New Features: 2-way blocking and Hide Logo

[Sanctioned Suicide]

Hello everyone, I just want to announce these additional features that we've been working on. I hope you all can put them to good use.

• New Ignore Button Functionality: Two Way Blocking
• Hide Logo

New Ignore Button Functionality: Two Way Blocking



The ignore button can be used as a block button now. If you have Two-way blocking enabled in your settings, everyone that you ignored will not be able to see your posts or threads. This is a feature that I have contemplated adding, but I do believe that it will do more good by giving members more control of who they interact with. You can always change the functionality of the ignore back to a simple ignore function by disabling the option above.

Hide Logo



You can now hide the logo now. I haven't gotten around to making this work on our other themes, but I do plan on having this work on all themes. This will hide the logo if you're in public places, for example.

I hope you all enjoy these updates and have a happy holiday season!

Marquis

 

[Callie Arcale]

Happy holidays to you too, Marquis. Thank you for the updates.

 

[TheAmazingCriswell]

New Ignore Button Functionality: Two Way Blocking

View attachment 79644

The ignore button can be used as a block button now. If you have Two-way blocking enabled in your settings, everyone that you ignored will not be able to see your posts or threads. This is a feature that I have contemplated adding, but I do believe that it will do more good by giving members more control of who they interact with. You can always change the functionality of the ignore back to a simple ignore function by disabling the option above.

With all due respect, I don't think the implementation of this feature was a good idea. One thing I value highly about this website is the remarkably diverse user base, which is reflected in a wide ranging spectrum of opinions about life, death and everything in between. By abusing this new function, it is very easy to create echo chambers by simply blocking all users who hold opposing views and values to your own, thus preventing them from commenting on your threads. Prior to this change in the functionality of this website, blocking a member simply resulted in you being unable to see their posts, but allowing them to comment on yours. While this made no difference to you, other members could still benefit from being offered a different perspective. Another way this feature could be abused is by simply blocking members who raised discussion points you were unable to address in a thread of yours, thus making them unable to elaborate their points further.
Needless to say, your constant work on this website is greatly appreciated and may have even saved a few lives...

 

[Sherri]

It's a great idea for some, for me I will keep my logo as long as I can, I have nothing to hide. We are an honest bunch of people who worry and try to help the broken and sad. But great idea Marquis.
In fact if this continues, I will just upload my real photo. Have nothing to hide. Most of us are caring to all here , and in one year and a few months I never saw anyone encourage anyone, and if that happened that user would be blocked for sure. Happy holidays to Marquis and all staff.

 

[Chinaski]

With all due respect, I don't think the implementation of this feature was a good idea. One thing I value highly about this website is the remarkably diverse user base, which is reflected in a wide ranging spectrum of opinions about life, death and everything in between. By abusing this new function, it is very easy to create echo chambers by simply blocking all users who hold opposing views and values to your own, thus preventing them from commenting on your threads. Prior to this change in the functionality of this website, blocking a member simply resulted in you being unable to see their posts, but allowing them to comment on yours. While this made no difference to you, other members could still benefit from being offered a different perspective. Another way this feature could be abused is by simply blocking members who raised discussion points you were unable to address in a thread of yours, thus making them unable to elaborate their points further.
Needless to say, your constant work on this website is greatly appreciated and may have even saved a few lives...

Fully agree on this fwiw, this is a public forum not a social media account and l don't think it should be tweaked to resemble the latter over the former - in addition this will lead to an increase in RIGHT I'M BLOCKING AND REPORTING YOU NOW tantrums, when the ignore function as existed worked fine in this regard. It will also enable members to gripe about others without said member being able to see it and exercise a right to reply. People already *could* choose their own content and engage with the bits they wished to, there's no need for an added tool for this.

 

[Amumu]

I remember that @Ghost2211 (@Rosey Bird) left the website because there wasn't 2-way blocking at the time.

Great initiative @Marquis, please keep it as it is, we don't want to lose valuable members anymore.

Thanks a lot.

