For number 2, I think it should still show because in certain cases it may be to ask the person about blacklist? I don't know as I don't use blacklist much at all but I've seen it done before where people asked about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find asking about blacklists to be extremely tasteless, personally [though I've encountered two or three individuals that've managed to do it in a respectful manner], so it's certainly a difference in one's considerations on the matter.
Personally, I think the mitigation of any harassment from users is favorable over the loss of easy blacklist-removal-request-notification, but of course, that's my own perception on the matter.
An account option to set it as preferred would of course be the best option, though my assumption is that in more cases than not, a lack of notification is preferential [and thus if given a forced choice between the two, it should default to no-notifications].
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree with #2. There are a lot of cases when reasons as to why the user has been blacklisted have changed: ratio, unactivated wins, multiple wins, in the end - one's attitude.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that all depends on what you primarily use your blacklist for, and how good you are at reviewing your threads outside of notifications. Certainly, it's not an issue for me.
But true- regardless of what I think is most utilitarian, or what is best for me, the site does prefer the most optimistic/lenient course, and that would entail retaining the current default.
Unfortunately, my blacklist tends to be an endless source of frustration. Which is fine and dandy when you're just scrolling past their messages (the nifty little script that adds null symbols beside their names works wonders there) but it can be exhausting opening your inbox to eg, some irrationally considered hate-mail from a known site-exploiter.
My point is solely that there should be a way to have some control over such circumstances.
The nuances as to how that's accomplished weren't really intended as a point of direct relevance.
[Or. rephrased: Do keep on offering other suggestions as to how to achieve that! :) ]
Comment has been collapsed.
There was a thread related to blacklisting a couple of weeks (maybe more) ago. After reading comments of some users (sigma3 and others) I changed my view a bit. There are instances where I feel I have rushed to press the blacklist button looking back at it now - I would unblacklist some if they messaged me (not that I do good giveaways and there is value in that, but who knows what the future holds). There also were a couple of cases when I was going to blacklist someone, but after talking to them I changed my mind and I'm very happy I did.
If users are blocked completely, they might not realise their wrongdoings. In my opinion, complete shut out would just lead to frustration, rather than one fixing his past mistakes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm quite cautious with my blacklists- certainly, someone else may find fault in my methods, but I make sure to carefully [tag users and update tags until their behavior seems definitively something I don't want to interact with any further (and limiting them in my giveaways, and adding a nice red null sign by their names, does wonders for that)].
That said, even I have users who were added for far less offensive reasons [though for them, I wouldn't call it 'wrong-doings' as much as 'presenting themselves less favorably than expected'. There's no real implication of malfeasance there.] So I'm not in any way disfavorable to keeping blacklist and ignore list separate!
Of course, I also manually keep tabs on my blacklistees as much as possible [ie, when I see their blacklistee tag pop up in giveaways or forums, I try to review their circumstances], so I also don't really need to be poked about removal. Thus far, everyone removed from my blacklist has been by my own consideration, and only one of them, as far as I'm aware, ever poked me about the matter.
So yes; my approach seems to differ notably from the norm. Which means adjusting blacklist is likely a poor consideration: Even if I personally think 'acceptable losses' merit 'removal of harassment', I certainly can't expect that to extend to everyone else. Add in that my consideration appears to be in the minority, and I think we can safely discard that option.
That still doesn't prohibit adding in a separate ignore function/script, however, right? :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I've suggested that earlier in a reply below.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that 1 can be confusing sometimes, but what's the problem with 2?
Comment has been collapsed.
People who enjoy following you solely to harass you [including a few members I'm certain are multi-accounts of one another].
If you're bothering blacklisting users [for reasons other than ratio], I'd assume you wouldn't really be preferential to further communication with them..?
Comment has been collapsed.
Dunno, I don't blacklist people.
Getting harassed does sound bad tho, but I doubt it's a widespread issue. The thing is that that's not the intention of the blacklist function as I understand it, it's supposed to only block them from joining your GAs and nothing else.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not preventing them from posting in your threads or anything, it's just removing the notifications.
Regardless of if it's the intent of the blacklist function or not, there fact is there's currently no way to properly remove notifications from problematic/harassing users [as there often is on other forums].
