I'm sure there are many people out there who are fed up with the current Scratch blocking system.

A better blocking strategy is to bock someone to one person only.

If the Person A doesn't like how Person B is treating them, Person A can click the block button and it will disable any form of communication with Person B.

For example, if Person B tried to comment on Person A's profile or reply to a comment he posted a message would come up that says “This user has blocked you from commenting on his/her profile. To send a request for them to unblock you, please click the button below”. The button would read “Send unblock request” Then, Person B could apologize the person who blocked him and Person A could choose to accept and unblock or not. Person A would only be allowed to send one request per week to limit spam requests.

Even so, if Person A REALLY wants to stop receiving unblock requests from Person B, Person A can block Person B's unblock requests.

However, the site blocking system would still exist.

This system would help Scratchers be more independent, and stop the riot about someone getting banned.

EDIT: Part removed. Thanks, Zykon.

I think there was a similiar system to this back in the days of 1.0… I don't know why it was changed though, doing so could really limit a lot of the drama that occurs on scratch anymore. But anyways… support all the way.

Rexone wrote:

I'm sure there are many people out there who are fed up with the current Scratch blocking system.

A better blocking strategy is to bock someone to one person only.

If the Person A doesn't like how Person B is treating them, Person A can click the block button and it will disable any form of communication with Person B.

For example, if Person B tried to comment on Person A's profile or reply to a comment he posted a message would come up that says “This user has blocked you from commenting on his/her profile. To send a request for them to unblock you, please click the button below”. The button would read “Send unblock request” Then, Person B could apologize the person who blocked him and Person A could choose to accept and unblock or not. Person A would only be allowed to send one request per week to limit spam requests.

Even so, if Person A REALLY wants to stop receiving unblock requests from Person B, Person A can block Person B's unblock requests.

However, the site blocking system would still exist, but only for really bad things that happen. If Person B is confirmed a troll or has over 50 people blocking them, Person B would get kicked off the website, and would have to go through the whole appeal process that exists currently.

This system would help Scratchers be more independent, and stop the riot about someone getting banned.

Brilliant. I agree.

Rexone wrote:

If the Person A doesn't like how Person B is treating them, Person A can click the block button and it will disable any form of communication with Person B. Iff Person A REALLY wants to stop receiving unblock requests from Person B, Person A can block Person B's unblock requests.

I support this so far.

Rexone wrote:

However, the site blocking system would still exist, but only for really bad things that happen. If Person B is confirmed a troll or has over 50 people blocking them, Person B would get kicked off the website, and would have to go through the whole appeal process that exists currently.

Woah, woah, woah! I do NOT support that part. I think that the site blocking system should not change - people will still get banned the same amount as they get banned already. Otherwise, a lot of people wouldn't be banned that need to be. Also, for the “over 50 people blocking them” part, I completely do not support that. There are many workarounds that could easily get your worst enemy off the website, and griffpatch would probably be immediately kicked off due to accidental blocks. You could create 50 accounts and then use them to kick anyone off the website.

So, support for the first part, but no support for the second part.

In some cases I can see this working, but in some cases I can see it being misused and cause more confusion. No support, sorry. I think Flow-'s suggestion of being able to dispute alerts and talk privately with admins will solve problems that this solution would solve the problems that this would solve but not with the problems that this could come with. (See - flow-'s list of suggestions)

Rexone wrote:

However, the site blocking system would still exist, but only for really bad things that happen. If Person B is confirmed a troll or has over 50 people blocking them, Person B would get kicked off the website, and would have to go through the whole appeal process that exists currently.

Zykon wrote:

Woah, woah, woah! I do NOT support that part. I think that the site blocking system should not change - people will still get banned the same amount as they get banned already. Otherwise, a lot of people wouldn't be banned that need to be. Also, for the “over 50 people blocking them” part, I completely do not support that. There are many workarounds that could easily get your worst enemy off the website, and griffpatch would probably be immediately kicked off due to accidental blocks. You could create 50 accounts and then use them to kick anyone off the website.

So, support for the first part, but no support for the second part.

Okay, how about I completely remove that part. xD

Possibly some parts of it, but the whole thing might confuse New Scratchers. No support.

Scratchifier wrote:

In some cases I can see this working, but in some cases I can see it being misused and cause more confusion. No support, sorry. I think Flow-'s suggestion of being able to dispute alerts and talk privately with admins will solve problems that this solution would solve the problems that this would solve but not with the problems that this could come with. (See - flow-'s list of suggestions)

It couldn't be in the way of spending spam unblock requests because

Rexone wrote:

Person A would only be allowed to send one request per week to limit spam requests.

and

Rexone wrote:

Even so, if Person A REALLY wants to stop receiving unblock requests from Person B, Person A can block Person B's unblock requests

But if you're referring to blocking someone just for the heck of it, they could contact the ST about it.

goldfish678 wrote:

Possibly some parts of it, but the whole thing might confuse New Scratchers. No support.

It wouldn't be that confusing. And they wouldn't have to know the whole chunk of it at once. They would learn it as they go along.

There would also be a “Are you sure you want to block” message if someone accidentally clicks it and then there'd be a link there that says “Learn about blocking” and it wold link to a Scratch wiki page.

Support

This is an amazing idea!

great idea

Support!

50% support. It could be abused / create hard feelings

There was something similar to this in 1.4, why did they change it? Support 100%

HEAVENBRAND wrote:

I think there was a similiar system to this back in the days of 1.0… I don't know why it was changed though, doing so could really limit a lot of the drama that occurs on scratch anymore. But anyways… support all the way.

The old system was known as the ignore list. It wasn't really all that effective in stopping the drama. In some cases, it increased drama. For example, if a user found out they were muted from another person and goes on a comment attack rampage by spreading it to friends, or hearing through the grapevine that someone is talking behind your back and that you can't see the comments because you were on the person's ignore list, etc.

We would like a way for users to ignore each other, but something that doesn't have the potential to stir up so much drama. If anyone knows of any kids/all-ages website that has something in place, we're open to hearing about how those systems work.