PDA

View Full Version : Advanced Blocking - Why it's a bad idea



Thefallenwind
10-18-2012, 10:55 AM
If you agree with the point I'm making, please say so in the thread here. Unless a large number of people say something about their concerns with advanced blocking, it will NOT be taken into consideration.

(Please remain civil and do not invalidate the other side though - even though advanced blocking doesn't work any better than basic blocking and will cause new problems instead, they still had legitimate reasons for wanting it in the first place).


I happened to see that Weasyl allows blocking from watching you and may have more advanced features regarding this as well (possibly not allowed to see one's page at all if blocked) and I'm a little concerned because a lot of sites are implementing things like this without realizing it's not as effective as they think it is while creating new problems in it's place.

So that people don't misunderstand me, blocking people from communicating in any way or form with the person who blocked them is fine. This is necessary and shouldn't be changed. However, blocking people from viewing one's page or blocking them from watching is something that doesn't actually stop the blocked individuals from doing so like they think it does. There's nothing to stop dedicated harassers from logging out, creating new accounts to get around the ban and/or bookmarking your page to manually visit (so they are still going to see your stuff, you just won't know that they are). So this method doesn't stop them from viewing your stuff.

In addition, it creates new problems in its place and is abused for the wrong reasons. On other sites which have features like this, people use coercion to make people do stuff if they wish to keep watching them (or they won't be allowed to see their artwork) and/or people will be blocked based on appearances alone (even if they didn't do anything wrong at all) or for POLITELY disagreeing with someone. I've seen with others abuse these features such as:

1) If you don't have an icon I will block you.
2) If you fav and don't comment I will block you.
3) If you don't comment enough I will block you.
4) If you're not a good enough artist I will block you.
5) If you disagree with me (even if you're polite about it) I will block you (so people are going to be far less likely to say anything when an artist is genuinely doing something awful or wrong).
6) People blocking others simply based on assumption, appearances, etc.

This stuff IS happening on others sites, and though I think you guys meant well and were listening to what artists wanted, advanced blocking isn't as effective as people think and causes new problems in it's place when it is abused. I think blocking should just be blocking communication (as well as notifications so that the blocked person is out of sight, out of mind) alone. This way it achieves what blocking CAN ACTUALLY achieve WITHOUT it being abused for the wrong reasons.

I'm hoping you guys take this into consideration. You have a wonderful site, but this is the one thing that makes me extremely hesitant to use it.



For clarity, my point is:

- Basic blocking (stopping communication and notifications from people who are blocked) is needed.

- Advanced blocking (stopping people from watching you and/or seeing your page) is not more effective then basic blocking, does not solve the problem people think it will and will create new problems in it's place (reasoning for these points above).

- Advanced blocking creates new problems without solving any. Basic blocking is all that is needed for a fair balance to solve what can be solved WITHOUT creating new problems.






UPDATE:

There were some alternatives and suggestions made throughout the thread that I'd like to add here.

- Roki mentioned disabling the ability to prevent blocked people from faving your stuff. I see no issue with this though the site would still have to disable notifications for being watched by the blocked person. Either this or disabling notifications of both favs and watches from the blocked people is fine.

- Oly brought up preventing those who are not logged in (guests) from seeing your page like FA has as an option. This is an excellent idea and I see no issues with this. The admins have said this feature is already going to be available.

- Tarti mentioned putting a limit on how many accounts you can make per email you use. This is something that may actually hinder trolls at least a little more without affecting innocents or being abused. I can't think of anything wrong with this so I think this is a good idea.

- Doki and Ragscoon have brought up an alternative to the ability to block people from watching you (while still keeping basic blocking intact - which stops all communication). The suggestion is to have basic blocking for anyone. For cases where people are legitimately being harrassed/stalked they simply contact an admin showing them the legitimate case and then have the admin block that person from watching the plaintiff. This prevents abuse of the system while still giving people the option available to still have those who actually did something wrong to be blocked from watching the plaintiff. I thought this may tie up the admins too much, but if they can do it, this would be the best option for the concerns of both party's concerns regarding the advanced block system.

Roki
10-18-2012, 01:03 PM
Abuse of any feature will happen, I think. If someone is going to abuse a feature that prevents others from communicating with them and destroy their reputation in the process then that is their prerogative. Word gets around on things like that.

I appreciate that advanced blocking means that 1. Persons I do not want watching me cannot watch me from the accounts I block and 2. I will never get notifications from persons I have explicitly cut all contact with. As someone who has had an internet stalker for years now I look forward to never seeing that name pop up on my message center again. Seriously, I still sometimes get COMMENTS from the guy on other sites and he's still blocked. Yes, he could register a new account and sock puppet it up a notch, but it is still more effort than simply being able to favorite and view from his original account. And when I find out I can block that account, and the next, and the next.

Temrin
10-18-2012, 04:55 PM
Just as roki said, ANY and EVERY feature available to the general public WILL be abused.
As well, the "they will ruin their own reputation" from creating more accounts and being a jerk to other people WILL get around. People on FA do this just from blocked communication so why do you think its such a big deal for viewing as well when it already happens from just blocked communication? Trolls are everywhere on the internet and as long as people report harassment then thats the best thing you can do about it. People will create new accounts for whatever reason why want and all of us have to deal with that. Changing how much a person gets blocked isnt going to stop people creating new accounts to harass other people.

I definitely appreciate advanced blocking because i can choose what i want to happen. What if someone was stealing my art? Blocking communication does nothing. Blocking them from viewing my page will stop it for a while, and most people are too lazy to do anything else then that. Those who arent, and create another account, well, its not hard to find them and report them for theft. eventually they will realize they cannot hide and stop. Its happened many of times before and that is the risk of putting anything online.

-Being on the internet means putting up with trolls. Get used to it :/ Report them and move on-

It gives artists a little bit of peace of mind to know that when something needs to stop, it will stop there. (at least from that particular site. No one can really control re-post it sites. But again. Internet. Get used to it. People will take all they want and think its A-OK. So report them, and move on.)


As well for the "if you dont comment enough i will block you" type stuff?
Why watch an artist whos going to be a ass.... >. >
Sure, you might like their art. Again, read my post above. Just about everything is reposted these days and most artists have galleries in more then on place. :/ its not the end of the world. My own oppinion on this, is if an artist acts like this, it turns me of their art permanently.

Thefallenwind
10-18-2012, 10:30 PM
@Roki "persons I do not want watching cannot watch from the accounts I block" - all they have to do is make an account with a different name and silently watch you or simply bookmark your page while logged into an account that isn't blocked. They will always be able to see your artwork, no matter what, whether you know it or not.

"I will never get notifications from persons I have explicitly cut all contact with" - which is why I mentioned blocked people should give no notifications so that they are still out of sight out of mind, they can implement that without having to implement blocking watches.

My point was this - the "cannot watch" feature is supposed to prevent people from seeing your work. Anyone can get around that easily so the reasoning for implementing it does not actually do what people think it will do. In it's place, it will now create new problems from a "solution" that doesn't actually do what people think it will do. I was suggesting a compromise that solves what CAN be solved WITHOUT creating new problems in it's place.

And I know you said people's reputations will be destroyed for abusing it - it probably won't dent them. I've seen people FLAT OUT rip people off commission wise and they're still popular as ever. I've seen an artist FLAT OUT insult one of their customers, they did lose about 30 watches from that when featured on A_B, then within a week they gained back 30 watches plus 20 more. If you're popular enough, you can get away with almost anything because too many people in this fandom are starstruck and infatuated with the popular artists that they will blindly agree with them no matter what they say or do.


Don't get me wrong, I understand there are some serious problems with stalkers/harassers and that something must be done about it. But implementing something that doesn't actually stop them (and that's the thing, just cause you don't see their name doesn't mean they're not watching you under a different alias) which will create new problems isn't the best way to go.

- - - Updated - - -

@Temrin "Changing how much a person gets blocked isn't going to stop people creating new accounts to harass other people." - Right, I fully agree with that. Implementing more advanced features isn't going to stop them if they're dedicated to harassing/stalking others. So it doesn't really justify the need for advanced blocking because of that alone.

"What if someone was stealing my art? Blocking communication does nothing. Blocking them from viewing my page will stop it for a while" - all they have to do, is have another account and bookmark your page. You will never know how they're seeing your page because you won't know the name of their secret account. Only the stupid thieves will be hindered by the advanced features.

"It gives artists a little bit of peace of mind to know that when something needs to stop, it will stop there" - if people are dedicated enough to make new accounts to continue communication, they will be dedicated to make new accounts to continue communication and them not being able to see you're page with a throwaway account won't hinder them at all. If they're a stalker, rather then a harasser, they can bookmark your page and manually visit you. Again, this doesn't justify the effectiveness of blocking from watching.

"Why watch an artist who's going to be a ass.... >. > " - Because people may like someone's artwork because they like their artwork. Then for no justified reason they're now prevented from seeing the artists artwork, would pretty much suck. I've left 6 good comments on one artist's work on DA (and by good comments I mean I told him what he did well on like his inking and coloring, not murry purry comments or anything like that). He then marked all 6 comments as spam, blocked me and told me I wasn't a good enough artist to watch him. I did nothing wrong at all. I didn't harass him, I didn't make any murry purry or sexual comments towards him. I left him well-thought out, constructive comments and he blocked me because I wasn't good enough.

It's like a free concert being held with bands you love and when you go to enter the stadium someone stops and says you can't enter because you're not good enough.
Is it the end of the world? No.
Do you NEED to see this concert? No.
Was it fair to let all these other people in but not you because you didn't meet some unfair, secret requirement? No.
Did you do anything wrong to deserve it? No.
Does it now suck that you can't see something that is free to everyone else except you for an unfair, secret requirement you didn't meet? Yes.

" its not the end of the world" - you are correct, it is not the end of the world. My argument was why implement something that will solves 'N minus 1' problems that creates new problems when you can implement something that solves 'N minus 1' problems WITHOUT creating new problems? That "1" problem (people being able to see your page) cannot be solved as they can always get around it by bookmarking your page or watching you incognito. Putting in a feature that people CAN NOW abuse for the wrong reasons (coercion and using it on innocents) isn't necessary to implement if it doesn't solve the problem people think it will.

I understand there is a problem with harassment/stalking and that there is a need to block communication (and there's no need to receive notifications from blocked people either). But if you promote a solution that doesn't work, and in turn, screws over innocent people why even use it? Why not create something that solves what can be solved and set it up so that the dishonest people can't abuse it for the wrong reasons (or at least reduces the potential abuse that can be done if not preventing outright abuse of it)? My argument was to try to reason for a fair balance, a compromise, a middle ground - the best solution for the given problem.

Temrin
10-19-2012, 01:38 AM
Seems you missed a few things i said and only focused on some -points- when those points covered some of the retorts you gave.
Specially about the "liking the persons art and still wanting to see it if blocked"

-shrugs- Putting my two thoughts in, i like the feature and think it will be useful. If things get out of hand too much, report them and perhaps weasyl can implement IP blocks as well if it continues. No, its not going to completely prevent those who know how to get around that, but hey, most people are too lazy to learn how to get around it for -one- artist.

No feature is 100% idiot proof and no matter what you do there will be people who abuse it. At this time, the site is new enough that i dont think there will be a problem. If it does become a problem, i am sure that weasyl will recognize it and do something about it. At that time they will be able to see the trends people are doing to get around it and might be able to come up with a solution easier then if they were to go off a whim right now.

Roki
10-19-2012, 09:59 AM
What would you suggest be done then, if not implementing blocking? Just ignoring the person when they comment or favorite? I've been doing that personally since I was around 20 and it gets old very fast, believe me.

Responsible users would not have innocent victims. You've had someone block you for no good reason. That doesn't mean you need to kibosh an entire feature based on the actions of a few. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I think you may have also missed that I agreed; yes, people can make alternative accounts. I'm aware. I can just block those when they come up. If a person is desperate enough to manually bookmark my page to visit it then so be it. They cannot favorite or comment on my artwork anymore and that is what I want.

Thefallenwind
10-19-2012, 02:05 PM
I don’t quite understand why you guys are misinterpreting what I’m saying?

@Temrin – I don’t mean any disrespect at all, but you don’t seem to understand my point. You seem to be arguing towards harrassers and stalkers when I’m talking about people abusing the block system for the wrong reasons. If you have a problem and you have two plans:

Plan A = solves all the problems except 1 but creates no additional problems.
Plan B = solves all the problems except 1 but creates new problems in its place.

My argument is, why use plan B at all? Neither solution solves preventing the troublemakers from seeing one’s art or getting around a ban. Plan B creates new problems but everyone insists on using plan B because it SEEMS like it’s better but it’s not solving the problem people think it is at all and again, creates NEW problems by using it. Plan A and Plan B can both be abused but plan B can be abused more, so again, why do we insist on using plan B?

“If it does become a problem, i am sure that weasyl will recognize it and do something about it.” – Weasyl will probably not punish people for abusing an advanced block system. There is no rule that says they can’t block people just because and there will most likely never will be – hence NEW problems from a plan that doesn’t even work.

Also, the abuse of advanced blocking systems IS being abused on other sites. Again, it’s not doing what people think it will and creates new problems. Again, why do we insist on using Plan B? This is what I’m trying to warn against.

- - - Updated - - -

@Roki

“What would you suggest be done then, if not implementing blocking?” – I’ve already covered that in my first post. I think blocking should just be blocking communication (as well as notifications so that the blocked person is out of sight, out of mind) alone. This plans solves what can be solved WITHOUT creating new problems.