Whether that's tied in to the blacklist or not is pretty much irrelevant, though I don't see another way to easily implement it.
Certainly won't argue that it's likely not a widespread issue, it's just tiresome when it does happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
From my point of view it would make more sense to implement a separete list for people with whom you want to block any communication. Tying it to the blacklist might be more problems than it's worth it.
Maybe some custom made script can solve this problem for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that's part of the reason I made the thread. If anyone is aware of such a script, or feels up to writing one, they may feel inclined to let me know, here. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
That should be a separate "ignore" option. If there is a case or harassement, then the user should get suspended for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really mind the second one (I only have 3 on my BL though) but the first can be confusing when it happens but I don't think it should be a top priority either
Comment has been collapsed.
Edit: I am of course referring to attention given to site-enhancement features, not server stability or site performance updates [which ought, and do already take priority].
Eh, I don't feel any of cg's recent updates should have been top priority [versus, say, better clarifying site rules], so I'm not too sure priority factors into anything :P
Or rather- what would you consider both higher priority and something cg is likely to address sooner rather than later?
In other words, I didn't think it hurt to throw the request out- its priority is whatever cg determines. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Or rather- what would you consider both higher priority and something cg is likely to address sooner rather than later?
SG points exploit I found recently, which was fixed in a week or so after posting.
Comment has been collapsed.
problem #1
see https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/J8KP0/new-message-notifications
problem #2
blacklisted user can still reply your comment, so of course you will get notification about that
Comment has been collapsed.
The first should be able to be fixed just by implementing a -1 to the notification counter on a deletion.
Though I guess since you can freely (un)delete at any time, that could end up being problematic on its own.
In any case, your quote doesn't actually reflect the topic I'm bringing up-
I'm saying replies to [your] deleted messages SHOULD show up in inbox.
That has nothing to do with notifications from deleted messages themselves, or notification count, which is what the quoted thread covers. (I don't mind getting empty notifications, but, unless I'm mistaken, currently someone can reply to your deleted message and you can't actually see the reply in inbox. Do let me know if I've been misinterpreting (your example) as being (my example) this whole time.)
@problem #2
Well, sure, in line with your quoted thread, that's a given.
But that doesn't mean you have to see the message itself- certainly deleted messages (and their replies) don't show, so the functionality is there :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh sorry I misunderstood #1.
I thought what you mean is when someone replied your comment and then delete it, there is still a notification about that.
If the comment is deleted, what's the point replying those comment. So the Reply button should be hidden or disabled.
I agree with you this being odd.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, that works as well!
My concern is just that someone read something I'd written before I'd deleted it, and there's a clarification I need to make [since if i deleted it, I likely didn't proofread it as thoroughly- moreso, I typically delete things when I can't get the phrasing to come out as clear as I want it to].
So, here I've written something I felt wasn't worth putting up, and now I've likely got a reply to it. If I can remember where it was, sure, all good- but otherwise, it's a bit of a niggling irritation.
In any case, I wasn't looking for the functionality you mentioned, so I'm no longer as certain if my example is actually happening or not. But it certainly seems to have been the case, as the times I did go looking, I found replies to deleted messages of mine. That, of course, could have just been odd coincidence.. especially since that's what I was going in looking to find, rather than [your example].
Comment has been collapsed.
(See my post just above for my clarifications on point #1. There's the potential I've just been confusing coincidentally timed events- but if not, then my point is not about notification counts, but of not showing messages that would be better to have shown.)
I must be missing how it'd be abusable :/
I'm not suggesting preventing a user from posting, just preventing their replies to you from showing up in your inbox. Since they already can't reply to your giveaways, it's not like it ought affect any site functionality in any way.
The aim'd just be to have a way to limit drama interactions [especially from users you know are intentionally picking fights, misusing the site, etc- the correct response is of course to ignore them, but you still feel unsettled each time you open your inbox to that kind of thing.]
And sure, if a script can do it, that's just as good.
