Yea, it should go further, all interaction should be blocked including reporting. They should have zero interaction ability.

This would be defeated by simply logging out for any otherwise public profile. There's an option to have your profile viewable by friends only, which is the most practical solution.

Originally posted by Dwerklesberry:

Yea, it should go further, all interaction should be blocked including reporting. They should have zero interaction ability.

That’s ripe for abuse because a lot of moderation relies on reporting. This would likely therefore not be implemented.

Originally posted by Sciencemile:

Originally posted by Dwerklesberry:

Yea, it should go further, all interaction should be blocked including reporting. They should have zero interaction ability.

That’s ripe for abuse because a lot of moderation relies on reporting. This would likely therefore not be implemented.

Its a small price to pay because you are assuming some spam bot would block everyone in existence, not likely.

Originally posted by Sciencemile:

I’d post this in suggestions

Thanks you mate

Originally posted by Dwerklesberry:

Yea, it should go further, all interaction should be blocked including reporting. They should have zero interaction ability.

Absolutely agreed, well 0 interaction, if they want to report they can, if you're clean you're clean, but actually they shouldn't see anything or even loving a screenshot

++
It's a good idea Steam should improve blocked function

Originally posted by ⅩⅢ:

It would be great if steam manage to do that , like all the people you don't want interact or stalking your profil, will see it private when you block them.
In fact i love to work on design profil and show it to the community, but i have some weirdo that i already blocked who stalked me everysingle day and many times in the day and act as we are in couple, like put the same quote on his own profil, or respond to mine. That's awfull, but i don't want to private users and also me just because of weird people. I would like to know if it's possible actually ?

Logout. Enemy echo chamber penetrated!

Public should mean public and personal echo chambers are lame and don't belong on public areas.

Originally posted by Dwerklesberry:

Yea, it should go further, all interaction should be blocked including reporting. They should have zero interaction ability.

Instead of just hiding their posts from you behind a "click here" blocking someone should mean they flat out do not see your posts and you flat out do not see theirs, nor can they see your profile or you theirs. It would prevent them from harassing you at all and would make the forum better.

It would also remove the need for moderators entirely

Originally posted by Tonepoet:

This would be defeated by simply logging out for any otherwise public profile. There's an option to have your profile viewable by friends only, which is the most practical solution.

No, i wanna share with the community and there is a lot of people i enjoy their work and they also enjoy mine without needed to be friend, and that's important.

Originally posted by Sciencemile:

Originally posted by Dwerklesberry:

Yea, it should go further, all interaction should be blocked including reporting. They should have zero interaction ability.

That’s ripe for abuse because a lot of moderation relies on reporting. This would likely therefore not be implemented.

People have tried to do that on GameFAQs to circumvent moderation. It didn't work as people just hopped on an alt. That said,users shouldn't have to resort to hopping on an alt to penetrate a user's personal echo chamber just to report violations. It is a terrible site design and all it achieves is frustrate the user experience.

Steam is not serious about protecting our privacy. The notification system will notify you when a blocked person responds to your thread.

Originally posted by Gracey Face:

Originally posted by Dwerklesberry:

Yea, it should go further, all interaction should be blocked including reporting. They should have zero interaction ability.

Instead of just hiding their posts from you behind a "click here" blocking someone should mean they flat out do not see your posts and you flat out do not see theirs, nor can they see your profile or you theirs. It would prevent them from harassing you at all and would make the forum better.

It would also remove the need for moderators entirely

What you are advocating for is the users to get mod power to arbitrarily censor other users at will. Personal echo chambers do not belong on public forums. Hate the mods, but at least they have guidelines to follow. Allowing users mod power with no oversight is a disaster. It also creates a bunch of unintended consequences.

First of all, why should guest users get potentially more read access than registered users? 2 way blocking is easily circumvented by logging out. In addition, it severely devalues accounts. Over time an account will accumulate enemy blocks, degrading the browsing experience. That requires users to eventually dispose of their account to reset their user experience. That creates another problem.

When accounts need to be occasionally dumped, it kills any incentive to follow the rules. Why bother, when you are going eventually throwaway the account. That creates a perverse incentive to go burner. Once someone embraces the burn with an army of throwaways, there is more rule breaking since the carrot to follow the rules is no longer there. Get banned? Who cares, boot up a new account and enjoy an enemy block reset.

GameFAQs allowed the rise of personal echo chambers and I embraced the burn to counter them. They cracked down harder on moderation, which in turn created some rather unpopular changes to the site, like locking off the most popular social board to new accounts and revoking access to anyone who got a severe moderation. That caused more users to leave from the overbearing moderation, especially users of 20+ years. Hardcore, dedicated users leaving a site that they had gone to on a daily basis for 20 years due to the moderation. I take credit for helping accelerate the decline of GameFAQs. You would think that with a dying website that is bleeding users, they would ease up on the moderation cause pretty soon there won't be anyone left to ban. Nope, they went the other way and went harder on moderation, alienating the most hardcore of their ever dwindling userbase.

Originally posted by Sciencemile:

I’d post this in suggestions