“Responsible users would not have innocent victims.” – There are a lot of people in this fandom that are not mature, responsible, fair, etc. I don’t think it’s going to be abused by everyone and right away. I fear that it will be abused by some at first, then increase as a trend, like it has been with others sites.

“You've had someone block you for no good reason. That doesn't mean you need to kibosh an entire feature based on the actions of a few.” – I never suggested “kiboshing” the entire feature. I suggested an alternative that will solve what CAN be solved WITHOUT creating new problems. Again = I think blocking should just be blocking communication (as well as notifications so that the blocked person is out of sight, out of mind) alone.

“They cannot favorite or comment on my artwork anymore and that is what I want.” – that’s perfectly ok! I’m talking about the “blocking the ability to watch” specifically, NOT commenting and faves. My original suggestion was eliminating notifications but blocking favs is fine. Just NOT blocking watches or preventing from seeing someone’s page. Implementing blocking watching does not achieve what people think it will and creates new problems by having it. In other words, its JUST creating new problems, so why not use a solution that solves what can be solved WITHOUT creating new problems?

Roki
10-19-2012, 03:13 PM
Okay, I re-read your first post and saw that I had indeed missed your initial point. Sorry about that, I misinterpreted the latter half of your post and didn't read the first half thoroughly enough.

I would still rather not make it easy for certain persons to watch me or my artwork. If nothing else then he would need to log out to visit my page and then would not be able to see any of my artwork that was not of a general audience rating.

Let me put it this way, this person I have not spoken to in roughly six years after I explicitly told him I did not want any more contact with him. Because he was still able to watch me he has shown up in my live streams because he read my journals (banned him), he has unwatched and rewatched me a few times which gave me notifications in my message center, he has been able to recently comment on my artwork due to a faulty blocking system, and he was favoriting artwork of mine about every three to four months (also due to faulty blocking system). I think he was also able to send me a note once, I forget (ongoing and all). Hell, he figured out who my friends are and watched them too for a while, just in case I left comments on their journals. So, sure, he could just make another account and get around the block, but it would make it that much more difficult for him. Especially when I figured out what his new account is. And if it continued I would report each new account. I see no reason I should have to allow him to continue watching and viewing my artwork if the option exists to simply not.

RadioCatastrophe
10-19-2012, 03:16 PM
I've been watching this thread for a day or two now and all I see is people repeating what has already been said in the first post and not understand what the OP is saying, lol.

Blocking From Watching = Abuse, and solves nothing for to stop a Stalker/Harasser who can simply make a new account or sign-out to view your art

What isn't to get about that? As they said you cannot stop someone who is persistent with bothering, stalking, steal, or harassing you. This feature would only show the ugly side of people who don't want certain people watching them (whether they do anything to them). Basic blocking is the only thing we need as far as this goes unless you can submit a ticket about someone blocking you for not liking your art or you for whatever reason.

Thefallenwind
10-19-2012, 03:26 PM
@ RadioCatastrophie Thank you. I was afraid people wouldn't understand the importance to my point and instantly dismiss me (not that Temrin or Roki dismissed me as they did discuss this with me civilly, but I don't think they fully understood my point).

"unless you can submit a ticket about someone blocking you for not liking your art or you for whatever reason." - That will never happen. It's not something concrete if they never mention why they blocked someone, can lie about their reasoning, etc. On top of that, limiting why you can block someone is actually a bad idea too and makes things more complicated then they need to be as well as tying up admins for more stuff they would need to deal with. I think the best course of action is to implement a system that solves what can be solved in the best way possible WITHOUT creating new/more problems.

Again though, thank you for understanding my point. *bows*

Temrin
10-19-2012, 03:39 PM
I understand and have understood what the OP was saying.
Sorry if it doesn't seem like it but i was trying to explain points that are related but might steer away from their -exact- point.

People -already- move from account to account when just blocked communication. I've watched people do it and had to deal with it. Roki has also explained their piece about the person they are dealing with. What i dont understand is how it is not understood that -all- features are going to be abused and that Roki has explained very good points about what that person has been doing with just communication blocked.

I understand the OP is explaining that they feel blocking from viewing content will drive people to abuse the fact that they can make a new account to get past the block and continue harassing and that it might cause them to do this MORE then just blocking communication. But they will do that anyways no matter what kind of block is given. This allows artists to have better control over what they WANT to happen and if a person creates a new account to view their work, then 90% of the time they will start acting the same way they did before, alluding the artist to believe that its the same person and therefore blocking them again. A person can only make so many accounts, i'm sure, before mods will realize there is an influx of accounts being made from 1 IP address. As well, as i mentioned prior, there might be a way to take the blocking further if they wont respect the block. Admins might have the ability to IP block a person from accessing the site if they are harassing others but abusing the fact that they can make new accounts.

If the person creates a new account but behaves themselves, then awesome! problem hopefully solved.

If the problem is not solved and they are harassing you again then report them! It allows the mods to know whats going on, to keep an eye on them and if they create new accounts from that IP address or to be able to tie certain accounts as this one persons doing and deal with it accordingly.

No matter -what- you do in trying to prevent someone from contacting you, if they are determined enough to get the last laugh, then they will do it -regardless- of how far you block them. THAT was the point i was trying to make. You need to learn how to deal with these "trolls", how to report, and keep proper records so mods can take action against someone whos harassing their users.

Hopefully, this is understood this time and not -mistaken as me not understanding what the OP was saying-... Its not hard to understand what a person is saying and try to show counter arguments. Just because they go off on a tanget a little to try to explain, doesnt mean the person doesnt understand what the OP is saying -.-'

Roki
10-19-2012, 03:43 PM
I probably have missed your point somewhere. I just don't see the abuse as strongly as you do I suppose. I'm glad you don't think I'm just dismissing you though!

RadioCatastrophe
10-19-2012, 03:57 PM
I understand that Termin, but the fact behind the ability to use this to get users to do as an artist pleases or even making it so someone whose been a silent watcher who just enjoys someones art being blocked for no reason is what is being discussed. We get how t handle people and giving a user more power over a block isn't going to help. Blocking from all sorts of communication and reporting to an admin is the best course of action. Taking things into your own hands won't solve the problem.

Also IP banning someone can potentially ban others as well, the household or even neighborhood could share a single IP address or they can simply switch (just a simple google search nothing complicated) and someone else can end up with that IP and be banned. It's no solution to this and will cause problems in the long run, just like advance blocking. This power shouldn't be in a users hands, leave dealing with a user to the staff.

Oly
10-19-2012, 04:09 PM
if MAC address blocking is possible, that might work slightly better.

And for the record: i feel the benefits of the system outweigh the abuse potential. Yes, i read the arguments against(all of them, i didn't skim,) and my opinion remains unchanged.

Thefallenwind
10-19-2012, 11:17 PM
@Temrin

ďWhat i dont understand is how it is not understood that -all- features are going to be abused and that Roki has explained very good points about what that person has been doing with just communication blocked.Ē Ė Basic blocking and advanced blocking can both be abused. Advanced blocking can be abused far more than basic blocking. In addition, advanced blocking is not more effective than basic blocking, doesnít solve the problem people think it will and will create new problems. What Iím getting at is that having advanced blocking doesnít make anything better and makes the block system even more ripe for more abuse then the basic blocking can.

ď I understand the OP is explaining that they feel blocking from viewing content will drive people to abuse the fact that they can make a new account to get past the block and continue harassing and that it might cause them to do this MORE then just blocking communication.Ē Well no, that actually wasnít my main point though the point you made here may be true as well. My point was people will use the block system for the wrong reasons (blocking an innocent person who hasnít done anything wrong just because of appearances or not meeting some superficial standard OR because they didnít met some demand of commenting enough, commenting when faving, etc). I was trying to explain the block system being used for the wrong reasons, not people getting around it.

ďNo matter -what- you do in trying to prevent someone from contacting you, if they are determined enough to get the last laugh, then they will do it -regardless- of how far you block themĒ Ė Exactly! A lot of what you argued is exactly what I was trying to get at that advanced blocking isnít actually better then basic blocking at all. But you still seem to favor advanced blocking despite making several points that support my own argument? Iím not sure why you still favor advanced blocking then?


Btw, since text doesnít convey tone very well, I wanted to make it clear I donít mean any ill will towards either of you. You and Roki were nothing but mature and civil with me despite disagreeing with me and I hope nothing I said came off as attacking you or suggesting hostility as that isnít my intent. Iím just trying to clear up any misunderstandings and explain my side in a neutral sense.

- - - Updated - - -

@Roki

ď I probably have missed your point somewhere.Ē Ė thatís ok. I think some things tend to be missed when there is a lot of information given in a huge amount of text. Iím going to edit my first post to include a shortened, to the point version to reduce misunderstandings of what Iím trying to get at.

ď I just don't see the abuse as strongly as you do I suppose.Ē Ė it probably wonít affect people of your position as much as people in my position. Itís appears to be mainly a problem for people who are seen as inferior because theyíre not a good enough artist, or something about their appearance (despite not actually doing anything wrong at all). On my DA account my watch count (those I watch) drops 1-3 every week or two. About a third is deactivated accounts, the other 2/3 are people who block me right after watching them or within a month after watching them (and 99% of them I never said a single word to them). Lurkers, people with porn/fetish stuff in their favs or gallery, etc are usually the ones who are judged based on appearances even if they didnít do anything wrong at all.

ďI'm glad you don't think I'm just dismissing you though!Ē Ė Despite disagreeing with me, You and Temrin were civil and mature with me and I appreciate that. Iím glad that we can be grown adults with the topic at hand even if we didnít agree with each other. So no, I didnít feel either of you were dismissing me or anything, I just saw it as a mature discussion for the topic at hand. :)

- - - Updated - - -

@ RadioCatastrophe

Again, thank you for understanding, I pretty much agree with everything you mentioned here and you made some excellent points I didnít cover as well.

- - - Updated - - -

@ Oly

ďif MAC address blocking is possible, that might work slightly better.Ē Ė And what if a harasser goes to a public place such as a library or an internet cafť? Youíre not actually stopping them then and will screw over anyone else who tries to use that computer to access the site.

ďi feel the benefits of the system outweigh the abuse potential.Ē Ė What benefits? It doesnít stop harassers/stalkers from seeing your stuff so what exactly are the benefits?

Brine
10-20-2012, 03:49 AM
i Agree 100% with TheFallenWind.

being able to block someone from commenting on your page/stuff is all you really need.

the "deleting faves from the same people gets old" is a bad argument because unless you
suck as an artist, people are always gonna be favoriting your stuff, and you always will end up
clearing out those notifications anyway.

the other thing here is the "Guilt by association" and "drama-related" Blocks.
what if an artist REALLY hates Dragoneer for what ever reason, and he blocks him
not only him but all of his "high-ranking" Friends too? thats not Fair to them they may
just enjoy the art and not even have any alterior motives...

and if art is for "certain eyes only" they have a friends only submission feature right??

the Advanced blocking is just a HUGE over-reach to solve a simple problem.
its like taking morphine for a head-ache.

Roki
10-20-2012, 01:55 PM
@Thefallenwind I'm glad we can disagree without fighting, it's really refreshing! :)

@Brine If you mean me when talking about "deleting faves from the same person" then in my case it isn't because it gets old, it's because it's one dude being freakin' creepy. I'd rather not set a whole gallery to friends only just because I want him to stop following me all over/following my friends/etc etc etc.

TotSchrei
10-20-2012, 03:14 PM
My only problem with advance blocking not able to see profiles or things is what if someone is stealing your artwork and want to use the report button?
Is that going to still be allowed? I have actually had this problem on other sites where someone didn't like me for some reason and would block me.
then turn around and use my artwork without permission and claim as their own.

Or are there going to be ways around that?
Because I havent had someone block me yet to see how that works.

Thefallenwind
10-20-2012, 03:21 PM
@Brine

"the "deleting faves from the same people gets old" is a bad argument" - Roki pretty much beat me to this, but a lot of people would rather not be reminded of the person they blocked (because it makes them "in sight, in mind"). That's why I see no issue at all with disabling any notifications from people who are blocked, which can't be abused but at the same do not remind people that the blocked person is still watching/faving. It's just preventing from watching or seeing one's page specifically that isn't a good idea.

"the Advanced blocking is just a HUGE over-reach to solve a simple problem." Agreed. Preventing watching or seeing someone's page won't be any more effective than preventing communication or notifications from blocked people. I wouldn't mind something like this being put in if the only problem was that it doesn't work like people think it will, but not when it will also screw over other people as well. :\


@Roki

"I'm glad we can disagree without fighting, it's really refreshing!" - Agreed. I wish this was more common. :(

Roki
10-21-2012, 12:11 PM
@Thefallenwind Me too. e_e

Maybe a better solution would be not disabling the ability to view a profile, but disabling the ability to communicate at all, favorite, and view things that are purely personal like the friend's list? This restricts what the blocked user can do and restricts it to what a guest could see and do, effectively making sure that logging out to view a profile doesn't give them any more information aside from the friend's list. I don't think blocked users should be able to continue to favorite your works; if they want to see them that badly they can bookmark them on their browser. I would still like to be able to block some users from seeing my work personally, even if I could just not allow them to see above a G rating, but if this is the better solution then so be it. It just means I will probably have to friends-only some submissions in the future.

Mewtwolover
10-21-2012, 05:08 PM
if MAC address blocking is possible, that might work slightly better.
That isn't possible because MAC addresses aren't visible to WAN(Internet). They're visible only in LAN's.