Whether the entreat reaches cg [unlikely] or a script creator with a heart of gold [more likely], if I can get a solution through this thread, the specifics won't matter. :)
I'm just a bit exhausted, is all, sorry if I came across "overzealous". :X
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, well, no. Blocking their comments altogether would be.. overwhelming in its negative elements.
I just want a way to filter my inbox to avoid certain user's comments there. Scanning through the forums it's less of an issue, especially since you can prep yourself for a certain thread as you enter it.
Opening your inbox and getting random hate-mail is just.. nggh.
I mean, view it like e-mail: There should be a way to set ignore/spam-filter options, same as any other e-mail, right? :P
Obviously, it's a matter of perceiving inbox as having characteristics separate from basic forum interaction. If someone doesn't distinguish a difference, the nuance may not seem as notable to them- then again, I can't see why anyone would want to risk getting harassing comments forced on them from someone they know is a purely negative interaction for them.
In other words, the effect on minimizing drama (both for the person who did the ignore, and in their potential negative response in the thread) seems worthwhile, and there seems to be no downsides (so long as you can manually determine who gets added to the ignore list).
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering the way plenty of people treat their blacklist, I think #2 is a bad idea
But I agree wholeheartedly with #1
Comment has been collapsed.
If people are harassing you with comments take screenshots and report them for inappropiate behaviour.
Comment has been collapsed.
This. Number 2 doesn't make much sense in context of general discussions. I have people on my blacklist (mostly rule breakers and group-only folks), but I still consider that they may have something useful to say. Also to me - so refute my arguments or agree with them or so on. But sure, if it isn't something force on users, rather than they individual "ignore" setting, I don't see a problem with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I mostly mentioned it within the context of blacklist, as it seemed ridiculous in contrast to (#1), and the fact that (problem users would be on your blacklist).
Clearly, others are more free with their blacklists than I am, and even I have quite a few users I would rather not 'ignore' who are on the list. I was merely saying I viewed them as 'acceptable losses' in the context of avoiding harassment.
That was my personal opinion, and not intended to be anything else (nor to indicate that I felt it superior to anyone else's opinion on the matter). Certainly, a toggled option or separate ignore list is the ideal approach (more options/customization basically always is a better course), I was merely attempting to emphasize the problems that exist with the current circumstances, and the fact that there's no way to deal with them currently [and if co-opting the blacklist for it was the only option, I personally felt that a worthwhile one to take (but not if another option for dealing with the matter existed].
Comment has been collapsed.
The main problem is when they make personal attacks that don't meet inappropriate behavior guidelines (which currently seems to be limited to death threats and notably coarse bigotry alone), or they keep their harassment relatively low-key, but repeat it over several posts.
Staff at most gives a 'well, you really shouldn't bother people if they don't want you to' response to the offenders, and doesn't even give them a slap on the wrist.
Moreover, why should staff be put in a situation to be bothered by interpersonal drama, when there's an theoretically easier way to avoid the matter being a problem to begin with?
In any case, the main issue is that 'oh, when will I get my next exhausting, completely non-contributing, intended-only-to-harass comment from that user', rather than a singular negative comment.
An ignore function is ideal for blocking out that kind of behavior, whereas, even if staff is willing to do something about the matter, repeated harassments over time are a bit harder for them to justify action on, and still have to be dealt with by the user in question as they tally up.
In other words, even if staff can deal with the matter more successfully than my own interactions have thus far proven, the circumstances are still not near as ideal as they would be with an ignore function to block out the problems as they occur, rather than waiting for them to 'become a notable issue' for staff.
Comment has been collapsed.
1) This is exactly why I deleted a ton of my messages, because I wanted to remove the replies from my inbox. So I don't want this :p
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you mean !=? As far as I know, the =/= operator would mean 'equal or equal', not 'not equal'.
I may, of course, be mistaken, so please feel free to illuminate me :)
Either way, opposition to the idea of a combined function appears to be high, and as that was never the core characteristic of the idea, I think we can safely set that aside to focus on an ignore list function instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
=/= is sometimes used on the internet to stand for ≠
While != is a more correct form not everyone knows it, after all not everybody has experience with programming languages.
Comment has been collapsed.
