Block Feature: Blocker should be unabled to send messages too.
complete
Mischief
Hi hi,
short and sweet: Currently if player A blocks player B, then the messages from player B will no longer deliver. However, player A can still continue to send player B messages even after the blocking. Player B would have to explicitly block player A to not get their messages anymore.
This could cause weird situations where someone gets blocked, keeps receiving messages from the player that blocked them, tries to reply, but obviously their messages don't deliver because they themselves are blocked. Without a way of knowing for sure if they are blocked, this could well drive someone insane.
My proposal: If palyer A blocks player B, then not only do player B's messages to player A no longer go through, but vice versa, messages from palyer A to player B should also not send anymore.
Edit to add: In this case, if player A blocked player B and tries to reach out, the game could also give a little error pop up saying you can't message people you have blocked. Player A should technically already know they have player B blocked, so there is no secret information revealed in this case, the error would just remind them to unblock the person if they do want to reach out.
Admin
complete
S
Stephanie Peters
I agree with this! It is also the way some big communication apps, who I assume have done quite some research about this, handle it.
A person you have blocked also shouldn't receive messages by you, and you get a notice telling you this when you attempt to send them messages. There is no stigma attached to this, since it was your choice not to have contact with this person to begin with.
Anything else would make the block feature a potential tool to harass someone else without them being able to defend themselves, other than by blocking that player in return. Yes, people are mean online, much meaner sometimes than face-to-face.
Oratrix
in progress
Lunameyza
I agree Mischief, especially with this in mind: "This could cause weird situations where someone gets blocked, keeps receiving messages from the player that blocked them, tries to reply, but obviously their messages don't deliver because they themselves are blocked. Without a way of knowing for sure if they are blocked, this could well drive someone insane."
But I was wondering, why is it considered secret information to know someone blocked you? Because my first thought was, why not let the blocked person know they can't send a message to this person, if they're sending a message to them while being blocked? I've seen a system like this (both players blocked, message shown you can't PM certain player if you're blocked) on many websites, and of course I was quite young back then but I never saw it as a bad system. I'm sure this has been thought through, so I'm wondering what the reason is that an error message like that isn't implemented?
Admin
Lunameyza: The reason that you are not receiving any warnings about this, is for personal safety.
If player A sees that player B blocked them, chances are high that quite a few players will be calling them out either in the news / forum or in people's Discord Servers. This is unfair for the person who set up the block, as they have their own reasons for doing so. Furthermore, it would cause a lot of work for the mod team, which is exactly what we're trying to prevent in this situation.
Unfortunately, people sometimes are not the friendliest and can be really mean to each other. To prevent us from police-ing back and forth, we ensure that players have no 100% sure way of knowing that they are blocked (at least not by the system).
The thing about if the player that blocks the other should be able to contact the other person is something up for debate. Personally I think it actually makes sense. You want to block that player from contacting you, for whatever reason. It doesn't make any sense for you to keep being able to contact them, if their replies aren't going to arrive on your end anyways. I think not being able to text those people makes sense, and think it will also prevent confusion. Because you will never have a 1-way street of DM's in that case. You decide that you think it's necessary to block person A, so it makes sense you cannot contact them either.
SyndicatePhoenix
Definitely not.
This will backfire quickly. Letting the system decide (in an instant) that the user that blocked someone is a bad user and needs to be prevented from sending PMs is not a good thing at all. it removes users right of autonomy (within HR games rules of course).
This "both are blocked period" is just... way over the top. Banning a person from DMs should never be a result of automated feature.
Ever.
If player A blocks player B, only player B shouldn't be able to send PMs to player A. If player A at some point ends up becoming spammy or for other reasons problematic (retaliation,harrasment or other rule-breaking behaviour)then they are breaking the rules,and player B already has a tool necessary to stop the PMs from coming (block),as well as the choice to report the player to mods (or not,it's up to them). If both player A and B are old enough to make an account on a browser game,they are old enough to decide if they want to block the person that has blocked them or not. Don't take away player B's right to decide that for themselves.That decition should never be left for the system to decide,the AI or let the code to just automatically assume player B is bad enough so they need to be blocked as well. This is not okay on any level.
Mischief
SyndicatePhoenix: Hi! I'm a bit confused about the notion that "unable to DM = bad person" since that was not at all what I meant to imply. I try to see the block feature as dryly as possible, that is, as a tool that limits the communication between some players regardless of moral categories. People can and will block each other for many reasons or none at all, so it can't be assumed that either the person getting blocked, or the one doing the blocking, is bad or in the wrong.
I'd like for such a tool to have inherent logic, though. I simply see no reason on logical grounds why someone needs to be able to contact a player who they have blocked. The fact that the blocked person can't respond defeats the purpose. It's like talking to a person whose mouth is zipped shut. In the worst case, a person who doesn't even know that their mouth is zipped shut and tries to reply, maybe multiple times till they question their own sanity. That's where I apply morals insofar as this would be a questionable move if it happened on purpose. But even if it happens accidentally, e.g. someone forgetting they have a specific player blocked, it could cause weird situations. An error pop-up may be a welcome nudge for one's memory in that case.
Since I see no advantages but multiple bad outcomes of such one-way communication paths, it would seem best to me to prevent them. That is how our rule #5 currently regulates this, too. After sending someone a stop signal, it asks: "Please do not reply to any further messages of that player. Do not engage in a conversation with them via PMs, the forum, or elsewhere."
Admin
under review