IMO advanced blocking isn't needed. It will cause problems because it can be abused in so many ways.

Thefallenwind
10-21-2012, 05:52 PM
@ TotSchrei

“My only problem with advance blocking not able to see profiles or things is what if someone is stealing your artwork and want to use the report button?” – To my understanding, Weasyl only prevents blocked people from being able to watch the blocker though the site (but wouldn’t stop them from seeing the blocker’s stuff anyways). However I brought up “preventing from seeing blockers page” because it was something brought up on FA and is used on some other sites. I’m not sure if Weasyl also does this or if it was something the site would consider implementing in the future. This is something that, although meant well too, is not effective either and will also cause new problems in its place.

I have actually had this problem on other sites where someone didn't like me for some reason and would block me. then turn around and use my artwork without permission and claim as their own. – I think this is yet another example of dishonest, immature people abusing the block system for the wrong reasons. The more features implemented for privacy against blocked people, the more dishonest people (art thieves and dishonorable commissioners) will take advantage of it and make it easier for them as well.

I’m sure reporting someone won’t be an issue as long as you’re aware of it and can see it (even if you can’t click the little report button) I imagine you could simply contact an admin directly and show them what you can (admins shouldn’t be blocked). However, it’s a matter of you being aware of it, and again, the more “privacy” we give to blocking, the more it will be used by dishonest people too. :\

In fact, I have a bad feeling the “friends only” feature will also be used for dishonest reasons too (art theft mainly) which will make it more difficult to find them and report them. So I can see your concern with that even if they don’t implement “preventing from seeing one’s page”. : (

- - - Updated - - -

@Roki

Maybe a better solution would be not disabling the ability to view a profile, but disabling the ability to communicate at all, favorite, and view things that are purely personal like the friend's list?

Disabling all communication – Agreed. This should be in place.

Disabling ability to favorite blocker’s stuff – Well, this can work too. I was suggesting disabling notifications (messages telling you the blocked person faved something of yours & the blocked person has watched you), however I don’t see anything wrong with preventing faving so that can work too. Weasyl would still need to disable the notification of being watched by the blocked person so that harassers can’t spam you by watching/unwatching (not that this has happened numerous times as I only heard one case of this, but I’m thinking ahead for your side on this).

View things that are purely personal like the friend's list? – I imagine people wouldn’t put blocked people on their friends list anyway, but I think you mean some other sense of filtering like the friends list? Unfortunately I think this will still be abused with coercion though. I also think the friends list is going to make the community more cliquey by having this and TotSchrei brought up art thieves which I think will LOVE that feature (not that it will make them safe per say, but it will make things much easier for them now). So I think the friends only submissions isn’t a good idea either, but I’m not as alarmed about it as I am “can’t watch/can’t see page” type of blocking which I think can be abused FAR, FAR more for the wrong reasons.

“I would still like to be able to block some users from seeing my work personally” – I imagine the friends only submissions will still be implemented despite the potential problems with it that I mentioned above. Since it probably will, this is your best bet to preventing someone from seeing stuff you don’t want them to see. Blocked people can’t use the methods I mentioned earlier to get around “can’t watch/can’t see your page” if you don’t friend them, so this feature is actually effective for preventing them from seeing your stuff. Of course this means you won’t be able to show this to everyone watching you that you don’t mind seeing the work unless you friend everyone watching you that you trust isn’t the harasser/stalker.

Believe me, I’m not trying to be the bad guy and prevent you guys from having stuff you guys want. I really do wish there was something that was effective against genuine harassers/stalkers WITHOUT affecting innocent people. I’m just trying to suggest a fair balance for the two side’s concerns and what works best for everyone overall.

- - - Updated - - -

@MewTwoLover

That isn't possible because MAC addresses aren't visible to WAN(Internet). They're visible only in LAN's. - Huh, I didn't know that, but I guess that's another reason why that idea won't work either.

Thank you for understanding though and voicing your opinion. I'm concerned that if not enough people speak up, this issue will not be taken into consideration at all. :\

Tartii
10-21-2012, 06:07 PM
I personally love the idea of advanced blocking. It's better to have the option than not have the option at all. Yes somebody can just log out, or just make accounts, but not everybody is going to be that persistent. In fact, its more pointless to REMOVE the option than to have it.
There are some people whom it bothers that somebody they don't want seeing their art can continue to see it. There are multiple reasons for that.
However if somebody wants to 'abuse' the system, it is their right to block whoever they want for whatever reason. I see it more as UNFAIR to force somebody to deal with somebody they dont want to. Regardless.

Unburnt Daenerys
10-21-2012, 06:25 PM
However if somebody wants to 'abuse' the system, it is their right to block whoever they want for whatever reason. I see it more as UNFAIR to force somebody to deal with somebody they dont want to. Regardless.

This. I don't understand why it should be the mods' concern as to why someone is blocked. I have an Inkbunny account, and I've used their advanced blocking feature to block people for not tagging/rating their art correctly to mass dumping artwork for hours on end. On FurAffinity, most of my block list is comprised of the more unsavory types featured on Artists_Beware, even though I've never had personal contact with any of them.

Thefallenwind
10-21-2012, 06:33 PM
@Tarti

In fact, its more pointless to REMOVE the option than to have it. – I just explained (with reasoning mentioned) it’s not more effective than basic blocking and will create new problems instead. How is it more pointless to aim for something that is more balanced for the concerns of both sides that also helps prevent abuse of it than to having something that isn’t better but will screw over innocent people?

“There are some people whom it bothers that somebody they don't want seeing their art can continue to see it.” Right, I understand that. But again, I already mentioned that they will still see your art even if you block them. Again, advanced blocking is not more effective then basic blocking (so there’s no actual benefit despite people thinking there is), and now this feature can be used for the wrong reasons. Why implement something that is only detrimental?

“I see it more as UNFAIR to force somebody to deal with somebody they dont want to.” Look Tarti, I’m not trying to spite you guys or argue for the opposite extreme here. I understand you guys have a problem with legitimate harassers/stalkers and that something should be in place. However, I’m trying to make it clear that the reasoning for why you guys want advanced blocking doesn’t work like you guys think it will and will create new problems for people. So why implement something that doesn’t work and will be abused far more than basic blocking?

I’m not trying to be the bad guy here (I already expect people will see me as the devil despite my intent), I’m trying to propose something that is as fair and balanced as possible WITHOUT creating new problems. If you guys wanted advanced blocking and the only issue was it doesn’t work, then I wouldn’t care so much. But when it doesn’t work AND will be abused by affecting others negatively, then I have a problem with it now. Again, I understand you guys probably had to deal with real douchebags who are legitimately wrong and deserve a blocking, so something does need to be in place. But if we keep implementing more and more things to stop legitimate cases it’s also going to be used on innocents as well so again, I’m trying to propose what would work best, not spite you guys. I hope you understand that.

- - - Updated - - -

@ Lemontrees

I have an Inkbunny account, and I've used their advanced blocking feature to block people for not tagging/rating their art correctly to mass dumping artwork for hours on end. On FurAffinity, most of my block list is comprised of the more unsavory types featured on Artists_Beware, even though I've never had personal contact with any of them. - ok, so with basic blocking they can't communicate but can still see your art. Not the intention of what the block system is supposed to be for, but I bet most innocent people aren't concerned with being to able to communicate with people when they've been blocked by as long as they can still see the artwork that's posted to a public gallery.

But when it gets to stopping people from seeing their artwork, in this case innocent people who haven't done anything wrong at all, that's what the concern is. For the sake of understanding the other side, imagine if people whose artwork you really love decide to block you for no legitimate reason and now you can't see their artwork without having to use the methods I mentioned in my first post. Is it the end of the world? No. Can you still see their artwork? Yes, but now it's far more of a hassle and will add up with each new person who blocks you for reasons that weren't legitimate wrongdoing to them. How would you feel getting that middle finger (which may also keep stacking up) for no reason? And even if you decide "I wouldn't care!" (whether you actually do or not) I doubt many others who this would affect would feel the same, especially since others insist on something that isn't beneficial to them and screws over people like you if you were on the side getting screwed over.

Again, I’m just trying to propose a fair balance for both sides, especially since advanced blocking won’t work like people think it will and will screw over others (even if it doesn’t actually affect you personally).

Unburnt Daenerys
10-21-2012, 07:37 PM
How would you feel getting that middle finger (which may also keep stacking up) for no reason?

Think "what an asswipe!" and move on. Wouldn't be the first time, and I wouldn't want to support anyone with such an attitude anyway.

Honestly I'd rather have the more extensive blocking feature knowing that some people will be blocked "unjustly" than a half-asses blocking system like FA or DA.

Thefallenwind
10-21-2012, 08:01 PM
@Lemontrees

"Think "what an asswipe!" and move on. Wouldn't be the first time, and I wouldn't want to support anyone with such an attitude anyway." - If I was a jerk, I could throw a similar argument right back at the other side saying "stop being so sensitive" or "just deal with it" regarding people being harassed or stalked who want an advanced block system. I didn't however because I wouldn't invalidate the other side's concerns. I've never needed to use the block system myself, I don't have people harassing me or stalking me but that doesn't mean there aren't others who are and despite it not being an issue to me, I acknowledge the other sides concerns and tried to propose a fair a balance.

Honestly I'd rather have the more extensive blocking feature knowing that some people will be blocked "unjustly" than a half-asses blocking system like FA or DA. - So basically if the reasoning for wanting advanced blocking is to stop people from seeing your art (which won't work since it's incredibly easy to get around for stalkers/harassers who won't care about abandoning an old account to make a new one) you still want something that won't benefit you but will screw over others? You don't care about the other side at all then and simply want what you want alone? Is that what you're getting at?

Tartii
10-21-2012, 08:24 PM
Oh! No I am not angry with you, nor do I see your posting as spite, but what I am pondering is...have you had issues with this in the past that has brought this up?

Look, if somebody wants to block somebody, even if they really have 'no cause to do so' it is their absolute choice. If somebody wanted to RANDOMLY block me, say, somebody who's artwork I heavily admired, and I had not spoken or asked anything of them? I would be very confused. BUT I would not see it as a cause to completely remove the feature....I fail to see how anything you have brought to attention is a reason to remove a feature that does more GOOD for the masses than bad.
Will some people probably be blocked, and not know why? Maybe. But that person shouldn't have their WHOLE LIFE RUINED because they can't view this one artwork. Also, some people just do not know when they go to far, or when their attention is really not wanted. An artist should have the right to be able to block somebody completely, and not have to explain themselves. If somebody has angered them, if somebody has continued to harass, or what-not then they should have that right. Maybe it is just a teensy thing that shouldn't be insulted by...but they are, and deserve the right to block them if so. Again I see no reason this feature should be removed.

If you are being blocked by SEVERAL people, and all are artists you like, and it keeps happening and 'stacks up' as you say...well then you probably are not innocent. You probably have done something wrong.

Have you commissioned somebody, and they haven't gotten back to you or shown you the process of your artwork and blocked to avoid work? Well then you better have another contact for them outside the site. That is just smart thinking.

You seem intent on saying that this benefits nobody, when really there ARE benefits. It is a block in the path of harassers. Is it a minor block that can be gotten around if somebody was determined? Yes. However, this block will discourage some of them at least.


So, again, still don't see why this needs to be removed.

Temrin
10-21-2012, 08:30 PM
I honestly suggest that when invites open, we let them at least test out their functions with the masses for now. If there are actually problems with it, then report those problems, with screenshots and proof of the problems actually recieved from this system.

That way, they can actually see what people are doing legitimately when this system is used and then, can make proper changes to it. It might actually be a good system, or with a few tweaks it could work. But without seeing what people will -actually- do on -this- site (because its not every other site) then making changes right now actually might be a bad idea. The mods might have ideas for this system that might actually be decent that havent been implemented, you never know! Just give it a chance to be tested. If problems come up, report em and the mods will make tweaks as needed. Right now, i think there are a lot more important things to worry about then advanced blocking features. As long as right now, there IS a block function, itll work for the time being. Getting the other features working properly and the changes they are already committed to making, should come first :)

Thefallenwind
10-21-2012, 09:31 PM
@Tarti

“Oh! No I am not angry with you, nor do I see your posting as spite” – My apologies, text does not always convey tone very well (or the way it was intended) and it seemed like there was a bit of hostility towards me which is why I was trying to explain I wasn’t trying to spite you guys as I understand your side too and was trying to come up with a fair balance. I’m glad that is cleared up though.

Basic blocking stops all form of communication from people who are blocked. This is needed. Eliminating notifications from blocked people (blocked person has watched you! Or blocked person faved this!) is something that should be implemented too (Roki mentioned preventing blocked people from faving, this is fine too). All of this is necessary because of the problematic people who harass others and though it won’t always stop people it sure can slow them down at least. So far, I think everyone can agree this is something that is needed.

Advanced blocking however (preventing people from watching you and possibly preventing them from seeing your page as well specifically) is something that is added to basic blocking. The reasoning for this is because people don’t want blocked people to watch or see them. I pointed out in my original post how incredibly easy it is to get around this for dedicated harassers/stalkers (which also have no problem abandoning accounts to make new ones) and that this feature is no better than basic blocking. If this was the only fault alone and people still wanted it, then I wouldn’t care so much.

However, this now gives people the power to abuse this feature on people who they deem inferior or unworthy of watching them as well as sets up the table to use coercion on others (if you fav and don’t comment I will block you, etc. Do as I say or you won’t see my artwork). If this type of abuse was incredibly rare I probably wouldn’t have made this thread. Unfortunately, it’s not and there are a lot of immature, irresponsible, judgmental, narrow-minded people amongst the people who are decent people and would not abuse the blocking system.

