Blocking people improvement

[torpid condor]

No it doesn't

You can see this message

In a teamgame situation, if I have an ally whose insane rantings I cannot stand enough for me to block them, and I write something in ally chat, I want as many people as possible to react to my message about e.g air or nuke or t2 or a leak or whatever.

If it worked as you propose, just because I blocked someone would mean they cannot act on the information I provide, decreasing the team's chance of winning the game. The optimal play for me becomes to block nobody and ensure the information flows freely.

Yes, I'm already taking a hit to that that winrate because the information cannot flow from the blocked to the blocker - that's implied as an acceptable trade-off when you decide to block someone.

Why should I and the team be punished with a further hit to that winrate just because I'm sick of someone?

Blocking currently does ~one thing and I don't think it's a good idea to add more than that one thing. If we want a "don't let them see my messages" relationship state, that can be considered, but I'm not convinced this is necessary.

Imo atm: bad idea, go next - but I'm happy to be convinced by an argument I haven't considered.

[mental wolf]

I agree with my own thoughts on this (which is close enough to what Perfi wrote above) and what Perfi said that I also wouldn't support this suggestion.

Very happy to be presented with some more reasons why this particular change would be better than the status quo though?

RE working like that everywhere else... Where?
Even on Discord, it doesn't work that way?

[hazy trench]

Blocking is not just a “mute incoming messages” feature. It is a boundary tool. If I block someone because they are harassing, abusive, obsessive, or constantly targeting me, it defeats the purpose if they can still read everything I say and react to it.
A block should mean: I do not want interaction with this person. That includes them receiving my messages.

The winrate argument makes sense in narrow tactical situations, but it treats blocking as if it is only a convenience feature. It is not. Blocking exists because sometimes interaction with a person is harmful or disruptive enough that the user wants separation.

The current system creates a one-way visibility problem. The blocked person can still monitor what I say, respond indirectly, mock me, coordinate around me, or continue targeting me through gameplay. I may not see their messages, but they are still able to use mine. That is not a real block; it is closer to a mute.
The argument “I want as many people as possible to react to my tactical calls” is valid, but it does not outweigh the basic expectation of blocking. Most platforms understand this: blocking usually limits visibility both ways because the point is to prevent continued access, not merely hide one side of the conversation. Also, the blocker is already choosing a trade-off. If I block someone, I accept that I may miss their communication. But I should not be forced into an additional unwanted relationship where they still get access to me. The decision to block should create distance in both directions.

[torpid condor]

You know I can go elsewhere if I want to chat with an LLM, right?

It is certainly more text, but is it more arguments?

[torpid condor]

I am also yet to see which platforms you have in mind when you say "it works like that everywhere else"

[calm perch]

on Discord it blocks reactions but that's about it

Twitter maybe?

[errant knoll]

Twitter block doesn't stop people from seeing your posts anymore, it only stops the blocked person from engaging with your posts. They changed that over a year ago.

[calm perch]

right

[hazy trench]

it works the same way in :
facebook, insta, snapchat, league of legends, valve games, etc.
infact in league you can also "mute" yourself to block everyone in game
iirc people complained about the way X handles blocking, it not being a 2 way street

[knotty bloom]

Counter suggestion: when you block someone, you still see they typed something, but its redacted like epstein files

[mental wolf]

I think this is basically how Discord does it now as well, except there's a 'show message' button if you do want to see the messages as a one-off. I wouldn't mind this in-lobby but it's a little bit maybe of an APM tax in-battle.

[mental wolf]

A block should mean: I do not want interaction with this person. That includes them receiving my messages.
Except that this is a false premise.

You're not interacting with them. You've interacted with the chat, and they're reading your interaction - without any feedback to you, consequence for you, and impact on you in any way.

If they can read your message or not, it doesn't affect you at all and is not perceivably different, so the system we have now might as well stay so that they could see something tactically valuable as needed.

[mental wolf]

it works the same way in :
facebook, insta, snapchat, league of legends, valve games, etc.
infact in league you can also "mute" yourself to block everyone in game
A lot of this is... Wrong.

It is this case on Facebook, if I'm to try and devil's advocate for their system, because of safety and privacy reasons. Facebook requires your real name nowadays and unless you're careful it can also show your home town, place of work, your family members and children, etc. - I'm sure I don't need to explain why hiding this from certain undesirable people is warranted.

Likewise, an Instagram is integrated with Facebook, it works the same as above.

Snapchat wise, you're wrong there, because if you're in a comparable situation to a lobby or discord server - which would be a Snapchat group chat - you are both still in that group chat. You can see their messages, but they can't see your messages. This is actually the opposite of what BAR does, weirdly, but Snapchat does block direct snaps and messages too.

League of Legends wise, they can see your messages during a match if you have blocked the person. They cannot send you friend requests or private messages and you won't see any of their chat messages ingame, but they can still see yours.

What is 'Valve Games'...?
In Team Fortress 2 for example, it's the same as above, you won't see their messages but they will see yours ingame. Likewise they can't contact you outside of the match.

...Is this an LLM/AI argument?

[knotty bloom]

I like this idea. APM tax is self imposed anyway