Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 75
  1. #61
    @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.

  2. #62
    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.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Tartii View Post
    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.

  4. #64
    @ 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.

  5. #65
    Premium User Temrin's Avatar

    Weasyl
    Temrin
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    167
    @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.

  6. #66
    @ 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.

  7. #67
    Junior Chimaera's Avatar
    Weasyl
    JungleBunny
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Kazekai View Post
    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.

  8. #68
    @ 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.
    Last edited by Thefallenwind; 10-24-2012 at 03:22 AM.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Thefallenwind View Post
    @ 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./

  10. #70
    @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.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •