# Blocked people



## Zahur (Dec 6, 2017)

Hello, 
I see that whenever I block someone, said "someone" can still watch me and stalk my contents, is it possible that when we block someone, automatically his watch gets removed/my content be hidden from him/her?

Thanks for your time.


----------



## Diretooth (Dec 6, 2017)

I am indifferent, mostly because if you block someone, and your content is also blocked from their view, you then have free rein to insult them as much as you want without them knowing.


----------



## Zahur (Dec 6, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> I am indifferent, mostly because if you block someone, and your content is also blocked from their view, you then have free rein to insult them as much as you want without them knowing.


Of course, the reason is not to insult them freely, just to not get stalked by an unpleasant person


----------



## Diretooth (Dec 6, 2017)

And the reason for blocking people is so they don't do so as well, but there are people who would abuse that. In G+, you can block someone, and you can't see the things they post, however, they can slander you and insult you all they want and you'd never know. All I'm pointing out is the reality of what would happen eventually.


----------



## Zahur (Dec 6, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> And the reason for blocking people is so they don't do so as well, but there are people who would abuse that. In G+, you can block someone, and you can't see the things they post, however, they can slander you and insult you all they want and you'd never know. All I'm pointing out is the reality of what would happen eventually.


Calling out people is against site's rule being blocked or not, it's just using your brain and your conscience at this point and being aware of site's rule.
Having a blocked person stalking your data/journals/everything instead, it's just annoying


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 6, 2017)

I am for using the tools at your disposal if you wish to use them. 

Even if you block someone for a moronic reason that is still your right given to you with the tools available. Even if tools are available doesn't mean you necessarily have to use them.

I have blocked 3 people. You really need to achieve true levels of stupid for me to block you. Plenty of people block me. I don't care about it. I move on with my day. I don't get stuck on who blocks who.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Dec 6, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> I am indifferent, mostly because if you block someone, and your content is also blocked from their view, you then have free rein to insult them as much as you want without them knowing.


Not accurate.  If it's reported or seen that you are antagonizing or harassing someone whom you have blocked, you will receive your own infraction for Harassment.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Dec 6, 2017)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> Not accurate.  If it's reported or seen that you are antagonizing or harassing someone whom you have blocked, you will receive your own infraction for Harassment.



Or trying to circumvent the system


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 6, 2017)

I don't agree with blocking unless it's against a perpetually harassing person. But then they're breaking the rules, so i don't see any reason to use the blocking function here.


----------



## silveredgreen (Dec 6, 2017)

If someone wants to continue talking shit about you even after a block, its really their problem and not yours. If you block them that's your way of saying "i refuse to put up with your shit any longer". Their persistent shit talking is a sign of immaturity and will only result in them getting into trouble. If you can't see it, you shouldn't worry unless its actually doing harm to you.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Dec 6, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Or trying to circumvent the system



If it's suspected that someone is trying to get around or evade a block that should be reported as well, with either a trouble ticket on the main site or a Report here on the forum.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Dec 6, 2017)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> If it's suspected that someone is trying to get around or evade a block that should be reported as well, with either a trouble ticket on the main site or a Report here on the forum.



It was already dealt with .


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 7, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't agree with blocking unless it's against a perpetually harassing person. But then they're breaking the rules, so i don't see any reason to use the blocking function here.


If you refuse to block someone that's harassing you, you're also hampering our ability to do much about their behavior. Staff interference is for when blocking fails, not an excuse to not use the block function.



Zahur said:


> I see that whenever I block someone, said "someone" can still watch me and stalk my contents, is it possible that when we block someone, automatically his watch gets removed/my content be hidden from him/her?


To be clear, they can remain a watcher, but they can't _start_ watching you if you have them blocked. 

A big reason why blocks do not force unwatches is because of the potential for abuse. If we were to change site behavior to do that, it would likely also be coupled with notifications to the general effect of "your watch of <username> has been terminated due to that user blocking you" so that we don't have the site making silent changes to someone's account.

Hiding content from blocked users is not terribly effective due to how easy such measures are to circumvent. While we understand there are cases where this would be desirable, for most situations preventing the user from making contact with the blocking party should be sufficient to prevent e.g. further harassment.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Dec 7, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> If you refuse to block someone that's harassing you, you're also hampering our ability to do much about their behavior. Staff interference is for when blocking fails, not an excuse to not use the block function.