 

[motel rooms]

I remember that @Ghost2211 (@Rosey Bird) left the website because there wasn't 2-way blocking at the time.

Two-way ignore is a double-edged sword... I agree with @Voûte_Étoilée, but I'm grateful that I was able to block an emotionally unstable, paranoid person who lost all control because they couldn't stop me from defending myself from their baseless accusations & get me banned. It's good for their mental health that I no longer exist for them.

 

[9BBN]

I think a pro-choice public forum should let everyone speak freely unless they actually violate rules. People can choose to engage or disengage with rule-abiding content, and punishments exist for rule-breaking content. Two-way blocking is actually just a form of censorship.

 

[Amumu]

I think a pro-choice public forum should let everyone speak freely unless they actually violate rules. People can choose to engage or disengage with rule-abiding content, and punishments exist for rule-breaking content. Two-way blocking is actually just a form of censorship.

That's completely false. You're not censored when you can't see the posts of people you ignore and vice-versa.

Censorship takes place when the public can't see it, which isn't the case with 2-way blocking.

 

[9BBN]

That's completely false. You're not censored when you can't see the posts of people you ignore and vice-versa.

You're straw-manning. Two-way censoring prevents certain members from engaging in threads. That is censorship.

I remember that @Ghost2211 (@Rosey Bird) left the website because there wasn't 2-way blocking at the time.

Respectfully, I believe this user's problem would have been better fixed with improved moderation, not 2-way blocking.

 

[motel rooms]

Last person to call me that got called a fucking arsehole and promptly blocked so they couldn't even see that l was publicly flaming them, so consider yourself lucky I'm in a generous mood

Would it kill you to stop calling other suicidal people thick, assholes, dickheads & cunts?

 

[Chinaski]

Would it kill you to stop calling other suicidal people thick, assholes, dickheads & cunts?

If it did, I'd have done it by now.

(incidentally, I'd be keen to see evidence of where I've directly done that)

 

[Amumu]

Look, I'm really tired of all that bickering. I've said you were narrow-minded and selfish, and I don't think it's against the rules.

Now stop harassing me for fuck's sake.

Would it kill you to stop calling other suicidal people thick, assholes, dickheads & cunts?

And this too, that's why 2-way blocking is the Eldorado.

 

[motel rooms]

(incidentally, I'd be keen to see evidence of where I've directly done that)

Is this enough evidence that you call people nasty names? I'm pretty sure that's against the forum rules.

Last person to call me that got called a fucking arsehole and promptly blocked so they couldn't even see that l was publicly flaming them, so consider yourself lucky I'm in a generous mood

Literally everything you posted was frankly wrong, if you consider that a "lesson" you could probably satisfy the Dignitas criteria on account of being terminally thick.

As for entitlement, the entitlement on show here is the tedious griping on the internet about how the state should provide mass suicide on request because some online dickhead isn't ready to do it for themselves, then complaining about the individual who points out how half-baked and infantile this ludicrous position is.

I've never told anyone on here that they should kill themselves, l do not encourage suicide and never have, even when the individual is a total fucking cunt.

I can't see half of this fucking thread because of the two-way block nonsense which makes any discussion impossible once some flakey dickhead has done his THIS IS THE LAST WORD I AM BLOCKING U NOW.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/euthanasia-for-all.77446/page-2

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/euthanasia-for-all.77446/page-3

 

[Chinaski]

Uh, the first one was a joke, clearly.

The second is a response to something which you've helpfully lifted out of context, the third, fourth and fifth are clearly not directed at any individual.

See, this is kind of what l mean re the block thing, l don't like you and so l avoid interacting with you, however l do get the *right to reply* when you try and earn claps at my expense, as everyone can see it works fine, no need for the block tool. Thank you @hotelbeneathground for helping to demonstrate this.

 

[motel rooms]

The second is a response to something which you've helpfully lifted out of context, the third, fourth and fifth are clearly not directed at any individual.

