ID:559768
 Mar 21 2012, 1:59 pm
|
|||||||||||||
Not a bug
| |||||||||||||
Apparently if someone has blocked you *cough* you wont be able to reply to their bugs or feature requests on the main BYOND forum.
| |||||||||||||
|
Mar 21 2012, 3:23 pm
|
|
A.T.H.K
 |
Error 408
|
Oh that worked after the second try.
| |
Lummox JR resolved issue (Not a bug)
| |
You don't think people not being able to post relevant information in a bug report or insightful comments in a feature request is a bug?
[Edit] Actually, it seems to cover the entire forum. Anyone who's blocked by a thread author will be unable to post in the thread itself. | |
Isn't that the point though?
Blocking a user cuts all ties what so ever ... | |
Right, but this is a public forum. Bans should only apply to blogs/hubs, but since blogs are gone there are just the hub entries to protect. The way they are now they're almost like restraining orders.
If I wanted to reply to a post or bug report my only course of action would be to start a new thread while affixing a Re: to the subject line. I wouldn't even necessarily be replying to the thread author, my reply could be for someone else in the thread who isn't blocking me. | |
That is true but still defeats the purpose of this tool.
The OP has banned you and never wants to see anything from you again it is explained when you ban a user. I was just trying to find that explanation for you but it seems that little wooden hammer has disappeared. I believe any person has the right to privacy even if you aren't a troll, annoying or anything. Now we all know Silk Games isn't happy with you :) | |
That ban was added years ago. I went to remove it, but it doesn't look like the ban control options exist anymore.
| |
You can remove a ban by clicking on the key name and the selecting unban in th popup box.
We should allow banned users to post to trackers though. | |
This is pretty much tantamount to letting private citizens (users) ban you from public property (the public forums) because they don't like you. Whether or not SilkWizard wants SuperAntx to be able to post on threads he starts should be irrelevant in public space. If he doesn't want SuperAntx responding, he should not post at all.
Not that SilkWizard cares in this scenario... Now for private threads, like game hub comment threads, or posts made in the community board, then that's fine, but there is literally no justification I can see for implementing this in a public board. | |
Saves me some work, actually. People can ban each other instead of blowing up in each other's topics. I quite like that.
| |
Well, it's just the same system we used for the blogs, which were also made to a public board (the community front page). But we can change it around so posters don't have mod control over their posts-- it doesn't make a huge difference one way or the other.
| |
It doesn't make much of a difference but banning is a lot better then deleting threads...
Delete a troubled users post on your thread they will whine they will continue to spam that thread. Ban that troubled user no more posts on that thread or any other .. profit? | |
We talked about allowing mods to selectively ban users from threads so that's one option. I can go either way with the author+mod control; like I said, I don't think it really makes a huge difference and it's easiest to just go with how we have it now. But I do think we want to allow trackers to always be open to users.
| |
A.T.H.K wrote:
Delete a troubled users post on your thread they will whine they will continue to spam that thread. There is a serious problem with what you are suggesting. Users should not be able to silence other users. This is why moderators exist in the first place. The public forums are not the place for this kind of thing. And like SAx has pointed out, this will just lead users to create new threads to respond to an issue. Which will then have to actually be moderated by moderators, completely undermining the system that you originally suggested as an alternative. Users should just not be able to censor other users. It's bogus. edit:At best, add a little "collapse/expand" button to posts made by users you've "banned," so you can selectively read them. But actually enforcing rules on posting based on it is just silly. | |
I don't disagree with anything said in this whole thread its just my opinion and like Tom has said above he can go either way.
And yes tracker posts should not apply to the ban. | |
These bans are really a convenience for the BYOND moderators. If someone is spamming a hub entry, the hub entry's owner can ban the user - the BYOND staff doesn't have to get involved (but with how much they love getting involved, this could be a bad thing). These bans don't make sense for the forums, especially the bug tracker. If someone posts a bug report and a reply from a user they've banned causes them anguish (but the reply doesn't break any rules) then it's the OP's fault for being so sensitive.
edit:At best, add a little "collapse/expand" button to posts made by users you've "banned," so you can selectively read them. But actually enforcing rules on posting based on it is just silly. Now that's a good idea. If you don't like what someone has to say, don't read their replies. This feature shouldn't be necessary, but it's certainly way better than letting users ban each other. | |
I've made some changes for the official tracker forums. This will allow users you've blocked to respond to your posts here, so they can provide useful feedback on any tracker issues.
| |
I thought of another reason to replace a user's ability to moderate their threads with an ability to ignore users (ex: show their posts as collapsed by default).
Suppose someone posts a code problem and you write up a solution. Though it's a good solution, that person decides to delete it. Or, worse, they ban you and not only prevent you from answering their questions, but they prevent you from helping people who will read their threads because they have the same question. Unless the post is attached to a hub entry or is a tutorial (which will hopefully be a type of hub entry some day), it doesn't make sense to have the thread's owner be the moderator. What they really want to do is ignore users, but the only feature to accomplish that is to delete posts or ban users. Edit: Once the ability to collapse a post exists, you can include a rating system so comments that are rated down enough times can be made to be displayed as collapsed by default. This could work in the same way that the yea/nay system worked (or at least the way I think it worked) - any user can vote and the moderators can look at a list of posts sorted by how many negative votes they've received (or something like that). This also gives moderators an intermediate action. Instead of resorting directly to locking threads, deleting posts, or banning users, you can just hide posts (so they show as collapsed by default). | |