Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 75 of 75
  1. #71
    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.

  2. #72
    Premium User Temrin's Avatar

    Weasyl
    Temrin
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    167
    *in agreeance with Tartii.*

  3. #73
    @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.
    Last edited by Thefallenwind; 10-25-2012 at 10:43 PM.

  4. #74
    -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.

  5.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #75
    [Logic is Erratic] Taw's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Taw
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    821
    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!

 

 

Posting Permissions

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