Read the "Euthanasia for all" thread and make up your own mind, folks...
You're clearly intelligent & articulate, I don't understand why you feel the need to insult other suicidal people in such a vulgar way. Why can't you just let your arguments speak for themselves? @9BBN put it best:

I have a question for you, Chinaski: in a hyper-capitalist society, is it better or worse to legalize euthanasia? (...)
Maybe instead of writing condescending posts about how paraphrasing yourself is futile, you can either paraphrase yourself or disengage? I can understand how you were provoked when members misunderstood your arguments and even "accused" you of being pro-life. But since I see your posts around here complaining about tantrums, please hold yourself to the same standard. Sometimes people won't understand you, so deal with it nicely, because this is a suicide forum.

 

[justsayin]

If anyone is interested, here is my take on 2-way blocking thing.

This forum does not need echo chambers, but strict moderation. Stuff that triggers people is usually against the rules, and rules don't mean much unless they are enforced. A couple of baboons shitting in the well will ruin it for all the animals. For example, this forum is full of sexual abuse victims, and yet I've seen members horny posting like this is pornhub or something. If a rape victim is supposed to rely on blocking function in order to avoid being trigger, then something is not right.

 

[4eyebiped]

Personally, I am not a fan of this 2 way blocking either. It is exploitable, dangerous and can be a form of bullying in itself. It censors. It causes threads to potentially appear incoherent. It stifles productive dialogue and conversation. It could lead to collective pockets and echo chambers. It is borderline overly childish in design. I am sure I am missing something, and someone will make a great case for it, but I really cannot see a healthy purpose and use of this in a public forum.

 

[Amumu]

Personally, I am not a fan of this 2 way blocking either. It is exploitable, dangerous and can be a form of bullying in itself. It censors. It causes threads to potentially appear incoherent. It stifles productive dialogue and conversation. It could lead to collective pockets and echo chambers. It is borderline overly childish in design. I am sure I am missing something, and someone will make a great case for it, but I really cannot see a healthy purpose and use of this in a public forum.

Some people literally left the forum because they were afraid people they ignored would insult them without them knowing about it.

2-way blocking is really important, I won't put emphasis on it enough.

 

[4eyebiped]

Some people literally left the forum because they were afraid people they ignored would insult them without them knowing about it.

2-way blocking is really important, I won't put emphasis on it enough.

So, instead we should give the people in your example the power to slander and insult other people on this forum without others knowing they are being slandered and insulted? We should take away other people's ability to defend themselves? Once again, I am not seeing the positive in this. People are going to get upset and leave this forum. There are highly volatile emotions on this forums and there is no way we can cater to everyone. We have to have a system that is as fair as possible to all. Personal responsibility, ownership and maturity has to kick in at some point.

The people you speak of made a choice, a choice wasn't forced on them. If blocking someone also removes your ability to read their posts, then wouldn't it be better to have two options. One to block someone from messaging you and a separate one for being able to see what they post instead of this 2 way blocking option?

EDIT: Keep in mind I have never used any blocking feature on any website so there may be subtleties I am unaware of.

 

[Amumu]

So, instead we should give the people in your example the power to slander and insult other people on this forum without others knowing they are being slandered and insulted? We should take away other people's ability to defend themselves? Once again, I am not seeing the positive in this. People are going to get upset and leave this forum. There are highly volatile emotions on this forums and there is no way we can cater to everyone. We have to have a system that is as fair as possible to all. Personal responsibility, ownership and maturity has to kick in at some point.

The people you speak of made a choice, a choice wasn't forced on them. If blocking someone also removes your ability to read their posts, then wouldn't it be better to have two options. One to block someone from messaging you and a separate one for being able to see what they post instead of this 2 way blocking option?

EDIT: Keep in mind I have never used any blocking feature on any website so there may be subtleties I am unaware of.

What you don't understand is that with the 1-way blocking, the person who can see the message of the person who ignored them can tell whatever they want about them without them noticing it. So it's in that case that they can't defend themselves.

With the 2-way blocking, everything's good. Nobody slanders anyone. You're confusing both models.