=/= is more correct actually, as it is closest ascii representation of 'not equal' operator: ≠, however much more widespread is != coming from formalized languages (general programming, ai systems) where ! stands for logical not (and ~ for binary representation negation).
Comment has been collapsed.
The symbol used to denote inequation — when items are not equal — is a slashed equals sign "≠" (Unicode 2260). Most programming languages, limiting themselves to the ASCII character set, use ~=, !=, /=, =/=, or <> to represent their boolean inequality operator.
TL;DR: I'm too lazy to fetch the correct unicode symbol. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
~= literally reads as not equal, I guess that "~" being kinda of a pain to write is the main reason why nobody uses it.
I'd really like to have a key for ~, alt + 126 is not very handy :(
Comment has been collapsed.
I have a tild key, but I don't think that ~= is very common since I've never seen it. != or =/= on the other hand, seem to be the most commonly used symbols combination.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know english keyboards have one, but that's not the case for other languages. Some things need to go when you need the space for ñ and ¿ and ç... that last one is useless, I never understood why they include it in spanish keyboards.
While I was writing this I realised that my new keyboard doesn't have a ">" key, I'm truly disappointed, I kinda need that one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tilde is also used as a trailing - in English grammar, so when not speaking logically it can get confusing on intent. For example, this is a trailing sentence~
[..that has no purpose but being an example.]
It's also used as an approximation marker (80~%, or 4~8 apples)
Those uses may be why it's on English keyboards ;)
Honestly can't tell you now how proper those usages are, however-
But either way, I haven't ever seen ~= or =/= used to express != or ≠ before.
(And I'm far too used to / being an 'or' operator to intuit that second one, even though it's honestly a fair simple associative leap.. if you can remember it.)
But yeah, given tilde's grammatical uses, and its function as a mathematical 'approximation' operator, I'd associate ~= with 'approximately equal', or even ==: In other words, equivalency, not equation, and certainly not negation.
So.. I dunno.
Perhaps our problem was avoiding just typing things out using words, in the first place :'P
Comment has been collapsed.
I tend to associate "~" with "not" because of propositional logic, so for me ~= reads as != naturally.
But I haven't seen it written like that before, ever. So I'll stick to !=.
Comment has been collapsed.
Disagreed with 2.
There's support for cases when you get legitimately harassed, or hate mail. In other cases, the problem is probably on your end. I think most people on this site are very nice, and if someone asked me why I have blacklisted them, I'd be happy to answer them. Don't mind reading their posts/comments/messages at all. But hey, that's just me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I already addressed her first point about support above, and her last point is merely 'most people', which at best only validates my point of a problematic minority [and at worst, has no bearing on the topic whatsoever].
Thus her only actual point is that 'the problem is on my end', which would be victim blaming even if one was aware of the situation. Oh, sure, you can pull that card if there's a right to separation.. which is, of course, what I'm asking for. But saying the problem is on my end when someone isn't letting me avoid their confrontations?
Saying that's tasteless is an understatement.
(Nevermind I detail validations for an ignore function above, as well).
(And besides, it doesn't matter what direction 'blame' lies in- my request is for a function to reduce drama/stress, that has no effect on the site as a whole/other users on the site. There's no downside to it. So the assigning of 'blame' becomes that much more tasteless, given that there's no reason to do so in the first place- regardless of who is to 'blame', the negative elements involved will be alleviated. So sure, arbitrarily blame me- but even with me to blame, it doesn't negate the utility of the suggestion.)
If you're merely agreeing with the blacklist part, however, you may consider rereading the OP- seeing as the last few commenters have seemed confused as to the intent, I've added a clarification.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they went by what creates least negativity, they should remove the whole blacklist system. But apparently that was needed. It sure brings grief to some people, referring to the "do you hold back" thread which was up lately by yoshirules. She and many others are afraid to post because it may get them blacklisted, but most people understand the world doesn't revolve around them and their personal opinions, so they don't ask blacklists to be removed.