My argument is, advanced blocking does not do what people think it will do, is not better then basic blocking and will create new problems in it’s place.

“ Look, if somebody wants to block somebody, even if they really have 'no cause to do so' it is their absolute choice.” – I don’t disagree with that completely, but at the same time let me put it this way. Imagine you live in the city and you’d like to use the bus to get somewhere. The bus driver closes the door and drives away right as you try to get in. Is it the end of the world? No. You can take a more expensive cab or walk to the several miles instead even the though the bus was much better for you.

Now let’s say the busses keep doing this to you personally (as well as a small minority of others). One time was probably annoying, but whatever. Each time it happens and keeps stacking up though I bet it’s going to start getting to you.

Is it the end of the world? No. Can you still get to where you wanted to go? Yes, but now it’s more inconvenient and annoying for you. Did you do anything wrong for the bus drivers to keep purposely doing this to you? (and keep in mind most people aren’t going to tell you why they really blocked you). Is it going to get increasingly annoying when this keeps happening over and over when you did nothing wrong at all? This is the point I’m making for this.

If you are being blocked by SEVERAL people, and all are artists you like, and it keeps happening and 'stacks up' as you say...well then you probably are not innocent. You probably have done something wrong. That’s not always correct. On DA (I’m a lurker there, I don’t interact with others very much at all through that site) I’ve watched my watch count continuously decrease 1-3 watches every week or two. I’ve looked into it and noticed that 1/3 of them are deactivated accounts, the other 2/3 are people who blocked me either immediately after watching them or after some time. I have not said a single word to 99% of them, I only hit the watch button.

This probably won’t affect people of your standing so much since you’re a well-known artist. But the lurkers and the people with porn/fetish stuff in their favorites/galleries are the ones who get affected by this more often due to being judged based on appearances. In addition (not that this has happened to me personally) I’ve also heard from a good number of people of who get blocked for POLITELY disagreeing with another. If blocking also means not being able to see one’s artwork then this may discourage others from saying anything even politely for fear of being blocked.

Have you commissioned somebody, and they haven't gotten back to you or shown you the process of your artwork and blocked to avoid work? – Not personally, but it’s a common theme to hear about on Artist’s Beware.

“…when really there ARE benefits” – what benefits? The only benefit people think it has is that they think people will not be able to see their artwork (in addition to preventing blocked accounts from viewing their page, if blocking page viewing is also implementing). I’ve explained how that aspect of this advanced blocking doesn’t actually work in my original post. Advanced blocking really is no more effective than basic blocking and is ripe for even more abuse than basic blocking is.

My argument simplified is:

Plan A solves all but 1 problem, but creates no new problems.
Plan B solves all but 1 problem, but creates NEW problems in its place.

People think that Plan B is going to solve all their problems. I’m trying to explain that it won’t and that plan B is more detrimental (even if others see the detriments towards others I’m explaining as minor or inferior to them personally). All I'm asking for is a balanced approach that can solve what can be solved WITHOUT creating problems for others.

- - - Updated - - -

@Temrin

“we let them at least test out their functions with the masses for now. If there are actually problems with it, then report those problems, with screenshots and proof of the problems actually recieved from this system.” – This may be very difficult though since it’s very subjective. People can lie about why they blocked someone, and innocents are going to have a hard time finding evidence that they were blocked for the wrong reasons. On top of that, admins aren’t going to (nor shouldn’t) make rules on why you can block someone. I think it’s better to set up a system to do what good it can while reducing the amount of potential abuse that can come from it.

However, despite the point I made in the paragraph above, the point you made about testing it out first, is at least the most sensible argument against mine and I acknowledge that. I can understand wanting to try something out for empirical evidence to ensure it really is the case, this I will bow to. I still think it will become a problem (mostly for people on my side) since it does happen a lot on others sites but I can’t blame you for wanting to take a scientific approach to this.

I hope that if I'm right though, that the site owners will take that concern into fair consideration to make a more balanced block system.

Tartii
10-21-2012, 11:33 PM
Okay! -crackles knuckles- I am going to try to tackle this bit by bit. I am somewhat getting where you are trying to come from, but again this is more of a very small group compared to the big group that can benefit. First I will re-address how this is beneficial to those that are harassed/irritated.
1. By having a stricter blocking system, no matter how easy it is to get around, it is still an extra obstacle a harasser has to work around. This will deter a fair group of them.
2. While they can make more accounts if they want more access to your stuff, you can easily keep blocking those accounts. Work on both ends? Yes, but eventually the harasser gives up.
3. Giving an artist a sense of small security is a big thing, and while sure anybody can look at their art if they are logged out....SOME pictures (such as those marked adult or mature) cannot be seen. Most people that are harassed are those in the erotic field, so at least some of that art is safe.

However, this now gives people the power to abuse this feature on people who they deem inferior or unworthy of watching them as well as sets up the table to use coercion on others (if you fav and don’t comment I will block you, etc. Do as I say or you won’t see my artwork). If this type of abuse was incredibly rare I probably wouldn’t have made this thread. Unfortunately, it’s not and there are a lot of immature, irresponsible, judgmental, narrow-minded people amongst the people who are decent people and would not abuse the blocking system.

A person who reacts this way or treats their watchers this way will QUICKLY lose their followers. They will get a bad name, as word spreads quickly. Are you unable to speak or look at THEM? Yes, but not the whole community. This particular person can still go to artists_beware or other communities, even their own page to report what has happened. No matter how great an artist is, they would be a fool to treat all their watchers like somebody they are entitled to and to demand things of them. Artists are to feel HONORED by those that follow them. Can you hold pride in a number? Yes, but as any successful artist should know, or anybody with common knowledge, you do not start going on a power trip on your watchers. Drama is like fire in the art community and they will quickly realize the consequences of their actions.

I don’t disagree with that completely, but at the same time let me put it this way. Imagine you live in the city and you’d like to use the bus to get somewhere. The bus driver closes the door and drives away right as you try to get in. Is it the end of the world? No. You can take a more expensive cab or walk to the several miles instead even the though the bus was much better for you.

This is completely non-relatable to this though. xD I see what you are trying to say, but it doesn't work. Getting transportation is essential in our time, viewing somebodies specific artwork is not. Also, if you have been blocked on other DA by several artists, it is probably because (I am assuming) you have an empty gallery or show almost no activity. Art theft is insane over there, so any empty accounts are extremely suspicious.

This probably won’t affect people of your standing so much since you’re a well-known artist. But the lurkers and the people with porn/fetish stuff in their favorites/galleries are the ones who get affected by this more often due to being judged based on appearances. In addition (not that this has happened to me personally) I’ve also heard from a good number of people of who get blocked for POLITELY disagreeing with another. If blocking also means not being able to see one’s artwork then this may discourage others from saying anything even politely for fear of being blocked.

Again, if somebody is blocked for 'politely disagreeing' with somebody, it is between those two people. If this person blocks you for just being polite and trying to make conversation, then they are not worth their time to worry or stress over. Perhaps it is better to not be able to contact them, since in the end the one that blocked is probably very aggressive and rash, and the conversation could have turned ugly. That is not something that should be pursued. Now other people being fearful of being blocked for trying to say something have learned the way this person is now, and have learned they probably are not a good person...or somebody they should really be watching. If this person is not open to other views it is probably best to just hold ones tongue.


I hope this addressed most things in a satisfactory manner.

Temrin
10-21-2012, 11:44 PM
* i havent finished reading the recent responses but i would also like to make a point. that this isnt -just- about the artist. This is about all users on this website. It is about security for all people. anyone can get harassed or have reasons of which to block people. Heck, i have blocked people who have done nothing to me, but may have shown that i dont want anything to do with them by making a giant scene, acting like an ass to friends, and even, in some cases, because of an artist/client beware post and i have seen proof of their attitude and dont want to ever deal with them Some might not see it as all proper reasons. But everyone has their reasons and their reasons are their own. Sometimes it is better to put a stop to drama before it starts. Especially when you have proof of a person possibly coming to you. This is for safety of all. not just artists.*

teckworks
10-22-2012, 10:49 AM
So it isn't a bad idea, it's just a good idea that others will find a way around. Makes sense to me. I'd like to see some kinda "Pending Approval" feature for comments and such implemented sometime in the future, that might be cool. Then again, this is 2012 Internet. People are gonna harass, people are gonna stalk, and people are gonna be douchenozzles. The only sure fire way around it, sadly, is to now get involved and not even use the internet. :<

Doki
10-22-2012, 11:34 AM
I agree that advanced blocking would be a terrible idea. I'm all for regular blocking so that harassment and such can be contained and avoided but being blocked for not having an icon is a little much.

If we do put in an advanced blocking feature into the site I suggest that mods would have to overview on why they want to block this problem. That way people aren't getting blocked for not little things such as not commenting enough. Also this way people won't just simply do it to block someone that much. It'll be too much of a hassle unless there's a real problem present.

Kazekai
10-22-2012, 01:19 PM
Advanced blocking seems fine to me. I haven't encountered enough people who block others for frivolous reasons to think it's a big deal and I would like the extra security.

I've seen people who will block other people for things like what content is in their favorites, but only once or twice and they seemed like they were younger people. I don't think most people would pass up the chance for internet attention and e-penis points over someone's avatar or lack of commenting on favorites.

piŮardilla
10-22-2012, 07:42 PM
I have a feeling that a good chunk of the userbase is just going to end up having second accounts for evading blocks.

Doki
10-22-2012, 09:50 PM
I have a feeling that a good chunk of the userbase is just going to end up having second accounts for evading blocks.

Which would clog up the website just like how everyone has a ton of side accounts on FA.

Kazekai
10-23-2012, 12:20 AM
Which would clog up the website just like how everyone has a ton of side accounts on FA.

You'll get that with any blocking system though, might as well go with the more advanced one.

Thefallenwind
10-23-2012, 12:23 AM
@Tarti

“First I will re-address how this is beneficial to those that are harassed/irritated…” – Stopping the ability for an account to watch you (or see your page) does not hinder dedicated harrasers/stalkers anymore than basic blocking does. Them not being able to watch/see you from their throwaway account does not make it any more difficult for them to sign up for another account.

It’s like having a chain-link fence between you and the harasser/stalker. They walk around the fence and still get to you. Blocking the ability to watch/see you from the throwaway account is like throwing up a blanket so they can’t see you from where they are currently and they still walk around the fence just as they did before. It does not hinder them any more than a chain-link fence without a blanket. There is no additional hinderance by having this feature. So point #1, there is not additional obstacle as it’s EXACTLY the same amount of effort to sign up for another account. Point #2 would be the same for both basic blocking and advanced blocking, it is not made any more difficult to sign up for another account. Point #3 would only work if they didn’t sign up for another account – which dedicated harasers/stalkers do.

“A person who reacts this way or treats their watchers this way will QUICKLY lose their followers. They will get a bad name, as word spreads quickly.” & everything else you said in this paragraph – That is the way it should be. Unfortunately that’s not always the case. There are some popular people that can get away with almost anything. I’ve personally seen one popular artist FLAT OUT insult one of their customers. It was brought to AB and everyone sided with the plaintiff. The popular person lost about 30 watches (they even noticed too). A week later they got those 30 watches back plus 20 more. Did what they did to the innocent buyer even affect them? BARELY, but in the end, no not really at all.

There are other popular people who KEEP SHOWING UP in AB for stiffing people or really shitty behavior and they STILL keep getting commissions left and right. It is really sad to see the same person’s name keep showing up time and time again because they can get away with this time and time again. People tend to be starstruck with the popular people so a lot (though thankfully not all) will tend to be biased with them despite any horrible/injust thing they do.

“ Getting transportation is essential in our time, viewing somebodies specific artwork is not” – I was aiming more for the “it gets really annoying when something like the example keeps happening over and over when you’ve done nothing wrong”. This was the closest example I could think of, but you say you get what I’m getting at so I’ll leave this as is.

“Art theft is insane over there, so any empty accounts are extremely suspicious.” – Ok, THAT I was not aware of and I guess that could be the reasoning for it. But if anything that kinda proves that I’m deemed “guilty” without actually having done anything wrong. On top of that, again it’s not difficult for dedicated thieves to bookmark someone’s page and manually visit or keep making new accounts while abandoning their throwaway accounts. It’s more of an inconvience for innocent people who settle with their main account though.

“Again, if somebody is blocked for 'politely disagreeing' with somebody…” & everthing else said in this paragraph – If it blocked communication alone I wouldn’t care and I’m sure a lot of other people wouldn’t either. If it blocks the ability to watch or see one’s page then it’s a whole different story for people on my end. I recall a lot of people who wanted to disable journal notifications on FA because they wanted to see the person’s art but not hear what they have to say (at least this is what a good number of people have said anyways).

I really don’t want to have to walk on eggshells or to jump through flaming hoops (if you don’t comment enough I block you, if you fav and don’t comment I block you, etc) in order to have the privilege (which I may still be blocked because I’m considered inferior) to watch someone’s art on public art gallery.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love for there to be an effective way to stop (or at least actually greatly hinder) legitimate harassers/stalkers WITHOUT screwing over innocents. Even better, I’d love for everyone to stop being douche bags to each other and for us all to just be respectful and courteous to each other – that would be ideal. But there are douches and advanced blocking won’t stop them any more affectively then basic blocking and will create problems for others instead. This is what I’m trying to get at. : (

- - - Updated - - -

@Temrin

“that this isnt -just- about the artist. This is about all users on this website.” – I used artist to clarify what end was what in my point. However, that was unfair of me as people who would abuse the system can also be art posters as well. I’ll try to use different wording to clarify the block abuser in future discussions.