 

[Chinaski]

Read the "Euthanasia for all" thread and make up your own mind, folks...
You're clearly intelligent & articulate, I don't understand why you feel the need to insult other suicidal people in such a vulgar way. Why can't you just let your arguments speak for themselves? @9BBN put it best:

See, l think this post kind of backs up the argument against this double block tbqh. In that thread a poster rocked up to call me a "pro lifer", another to give me a "lesson". Naturally l didn't take kindly to either and, as they were posts made entirely in bad faith, l responded in an abrasive manner. This is there for all to see and assess - people can decide if they agree with the thrust of my point, or indeed if my tone is too abrasive. Here we are having this discussion because an allegation was made that l directly insulted people, l saw it and was able to reply. Similarly I've been accused elsewhere of telling people to kill themselves. A right to reply is necessary to counter risible conduct like this.

It appears that the issue raised in the post you quoted is with tone, rather than content - to reiterate, the questionable conduct in that thread is by users who come in to baselessly label others a pro-lifer, use the block function to continue with the insults and present themselves as a victim of something or other. This is cry-bullying, and illustrates perfectly why this block tool is a poor addition which enables shitty conduct. The tone of my posts may not be to your liking, truth be told l don't much care for your contributions either, but we can both simply avoid each other without doing either party any harm, there's no need for either of us to block each other when we should be mature enough to engage civilly, as we are now, when issues arise, and also to simply scroll past each other when we find each other irritating.

 

[9BBN]

Amumu, if you want to be able to defend yourself ever, ignoring is not the way. Doesn't matter if it's 1-way or 2-way. Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Again, these are real problems, but they need to be fixed by improved moderation, not 2-way blocking.

See, l think this post kind of backs up the argument against this double block tbqh. In that thread a poster rocked up to call me a "pro lifer", another to give me a "lesson". Naturally l didn't take kindly to either and, as they were posts made entirely in bad faith, l responded in an abrasive manner.

Chinaski, put yourself in someone else's shoes for a second. Imagine SS is your one refuge from pro-lifers, and you interpret someone's argument on SS as pro-life. You're going to call it out. That's not "questionable conduct." That's a misunderstanding. Your abrasiveness might work for you irl, but it has no place in a suicide forum.

 

[Chinaski]

Amumu, if you want to be able to defend yourself ever, ignoring is not the way. Doesn't matter if it's 1-way or 2-way. Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Again, these are real problems, but they need to be fixed by improved moderation, not 2-way blocking.


Chinaski, put yourself in someone else's shoes for a second. Imagine SS is your one refuge from pro-lifers, and you interpret someone's argument on SS as pro-life. You're going to call it out. That's not "questionable conduct." That's a misunderstanding. Your abrasiveness might work for you irl, but it has no place in a suicide forum.

It depends on how they misunderstand tbqh. In this instance the user did not seek clarity, went straight for MODS MODS and the verbal froth in my direction, I'm naturally *not* going to respond to this with cosy empathy hugs. It's shitty conduct - please don't forget btw that I'm scoring quite highly on the suicidal spectrum atm, l fail to see why l should be held to higher standards than others, why the onus should be on me to display understanding and empathy when attacked. These standards of conduct you require should apply to all, and frankly the actual cry-bully conduct is more harmful than an abrasive posting style imho and this should warrant a great deal more attention than the petty tone policing.

Anyway, we're both in agreement that the block system is shite, to which l will add that if l was a manipulative predator, or an N scammer, I'd be very much inclined to block the users who are more attuned to this behaviour and inclined to call it out from seeing my output. Just a thought.

 

[TheAmazingCriswell]

I was just wondering: What happens if I block every single moderator and then create a thread? Will they be able to intervene if something happens that requires their attention? They can't see the thread in question, after all.