I still have no idea what did I do to earn your hate, and if you consider a polite "excuse me, can I know the reason why am I in your blacklist" a harassment, then the problem really is on your end. Tasteful would be to give a polite answer to the question, or at the very least "sorry, I do not want to discuss this with you". Your avoidance strategy is rude in my opinion, so deal with whatever I'm doing that's rude in your opinion, like for example commenting under your posts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Blacklist ≠ Blocklist. Whilst I can see the uses of a blocklist the two should be entirely separate and as such he blacklist is working as intended.
Comment has been collapsed.
You seem to have misunderstood the OP.
I've added an edit, does that help?
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want no 2, you should ask for Blacklist to be reciprocal.
If you dislike being replied to by people in your blacklist, tell them not to reply to you. Whether they agree or not is their prerogative, not yours.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope to both:
- Why would you want to see replies to your deleted messages? If you ever get replies, it'd happen before deletion, not after;
- you might also not remember what that message was about, so replies could look out of context;
- no need to implement an ignore list, if you don't want to interact with someone, you can just not read their comments.
Comment has been collapsed.
-
Sometimes you'll delete, someone'll be taking time to type up a reply (or leave the page up and then look at it and reply later on), and you'll log back much later and notice the notification. When you hunt it down, you see the message. This has happened to me several times.
- You can one-click undelete / redelete messages at any time.. go ahead and try it :P
-
The entire point is that you have to read their comments, since they go into your inbox. That's the difference between getting the messages in your inbox versus being able to easily pass over them in a thread. It's the difference between walking over to a group of people and noticing someone chanting with a bigotry sign behind them, and someone going to your house and plastering bigotry propaganda all over your front door- over a long period of time. ie, in threads, you may stumble across the comments every now and then, but with inbox, targeted harassment is emphasized, and you get every intentional act of bullying or degradation or irrational hostility or so forth, shoved right in your face- and they'll manage to both be regular occurrences, and yet, ones that blindside you.
Moreover, you're not actually giving a reason why it shouldn't be implemented.
Whether you yourself need it or will use it or not, if someone else has a use for it, and it doesn't negatively impact the site or other users [to the contrary, it's pretty guaranteed to lower overall drama], what's your basis for outright dismissing it?
( Also, I'm not one to be ageist in any setting, but at 4 weeks in it seems a bit early for you to be making judgements about the community as it relates to others' experiences. :/
Which isn't to say you can't provide valid and reasonable opinions as they relate to the site's functioning, or that your own perceptions of the site and its community aren't to be respected! Just.. maybe give my own experiences and the import I relate to them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps?)
Comment has been collapsed.
- That's a nice point, I didn't think of this possibility;
- I had something similar happen to me, the thread I was commenting on was closed while I was typing.
- I'm not totally opposed to an ignore list, but I feel it could be misused, so...
4 weeks in it seems a bit early for you to be making judgements about the community as it relates to others. :/
You're right about this, I'm still young :p
I'm just trying to share some advice based on my life experiences (although even in real-life I'm still relatively young, almost 26 years old)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, just to reclarify, my point was that you should consider withholding assessments about my own experiences, since there's still a high possibility that there's things in the community you haven't experienced yet. As I attempted to state, your personal experiences are of course entirely valid.
My point was simply that you could consider there were things you hadn't experienced yet, not that the things you had experienced thus far were without merit.
In other words, I was asking you to try and imagine that harassment on the site does get problematic enough at times to warrant an ignore function, even if you haven't yet encountered a circumstances where that seems likely to be true.
Please don't interpret it as me being belittling of your time spent on the site [or time spent alive]- I was merely trying to note worth within my own experiences that you may not have considered, not in any way disparage your own experiences.
Of course, as is unintentionally suggested in the comment below, it's best to give benefit of the doubt to others no matter how experienced one is. ~.^
In any case, moving on to your points:
- Yeah, I just get.. edgy when there's potential miscommunications at play. I mean, some individuals on this site deliberately misinterpret things just for an excuse to engage in hostilities, but for the most part, it's easy enough to work things out with others.. ..if you know you need to. :'P
. - Ignore function only prevents notifications in your own inbox. It doesn't prevent the individual from replying to your comments themselves.
