StarscreamClone wrote:

"But Surge

powerboy0101 wrote:

StarscreamClone wrote:

"But Surge

who is surge

Anyways, blocking is not really a good idea, the motto is "Imagine, Program, Share", and having them not viewing them aint really Sharing.
But the comment part i dunno, or remixing too…
No support anyways, sorry.

VoltageGames wrote:

I responded to something like this before because I'm worried someone will do a bully comment, and talk about the user they blocked from seeing their stuff behind their back.

spgame05 wrote:

No support.

VoltageGames wrote:

I responded to something like this before because I'm worried someone will do a bully comment, and talk about the user they blocked from seeing their stuff behind their back.

joshuaho wrote:

I don't support. People might abuse this feature by blocking people even if they did not do anything against the Community Guidelines. Also, as said above, “Share” is a part of the Scratch Motto. By sharing something, everyone can view it.

If a user you don't trust comments something rude, just simply report it. If that user continues to break the Community Guidelines despite the warnings, he/she will be blocked by the Scratch Team.

Yet the ignore list was allowed.

I will state this again, I do not want to ‘share’ content with people I do not trust,

and this is why ST bans in the first place; they do not want to provide services for people who break Community Guidelines.

mathfreak231 wrote:

Yet the ignore list was allowed.

Because it had nothing to do with YOUR content. Point?

I will state this again, I do not want to ‘share’ content with people I do not trust,

Then why do you share content? You wouldn't “trust” a random person off the street, would you? How about 5 million? Touche. I would still rather not have my content visible to users who have shown genuine malicious intent towards me before.

and this is why ST bans in the first place; they do not want to provide services for people who break Community Guidelines.

Just what is your definition of “trust”, and how would it be different enough to require a whole new feature besides bans? What makes a person non-trustable on this website to you? Most users would find no issue with someone saying ‘I’m stalking you', as I have found. They take it as a joke or something (along with ‘I’m going to kill you'). I, on the other hand, do not, and sever communications completely.

StarscreamClone wrote:

mathfreak231 wrote:

Yet the ignore list was allowed.

Because it had nothing to do with YOUR content. Point? It doesn't block people from your content, it just stops you from seeing their content. It doesn't limit their free will, while this does.

I will state this again, I do not want to ‘share’ content with people I do not trust,

Then why do you share content? You wouldn't “trust” a random person off the street, would you? How about 5 million? Touche. I would still rather not have my content visible to users who have shown genuine malicious intent towards me before. “Genuine malicious intent” is genuinely reportable.

and this is why ST bans in the first place; they do not want to provide services for people who break Community Guidelines.

Just what is your definition of “trust”, and how would it be different enough to require a whole new feature besides bans? What makes a person non-trustable on this website to you? Most users would find no issue with someone saying ‘I’m stalking you', as I have found. They take it as a joke or something (along with ‘I’m going to kill you'). I, on the other hand, do not, and sever communications completely. This is also reportable. People are not allowed to threaten people. If you feel threatened, than you can report the user. And how would a simple ignore list not work for that? Why would you have to block the user from all your content?

StarscreamClone wrote:

Yet the ignore list was allowed. I will state this again, I do not want to ‘share’ content with people I do not trust, and this is why ST bans in the first place; they do not want to provide services for people who break Community Guidelines. As for the report I realize this, but I would rather the user could not view it be surfing around Scratch even if he/she cannot log in, or block the person even if ST thinks it's okay (as my level of paranoia far surpasses that of many on here, and I'd rather be safe than sorry).

Lightnin wrote:

The thing about ignore lists is they are really confusing. You can't see stuff by people you've ignored written on other people's projects, so then you get a different view of everything than everyone else does. Generally, that kind of design makes things really confusing.

As someone mentioned upthread, if someone has done something really mean or disrespectful, and you flag it, we will notify (or possibly immediately block) them. And if it keeps happening, the likelihood of a block goes up. You can also use contact us to let us know if you feel you need to explain what's going on.

Can anyone recommend alternatives to the ignore list - especially that they know work well on other sites? I've heard of “muting” users, temporarily, and that causing them to get an ever increasing score that may eventually block them. But I don't know how well that works….
If people like the way other sites do this, please mention them by name and include screenshots - we'd be interested in learning more.

AonymousGuy wrote:

StarscreamClone wrote:

mathfreak231 wrote:

Yet the ignore list was allowed.

Because it had nothing to do with YOUR content. Point? It doesn't block people from your content, it just stops you from seeing their content. It doesn't limit their free will, while this does.That is not my logic. The way I see it, if I have reason that I can't trust you, you have no right to see my content.

I will state this again, I do not want to ‘share’ content with people I do not trust,

Then why do you share content? You wouldn't “trust” a random person off the street, would you? How about 5 million? Touche. I would still rather not have my content visible to users who have shown genuine malicious intent towards me before. “Genuine malicious intent” is genuinely reportable. Like I said before, my idea of malicious is different from ST's a lot of the time.

and this is why ST bans in the first place; they do not want to provide services for people who break Community Guidelines.

Just what is your definition of “trust”, and how would it be different enough to require a whole new feature besides bans? What makes a person non-trustable on this website to you? Most users would find no issue with someone saying ‘I’m stalking you', as I have found. They take it as a joke or something (along with ‘I’m going to kill you'). I, on the other hand, do not, and sever communications completely. This is also reportable. People are not allowed to threaten people. If you feel threatened, than you can report the user. And how would a simple ignore list not work for that? Why would you have to block the user from all your content?ST doesn't see it like I do, I have found. And the ignore list still permits these people to see my content.

Besides my comments above, I also feel that this could easily be exploited.