No, it's your job to ban people who perpetually harass people and start arguments, like a recent poster here who would randomly explode and turn normal threads into flame wars. Per your own rules, you'll ban or give warnings to people who break the rules. I have no need to use the blocking system due to that.  People shouldn't _have _to use the blocking feature or you're admitting that you can't do your jobs, or maybe you're understaffed or something.

[snip]

Note that I've been restricting this argument to the forum. On the broader website, I could see it being harder to ban people for everything that irks other people, and some people simply don't want to see stuff from an artist who, say, posts vore 10x a day and so it pops up in searches all the time.


----------



## Zahur (Dec 7, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> A big reason why blocks do not force unwatches is because of the potential for abuse. If we were to change site behavior to do that, it would likely also be coupled with notifications to the general effect of "your watch of <username> has been terminated due to that user blocking you" so that we don't have the site making silent changes to someone's account.
> 
> Hiding content from blocked users is not terribly effective due to how easy such measures are to circumvent. While we understand there are cases where this would be desirable, for most situations preventing the user from making contact with the blocking party should be sufficient to prevent e.g. further harassment.


1. I would rather have the user to know that I've blocked them and the system has removed them from my watch than having him/her stalk my content, to be honest.
2.It is not really, I mean, to evade a block the only way would be the one to create another account, and it is against the site's rule to do that, or in a 'legal' way to ask a friend to check on the people that blocked you, but still, that means you can't check directly the person content content


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 7, 2017)

BahgDaddy said:


> No, it's your job to ban people who perpetually harass people and start arguments, like a recent poster here who would randomly explode and turn normal threads into flame wars. Per your own rules, you'll ban or give warnings to people who break the rules. I have no need to use the blocking system due to that. People shouldn't _have _to use the blocking feature or you're admitting that you can't do your jobs, or maybe you're understaffed or something.


Sometimes it's that straightforward.

A lot of the time, "harassment" could mean "this person is telling me things I don't want to hear", and for that... nope. Not our job to police that - blocking the user would solve the problem more efficiently than we ever could, anyway. In these cases, we're here to tell people off if they circumvent the block, not for having a bedside manner you (general you, not you specifically) don't approve of.



Zahur said:


> 1. I would rather have the user to know that I've blocked them and the system has removed them from my watch than having him/her stalk my content, to be honest.


Fair enough. Just saying that's a concern; not everyone would be okay with it, and I can understand either position.



Zahur said:


> 2.It is not really, I mean, to evade a block the only way would be the one to create another account, and it is against the site's rule to do that, or in a 'legal' way to ask a friend to check on the people that blocked you, but still, that means you can't check directly the person content content


If guest access to your content is enabled, they could view your general submissions and journals just by logging out, much like on Twitter you can view the tweets of someone who blocked you by logging out of your account. We would also not really be able to prove someone used their alt account to view a specific user's content, so since we permit individuals to hold multiple accounts, it would be an unenforceable form of block evasion.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 7, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Sometimes it's that straightforward.
> 
> A lot of the time, "harassment" could mean "this person is telling me things I don't want to hear", and for that... nope. Not our job to police that - blocking the user would solve the problem more efficiently than we ever could, anyway. In these cases, we're here to tell people off if they circumvent the block, not for having a bedside manner you (general you, not you specifically) don't approve of.


^ This.

When you block or are being blocked, any and all interaction and/or mentioning by name directly will cease at that instant. If you circumvent the block by making an alt account, that's a rule broken if I remember my FA/FAF rules correctly.

It's simple to see if you are being blocked or have blocked, really. When you see someone posting with a blackened "Unknown member", that's the blocker/blocked person. You can't see by whom you've been blocked, only those whom you have blocked. 

Regardless of the reason for blocking or being blocked, it's a tool you can use if you feel the need, want or the urge to use. Got blocked? Tough luck. Move on with your day. Kicking up a fuss about it is counterproductive and utterly useless.


----------



## Ciderfine (Dec 9, 2017)

While I think blocking people is a good idea, it is very primitive in its state here. You can still see that person being active, you can still see their work and they can too. Ive had creepers, mean people, spammers or fights break out, but the blocking doesnt solve so many issues, its stops them from reaching a point by leaving the issue frozen in time. 

Blocking should act as a blacklist, and as other options to remain "invisible" like how twitter or Tumblr functions. The more control on not just yourside you can have in terms of the new aspects and dark parts of online such as..."stalking" "spamming favs and then removing them all" etc. We need to make new things to keep up with todays hetic and trolly online world. Keeping things black and white wont really solve the new issues.


