# Blocked Users?



## Tock (Aug 6, 2008)

Just a general n00b question in regards to blocking unwanted/unfriendly users.  Can they still access your page and are only forbidden from commenting/+faving/+watching/etc?  Or are they unable to access it completely? Someone please satisfy my curiosity.  Thanks!


----------



## dave hyena (Aug 6, 2008)

They cannot leave comments on your submissions or journals. They cannot send you notes. They cannot leave shouts on your page.

They can look at your page & your submissions. They can +watch & unwatch, +fav and unfav.

(If someone repeatedly watches and unwatchers or favs and unfavs, that's abusive and against the terms of service!)


----------



## Tock (Aug 6, 2008)

Thanks Dave!


----------



## Alchera (Aug 6, 2008)

dave hyena said:


> They cannot leave comments on your submissions or journals. They cannot send you notes. They cannot leave shouts on your page.
> 
> They can look at your page & your submissions. They can +watch & unwatch, +fav and unfav.
> 
> (If someone repeatedly watches and unwatchers or favs and unfavs, that's abusive and against the terms of service!)



They can, however, reply directly to your comments that you leave on other people's journals. Unless that has been fixed, that's how some people get around the block, by using someone else's journal as a medium.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 6, 2008)

> They can look at your page & your submissions. They can +watch & unwatch, +fav and unfav.


IMO:
- Blocked users shouldn't be able to +watch a person who blocked them.
- If a user is blocked, you shouldn't get a notice if they +fave something.


----------



## dmfalk (Aug 7, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> IMO:
> - Blocked users shouldn't be able to +watch a person who blocked them.
> - If a user is blocked, you shouldn't get a notice if they +fave something.



They shouldn't get ANYTHING except to view. If I block someone, I don't want them to +watch or +fave me/my submissions, nor do I want replies and notes from them. There are just some furs out there (and I use the term loosely) that I SIMPLY DON'T WANT ANY AGGRAVATION FROM.

So please- Make it a true blocking, OK? It's bad enough I've been CYDed (don't ask if you don't know), I don't want more headaches.

Most furs are kind and tolerant, and quite welcoming, but there are those few who make it a habit of harassing.

d.m.f.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 7, 2008)

Wow.  I was originally going to point out how certain users don't like blocked users +faving their stuff, but I decided not to.  I didn't expect somebody to fill in for me so quickly.

So what you're basically proposing is, that if you block somebody then with regards to your pages/submissions they should be blocked from doing anything that requires being logged in.

Should I point out that on deviantART if you block somebody, this _automatically_ removes you and your submissions from their watchlist and faves as well as prevents them from +faving or +watching you in the future?

Oops, already did.


----------



## Alchera (Aug 8, 2008)

dmfalk said:


> They shouldn't get ANYTHING except to view. If I block someone, I don't want them to +watch or +fave me/my submissions, nor do I want replies and notes from them. There are just some furs out there (and I use the term loosely) that I SIMPLY DON'T WANT ANY AGGRAVATION FROM.
> 
> So please- Make it a true blocking, OK? It's bad enough I've been CYDed (don't ask if you don't know), I don't want more headaches.
> 
> ...



If I had it my way, they wouldn't beable to view anything at all. I'm rather tired of two certain individuals constantly checking what I do when they're blocked and making snide remarks/whiney journals about it on their accounts or to other people.


----------



## fx1 (Aug 8, 2008)

But they could still see your pages as Guest (without logging in)? Except the adult stuff of course.


----------



## Eevee (Aug 8, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> Should I point out that on deviantART if you block somebody, this _automatically_ removes you and your submissions from their watchlist and faves as well as prevents them from +faving or +watching you in the future?


You want _some other user_ to control who you can watch and whose art you can fave?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 8, 2008)

fx1 said:


> But they could still see your pages as Guest (without logging in)? Except the adult stuff of course.



Or get another account and not tell you.

