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!