----------



## Zahur (Dec 10, 2017)

Ciderfine said:


> While I think blocking people is a good idea, it is very primitive in its state here. You can still see that person being active, you can still see their work and they can too. Ive had creepers, mean people, spammers or fights break out, but the blocking doesnt solve so many issues, its stops them from reaching a point by leaving the issue frozen in time.
> 
> Blocking should act as a blacklist, and as other options to remain "invisible" like how twitter or Tumblr functions. The more control on not just yourside you can have in terms of the new aspects and dark parts of online such as..."stalking" "spamming favs and then removing them all" etc. We need to make new things to keep up with todays hetic and trolly online world. Keeping things black and white wont really solve the new issues.


Marry me


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Dec 10, 2017)

I really don't get why people are so anxious that blocked people are looking at their content. I can understand fave spam is pretty annoying so perhaps we should implement a way to where blocked people's fave notifications don't show up in your notification bar. That would be nice indeed.

As to actually barring content from people you block though, no, I don't agree with that. And in any case, it would be hell to try to enforce. If you know how, it is sooo easy to just make another account to circumvent blocking and banning. Even if it's an IP ban.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 10, 2017)

Hybrid Persona said:


> I really don't get why people are so anxious that blocked people are looking at their content. I can understand fave spam is pretty annoying so perhaps we should implement a way to where blocked people's fave notifications don't show up in your notification bar. That would be nice indeed.


Blocked people haven't been able to favorite your content in quite some time now.


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Dec 11, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Blocked people haven't been able to favorite your content in quite some time now.



Hm. That is a way to do it, although I think that's a little overkill.


----------



## Zahur (Dec 11, 2017)

Hybrid Persona said:


> Hm. That is a way to do it, although I think that's a little overkill.


Overkill? It's creepy that someone that you block would be able to do that


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Dec 11, 2017)

Zahur said:


> Overkill? It's creepy that someone that you block would be able to do that



Who cares if they favorite your content though as long as they can't spam your notification bar anymore?


----------



## Zahur (Dec 13, 2017)

Hybrid Persona said:


> Who cares if they favorite your content though as long as they can't spam your notification bar anymore?


I care actually, hence why I made this post


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Dec 13, 2017)

Zahur said:


> I care actually, hence why I made this post



But why? Not attacking BTW. I'm just curious.


----------



## Zahur (Dec 14, 2017)

Hybrid Persona said:


> But why? Not attacking BTW. I'm just curious.


I feel like it's creepy and a block means to break any kind of relationship with a person for any reason behind it, if you block someone on FB or any other platform, the system will hide automatically contents and everything.
In a nutshell: It's creepy and disgusting


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 14, 2017)

Zahur said:


> I feel like it's creepy and a block means to break any kind of relationship with a person for any reason behind it, if you block someone on FB or any other platform, the system will hide automatically contents and everything.
> In a nutshell: It's creepy and disgusting


I wouldn't say Facebook is comparable. Art sites become a very... weird area, when it comes to blocks, and possibly the only "good" (not sure even this is good, so much as best possible) solution would be completely granular block functions, where commenting, faving, watching, and viewing privileges are all set individually. To make a slightly hyperbolic analogy, if JK Rowling were to get a restraining order against John Smith, it's reasonable that he's prevented from making contact with her, but is it reasonable to prevent him from going to see _Fantastic Beasts_? Is it reasonable to prevent him from using _Pottermore_? Would it be reasonable to prevent him from writing a scholarly paper on how _Harry Potter_ changed the younger generation's reading habits? 

If someone is using continued access to your work and journals to keep tabs on you, then yeah, that can be a bit creepy. But if literally all they're doing is viewing your work because they enjoy the art you create? Eeeh. Wouldn't call that creepy. It's pretty damn harmless.


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Dec 14, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> I wouldn't say Facebook is comparable. Art sites become a very... weird area, when it comes to blocks, and possibly the only "good" (not sure even this is good, so much as best possible) solution would be completely granular block functions, where commenting, faving, watching, and viewing privileges are all set individually. To make a slightly hyperbolic analogy, if JK Rowling were to get a restraining order against John Smith, it's reasonable that he's prevented from making contact with her, but is it reasonable to prevent him from going to see _Fantastic Beasts_? Is it reasonable to prevent him from using _Pottermore_? Would it be reasonable to prevent him from writing a scholarly paper on how _Harry Potter_ changed the younger generation's reading habits?
> 
> If someone is using continued access to your work and journals to keep tabs on you, then yeah, that can be a bit creepy. But if literally all they're doing is viewing your work because they enjoy the art you create? Eeeh. Wouldn't call that creepy. It's pretty damn harmless.