 

[9BBN]

It depends on how they misunderstand tbqh. In this instance the user did not seek clarity, went straight for MODS MODS and the verbal froth in my direction, I'm naturally *not* going to respond to this with cosy empathy hugs. It's shitty conduct - please don't forget btw that I'm scoring quite highly on the suicidal spectrum atm, l fail to see why l should be held to higher standards than others, why the onus should be on me to display understanding and empathy when attacked. These standards of conduct you require should apply to all, and frankly the actual cry-bully conduct is more harmful than an abrasive posting style imho and this should warrant a great deal more attention than the petty tone policing.

Why do you care about "MODS MODS" if you haven't violated any rules? Stop trying to justify abrasive behavior. You're responsible for being kind to others the same way they are, even in a misunderstanding. And you knew it was a simple misunderstanding because Amumu summarized how they interpreted your argument. There was absolutely no need to go all out with, "you're totally incapable of reading comprehension," "you have no fucking idea what you're even talking about," and "at no point am l arguing to remove your choice to fuck off and die." And that's just from your first reply. On a suicide forum ffs. You think crying "MODS MODS" is worse than that??

Anyway, we're both in agreement that the block system is shite, to which l will add that if l was a manipulative predator, or an N scammer, I'd be very much inclined to block the users who are more attuned to this behaviour and inclined to call it out from seeing my output. Just a thought.

This is another good reason against 2-way blocking. Like @4eyebiped said, itself can be a form of abuse.

 

[motel rooms]

punishments exist for rule-breaking content.

They are all too often not implemented. Sometimes it even takes ages & an enormous amount of effort to get blatant racists & misogynists banned. Misandrists almost never suffer any consequences, & neither do the members who suffer from disorders that make them behave extremely inappropriately.

strict moderation.

Never gonna happen unless the mods start getting paid, which is never gonna happen.

@9BBN @Chinaski @justsayin @Voûte_Étoilée
Are you guys brave enough to join me in coming right out & saying that the mods have introduced 2-way blocking in order to reduce their workload? We might as well face it: this feature is here to stay.

 

[Amumu]

I was just wondering: What happens if I block every single moderator and then create a thread? Will they be able to intervene if something happens that requires their attention? They can't see the thread in question, after all.

You can't ignore moderators

 

[Chinaski]

Without quoting you in full, to summarise:

If someone wants to report that's fine, report this if you like, I've never cared about that because most reports are bullshit and, as you say, I'm within the "rules". What is irksome is someone doing an actual *post* saying I'M REPORTING YOU YOU UNPLEASANT PRO LIFER. Amumu summarised my argument incorrectly and aggressively. Yes, my response to this immature nonsense was not empathy hugs. Why would it be? To repeat, it's not on me to rise above shittiness of that nature, it's perhaps on them not to do it in the first place. Maybe try and "take my perspective" about seeing your honest and clear contributions to a discussion reacted to with such shittiness.

Similarly, I've had folk trying to suggest l am telling people to kill themselves, am l meant to *rise above* this? "take their perspective" is fine, but sometimes their perspective is entirely bad faith. It really isn't my fault entirely that the people who bring the flame can't take the response.

 

[9BBN]

Amumu summarised my argument incorrectly and aggressively. Yes, my response to this immature nonsense was not empathy hugs. Why would it be? To repeat, it's not on me to rise above shittiness of that nature, it's perhaps on them not to do it in the first place. Maybe try and "take my perspective" about seeing your honest and clear contributions to a discussion reacted to with such shittiness.

It is their responsibility to be charitable to you and try to represent you accurately. That was a failure. Then it was your responsibility to be charitable to them and correct them nicely. That was a failure. You aren't being held to special standards, you just refuse to accept the basic standard. You don't have a right to be mean just because they were. Your "perspective" is misguided if you think you have no responsibility to be nice to people, even in a misunderstanding.

Similarly, I've had folk trying to suggest l am telling people to kill themselves, am l meant to *rise above* this? "take their perspective" is fine, but sometimes their perspective is entirely bad faith. It really isn't my fault entirely that the people who bring the flame can't take the response.

Let's brainstorm. How about saying: "I never said that"
Instead of: "l do not encourage suicide and never have, even when the individual is a total fucking cunt."

Don't fight fire with fire. Toughen up and put it out.