“It is about security for all people.” – The entire point of my argument was to show you guys that stopping people from watching you and/or seeing your page is not more secure than basic blocking. If someone cannot watch you they simply have to bookmark your page and manually visit. If someone can’t see your page they simply have to make another account and either watch you incognito or bookmark your page and manually visit. This does not hinder people who are dedicated to harassing/stalking others any more then basic blocking does. This does not inconvenience dedicated stalkers/harassers anymore then basic blocking does since advanced blocking does not hinder their ability to make a new account any more than basic blocking does. Harrasser/stalkers will have no problem making new accounts and abandoning throwaway accounts. Innocent watchers aren’t going to be so willing to pack everything up and make a new account. Innocents are really the only people who are going to be hindered by advanced blocking.

Everthing else you said – this is why basic blocking is needed. Advanced blocking doesn’t make this situation any more effective. That’s fine if you want to block someone because they are genuinely a shitty human being and constantly cause drama or are a known art thief or have been featured on AB several times. If you want to prevent communication between these people feel free. I’m concerned about the problems advanced blocking will cause to innocents.

As I told Tarti - I really don’t want to have to walk on eggshells or to jump through flaming hoops (if you don’t comment enough I block you, if you fav and don’t comment I block you, etc) in order to have the privilege (which I may still be blocked because I’m considered inferior) to watch someone’s art on public art gallery. Especially because we implemented something that doesn’t do what people think it will.

RadioCatastrophe
10-23-2012, 12:46 AM
I have a feeling that a good chunk of the userbase is just going to end up having second accounts for evading blocks.

There's already folks with "Regular" and "Adult" accounts, though, the rule makes me wonder if it's ok (despite a mod saying otherwise when I asked).



Can users have multiple accounts?

Users are allowed to have more than one account, as long as it's not for the purpose of separating between art mediums or level of completeness (as that's what folders are for), for changing your username (as we have a function for that), or impersonating another individual.

Thefallenwind
10-23-2012, 12:49 AM
@KazeKai

Basic blocking is like having a chain-link fence between you and the harasser/stalker. They walk around the fence and still get to you. Blocking the ability to watch/see you from the throwaway account is like throwing up a blanket so they can’t see you from where they are currently. They will still walk around the fence just as they did before. It does not hinder them any more than a chain-link fence without a blanket. There is no additional hinderance by having this feature as it is not made any more difficult to sign up for another account whether basic blocking or advanced blocking is in effect. So advanced blocking is not actually better at all.

In addition, it can now be used for the illegitimate reasons instead (coercion and being blocked for your appearance even if you didn’t do anything wrong at all). It’s not convienient for innocent people to pack everything up and make a new account whereas a dedicated harasser/stalker isn’t going to care about making new accounts over and over again.

Again, advanced blocking is not actually better then basic blocking, does not do what people think it will do and will create problems for others now instead (see original post for reasoning).

Plan A solves all problems but 1 but creates no new problems.
Plan B solves all problems but 1 but creates NEW problems instead.

Plan B isn’t better like people like people think it is. This is what I’ve been trying to explain.

RadioCatastrophe
10-23-2012, 02:23 AM
Would be nice is a mod of some sort came in with some of their personal input/perspective. D:
It would definitely allow for more.. responses instead of the same on both ends "It helps!" "No it doesn't!"

We're talking to brick walls for both sides and no ones changing or adding onto their previous opinion when they first posted/read this thread.

Oly
10-23-2012, 03:13 AM
It occurs to me that having a 'only registered users can view profile' function would help mitigate the 'people can just log out to see your stuff' issue.

Doesn't really address the others, but it's something, and it's a feature some people may like to have on it's own merit.

RadioCatastrophe
10-23-2012, 03:45 AM
It occurs to me that having a 'only registered users can view profile' function would help mitigate the 'people can just log out to see your stuff' issue.

Doesn't really address the others, but it's something, and it's a feature some people may like to have on it's own merit.

I think that's been suggested elsewhere, but, it is a good idea for those who don't want random lurkers viewing their works w/o an account or while logged out.

Tartii
10-23-2012, 12:18 PM
It occurs to me that having a 'only registered users can view profile' function would help mitigate the 'people can just log out to see your stuff' issue.

Doesn't really address the others, but it's something, and it's a feature some people may like to have on it's own merit.

I love this idea. It could be like a system that is on facebook. However I think this should be an option somebody should be able to choose, like a little tick-box saying (keep profile visible only to members?) It would root out a LOT of trolls.

As for Fallenwind's concern for those that would be blocked unjustly, I am sure a ticket would be easy to foward if it really bothers the individual. Like I said, not being able to view a person's artwork is not the end of the world. If you disagree with somebody, but that person is over-sensitive and doesn't want to hear the opposing side, you either need to bite your tongue and just silently disagree if the art means that much. And if people want to make side accounts to keep viewing....hmm....perhaps a system can be put into place where there is only two accounts allowed per email? (I say two because some people like having swf and nsfw accounts, as well as gift art accounts.) Yes they can go and make more emails, but /again/ it takes a lot of dedication. I have blocked harassers in the past from being able to comment and they eventually just gave up.

The advanced blocking system is like the jail system in my country, or I guess any country. Innocents are going to be effected in some cases, but it is for security of other artists. I, however, can NOT see a reason to remove this and taking away the freedom of somebody to block anybody they want to. It may be unfair to others for them to 'not be able to see the artwork', but it is completely up to the artist and individual to do so and make that choice.
If this bothers the person who was blocked UNFAIRLY to the point they just cant handle it anymore they can put forth a trouble ticket I guess. And the mods can try and see if it was really fair to let this person do this or not. In fact, if this person keeps violating the 'block' system I am sure they could do something that would forbid this user from using the advanced blocking. Like...three strikes your out.

Ben
10-23-2012, 02:03 PM
The registered users only being able to view your profile function actually already does exist, it's just that it doesn't extend to the individual parts of your userpage (like your submissions, journals etc.).

Thefallenwind
10-23-2012, 03:52 PM
@RadioCatastrohe

“Would be nice is a mod of some sort came in with some of their personal input/perspective. D:” – It would yes, but I have a feeling the mods are being polite to me by not flat out telling me no. They’re going to do what the majority wants (I don’t blame them for that, that’s one of the missions of their site, so I understand they're trying to do what the majority feels is best). I’m just worried that popular opinion is going to squash out minority logic and the reality of the situation is not going to be understood by those who read this or flat out not even seen to be weighed over. And that’s only counting the people who would fairly weigh my side (even if they still disagree) – that doesn’t include all the people who flat out don’t care what I’m saying or that it will effect others negatively. I’m already fighting a losing battle.

- - - Updated - - -

@Oly

“It occurs to me that having a 'only registered users can view profile' function would help mitigate the 'people can just log out to see your stuff' issue.” – Like FA has? This is perfectly ok! I can understand not wanting to have stuff seen to the general public and this is something that really can’t be abused very much (if at all). I have no issue with this at all.

- - - Updated - - -

@ Tarti

I don’t think it’s a good idea to limit “why” someone should block people either. This will tie up the mods far too much over something that is way too subjective, not easy to prove (people can lie about why they blocked someone & innocents will have a very difficulty time getting evidence) and make things far more complicated for the site.
“Like I said, not being able to view a person's artwork is not the end of the world.” – Yes I understand that. One time is nothing, it’s when it keeps stacking up over and over again that it starts to get really annoying. People on my side can be severly inconvienced for something that has no real benefit to people who advocate advanced blocking. Simplified, I don’t want to end being screwed because others want something that doesn’t do anything beneficial to them.

“perhaps a system can be put into place where there is only two accounts allowed per email?” – That may work, though I’d up it to 5 (I imagine most innocents wouldn’t have more than 5 accounts). However, there may be some unforeseen problem with this. For the time being, I can agree to this as a means of limiting trolls, but I think this should still be weighed over very carefully to ensure it can’t someone affect innocents.

“Innocents are going to be effected in some cases, but it is for security of other artists.” – Implementing advanced blocking does NOT make you any more secure than basic blocking. I’ve explained this point over and over. In turn it can be used on innocents. My argument is why implement something that has no real benefit (I’ve explained that the blanket doesn’t hinder trolls any more than fence alone) and can be used on innocents? No real benefit, but can be a detriment to innocents.

“…taking away the freedom of somebody to block anybody they want to.” – I don’t understand why people keep thinking I’m somehow arguing “NO BLOCK SYSTEM AT ALL” when I’m saying “block communication and notifications, DO NOT block watching/seeing page)? The blanket on the fence does not hinder trolls any more than a fence without a blanket.

Kazekai
10-23-2012, 04:06 PM
@KazeKai

Basic blocking is like having a chain-link fence between you and the harasser/stalker. They walk around the fence and still get to you. Blocking the ability to watch/see you from the throwaway account is like throwing up a blanket so they can’t see you from where they are currently. They will still walk around the fence just as they did before. It does not hinder them any more than a chain-link fence without a blanket. There is no additional hinderance by having this feature as it is not made any more difficult to sign up for another account whether basic blocking or advanced blocking is in effect. So advanced blocking is not actually better at all.

In addition, it can now be used for the illegitimate reasons instead (coercion and being blocked for your appearance even if you didn’t do anything wrong at all). It’s not convienient for innocent people to pack everything up and make a new account whereas a dedicated harasser/stalker isn’t going to care about making new accounts over and over again.

Again, advanced blocking is not actually better then basic blocking, does not do what people think it will do and will create problems for others now instead (see original post for reasoning).

Plan A solves all problems but 1 but creates no new problems.
Plan B solves all problems but 1 but creates NEW problems instead.

Plan B isn’t better like people like people think it is. This is what I’ve been trying to explain.

This has already been asked but has some actually blocked you for the reasons you've listed that would make you think people behave this way?

Tartii
10-23-2012, 04:14 PM
I can see there is no way I can possibly reason with you. So I am going to be very blunt.
"...it’s when it keeps stacking up over and over again that it starts to get really annoying." I will say this again. If you are being blocked over, and over, and oooover again its probably because you are doing something wrong. Not a whole bunch of people are going to just block you over nothing. Maybe one, two...maybe THREE rarely. But several upon several people blocking you cannot be just "oh they are just power hungry, and are blocking me for no reason."

If this system is 'pointless' as you see it, then the only way your argument would have any merit is if it wasn't already implemented. However, it is already in the system, so removing it is even MORE so. And if it is oh so easy to get around, and just keep making new accounts, and if the 'innocent' who is just wanting to view the artwork, and its that so much more important to them, they can just make a new account. :/ And if they anger the artist again then they will be blocked again (because clearly that person does not want to talk with the other who keeps coming back.)

So while you may not agree with why somebody blocks somebody, it is right in the mind of the other. This comes off, to me, as saying people are entitled to look at whoever's artwork they want, even if they are blocked. I do not see it this way at all. A artist is posting their artwork online to share it with people, not because the other people are ENTITLED to see it. If somebody does not want somebody else to see this art, its their call. I cannot make this any clearer.

Blocking somebody from seeing artwork is something a lot of people have wished to have, and now it is given. If a system was implented that made it so others cannot see artwork of artists that choose to do so, unless logged in, that would solve a lot of this. "Oh but people can just make accounts to see it again anyway!" Not if they are limited to a certain number of accounts. "But then they can just make more emails!" Somebody with that dedication, and desperation to get to somebody really has a lot of problems, and no system is going to be able to stop that unless there was some sort of IP ban. For instance, constant harassment, I am sure, can result in an IP ban if this was decided upon by mods.

Chimaera
10-23-2012, 05:25 PM
If I'm getting this right, which if I'm wrong whatever, I don't want to read everyones posts and am a little late on this. If someone doesn't like me, blocks me, though I really like their art, I cant see it??? Why? Say someone steals my art, claims it as their own and then blocks me, I would never know about it? This is a bad idea. End of story. If this is what I'm reading correctly then NOONE should be disagreeing with the OP.

Tartii
10-23-2012, 05:29 PM
If I'm getting this right, which if I'm wrong whatever, I don't want to read everyones posts and am a little late on this. If someone doesn't like me, blocks me, though I really like their art, I cant see it??? Why? Say someone steals my art, claims it as their own and then blocks me, I would never know about it? This is a bad idea. End of story. If this is what I'm reading correctly then NOONE should be disagreeing with the OP.

There are two types of blocking. Basic blocking and advanced blocking. If you have done something to somebody to make them mad at you to the point they just do NOT want you to see their art, they are going to block you. It is the right of the artist. However, that doesn't mean they are going to do that. They may just basic block, which means ceasing all communication availabilities, but you are still able to see their artwork.
Also, if somebody steals your art and blocks you from seeing it, that does not mean other people cannot see it. See, the thing with art theft is that the people that steal the artwork want to be noticed. They want people to see it and think they did it, thus taking the praise for it. But the more praise they get...and the more popular they become...the HIGHER the chance they are going to be noticed by somebody who realises,"Wait! This is so and so's art!" In which case they will tell you this. Then, you can report this, or ask somebody else to report it in your stead, since you have been blocked.