Pretty much this. Of course you'd want to keep everyone that isn't your friend on Facebook from viewing your personal information and files. But with art, it's not really the same thing. I mean, if you find any piece of your own art too personal to show then I just simply wouldn't post it at all.

I do understand that the thought of some creepy person who's poring over your work is unpleasant, but that is all it is really. And in order to stop that, one would have to take extreme measures.


----------



## Zahur (Dec 15, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> I wouldn't say Facebook is comparable. Art sites become a very... weird area, when it comes to blocks, and possibly the only "good" (not sure even this is good, so much as best possible) solution would be completely granular block functions, where commenting, faving, watching, and viewing privileges are all set individually. To make a slightly hyperbolic analogy, if JK Rowling were to get a restraining order against John Smith, it's reasonable that he's prevented from making contact with her, but is it reasonable to prevent him from going to see _Fantastic Beasts_? Is it reasonable to prevent him from using _Pottermore_? Would it be reasonable to prevent him from writing a scholarly paper on how _Harry Potter_ changed the younger generation's reading habits?
> 
> If someone is using continued access to your work and journals to keep tabs on you, then yeah, that can be a bit creepy. But if literally all they're doing is viewing your work because they enjoy the art you create? Eeeh. Wouldn't call that creepy. It's pretty damn harmless.





Hybrid Persona said:


> Pretty much this. Of course you'd want to keep everyone that isn't your friend on Facebook from viewing your personal information and files. But with art, it's not really the same thing. I mean, if you find any piece of your own art too personal to show then I just simply wouldn't post it at all.
> 
> I do understand that the thought of some creepy person who's poring over your work is unpleasant, but that is all it is really. And in order to stop that, one would have to take extreme measures.


I don't get why we are still talking about this, this is a personal opinion, most of the people that voted in this thread have my same opinion, If you want to continue like this forever my answer will be always:
I find it creepy that someone I blocked can view my content.
and your reply:
 but this isn't Facebook etc...
Are we done?


----------



## Hybrid Persona (Dec 15, 2017)

Zahur said:


> I don't get why we are still talking about this, this is a personal opinion, most of the people that voted in this thread have my same opinion, If you want to continue like this forever my answer will be always:
> I find it creepy that someone I blocked can view my content.
> and your reply:
> but this isn't Facebook etc...
> Are we done?



You don't have to talk about anything if you don't want to. There's no need to get snippy.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 15, 2017)

No. I like to let people make fools of themselves for all to see.


----------



## ferretsage (Mar 11, 2018)

When furries get upset that people they've banned can still see their content, what they are, specifically, upset about, is that those banned others can still see their posted furry porn. So, let's frame this thread properly without mincing words: this thread is about furry porn artists upset the people they've banned can still masturbate to their porno content. Just trying to take out some of the piss from this thread's sense of self-righteousness before I begin my main rebuttal even fewer would read to the end otherwise.

Despite many commentators, this thread has failed to mention the illuminative perspective that some people have only one talent -- making good porn. If they don't like being bluntly told (either explicitly through criticism from true friends or implicitly through creepy commentary of their fan-atics) that's all their shallow manipulative personalities are good for... and they ban... oh well. Good riddance.

I can't be too serious on this issue; just like I can't be too serious about thousands of isolated masturbators who call themselves a "community". My FA journal notifications scroll up -- "Help, me/my friend/my family member is sick/dying" interspersed between "Patreon slut paywall -- click here!". Same members of this community participating in both types of diametrically opposed messages; unnaturally vacillating between emotions of sorrow and lust -- often within minutes of each other.

This shallow community ejaculates over the caskets of its dead to defy, deny, or sublimate human cravings for intimacy. Most of the Furry membership base doesn't even have to yet work for their living still supported, well into legal adulthood, by their parent(s). Yet, as they lounge in social parasitism, many furries gleefully compare, as a twisted bloodsport, anyone who takes their own furry identity beyond their own disposable online comfort zone to the instigators of the Holocaust -- for the high crime of no longer handing out their friendship for free.