Some of the responses are getting juvenile. If you blocked a user you want nothing to do with them, why are *you* going over to see what comments they make on other pages? Why not just leave him/her alone to do whatever too? Out of sight out of mind. I can understand you blocking them from your page so they stop making comments, but after that, if you're going over to see what he/she is doing you decided to instigate the problem again. Just let it go.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 8, 2008)

> If you blocked a user you want nothing to do with them, why are you going over to see what comments they make on other pages? Why not just leave him/her alone to do whatever too? Out of sight out of mind. I can understand you blocking them from your page so they stop making comments, but after that, if you're going over to see what he/she is doing you decided to instigate the problem again. Just let it go.


New suggestion:  If you block a user, YOU are not allowed to view their userpage either.


----------



## Eevee (Aug 8, 2008)

New suggestion: stop needing babysitting.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 8, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> New suggestion:  If you block a user, YOU are not allowed to view their userpage either.



I vote for a block everything button. But yeah, this is getting silly.


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 8, 2008)

I need a "Block FA and everything that upsets me on the internet" button.

*eyeroll*


----------



## Daniel Kay (Aug 8, 2008)

I think the current block function is enough, if someone talks crap i just want them too keep their dirty mouths away from my page, only thing that should be adressed is the "comment on others comments"


----------



## dmfalk (Aug 8, 2008)

Alchera said:


> If I had it my way, they wouldn't beable to view anything at all. I'm rather tired of two certain individuals constantly checking what I do when they're blocked and making snide remarks/whiney journals about it on their accounts or to other people.



They'll do so even if they CAN'T view your submissions. Just the nature of some people, sadly.  There is nothing anyone can do about those that talk behind your back, even virtually.

d.m.f.


----------



## SFox (Aug 8, 2008)

Alchera said:


> If I had it my way, they wouldn't beable to view anything at all.



Giving users too much control over other users like this is dangerous.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 9, 2008)

somberfox said:


> Giving users too much control over other users like this is dangerous.


No, it's sarcasm.


----------



## Alchera (Aug 9, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Or get another account and not tell you.
> 
> Some of the responses are getting juvenile. If you blocked a user you want nothing to do with them, why are *you* going over to see what comments they make on other pages? Why not just leave him/her alone to do whatever too? Out of sight out of mind. I can understand you blocking them from your page so they stop making comments, but after that, if you're going over to see what he/she is doing you decided to instigate the problem again. Just let it go.



If that is aimed at me, you might want to stop and consider that perhaps I'm not doing as you say. Concerning the two certain people--my friends inform me of when they do--and I don't ask them to--because they care. One case of this didn't even happen on their own pages, but under a submission under another user. So, don't even dare start calling me juvenile. Believe what you will, but that's not what I do.


As for DMF - I mean the gallery as a whole, including journals.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 9, 2008)

There *is* a valid point here.

- If somebody harasses you on your userpage, you can just delete the shouts and/or block them.

- If somebody harasses you on your submissions, journals, etc., you cannot remove the comment but you _can_ still block them just the same.

- If somebody _replies_ to a comment you posted on a submission, journal, etc., by another user, they are *not* blocked.  You *cannot* delete the comment and *cannot* avoid being notified of it.

This is a loophole and design flaw of the blocking system.  It is a *genuine* concern that flamers/trolls are able to continue harassing arbitrary users simply by posting their comments as _replies_ to comments on pages other than the person's own.


----------



## kusanagi-sama (Aug 12, 2008)

How about the ability to IP ban someone from your account, even when they aren't logged into FA, they can't view your account.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 12, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> - If somebody _replies_ to a comment you posted on a submission, journal, etc., by another user, they are *not* blocked.  You *cannot* delete the comment and *cannot* avoid being notified of it.
> 
> This is a loophole and design flaw of the blocking system.  It is a *genuine* concern that flamers/trolls are able to continue harassing arbitrary users simply by posting their comments as _replies_ to comments on pages other than the person's own.



That is a valid concern and did bring it up with yak about blocking not effective again because if I remember correctly he fixed that issue a while back.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 12, 2008)

Alchera said:


> If that is aimed at me, you might want to stop and consider that perhaps I'm not doing as you say. Concerning the two certain people--my friends inform me of when they do--and I don't ask them to--because they care. One case of this didn't even happen on their own pages, but under a submission under another user. So, don't even dare start calling me juvenile. Believe what you will, but that's not what I do.
> 
> 
> As for DMF - I mean the gallery as a whole, including journals.