Chimaera
10-23-2012, 05:36 PM
Sorry, they are on a public site, it is not fair to just say "I don't want this specific person looking at my art". That is wrong, no getting around that. Ive been blocked by people because I don't like MLP. I never met the person and who knows, I might have watched them for their art or something, if it was on this site, I would be unfairly unable to see their work. That is NOT fair and justifying this is just silly. Simply blocking for communication is enough. It will not hurt for your art to be visible to the public like it is supposed to be.

On the note of art theft. What if I'm an unpopular artist? which I am. No one is going to recognize it, that is favoritism towards the more popular artists in this case, while the "lower class" artists can easily get their works stolen and they would get away with it. Not fair.

Temrin
10-23-2012, 05:53 PM
@Chimaera It doesnt matter if you are popular or not. i watch all kinds of artists from just starting out to "they are a major part of the art world in the fandom". No matter what level you think you are, its not hard to find people stealing your work. I've found people stealing artwork from someone who isnt that known before. Multiple times. It might not become top news in the fandom, but it will get noticed at some point. Just because you might not be the top 10 on the fandom radar doesnt mean it wont get noticed. Might it take a bit longer to find? Yes, perhaps. But i do understand your point of view on this. It would be more of a pain in the butt, sure.

Oh and @Tartii, your last post on t he previous page (http://forums.weasyl.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?1039-Advanced-Blocking-Why-it-s-a-bad-idea&p=12028&viewfull=1#post12028) Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you!! Total agreeance

Chimaera
10-23-2012, 06:21 PM
@Chimaera It doesnt matter if you are popular or not. i watch all kinds of artists from just starting out to "they are a major part of the art world in the fandom". No matter what level you think you are, its not hard to find people stealing your work. I've found people stealing artwork from someone who isnt that known before. Multiple times. It might not become top news in the fandom, but it will get noticed at some point. Just because you might not be the top 10 on the fandom radar doesnt mean it wont get noticed. Might it take a bit longer to find? Yes, perhaps. But i do understand your point of view on this. It would be more of a pain in the butt, sure.

Oh and @Tartii, your last post on t he previous page (http://forums.weasyl.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?1039-Advanced-Blocking-Why-it-s-a-bad-idea&p=12028&viewfull=1#post12028) Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you!! Total agreeance

I can prove to you that this is not true, I know a few people that do this, they take unpopular work on deviant art, upload them, and for years NO ONE ever notices. Someone on FA is doing this right now, the only reason I know is because I know this person. No one inside the site knows this. Nice double team though. It's disappointing that I'm in the minority right now.

Going to work, and I've also kind of realized how futile this is.

ragscoon
10-23-2012, 07:33 PM
1. Promoting the creation of new accounts for each 'advanced ban' case, not in opinion but in fact, is a very bad compromise to the problem. This comes from an experienced software/database developer, but even those without experience should be able to understand the unnecessary strain this causes on servers. Sure, maybe a few additional accounts here or there isn't going to cause immediate harm, but those few-and-far-betweens do add up, the damage eventually accumulates. Larger distributed networks solve that problem, sure, but as a code of ethics you don't want to make a community dispute seek resolution through the host's budget. That will only drag the site down.

2. Art gets stolen on a somewhat regular basis, people want attention without doing any actual work. While they may get noticed for pulling such an act the issue in this matter is time; more specifically the measure of how long it goes unnoticed. Several strategies exist to circumnavigate that negative attention, as mentioned earlier using alternate sites is one means. The 'advanced ban' feature does create another method for stealing and while not wholly a perfect strategy it nonetheless helps them in such an endeavor. They acquire more watchers/subscribers the longer it goes unnoticed, and even when it does become noticed the damage has already been done. Not all their subscribers will be notified of this theft and they will have unjustly stolen the attention from the original artist. I've seen it before, and I've had work stolen from me then had other people accuse me of being the thief. Regardless of how the situation ends, it's a piss-poor position to be in.

3. Just because a feature already exists doesn't mean it should continue to be implemented. This is true of essentially all software and websites, many features get dropped during the beta/alpha phases through customer analysis. Considering that Weasyl is still in its beta one should always expect the possibility of a feature being removed. There are always trade-offs for different choices and it comes down to finding which trade-offs satisfy the most stakeholders while remaining affordable.

4. Whether it's advanced or regular blocking, ANYONE could make more accounts to circumnavigate the ban. The only real difference is the limitations put on the user and how much more likely they are to make a new account in response. If there is harassment ensuing and regular bans cause the user to make more accounts for further "trolling" then that seems a probable means for a permanent IP ban (With potential review and redemption by admins at their own disclosure). If someone is given a regular ban for some minor dispute they can continue viewing the gallery without bothering the artist, but if an advanced ban is placed the user is more likely to create a secondary account for viewing purposes, leading back to the issue of server strain.

5. While every public feature has the potential to be abused by the community, a feature of this magnitude being abused poses a strong likelihood of damaging the site as a whole, possibly even splitting the community apart at some point (Not splitting because the feature exists, but splitting because of how the feature is being used).

In conclusion this advanced ban feature could be meaningful if used sparingly and only in extreme situations (Not for petty reasoning or minor disputes) but if used as a regular feature of the site could present some serious consequences. It all comes down to how the community chooses to use such a feature that will determine the future of it.

In light of these facts I have a suggestion that some may or may not agree with. I would propose a ticketing system specifically for advanced bans, so instead of the ban being an instantaneous decision by one artist the ban would be a proposal for ticketing staff to consider and act upon. Reasoning for the ban and the user in question would be provided and the admin(s) responsible for the case would need to review and determine the best course of action. Yes this would create more work for the administration team, but more volunteers could be picked up for such a role and it would protect this feature from community wide misuse.

Short-version: Many problems result from misuse but it's up to how the community uses it that determines said consequences.

Suggestion: Regulate and administer advanced bans through a ticketing system and letting website officials handle the case in question.

Temrin
10-23-2012, 08:04 PM
@Ragscoon

I think your suggestion is actually quite a good one : )

Kazekai
10-23-2012, 09:05 PM
Sorry, they are on a public site, it is not fair to just say "I don't want this specific person looking at my art". That is wrong, no getting around that. Ive been blocked by people because I don't like MLP. I never met the person and who knows, I might have watched them for their art or something, if it was on this site, I would be unfairly unable to see their work. That is NOT fair and justifying this is just silly. Simply blocking for communication is enough. It will not hurt for your art to be visible to the public like it is supposed to be.

On the note of art theft. What if I'm an unpopular artist? which I am. No one is going to recognize it, that is favoritism towards the more popular artists in this case, while the "lower class" artists can easily get their works stolen and they would get away with it. Not fair.

Look, whether or not you think art being on a public site gives you the absolute right to view it or not, it isn't your art and you didn't draw it or commission it so you shouldn't have any say in what the person who put that effort into it actually wants to do with their art. Are you also offended by friends-only artwork?

Tartii
10-23-2012, 10:08 PM
@Ragscoon
Having the admins deal with it, if the advanced banning starts to get out of hand, is a good idea. But how are we to know if this will really happen? All of this is based on a lot of what-ifs. ^^''
Also, people making several side accounts is something that can happen even if Advanced Banning wasn't here. Again, I think if we just limited the number of accounts people can make it would solve a lot of this.
And in the case of art theft, it is going to happen no matter what. I have learned this the hard-way...and once something is on the internet it will always be there. With time, it will also always be caught. Advanced banning can only benefit an art thief by only having that one artist not noticing...but everybody else in the community will....well that notices lol.

But all your points are very valid. I think the best thing really is to just let the site run its course, and if it becomes a problem THEN actions should be taken. For now, as small as it is, having the ability in case something happens to have control over who views my art and who I REALLY do not want to view it is a small security. No matter how minor.

RadioCatastrophe
10-23-2012, 10:41 PM
If I'm getting this right, which if I'm wrong whatever, I don't want to read everyones posts and am a little late on this. If someone doesn't like me, blocks me, though I really like their art, I cant see it??? Why? Say someone steals my art, claims it as their own and then blocks me, I would never know about it? This is a bad idea. End of story. If this is what I'm reading correctly then NOONE should be disagreeing with the OP.

It was one of the points brought up yes, but only if an artist can block someone from their gallery (I have no idea if this is actually what's there since I haven't blocked anyone or read much about it), the OP is also worried about others who may be in the same situation(s) as they have been in before such as being blocked for not being talented enough, not commenting when favoriting, or not commenting/favoriting enough.


This power shouldn't be in a users hands, leave dealing with a user to the staff.
"This Power" being advanced blocking, AKA what Ragscoon said as a solution.

@Kazekai; If you put something on a public social network you can't expect people not to look at what you post unless everything is friends only. No need to go attacking Chimaera as I agree with them, you shouldn't single someone out when you're posting art to the PUBLIC. That's like banning someone from a public park because of what shoes they wear. Or telling someone they can't listen to you play music on the street corner because you don't like their t-shirt. You're in a public location, your rules only apply to so much.

Tartii
10-23-2012, 11:11 PM
Agh there is just no reasoning. x-x
I'm going to say this again, just because an artist posts artwork on an art site does not make you ENTITLED to see it. It is their artwork, and they can control who they want to see it if they so desire. By arguing that 'you cannot decide who you get to allow to view your artwork!' you are basically against the 'friends only artwork' as well.
An artist posts their artwork online because THEY DECIDE TO. Not because everybody is entitled to see it. They also post artwork on a public website to reach more people.

Let me see if this makes more sense.
Say there is an open art gallery to the public, and artists get to put up their artwork to show to the people! It is a free service, and in turn people get to see beautiful artwork! Suddenly, somebody comes in and begans to spout nasty things. They begin to harass the artist, maybe even steal their work or try to copy things exactly. They are being just rude. Are they still entitled that, no matter what they do, they can still view the art? I think that shouldn't be so. If somebody is rude to you, you should have the right to block them from seeing the art. Everybody is not ENTITLED to view it just because its on a public art site. It is something an artist does out of their own decision.
If an artist in the gallery comes to disagree with another that has come to view their work, so much so that it irritates them to the point of fury, they should be able to decide they do not want this person around PERIOD. It makes some people angry that somebody they do not like or trust is still able to view their art in the gallery, even if they cannot speak to them.
Also, if this person irritates them, or several other people (this is very minute if you imagine there are a lot of people visiting said art gallery) that person should not be bullied into leaving because they "are not allowed to ban certain people from viewing their artwork, they just need to learn to put up with it." It is their artwork, they can control it how they see fit.

I feel like a broken record..

Thefallenwind
10-23-2012, 11:11 PM
@KazeKai

ďThis has already been asked but has some actually blocked you for the reasons you've listed that would make you think people behave this way? Ė Personally yes. On sites that allow this type of blocking Iíve had problems with this when Iíve done nothing wrong at all.

On DA my watch count (those I watch) continuously drops about 1-3 every week or two. Iíve looked into it and about 1/3 of the time itís deactivated accounts. The other 2/3 I was blocked Ė I have never said a single word to of them 99%. Tarti brought up that there is a lot of arttheft on DA and that people may be paranoid that lurker accounts (those with no content) may be art thieves. However if that is the case that means Iím deemed ďguiltyĒ without actually having done anything wrong.

Iíve also had some people that were bold enough to explain why they blocked me (most will silently block you Ė no explanation). I left 6 nice comments on this one guyís work (and by nice I mean telling him he did well on his inking or coloring or such Ė not like murry purry comments or anything). He marked all six as spam, blocked me and told me ďI wasnít a good enough artist to watch himĒ. This is probably the most extreme example though.

Most people arenít going to be so bold though to directly tell people they banned them for superficial reasons though.

- - - Updated - - -

@ Tarti

I donít know what to tell you that I havenít already said over and over again. So Iím just going to skip ahead to the new point or weíre both going to be stuck in an infinite loop repeating the same things over and over again.

ď A artist is posting their artwork online to share it with people, not because the other people are ENTITLED to see it.Ē All Iím asking for is fairness. Thatís it. Iím not saying anything to the degree that I should be able to see any artwork you ever make (you want to post something to a friends only entry on your LJ thatís fine! You want to post a particular piece of artwork on your friends only feature here on Weasyl thatís fine!) But when you post something publicly where anyone with an account would normally be able to watch but then tell certain individuals they canít when theyíve done nothing wrong, you think thatís fair? If youíre discriminated against for any superficial reason, you should just accept that and keep taking it because itís the otherís right to deny you from seeing something that is publicly shown? (not privately shown). Asking for a fair balance to something with regard to the concerns of both parties is just entitlement?

I just wanted fairness. Thatís it. If I did something wrong to someone and they blocked me for that, that would be understandable. But if Iím considered inferior or didnít jump through the flaming hoop enough itís ok to say Iím not allowed to see something that being publicly shown?

In addition, just because you donít see this problem happening to you doesnít mean itís not happening to others. Just because it probably wonít affect you very often (or possibly at all) doesnít mean it wonít happen a lot to others. Just because the blockings happen a lot to someone does not automatically mean theyíre guilty (what I did I do wrong on DA if I ONLY hit the watch button and thatís it?)

Again, I just wanted fairness between the concerns of both sides. Thatís it.

- - - Updated - - -

@Ragscoon

Thank you for clarifying and expanding on the issue at hand. Your points are very well thought out and brought about some things that I didnít cover well or even think of.

The suggestion you made is a very good idea. I was a little worried it may put too much work on the admins, but youíre right in that they can always get more volunteers. If they can handle this, then I think your idea is the best option so far that would be most beneficial between the two partie's concerns.

Very well thought and excellent suggestion there.

