If it makes you feel any better, you've been directly responsible for making me leave the site for months at a time twice now. MY tone downright appalling? Never seeing your name ever again would improve my Hubski experience by an order of magnitude. The ability to banish you from my Hubski experience has been a driving force in my requests for change. And that's okay - we don't have to get along. We don't even have to talk to each other (and we sure as fuck don't need to give each other shout outs - shit like this makes me turn off my email notifications). BUT If this site can't find a way to work for you and for me, it's going to be a site for you. 'cuz I've got better shit to do with my time.
Well I don't normally give shoutouts, but in this case I felt you might chime in and just really underscore no matter how much two users might not get along, and how important it is for Hubski to thoughtfully deal with a) the real need for users to disengage and block comments, while b) not doing so in a way that overreacts to singular disagreements or temporary temper flares. It really does need to be site that works for you, me, and everybody else. But it sounds from your post that if you had the option, you would universally block me (which is totally fine!), but let me ask you: Would it be enough to have all of my comments completely blacked out while still being able to see the replies? Do you view that as an incomplete solution? Edit: Also, It doesn't. I would love for there to exist a type of moderation that would short circuit this dynamic.If it makes you feel any better,
I would like you to not exist. I would like my posts to be invisible to you. I would like my comments to be invisible to you. I would like magic alien space rays penetrate your brain and zap your frontal lobes with gamma radiation whenever someone mentions my name where you can see it. I would like you to go through your entire life like Linda Fiorentino in Men In Black - prone to bouts of amnesia directly related to you-have-no-idea-what. I would wholly erase myself from your fucking world if I could.
Hmm. Tough feature set to implement. Points 1, 4, 5, & 6 are out of scope for mk to code, and I think that points 2 & 3 alone don't really solve certain real, and common problems. Take trolls or antagonists for example. If someone was antagonizing you, and you blocked them from seeing your comments, they could still see replies to your blocked comments, or references to your conversation in the thread. They could easily just reply to another poster and engage you directly somewhere else in the thread. You've completely opened yourself up to being antagonized. You'd need to be able to block comments from others, not your comments to the site for them to read. If you're talking about blocking a user's comments, as well as blocking yours from them and maybe blocking the responses to your comments as well, then that's starting to get into abuse ban territory where members can indiscriminately block users to public content. For example, a popular user who has a lot of followers posts a link to a major trending story. If that becomes the de-facto place for discussion on the topic on Hubski, then having the powers you are suggesting, you could simply block users of your choice from the biggest major discussions on Hubksi for major news events. I don't think it's going even one step out on a limb to say that that is ridiculous and flies directly in the face of Huski's mission statement. The goal should be to give users the ability to moderate without destroying the user experience that Hubski is attempting to nurture. Your posts being invisible at your whim is a non-starter, but I could see your comments being invisible more plausibly. I personally think that flies in the face of what Hubksi should be and am against it, but I could at least imagine a scenario where some fraction of users might think that it is useful or adds to the goals of the site. But before anything I think you need the ability to hid comments from other users, -maybe you were assuming that in your list above, but I wasn't sure.
Fine. There's a world of psychological difference between "I'm talking to you" and "I'm shouting at you through back channels because I'm being ignored." The fact that this very functionality has been available on the most basic PHPBB and vBoards since the mid '90s illustrates that you know what? It's a manageable compromise. If I'm allowed to indiscriminately post content, I'm allowed to indiscriminately ban content. I owe you jack shit. I owe this website jack shit. I owe MK jack shit. If I decide that I'm not interested in sharing any more, I get to yank what I wrote. If I decide you aren't allowed to comment on my posts, you shouldn't be allowed to comment on my posts. If we're in a world without tags and following users is everything then you know what? I deserve absolute, granular control of who gets to follow me. Fuckin' A. And the fact that everyone is there because they followed that user means it is that user's prerogative to scuttle that discussion. You want to have it not dependent on the user? Then have it fucking dependent on the tag. Oh wait, that's right. We got rid of tags. Guess what? You're my fucking hostage. That's the only way to do it. If you're making me responsible for my content, you're giving me responsibility for my content. Don't like it? Don't follow me. Don't share my posts. I should have Every.Fucking.Right to act as absolutely antisocially as I so choose ( up yours mk) and the site should be able to deal with my antisocial nature by ignoring me. I have damn near five hundred fucking followers. Every time I click on something I have to think "do I want 500 fucking people to see this?" probably not. Would I like to limit the fuck out of that? You're damn skippy. My alternative is sockpuppets. Do I want to hear every cockamamie thing you say? Abso-fucking-lutely not. But now everything you say is sitting here so I can either let you spout off at the mouth or engage you. Or, I can turn off notifications from everybody. My behavior will find a way on the site, whether the site adapts to me or not. The fact of the matter is, I'd given up on the place until syncretic decided that what it really needed was a thousand new people flooding in. His response was to tear away most of the functionality that made it usable and leave a hulk where the cult of personality reigns supreme. FUN FACT: my Hubski page is a hell of a lot more interesting when I'm logged out than when I'm logged in. I think that indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that it's broken. In other words, "what it's about" is a bad fucking idea. And it didn't have to be.If someone was antagonizing you, and you blocked them from seeing your comments, they could still see replies to your blocked comments, or references to your conversation in the thread.
