GaG Shouldn't Allow Users to Block 'Askers' Inside of Their Own Questions?

When I ask a question, it's not typically because I want to know the answer, but that I want opinions. I want to be challenged intellectually and without immature attacks, etc.

I don't take arguments in an offensive manner - opinions are opinions.

But what bugs me is in the middle of a 'debate', the other person will post 4-5 1k character comments in a row and then immediately block me. This feels like an issue given that they're on my question.

I fully understand the need of having a system in place that allows users to block each other - there are abuses that will be had, certainly. But when a user travels to another user's question, disagrees (or just states an opinion) and is then drawn into a debate by both users, it seems pretty immature to give them the option to 'say the last piece' and then block the person.

It's immature, it's defeatist, and it's annoying.

Do you agree that users shouldn't be allowed to be 'blocked from response' when responding the blocked user's question?

  • Yes
    50% (9)70% (14)61% (23)Vote
  • No
    50% (9)30% (6)39% (15)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
Updates:
To be clear - this is a two-way street. The asker would not be able to block someone that he/she had not blocked prior to the question.
Ugh - update again. . .

All users would still be able to 'block' anyone they wanted to, they simply wouldn't be able to prevent the user from continuing the discussion, and if at that point the person really was done, they could simply stop responding. In the event of further harassment by either the 'asker' or the 'opinion-giver', a mod could step in upon having it reported.

There - I think that covers it. lol

0|0
4|8

Most Helpful Girl

  • I haven't had this happen yet, but I agree that it sounds very immature. I usually find that, like you said, they feel defeated and that their only way out without admitting they're wrong is to cut the debate off. I would actually respect someone a lot more if they admitted that they were wrong, as hard as it is, than for them to just try to block people from responding. It's much more adultlike and having the ability to admit you're wrong is an important one I think.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Absolutely - or to simply agree to disagree, which is what most mature adults do. Thanks for the comment!

    • Yes, exactly! You're welcome!

Most Helpful Guy

  • Yes I have had a problem with pre-emptive block too where something I said was misunderstood and I never got chance to explain myself. I was characterised as a bully in the blockers last remark and the intent of my comment was miles away from what was picked up by blocker. Noone likes to be labelled a bully especially when innocent. I never got chance to clear my name.

    0|1
    0|0

What Girls Said 3

  • I feel like that's more of a comment on that specific type of person than anything else. Like if they want to do that, they're not hurting anyone but themselves.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Only if that also means the asker can't block.

    1|2
    0|0
    • Of course - I thought that was understood, but I'll update the question to make it clear. No one can block the asker and the asker cannot block any of the users.

      Well - let me be clear - they can be BLOCKED, but the messages still show up on that particular question that was started pre-block.

      In the event, however, that a user is flaming, spamming, or being downright mean, the block could be enforced by mods, etc.

    • If that's the case I totally agree.

  • No, I do not agree with you. Just because you are obsessed or overly concerned with being stubborn and eagerly trying to challenge others does not mean that other individuals will share that same desire. Some people are not interested in listening to someone talk excessively or try to dominate their ideas because they find it to be useless and lame. Sometimes the only way to shut someone up and get them to leave you alone is to block them.

    1|1
    0|1
    • Okay, now that brings up a different point - if someone feels like they are being 'bothered', even though they put themselves up for debate, then why would they flame the thread with 4-5 consecutive (non-interrupted) responses before they blocked the person?

      There's only one reason for that - they couldn't defend their position intelligently, so they gave up on it.

    • Show All
    • Someone's

    • Calling something emotional simply doesn't make it so. As much as you'd like to assume I'm over here all upset, I'm not. Arguing with people on the internet is entertaining, and sometimes very insightful, but emotionally-driven? Please.

      But, if that's what you must tell yourself in order to view me as something unimportant, then go right ahead - it doesn't bother me any. But the fact that you continually make the claim proves how irritated you have become by the fact that I don't just roll over and let you make whatever claims without debating them. I'm sure you aren't used to it, which is why you feel the need to diminish my intellect by screaming 'emotion'.

What Guys Said 7

  • Intellectualism is incredibly rare here. Most people here preach political opinions based on what their parents believe I think. I've used my political science background online before, but not on Gag lol

    1|2
    0|0
  • I dont know how youd enforce that. Even if they werent allowed to block you while on your question, all they'd have to do it open up your profile in a different tab and then click the block button there.

    0|1
    0|0
    • I'm glad I just updated the question - lol. Any user can 'block' any user. But, if a discussion had started on a question prior to the 'blocking', that user can still comment on that question's thread, but wouldn't be able to communicate via pm or on any other questions/comments, etc.

  • It's pretty dumb the way they have it set up where you can respond to something then block who you responded to making it so they can't reply but it keeps what you said anyway

    0|0
    0|0
  • Anons being able to block anonymously lol. They should automatically be added to the other person's block list.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes, I completely agree to this based on the updates.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Yes, this is extremely annoying. Blocking in general after posting a comment is annoying.

    0|0
    0|0
  • You just want to render the Block option pointless. You really think GaG is going to do that?

    0|0
    0|0
    • No, that's not what the question implies. What I'm wanting to do is keep debates open without the ability of a person that chose to comment on someone's question, from preventing the asker from disagreeing with the 'opinion'.

      But ONLY on that particular question that was asked and answered pre-block.

      How did I not make myself clear on that?

    • Show All
    • That's because you are pre-judging the question. Everyone else seemed to understand precisely what was implied.

    • I think I get what you're saying but I think it would be too hard to administer.

Loading...