Tartii
10-23-2012, 11:19 PM
I’m not saying anything to the degree that I should be able to see any artwork you ever make (you want to post something to a friends only entry on your LJ that’s fine! You want to post a particular piece of artwork on your friends only feature here on Weasyl that’s fine!) But when you post something publicly where anyone with an account would normally be able to watch but then tell certain individuals they can’t when they’ve done nothing wrong, you think that’s fair?

Honestly? Yes. It is perfectly fair. You are probably going to be infuriated at me for saying this, but yes I think it is. Why? Because it belongs to the artist. The art is theirs. If you paid to view the artwork that is one thing, but on a free to view website you did not. The artist is posting this artwork to share with the world because they themself decided to. Just because they do this does not mean they are giving up any rights to block whoever they want from not viewing their artwork. It is their artwork. Not yours. Nobody else's.....unless commissioned. An artist should not be forced to only upload artwork to 'friends only' just because they want to avoid a few people they don't want to see it. Not every single artist is going to go through their watchers and add all the ones they 'deem worthy' to view it for friends only type of thing. They want to share it with a lot of people! If they want to exclude a certain number of people from it, so be it. It is their right.

RadioCatastrophe
10-23-2012, 11:22 PM
Agh there is just no reasoning. x-x
I'm going to say this again, just because an artist posts artwork on an art site does not make you ENTITLED to see it. It is their artwork, and they can control who they want to see it if they so desire. By arguing that 'you cannot decide who you get to allow to view your artwork!' you are basically against the 'friends only artwork' as well.
An artist posts their artwork online because THEY DECIDE TO. Not because everybody is entitled to see it. They also post artwork on a public website to reach more people.

Let me see if this makes more sense.
Say there is an open art gallery to the public, and artists get to put up their artwork to show to the people! It is a free service, and in turn people get to see beautiful artwork! Suddenly, somebody comes in and begans to spout nasty things. They begin to harass the artist, maybe even steal their work or try to copy things exactly. They are being just rude. Are they still entitled that, no matter what they do, they can still view the art? I think that shouldn't be so. If somebody is rude to you, you should have the right to block them from seeing the art. Everybody is not ENTITLED to view it just because its on a public art site. It is something an artist does out of their own decision.
If an artist in the gallery comes to disagree with another that has come to view their work, so much so that it irritates them to the point of fury, they should be able to decide they do not want this person around PERIOD. It makes some people angry that somebody they do not like or trust is still able to view their art in the gallery, even if they cannot speak to them.
Also, if this person irritates them, or several other people (this is very minute if you imagine there are a lot of people visiting said art gallery) that person should not be bullied into leaving because they "are not allowed to ban certain people from viewing their artwork, they just need to learn to put up with it." It is their artwork, they can control it how they see fit.

I feel like a broken record..

Eh.. You think there's no reasoning? I think that too, obviously you aren't understanding what we're trying to say.

Going back to my post I listed a few examples, here: "Banning someone from a public park because of what shoes they wear." "Or telling someone they can't listen to you play music on the street corner because you don't like their t-shirt." Yes it's an artists choice to post online, and to a public site, no one saying anyone's entitled to view anything if you post something public you have no power to say that only blacks and white can view it, it's public! And no ones against the friends-only feature, no one has even argued against it - obviously if you post it there no one outside your friends list will even know it exists and no one is demanding you show it either.

Thefallenwind
10-23-2012, 11:46 PM
@ RadioCatastrophe

If you put something on a public social network you can't expect people not to look at what you post unless everything is friends only. No need to go attacking Chimaera as I agree with them, you shouldn't single someone out when you're posting art to the PUBLIC. That's like banning someone from a public park because of what shoes they wear. Or telling someone they can't listen to you play music on the street corner because you don't like their t-shirt. You're in a public location, your rules only apply to so much.

That is an excellent analogy. Thank you for making this as I was having trouble thinking of how to explain this better. Your example is spot on.

- - - Updated - - -

@ Tarti

I really don’t know what to say. Everything that I’ve been trying to say is something that either gets twisted around or is clearly not understood. Everytime I try to explain something to help clarify what I’m getting at or for you understand it better it doesn’t seem to matter at all. I don’t know what to do other than keep repeating why I’m concerned about this problem, why it doesn't work like people think it will and what my reasoning is.

And no I’m not infuriated at you, you’re not my enemy just because we disagree on something. If anything I’m at a loss because I just don’t know how to prevent things from being misunderstood or twisted around anymore when trying to explain things to you.

Temrin
10-23-2012, 11:56 PM
@TheFallenWind
I dont think its the fact that we dont understand you. Its the fact that some people dont agree with you and are showing our sides of this topic. Its not good to mix up the two. You have your oppinion and we have ours.

Thefallenwind
10-24-2012, 12:26 AM
@ Temrin

It's fine if you guys disagree with me. But there was still a lot of times when I've said something, it wasn't understood and I had to repeat it in a different way. There were also times when something I said was completely overlooked (not necessarily intentionally, I understand there is a lot of text to read through between everything that's being said here and that things can be missed, I can understand that).

I keep trying to clarify certain things but sometimes it's still not understood, sometimes it is. There were times when people will make an argument with me but we're not even on the same page. I was just trying to get us on the same level THEN for us to debate from there. Again it's fine if you guys disagree with me, but sometimes we're not on the same level of understanding for the particular part of the issue we're talking about.

Chimaera
10-24-2012, 01:11 AM
Look, whether or not you think art being on a public site gives you the absolute right to view it or not, it isn't your art and you didn't draw it or commission it so you shouldn't have any say in what the person who put that effort into it actually wants to do with their art. Are you also offended by friends-only artwork?

Not trying to argue anymore, Just going to clarify. I don't care if people want to make their galleries private, I just find it wrong to have an artist possibly abuse the system by singling one person out, just because they have different opinions or something as small and immature as such. Knowing how many people have blocked me for small things in the past and who knows how many more have done the same, I'd rather not see something like that abused. Also the artist has the right to make an account, but their "rights" are pretty different on which ever site they choose to join. So in that sense, does an artist have the right to hide their work from only a select few on sites such as FA and DA? no. And frankly, that isn't the issue with those sites, in that sense IMO those sites are doing fine. Though I don't mind if you disagree, I just feel it an unnecessary addition that has a lot of risk.

Thefallenwind
10-24-2012, 03:18 AM
@ Tarti

Let's start over with a clean slate and start from the beginning, maybe we can understand each other better this way. Let's say you and I are working on an art site together and we get to the block system. We both agree that this block system should stop all communication (there is no disagreement on this). However we do disagree on whether this block system should also block people from watching those that blocked them as well.


1) I want you to state what you feel is the reason for the block system.

&

2) I want you to list, in bullet points, all the reasons why you think this is a good idea.

&

3) I want you to list, in bullet points, all the reasons why you think this will work.

Tartii
10-24-2012, 01:56 PM
@ Tarti

Let's start over with a clean slate and start from the beginning, maybe we can understand each other better this way. Let's say you and I are working on an art site together and we get to the block system. We both agree that this block system should stop all communication (there is no disagreement on this). However we do disagree on whether this block system should also block people from watching those that blocked them as well.


1) I want you to state what you feel is the reason for the block system.

&

2) I want you to list, in bullet points, all the reasons why you think this is a good idea.

&

3) I want you to list, in bullet points, all the reasons why you think this will work.

Ah I like this. :) Perhaps this way certainly would be much easier to get our views across.

1) I believe the reason of this block system is to give the artist the security of having control over who they want and do not want viewing their artwork. If somebody you absolutely detest is still able to favorite your artwork and save it, no matter what, that just rubs me the wrong way. I have seen several people be infuriated that somebody they really do not get along with...can still see their artwork. Them favoriting it highly disturbs them, or just the fact they can just staaaaare. For instance, if somebody made it known they were into beastiality, and you have a feral fursona. Your artwork depicts nothing of the sexual nature, but they have made it known they find the artwork highly arousing to you, and that they get off on it. That artist should have the ability to block this viewer. This system keeps the control of who they want and do not want to view their artwork in the /hands of the artist/. Where it belongs. Is it complete and utter-control? With the way the system is now, not quite. But it is a little bit of security.
2) -It gives the artist a sense of comfort knowing that they have this ability in their hands if they so need it. They will not have to go through countless talks with a mod to prove their point. Most of the time, what they deem a huge issue to themselves personally...is not that way to another, but the only opinion that matters, honestly, is that of the artist's when it comes to their artwork that they are showing freely.
- It adds another roadblock to harassers. Is it another minor one that people can get around? Yes, but it is still another obstacle, and not every single harasser has the fervor that others do, and some will simply stop there when they are blocked in such a fashion. It will not stop all, but it will stop some.
- It is also good when it comes to protecting the WATCHERS. If certain people are interested in whatever an artist draws...the people that share the same ideals will flock together, making one happy group. However, if somebody detests what this group enjoys, they will usually (fueled by some weird desire of 'justice and must wipe them out') go to this group and artist's page and harass those that comment on it. It is no longer a place where people can just comment freely upon themselves on a piece of art or theme they like. Instead there is somebody there who can view said artwork and comment and harass those. OR they can snatch the picture and upload it to their own page (even if it is against the rules) talking smack about it. That is harder to do if they cannot see the picture in the first place. They will have to go through hoops just to get the picture, or find other sites it is already uploaded to. Either way it makes it a little more work for them to do what they do.
- Another reason its a good idea....or in other words, why it is bad to remove it. It is the artist's artwork. If there are those that enjoy this system, or they want control over their artwork and that control is given, it should not be taken away from them for fear of others abusing it. (This can be related EXTREMELY LOOSELY to gun laws.)

3) - IT WILL WORK to deter SOME of the harassers. Believe me, it will. Again, there are some, if dedicated, that can easily just walk around it. This is true. Then again, anybody can walk around ANY sort of block if they put their mind to it. This is just another thing that is made a little easier for artists to feel a bit more secure.
- If a limited number of accounts are set in place for certain users, this becomes even MORE useful.
- If harassers are usually targeting ADULT pieces they cannot SIMPLY log out and view this. Thus it protects it from those that are not wanted.

I hope this got my point across, and you think on these /carefully./

Thefallenwind
10-25-2012, 01:28 PM
@Tarti

Ok, this is much better. Now that our argument is calibrated and we’re on the same wavelength I can see some of your points much better now. I also think I understand now why some of our arguments were misunderstood by each other on certain things and why it went so out of whack at times.

There are 3 types of people to look upon when implementing an advanced block system.

Group A = are the trolls (simplified from harrassers/stalkers whose intent is just to get to you). These people will abandon their throwaway accounts and simply get new ones. Advanced blocking will not hinder this group any more than basic blocking will at all because they will get new accounts anyways.

(The idea you had about limiting the number of accounts by email however does seem like an excellent idea. I can’t find any reason why it would affect innocents nor can I think of something where it can be abused but is at least a slight hindrance to group A.)

Group B = are settled accounts of people who actually do something wrong. These people will usually not be so willing to abandon their account to re-set up their stuff to a new account. However, it doesn’t mean they won’t use the methods I mentioned (bookmarking your page and manually visiting or watching you with another account incognito) to still get around the block nor does it mean they won’t turn into group A (or be both group A and B secretly). Advanced blocking may hinder them, but won’t stop them.

Group C = are innocents. These people have done nothing wrong but are now affected by the advanced blocking. Advanced blocking can cause an inconvenience to them for doing nothing wrong.

I was focusing on Group A with my arguments and how it will affect Group C. You’re arguments seem to focus on Group B for the most part. I think this is part of the reason why our arguments didn’t always match up. However, I will answer your side of the argument below with the groups above now defined.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) I defined the general block system as something to put a barrier up against those who are actually doing something harmful towards the person who blocked them (harassment for the most part). Advanced blocking is something I see as a means to prevent that specific account from having the convenience of having your posted stuff delivered to their inbox. However, this feature can now be used against anyone (innocent and actually guilty alike).

“the reason of this block system is to give the artist the security of having control over who they want and do not want viewing their artwork” – It does not affect Group A at all. Group B may at best be hindered somewhat, but they can still bookmark your page and manually visit or watch you secretly with another account. You don’t actually have much (if any) control over who sees your stuff or not when it’s publicly posted. As long as it’s publicly posted, it’s an illusion to think you have control over who sees something publicly posted or not.

“Them favoriting it highly disturbs them” – This is why it was suggested to eliminate notifications from blocked people (no more “blocked person has watched you” or “blocked person faved ______”) this way you are not reminded of them (they will not be in sight, in mind). Eliminating notifications from blocked people also doesn’t affect Group C.

“This system keeps the control of who they want and do not want to view their artwork in the /hands of the artist/. Where it belongs.” – Again, no it doesn’t control who will see and who won’t. Only privately posting something may actually stop certain people from seeing something you post (assuming they don’t have friends who do see it, then pass it to them or that they’re not another alias that you showed thinking they were two separate people). The only sure-fire way to ensure certain people never see certain artwork is to never post it at all – that is the only time they cannot possibly see it.

On top of all this, there are people who have a very skewed perception of right and wrong. Some people will think you’re evil for trivial, superficial things – this is why we have people in this world who actually believe you’re evil just for being gay. So some people’s “reasoning” for preventing watching could be for something that had wasn’t legitimate at all. I’m not saying YOU specifically will use it for illegitimate reasons (I’m sure you would only use it on people who actually harass you or make unwanted, uncomfortable advances on you, etc). But my argument is that we’re giving everyone this power where some people will use on innocents rather than the guilty instead of coming up with a filter or system that helps people who genuinely need it without affecting the innocent. This is why Rag’s solution seems like the best compromise between our sides so far. No solution affects Group A (other than your limiting accounts by emails). Rag’s solution will help keep it focused on Group B without affecting Group C.