Again out of sight out of mind, the purpose of block is so they stop harassing you on your page and on your submissions, if your friends enjoy continuing the drama by bringing it to your attention, you are still encouraging the instigation of this problem. It still doesn't prevent them from getting another account to view your submissions or view non adult submissions as a guest. Or they can get a friend to download the submissions and still make comments on other submissions. So again the responses are getting juvenile when there are times you just have to let things go and ignore it, by stating how much it's bothering you, even them being around, you're giving in to the attention, and any attention is validating his/her existence.


----------



## yak (Aug 13, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> There *is* a valid point here.
> - If somebody _replies_ to a comment you posted on a submission, journal, etc., by another user, they are *not* blocked.  You *cannot* delete the comment and *cannot* avoid being notified of it.
> 
> This is a loophole and design flaw of the blocking system.  It is a *genuine* concern that flamers/trolls are able to continue harassing arbitrary users simply by posting their comments as _replies_ to comments on pages other than the person's own.



I believe I have fixed this problem long ago, but I will double check to be sure.


----------



## fx1 (Aug 13, 2008)

kusanagi-sama said:


> How about the ability to IP ban someone from your account, even when they aren't logged into FA, they can't view your account.


Doesn't work. It's easy to visit FA through some proxy. Just face it, if you put it on the Web, it's public


----------



## net-cat (Aug 13, 2008)

Ideally, a "block" means a user won't be able to interact with you in any that's visible to you or the general public. This is the paradigm I've been following in Ferrox, anyway.

This is not quite the case in the current code, but it's pretty close. (I'm not sure what sort of extra queries would be required to check a user's block list before sending a fave/watch notification in the current code.)

And no. There will not ever be per-gallery, user-controlled IP bans. I'm not sure why people think IP Addresses are magical, unchanging things that absolutely identify a user. IP bans only work in specific cases and most users wouldn't know how to set an effective one, anyway.


----------



## jayhusky (Aug 13, 2008)

IP addresse come in two forms: static and dynamic 

Static means they do NOT change and will stay the same forever
Dynamic means they change every time a new connection is established

An example of static ip = 23.234.34.2 (I dont know if this is a real ip)
A dynamic one is: 23.43.x.x (the last 2 change upon next connection (unknown if real ip)

IP bans really only work if the user has a static one as if you ip ban the dynamic sort you can affect multiple users

(This is for people who know little about IP addresses)


----------



## kusanagi-sama (Aug 13, 2008)

furcity said:


> IP addresse come in two forms: static and dynamic
> 
> Static means they do NOT change and will stay the same forever
> Dynamic means they change every time a new connection is established
> ...


 
Cable Internet usually is static, DSL, dialup and maybe wireless internet is dynamic


----------



## Eevee (Aug 14, 2008)

kusanagi-sama said:


> How about the ability to IP ban someone from your account, even when they aren't logged into FA, they can't view your account.


WOW what the fuck no

how do you propose to find the person's IP anyway


----------



## tsawolf (Aug 14, 2008)

Eevee said:


> WOW what the fuck no
> 
> how do you propose to find the person's IP anyway



Yeah, this isn't happening. No discussion needed on this front. It's just not going to happen.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 14, 2008)

Eevee said:


> WOW what the fuck no
> 
> how do you propose to find the person's IP anyway



They wouldn't have to.  If FA tags each comment with the originating IP address, they could just specify the username to block and FA could include the user's last associated IP in the block automatically, without having to reveal to the user what that IP is.


----------



## kusanagi-sama (Aug 14, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> They wouldn't have to. If FA tags each comment with the originating IP address, they could just specify the username to block and FA could include the user's last associated IP in the block automatically, without having to reveal to the user what that IP is.


 
Yeah, basically what I was thinking


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 14, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> They wouldn't have to.  If FA tags each comment with the originating IP address, they could just specify the username to block and FA could include the user's last associated IP in the block automatically, without having to reveal to the user what that IP is.


Then that'll just inspire people to use more loopholes. Besides, what about people with shared IPs?


----------



## Hanazawa (Aug 14, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> Then that'll just inspire people to use more loopholes. Besides, what about people with shared IPs?



what's the likelihood of two people sharing an IP where one of them is banned by user X but the other one is okay?