If you're talking about blocking a user's comments, as well as blocking yours from them and maybe blocking the responses to your comments as well, then that's starting to get into abuse ban territory where members can indiscriminately block users to public content.
For example, a popular user who has a lot of followers posts a link to a major trending story. If that becomes the de-facto place for discussion on the topic on Hubski, then having the powers you are suggesting, you could simply block users of your choice from the biggest major discussions on Hubksi for major news events.
Except in reality what you'd have is a trending news story showing from multiple submitters, but the conversations gravitate to the threads with the largest number of comments. It isn't so much the value of the submitter that determines the number of comments (especially in cases of really popular news stories) but rather factors like who posted first, number of followers they had based on other unrelated posts, which thread happened to be the one where the most comments started out in or where a poster made a particularly salient point, etc. In short, for major news events, it isn't the virtues of the submitter that give the thread value in each instance, though true maybe in the aggregate. So while it's all fine and good to swear up a storm and claim Hubski users as your 'fuckin hostages', it lets submitters lock other users out of discussions that are happening not by virtue of the submitter alone in many cases. I get that you don't care about that, but I'm guessing you're in the extreme minority. Well as outlined, I think we both agree that you should be able to universally block comments from users, right? I don't think there's any controversy there, and I can't think of a really good argument against it. On a side note, I'm having a serious discussion about features, but I get the feeling that it's just upsetting you and you really don't want me to answer you. Kinda hard when you keep replying with passionate points!If I'm allowed to indiscriminately post content, I'm allowed to indiscriminately ban content. I owe you jack shit. I owe this website jack shit. I owe MK jack shit.
Fuckin' A. And the fact that everyone is there because they followed that user means it is that user's prerogative to scuttle that discussion.
Do I want to hear every cockamamie thing you say? Abso-fucking-lutely not. But now everything you say is sitting here so I can either let you spout off at the mouth or engage you. Or, I can turn off notifications from everybody.
That's a bug, not a feature. My post, my content, my responsibility. It's almost like maybe the value of the submitter shouldn't be the only thing that people are allowed to pay attention to. No, in short, the way you want it to work is the way it would work with tags. The way you think it should work is by deprecating the value of the submitter. The way it actually works is that the submitter is now king, 100% and without equivocation, which means my way or the highway. I could spike this fucking discussion right now. mk has seen it 'cuz he's in the code and he'll do what he damn well pleases anyway. No, what you don't get is that I don't want to lock everyone out, I want to lock your ass out. If you'd take one for the team, I could leave things how I want them. mk (who is now thinking about how many times he wants to be mentioned every time he gets a shout-out - mk mk mk mk mk - is forcing the "all or nothing." 'cuz I can still delete content. I can still deny things to everyone. I've always been able to do that. What I'm not allowed to do is kick out the shitheads and leave the straights alone. It's like having a nightclub with no bouncers but with a never-ending supply of tear gas. What upsets me is that you can't have an argument without going straight to ad-hominem. What upsets me is that you think you're the reasonable one when I just want to be able to shut you the fuck up. What upsets me is that you can see that you make my fucking blood boil but you don't understand why I might want to be able to contribute to the site without having to deal with your ass. You're not having a "serious discussion about features" you're arguing why Hubski, unlike every other user-based platform on the Internet, shouldn't give content control to content creators. You're playing Instagram here - "you don't actually own what you provide." Because you haven't used a cuss-word yet you think you're the reasonable one. Try harder.It isn't so much the value of the submitter that determines the number of comments (especially in cases of really popular news stories) but rather factors like who posted first, number of followers they had based on other unrelated posts, which thread happened to be the one where the most comments started out in or where a poster made a particularly salient point, etc.
In short, for major news events, it isn't the virtues of the submitter that give the thread value in each instance, though true in the aggregate.
I get that you don't care about that, but I'm guessing you're in the extreme minority.
On a side note, I'm having a serious discussion about features, but I get the feeling that it's just upsetting you and you really don't want to answer you.
Kinda hard when you keep replying with passionate points!