2) “They will not have to go through countless talks with a mod to prove their point. Most of the time, what they deem a huge issue to themselves personally...is not that way to another” – That’s because it’s subjective. Do you think it would be legitimate for someone to say “I don’t want this person watching me because they’re a man” vs “I don’t want this person watching me because they keep making sexual advances on me even after I told them no.” (the latter being reasonable whereas the first is not). Again, some people have a very skewed perception of right and wrong, which is why it’s not wise to give everyone an immense amount of power.

But something is needed in place because there are legitimate issues between people and the mods can’t do all the basic blocking themselves alone. Again, I think Rag’s solution is still a fair balance to filter Group B targeting vs Group C targeting.

The one thing I can think of on your side is if someone is harassing you on another site but not on Weasyl. So I’m going to have to come back to this to think of what we could do about this.

“It gives the artist a sense of comfort knowing that they have this ability in their hands if they so need it.” – The only thing you guys will have is a belief that someone isn’t seeing your publicly posted art, you won’t ever know if someone is still seeing your publicly posted art. Unless it’s privately posted, it’s an illusion to think the blocked person isn’t still seeing it.

“It adds another roadblock to harassers.” – It does not affect Group A at all (they’ve already abandoned the account for a new one). It does make a hindrance to Group B and Group C though. Rag’s solution is a filter to affect Group B without affecting Group C.

“It is also good when it comes to protecting the WATCHERS” – I can see the good intent behind this point, but it does not stop them from manually visiting your page. They can still affect others on your page unless all of them block the harasser too.

“That is harder to do if they cannot see the picture in the first place.” – You’re right about this, but it would have to be privately posted to achieve that. Uploading art to your gallery (that isn’t friends only) is still publicly posted.

“If there are those that enjoy this system, or they want control over their artwork and that control is given, it should not be taken away from them for fear of others abusing it” – When a system isn’t very effective for its intent and creates problems in its place, that doesn’t mean a system is a good idea because popular opinion wants it.

If popular opinion says we should (and this is just an example) ban all male’s from having an account because male’s tend to be trolls (let’s say popular opinion actually believes this). Even if a high percentage of male’s tend to be trolls, there are still male’s that aren’t. If popular opinion wants something like this, it doesn’t make it a good idea.

Now advanced blocking isn’t exactly like this, I understand there is a legitimate reason for wanting advanced blocking. I’ve been trying to explain that it is not as effective as people think it will be and will create new problems in its place. I was trying to aim for something balance and fair like Rag’s solution.

3) “IT WILL WORK to deter SOME of the harassers” – None of Group A. Some of Group B yes but also Group C too. Again, Rag’s solution will help filter Group B from Group C.

“This is just another thing that is made a little easier for artists to feel a bit more secure.” – But it’s not as effective as you think it is and is not considerate to Group C at all. Why don’t we aim for something fair and balanced like Rag’s solution?

“If a limited number of accounts are set in place for certain users, this becomes even MORE useful.” – This will be affective towards Group A. I agree with this and have no issue with this. It won’t really do anything against Group B though, but it won’t affect Group C.

“If harassers are usually targeting ADULT pieces they cannot SIMPLY log out and view this. Thus it protects it from those that are not wanted.” – They simply bookmark your page and manually visit if they just can’t watch you. If Weasyl implements preventing from seeing your page, they simply have to make another account and watch you incognito or by bookmarking and manually visiting.

Tartii
10-25-2012, 05:56 PM
As I am reading through what you post, it keeps appearing to me that you are not taking into account the possibility that limiting the number accounts per user will fix most of these problems. 3/4 of your post talk about just making new accounts to get around it. Instead of removing the feature, things should be implemented to make it work BETTER.

The only thing that I see that is /bad/ for Group C is that they can no longer be able to view artwork from somebody. As you said before, if they really wanted to they could get around it if it is so easy. I really just...cannot see how any of this is a reason to remove a feature, when it really can deter others. You speak of Group A as if every single troll out there is on the same level of 'desperate to cause grief' as others. This is not so, there are SOME that are not committed, and will just stop. This is different from Group B who just said something or did one thing wrong.
We have wrong-doers, and we have trolls. And trolls have different levels of trolling.

When I read this, all I am hearing is "It is not fair that an artist can block somebody from viewing their artwork if the person did nothing wrong." Is it not fair? Yes. But honestly the world is not fair. If we were to talk about fairness, is it fair that you take away a feature that gives comfort or helps even a little (EVEN FALSE COMFORT! There are people who legitimately want this) just because SOME people will do unjustice?

Your arguments are only valid if:
1) Every single person in group A is a high level of troll, and will do whatever it takes to harass somebody. If this is the case, NO form of blocking system would work. Not even basic blocking.
2) That there will be a common occurence of 'unfair blocking' and whine fests that people cannot view artwork.
3) That the account idea was not put into place.


So again, instead of speculations and what-ifs and flat out 'taking it down' the feature, in my eyes, just needs to be STRENGTHENED not eliminated. There should still be a feature where an artist can have the comfort of knowing they have control over their artwork on a public site. Keep in mind it is not the WATCHERS who make an art site, but the ARTISTS. Are watchers a big part? Absolutely! We wouldn't be anywhere without them! But at the same time, without the artists what would be there to watch...? Sure this system can be seen as a double-sided sword, but so is any blocking system.

So, in this case, I see no reason Advanced blocking, in your eyes, is any worse than basic blocking. In fact, with the arguments given...shouldn't basic blocking be removed as well since its so 'meaningless'? Something to ponder on.

Temrin
10-25-2012, 07:53 PM
*in agreeance with Tartii.*

Thefallenwind
10-25-2012, 10:39 PM
@Tarti

“it keeps appearing to me that you are not taking into account the possibility that limiting the number accounts per user will fix most of these problems.” – So that part where I agreed with you that it will be at least a little more of a hindrance to Group A, that never happened?

“ 3/4 of your post talk about just making new accounts to get around it.” – I’m trying to explain, over and over again, that for a lot of cases (particularly towards Group A), it is not more effective than basic blocking – it is exactly the same amount of hindrance in most cases (again mostly Group A). It can be a hindrance to Group B but now it can also be an inconvenience to Group C. Why don’t we aim for aspects that affects Group A and Group B and try to avoid screwing over C?

“Instead of removing the feature, things should be implemented to make it work BETTER.” – adding more and more to something doesn’t always make something better. I do agree things should be implemented to make it BETTER (such as not affecting innocents!).

“As you said before, if they really wanted to they could get around it if it is so easy. I really just...cannot see how any of this is a reason to remove a feature” – when we can try implementing something that tries to affect Group A and Group B without affecting Group C? I stopped suggesting removing the ability to stop watches altogether and started using Rag’s idea instead. On top of that, you keep telling me that Group C can just DEAL WITH IT. Rag’s idea (which can affect Group B without affecting Group C) was terrible because…?

“You speak of Group A as if every single troll out there is on the same level of 'desperate to cause grief' as others.” – No, I’m telling you basic blocking and advanced blocking is EXCACTLY the same amount of hindrance to Group A. Once they abandon their throwaway account and make a new one, the wall you implemented won’t matter how much you spice it up. They’ve already gotten around the wall. Stopping communication and stopping communication WITH that throwaway account not being able to watch you does not matter to Group A because they already have a new account.

Again, your idea to limit the number of accounts by email is something that can actually hinder Group A (at least a little more). This idea (which hinders them from getting around the wall) DOES NOT EQUAL Basic blocking vs advanced blocking (which does not hinder Group A’s ability to sign up for a new account).

I agreed with you on this limiting accounts by email. Now you’re saying I never took this into account.

“ When I read this, all I am hearing is "It is not fair that an artist can block somebody from viewing their artwork if the person did nothing wrong." Is it not fair? Yes.” – that doesn’t match up at all with what you were telling me earlier. You were telling that it’s ALWAYS fair to block someone from watching you no matter what the blocker’s reasoning is.

“(EVEN FALSE COMFORT! There are people who legitimately want this) just because SOME people will do unjustice?” – If you wanted false comfort at no expense to others, then that would be perfectly fine – I would have no issue with this at all. But you can have your false comfort with Rag’s idea. This way you still have the option of having people removed from watching you WITHOUT Group C having to accept getting screwed over.

“ Every single person in group A is a high level of troll, and will do whatever it takes to harass somebody. If this is the case, NO form of blocking system would work. Not even basic blocking.” – again, you do not understand what I’m saying. To Group A, basic blocking and advanced blocking is EXACTLY the same amount of hindrance. If they intend to make a new account to keep getting to you, whether or not that throwaway account is watching you or not, it doesn’t matter because they already abandoned the account. This is what I’m trying to explain to you.

“That there will be a common occurence of 'unfair blocking' and whine fests that people cannot view artwork.” – There may be or there may be a minority being affected. I’ve been trying to aim for something affective towards Group A and Group B WITHOUT affecting Group C since the beginning. I want you guys to have something to protect you, but I don’t want to be unconvenienced (nor does anyone else who will be affected) because you want a feature you think will be super effective when in realty we can do something like Rag’s idea (something as affective as possible for the problem WITHOUT affecting Group C – no matter how small Group C seems to be to you).

“So again, instead of speculations and what-ifs and flat out 'taking it down' the feature, in my eyes, just needs to be STRENGTHENED not eliminated.” Really? Personal experience = what-ifs and speculations? My watch count continuously going down on DA is just a fairy tale?

And I’m not saying take down the feature for no reason, I’m saying why implement something that’s going to be unbalanced when we can implement something that does what it’s supposed to WITHOUT affecting Group C. Instead of figuratively throwing a grenade into a crowd of people to take out a couple wrong-doers how about we work on something to take out the wrongdoers alone? Like Rag’s idea?

“There should still be a feature where an artist can have the comfort of knowing they have control over their artwork on a public site.” – When it’s not at the expense of others? Sure! Otherwise how about we aim for a setup where we can filter legitimate cases from illegitimate cases? Like Rag’s idea?

“Keep in mind it is not the WATCHERS who make an art site, but the ARTISTS.” – I always understood that. The whole time I was asking for a balanced approach to the concerns of both sides. The whole time I did this. I never invalidated your side’s concerns, I only pointed out the faults of what you guys wanted so that we can actually work towards something that is a fair compromise – something that is as affective as possible for you guys WITHOUT affecting Group C.

“Sure this system can be seen as a double-sided sword, but so is any blocking system.” – this is a much bigger double-edged sword than basic blocking. The gain from advanced blocking does not equal how much bigger the double-edged sword will be. People want a system they thought was the great-wall of china when it’s just a hill and now causes problems for other people. We can’t use Rag’s idea because? Rag’s idea isn’t a fair compromise because?

“In fact, with the arguments given...shouldn't basic blocking be removed as well since its so 'meaningless'?” – No, I never suggested this. Not once. I’m only trying to show you guys advanced blocking isn’t the great-wall of china you thought it was and that it will affect innocents. Yet again, I was always aiming for the best solution for BOTH our sides. When I say advanced blocking isn’t more effective than basic blocking, it somehow get’s taken as “blocking never works in any form or way”. It’s taken several arguments between us for you to have a clearer understanding of my side.

Look, if there was some magical way we can affect Group A and Group B 100% without affecting Group C I would be ALL FOR THAT! But we don’t currently have that solution so I’ve been trying to find the best solution for both sides, not one side alone. So far, Rag's idea seems like the best compromise. This is what I'm aiming for until something better comes along.

Tartii
10-25-2012, 11:01 PM
-sighs- We are getting absolutely nowhere with this. You seem COMPLETELY set on there being some sort of system that will not affect ANYBODY in a bad way. As honorable as that may be, this is impossible to reach. I especially do not see how walls upon walls of text are solving this any better. So try to break it down as I am constantly repeating myself.

There is always going to be a victim group. No. Matter. What. If you wanted to avoid victim groups, period, then there should be nobody on the internet. Blocking is meaningless if the thought of victims upsets you so greatly. The thing about Rags idea is, I guarantee you, when this site gets bigger and bigger, the issue of trolls and harassment will grow to the extent of admins not being able to handle it all. When this happens, admins are blamed for not keeping things under control. So admins are handing the reigns for protecting themselves and enforcing bans to the people who want it. Is it going to cause issues? Probably, but ANY FORM OF BANNING, DONE BY ANY HUMAN, IS GOING TO BE WITH FLAWS. (understand caps does not mean i am yelling or mad. I am trying to emphasize a point.)

So I am sorry, but you need to accept that any sort of banning system in place will have its victims. And do not try and bring up your case with DA, I have already explained that to you. But if you are so set in your ways that nothing I say will change your opinion then I am sorry. You need to accept that no system will be perfect.

Nobody here is saying "This is a perfect blocking system!! It will stop all of the evil people and give us utter control! Nobody can ever mess with us!!!"

What we are saying, or at least me, is that "this is a nice idea for blocking, and I appreciate it being here. It is nice to know I have some control over my artwork." Whether this is true for you or not, the control over the artwork is in the hands of the artist.

Period.

Taw
10-25-2012, 11:19 PM
I'm going to go ahead and lock this thread, guys. We appreciate all the discussion, suggestions and feedback and we will do our best to improve our blocking features for our community as fairly as we can, but this thread seems to be turning sour and getting out of hand.

Your feedback is valued and it'll be passed along to our coders!