/devil's advocate


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 14, 2008)

Hanazawa said:


> what's the likelihood of two people sharing an IP where one of them is banned by user X but the other one is okay?
> 
> /devil's advocate



Kinda likely if the person uses college computers etc.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 14, 2008)

Hanazawa said:


> what's the likelihood of two people sharing an IP where one of them is banned by user X but the other one is okay?
> 
> /devil's advocate


Y'know, before I got to this site... I'd have probably told you I didn't think it was common. But a lot of people share their net connections or live in "furry houses". Granted, there does come a point where I think you have to take the blame for a bad roommate...

So I guess like most everything it'd be on a case-by-case basis. Nothing's ever easy.


----------



## Hanazawa (Aug 14, 2008)

Arshes Nei said:


> Kinda likely if the person uses college computers etc.



this begs the question of how many people at any given university 1. use those computers 2. are furries 3. access FA from those computers

...which I'm kind of curious to know. haha.

re: 'Neer,
fair enough. but yeah, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say if Furry X has a problem with Furry A, who happens to live with Furry B, Furry X isn't going to be enamored of Furry B anyhow.


----------



## dmfalk (Aug 14, 2008)

Trust me on this, based on personal experience- IP bans don't work unless it's for a broad swath of addresses (ie: 127.0.0.*), but yes, IPs are NOT immutable and will change.

d.m.f.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 15, 2008)

Dragoneer said:


> Besides, what about people with shared IPs?


Temporary IP blocking.


----------



## Undying Song (Aug 15, 2008)

Hanazawa said:


> what's the likelihood of two people sharing an IP where one of them is banned by user X but the other one is okay?
> 
> /devil's advocate



Likely. That happened to me before, unfortunately. I shared a house with someone who introduced me to an art site. They ended up for some reason getting themselves banned. I was banned also, because I shared the same IP.

I managed to get the issue resolved, but it took a lot of work on my part to have it done.


----------



## SammyFox (Aug 15, 2008)

Stratadrake said:


> Temporary IP blocking.



I don't have a degree on this kind of stuff, but wouldn't temporary IP blocking destroy the whole purpose of blocking someone?

but the temporary ip blocking itself is flawed because

1) when it's lifted, the same guy might still harrass you, prompting you to get to the forums and ask for yet more draconian measures,
2) you'll still be blocking the unfortunate one who doesn't have anything to do in this but can't access the site because some idiot trolled you
3) as TSA said, it won't happen.


----------



## Valerion (Aug 15, 2008)

The other issue, of course, is transparent proxies.  South Africa has only a few tier-1 ISP's, and all of them uses transparent proxies (no choice here).  Often (irritatingly) in a round-robin fashion.  Every few weeks I manage to hit a proxy where a user abused Google and I am now forced to enter a captcha to search, or get a time block on Wikipedia for edits.  I gave up trying to create an account there as well.

So if the site gets the wrong IP from the packet headers, or the proxy doesn't properly forward the real IP, then an IP-level ban can easily block an entire ISP.


----------



## yak (Aug 15, 2008)

valerion said:


> The other issue, of course, is transparent proxies.  South Africa has only a few tier-1 ISP's, and all of them uses transparent proxies (no choice here).  Often (irritatingly) in a round-robin fashion.  Every few weeks I manage to hit a proxy where a user abused Google and I am now forced to enter a captcha to search, or get a time block on Wikipedia for edits.  I gave up trying to create an account there as well.
> 
> So if the site gets the wrong IP from the packet headers, or the proxy doesn't properly forward the real IP, then an IP-level ban can easily block an entire ISP.



^ That.

Besides, like half of former soviet east uses wide area LANs which may contain from several to many hundreds of users, which all would have a single world-facing IP address.

No, IP bans are not happening.


----------



## shenryyr (Aug 20, 2008)

What exactly is blocked when someone's name goes on the list?  The description only says *"Block users who are being rude or malicious towards you. Blocked users will not be able to view your user page."*  but there seems to be other ways harassment can continue via replies to comments.


----------



## yak (Aug 21, 2008)

A small update
http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=561062&postcount=11


----------

