocking, then I am pretty sure that it will not happen.‘
Ok, well I see two possibilities.
1) As I mentioned before, the sender of a message can be fairly assumed to be wanting to start a conversation. So why can’t the initiator of conversations not be allowed to block, but the receiver still has that option? If the initiator eventually wants to block then it could be at moderator request.
2) Allow a minimum conversation length before blocking is allowed. Let’s say 5 messages.
Is this really so difficult to implement?
‘You keep saying this as if it were a thing. I have never heard of such a "right to reply", and I honestly doubt it exists anywhere. Definitely not in my country, otherwise I would have been in jail long ago. I constantly violate people's "right to reply"‘
Sorry, there seems to be some confusion here...I’m not talking about a legal right or anything like that, I’m talking about the issue of fairness.
‘ The fact that you do not see any consequences does absolutely not mean that there are none’
Not really sure what warrants this cryptic reply. Are we dealing with state secrets here? Why can you just answer in plain English what these punishments are then? Frankly, this comes across as so defensive, that I’m wondering more and more if this behaviour is even punished at all...happy to be proven wrong on this point tho!