When online and anonymous through your fursonas, there's not nearly as many consequences for being indiscriminate in choosing your relationships. But, the people who deviate from the form in real life, forms dreamt about and lusted over online, are treated as asshole scum by those perfectly content with nothing more than online porn. It's almost as though furry culture fosters the wish to die alone, with pride and dignity intact, snuggling and humping their furry waifu/husbando dakimakura pillows.

I don't expect the furry community will ever change. Or evolve beyond a teenage dead-end wasteland. This supposed "all-accepting community" still can't point to any enduring terrestrial presence it's proud to stand by -- despite 30 years of this subculture's existence and, supposedly, 100,000  masturbat -- I mean, members worldwide. Furries are made of flesh and blood -- their fantasies are not. As a heavy metal band once wisely said, "Whatever dreams you're reaching to claim decides the path you are taking!" But furries hide behind their online screens with far more terror of real in-person social interaction than shy teens clinging to the sides of the roller skating rink. Get out and swim! Flesh and blood cannot endure online community as its whole existence -- as Furry has poisonously structured itself -- no matter how "accepting"! Flesh and blood cannot go where head ghosts travel.

Or how, in this community of infinite love, those criticizing abusive and self-destructive behavior within its membership being reprimanded for calling out those abusers and wastrel living -- punished for bringing pails of water as a form of blasphemy as the furry community burns. In Furry, telling a gathering audience of furries what they want and need to hear is "harassment" -- according to those furries who indicate with "community warnings" what words and thoughts are acceptable while maintaining the illusion of inclusivity, cloistered inside their echo chambers and painting over their windows to dissolve away into LaLa Land.

Perhaps the reason why Furry is so poor at supporting its members' human needs, and why so many furries are dying and sick and hurting between pumping out picturesque pornographic illusions of their ideal selves they further polarize themselves from wasting away behind screens all day, is because Furry is not permitted to act as a healthy normal self-cleansing community -- beyond demonizing those who disagree with this community's downward circling the drain patterns as "Nazis".

In b4 Shad-OWtheEDGE.jpg because the furry community feels threat to its image long before damage to human health it couldn't be less concerned with. "Membership", as a Furry is so cheap because it is intentionally and insidiously designed to be nothing more than gullible financial nutrients to mash up and consume.


----------



## defunct (Mar 11, 2018)

if they want to see your stuff they're just gonna make a new account


----------



## defunct (Mar 11, 2018)

ferretsage said:


> When furries get upset that people they've banned can still see their content, what they are, specifically, upset about, is that those banned others can still see their posted furry porn. So, let's frame this thread properly without mincing words: this thread is about furry porn artists upset the people they've banned can still masturbate to their porno content. Just trying to take out some of the piss from this thread's sense of self-righteousness before I begin my main rebuttal even fewer would read to the end otherwise.
> 
> Despite many commentators, this thread has failed to mention the illuminative perspective that some people have only one talent -- making good porn. If they don't like being bluntly told (either explicitly through criticism from true friends or implicitly through creepy commentary of their fan-atics) that's all their shallow manipulative personalities are good for... and they ban... oh well. Good riddance.
> 
> ...


----------



## ferretsage (Mar 15, 2018)

Nastala said:


>



Just post Shad-OWTheEdge.jpg Make your casual dismissal and denial to avoid redressing your community's problems less dishonest.


----------



## Mewtwolover (Mar 16, 2018)

ferretsage said:


> When furries get upset that people they've banned can still see their content, what they are, specifically, upset about, is that those banned others can still see their posted furry porn. So, let's frame this thread properly without mincing words: this thread is about furry porn artists upset the people they've banned can still masturbate to their porno content. Just trying to take out some of the piss from this thread's sense of self-righteousness before I begin my main rebuttal even fewer would read to the end otherwise.
> 
> Despite many commentators, this thread has failed to mention the illuminative perspective that some people have only one talent -- making good porn. If they don't like being bluntly told (either explicitly through criticism from true friends or implicitly through creepy commentary of their fan-atics) that's all their shallow manipulative personalities are good for... and they ban... oh well. Good riddance.
> 
> ...


----------



## ferretsage (Mar 16, 2018)

Thanks. Trump 2020.



Mewtwolover said:


> View attachment 29026


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Mar 17, 2018)

And this now off the rails, so I am closing it up.


----------