It's arguable whether you ought have control over someone's usage of the site, where it affects you; it is not, however, arguable that you shouldn't have to be forced to be notified every time the individual misuses the site to harass you. There's just no justification for that: Namely since there's no actual benefit to allowing the retention of the feature, and no loss whatsoever to the rest of the community for removing its inclusion.
Rather, the site performs exactly the same- the only difference is you don't have to get slapped in the face with abusive messages at random times, with absolutely no way to manage them [unless the user uses excessive bigotry or makes death threats- that seems to be the sole cut-off for a user getting suspended for abusive behavior].
Think of it like adding giveaways to your ignore list- everyone else can still see them and interact with them, but your own experience with the site is improved. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
there's things in the community you haven't experienced yet
Surely, I've yet to experience many things, except re-rolls (I had to request one on my very first giveaway...)
try and imagine that harassment
Sadly, I'm no stranger to harassment (in real-life), being treated not-so-well when I was a little kid probably contributed in making me a cynical, unsociable loner...
- and that's why I'm conflicted about the ignore list, because it could be used for personal harassment, and that'd be sad
- that's truely what would be called a double-edged sword
Overall, it just seem weird to me that there could be "bad" people on a site whose only reason is to give away games for free, but maybe that's because I'm too optimistic...
Comment has been collapsed.
Could you clarify your 'could be used for personal harassment' consideration?
There wouldn't be any sort of notification or anything. There isn't any effect whatsoever on the harassing users [or the rest of the community]. In fact, there's not even any effect on users who can easily glance over messages in their inbox without paying them mind.
It only prevents you from having to have harassing comments actively shoved in your face: all it does is save you the stress of actively ignoring the inbox message.
Moreover, it's something that could theoretically be accomplished by an outside script [as most SG features are- if you haven't already, you should definitely check out SG++, it's the main script. I personally also recommend 'add SGTools links to profile' and 'show whitelist/blacklist indicators'. I'm sure someone can provide you a link to one of the thread that compiles the script links if you ask- unfortunately I don't have that on hand at the moment, or time to look it up.], so it's not as if I'm even necessarily asking for an integrated feature [though certainly, the entreat directed toward cg is intended to be such].
And yeah. I don't get why people'd move to harassment, personal attacks, etc, either.
We're all rough around the edges at times, but with anyone willing to listen and to communicate their own perspective, you'll eventually find a measure of amicable interaction and learn to work around those rough spots.
And yet, some individuals try to intentionally undermine, attack, and degrade others. It's baffling.
Of course, I've noticed the majority of the users that be have in such a manner [on this site] also invariably express bigoted viewpoints. The remainder appear to just be entirely irrational and illogical in their behavior, seemingly indicative of a mental disorder- again, something they often themselves validate in their comments.
So rather, it's a consistent sort of mindset. :/
Of course, mental illness and prejudice make for easy categorizations.
But the fact is, no matter the circumstances, there's some level of deliberate malevolence to the actions. And that, and its prevalence, only reinforces negative considerations of humanity as a whole. Which is depressing.
Comment has been collapsed.
So what is an appropriate time for people to start commenting on possible bug fixes? 1 year minimum?
which, by the way, is completely different from "making judgments about the community"
Comment has been collapsed.
I see that's your reply when you are unable to come up with a cogent argument.
I also see you tend to do it a lot.
Comment has been collapsed.
Edit: Please read through the entire post before replying. People still seem to be under the impression that I'm outright saying 'turn the blacklist into an ignore list'.
My OP is actually consistent of two parts: First, contrasting two inbox traits and noting that their implementation is odd in light of one another; and second, noting that an ignore function would be beneficial.
I also later comment that I'd personally prefer a blacklist/blocklist merge over the absence of any ignore function; but that's both only a personal preference and clarification of how important I feel the matter is.
I'm in no way saying blacklisting equating to blocklisting is an ideal situation- my only core point is that some sort of block functionality would be beneficial. This would of course be best implemented as a separate function from blacklist.
I feel, if anything, those two things should be swapped. :P
But ideally, don't notify us about the latter at all.. :X
(As the last time this was suggested, an account preference (or additional 'ignore list', or so forth) toward the latter is of course the most ideal course.)
For clarification, the requests I'm making are:
Comment has been collapsed.