Worst case scenario example: A bunch of users whose content Scratchers really enjoy has their account hacked and the person hacking it blocks all of his/her followers from its content, and can then delete the content without anyone knowing. Worst case scenario. Internet safetey rule: Have a hard to guess password that's easy to remember.

Or people could bully others by saying they were going to block them. I prefer my safety over less petty arguments. Oh, and remember the above stalking and killing threats? What about the threat of being blocked if you don't do something? I don't follow. Can you elaborate?

StarscreamClone wrote:

AonymousGuy wrote:

StarscreamClone wrote:

mathfreak231 wrote:

Yet the ignore list was allowed.

Because it had nothing to do with YOUR content. Point? It doesn't block people from your content, it just stops you from seeing their content. It doesn't limit their free will, while this does.That is not my logic. The way I see it, if I have reason that I can't trust you, you have no right to see my content. I see what you mean, and to be honest I can't really argue with your opinion without being a little disrespectful.

I will state this again, I do not want to ‘share’ content with people I do not trust,

Then why do you share content? You wouldn't “trust” a random person off the street, would you? How about 5 million? Touche. I would still rather not have my content visible to users who have shown genuine malicious intent towards me before. “Genuine malicious intent” is genuinely reportable. Like I said before, my idea of malicious is different from ST's a lot of the time. What would work, though, is providing a reason for a reported comment.

and this is why ST bans in the first place; they do not want to provide services for people who break Community Guidelines.

Just what is your definition of “trust”, and how would it be different enough to require a whole new feature besides bans? What makes a person non-trustable on this website to you? Most users would find no issue with someone saying ‘I’m stalking you', as I have found. They take it as a joke or something (along with ‘I’m going to kill you'). I, on the other hand, do not, and sever communications completely. This is also reportable. People are not allowed to threaten people. If you feel threatened, than you can report the user. And how would a simple ignore list not work for that? Why would you have to block the user from all your content?ST doesn't see it like I do, I have found. And the ignore list still permits these people to see my content. Obviously, there's gonna be a lot of people who don't agree with the ST. Again, the ability to provide a reason is probably the best option.

Besides my comments above, I also feel that this could easily be exploited.

Worst case scenario example: A bunch of users whose content Scratchers really enjoy has their account hacked and the person hacking it blocks all of his/her followers from its content, and can then delete the content without anyone knowing. Worst case scenario. Internet safetey rule: Have a hard to guess password that's easy to remember. I have to agree with SsC here. It's their fault they got hacked because they draw attention to themselves and seem like an easy target.

Or people could bully others by saying they were going to block them. I prefer my safety over less petty arguments.There's your safety, and then there's others'. Just like And since when is this about your “safety”? I thought it was something like how banned users can't get the editor. Oh, and remember the above stalking and killing threats? What about the threat of being blocked if you don't do something? I don't follow. Can you elaborate? He's just comparing your examples of “malicious intent” to his example of abuse of your suggestion.

StarscreamClone wrote:

AonymousGuy wrote:

StarscreamClone wrote:

mathfreak231 wrote:

Yet the ignore list was allowed.

Because it had nothing to do with YOUR content. Point? It doesn't block people from your content, it just stops you from seeing their content. It doesn't limit their free will, while this does.That is not my logic. The way I see it, if I have reason that I can't trust you, you have no right to see my content. I get that. However, this is a free site with freely shared projects. Don't share your projects if there are enough people like that to make you make this topic. I think it does make sense to block people you don't trust from your content - but as I see it, “people I trust” should be a whitelist, meaning you shouldn't trust anyone on this site (so you shouldn't even trust this post, I guess. :P) If you mean something else than “trust”, which is really quite a big thing, can you please elaborate?

I will state this again, I do not want to ‘share’ content with people I do not trust,

Then why do you share content? You wouldn't “trust” a random person off the street, would you? How about 5 million? Touche. I would still rather not have my content visible to users who have shown genuine malicious intent towards me before. “Genuine malicious intent” is genuinely reportable. Like I said before, my idea of malicious is different from ST's a lot of the time. Contact Us link is your friend.

and this is why ST bans in the first place; they do not want to provide services for people who break Community Guidelines.

Just what is your definition of “trust”, and how would it be different enough to require a whole new feature besides bans? What makes a person non-trustable on this website to you? Most users would find no issue with someone saying ‘I’m stalking you', as I have found. They take it as a joke or something (along with ‘I’m going to kill you'). I, on the other hand, do not, and sever communications completely. This is also reportable. People are not allowed to threaten people. If you feel threatened, than you can report the user. And how would a simple ignore list not work for that? Why would you have to block the user from all your content?ST doesn't see it like I do, I have found. And the ignore list still permits these people to see my content. A. I'm not suggesting we should even implement an ignore list - its just a better solution than this. B. Use the Contact Us link and explain the situation, or this suggestion could be changed to a less abusable thing, like a comment report reason.

Besides my comments above, I also feel that this could easily be exploited.

Worst case scenario example: A bunch of users whose content Scratchers really enjoy has their account hacked and the person hacking it blocks all of his/her followers from its content, and can then delete the content without anyone knowing. Worst case scenario. Internet safetey rule: Have a hard to guess password that's easy to remember. I never said this was likely to happen. I just was over exaggerating things - thats my special talent. :P

Or people could bully others by saying they were going to block them. I prefer my safety over less petty arguments. If the comment / thing is so bad that it actually threatens your safety, you really should report that. Otherwise this isn't an issue of “safety”.Oh, and remember the above stalking and killing threats? What about the threat of being blocked if you don't do something? I don't follow. Can you elaborate? People could threaten to block other people if they don't do something - and New Scratchers might think that means getting them banned. If they were than blocked, and tried to look at the person's stuff, it would be blocked and could trick them into actually thinking that they were banned.

Braeden5454 wrote:

You can “ban” someone from your project.