I’m in love with this general solution because it completely removes friction in a way that’s impossible to do with real-life groups. It’s practically giving everyone the site they want.
2 Likes
Hi! So, I had an idea last night that I think would be great to share here! Since it doesn’t appear that anything is outright getting removed, I thought that for those who don’t like certain characters or ideals, perhaps there could be a way for them not to see whatever it is they dislike?
Introducing the Block Button! Right now, we have a mute function, sure, but you still see the player in the awake list and if they’re in the same room as you. What if the block button went one step further to get rid of them completely?
Here’s my proposed idea: when you want to block someone for any reason at all, you simply type in a command and when confirmed, instead of seeing that player in the awake list or in the same room as you, you simply see “Blocked Player” instead. Their profile picture is replaced by that broken picture icon (which I’d show if I had it saved) and if you attempt to read their about, nothing appears. They effectively look like an empty profile. Alongside them being blocked, they’d automatically get muted for you.
But what if you want to unblock someone and can’t remember their name? Well, my idea comes with there being a “blocked players” list in your settings that shows all your blocked players and you can unblock them from there.
I know it’s not a perfect solution. Nothing seems to be. This idea, however, seems to have the least amount of work for everyone involved (except the one coding it!). If you don’t like a character? Simply block them and they’re out of sight. It feels like this is a bit of a band-aid solution if used for the recent topics about the rule changes, but I think it could be a boon overall since it doesn’t necessarily have to BE for only characters you don’t like seeing. Have issues with someone? Block. Don’t like someone? Block.
I’m not sure if it’s worth making it so that the blocked player would know they’re blocked or not. That’s something I thought of but couldn’t come to a decision.
Anyways, I felt like sharing that idea since we’re sharing ideas in this thread. Hope it fits!
4 Likes
Usually blocked users on other platforms don’t know they are blocked, but it can be inferred from things like messages being rejected or just being ignored.
I could see this operating as either the core functionality or an extension of the tag filter functionality. However, this does raise a question:
When a blocked or filtered user is targeted by an unblocked or unfiltered user, either via address, pose, etc. Should those messages be filtered out and hidden as well, or should the blocked player’s name be replaced with a [blocked] span? If the messages are hidden wholesale, I could see that being problematic for large poses at public functions, like the recent end-of-summer events where some poses by folks mentioned five+ people.
I think the idea is to only block messages made by the blocked character.
1 Like
This is the concept. The name is not the offender here, unless it breaks rules, in which case they won’t have the name long.
I believe it would only block messages from the person blocked. If another person addresses them and that person isn’t blocked, then I assume that message would be viewable like usual. I’d suggest it says “to Blocked User” when addressed, but I’m not sure if that’s even possible via coding.
I doubt most will find a name offensive (short of it violating naming rules), but if someone bothers them so bad they can’t even see that name without being triggered… then maybe they should just walk away.
Being able to message someone you thought to block, but they can’t message you, lends itself to harassment campaigns being launched from cover.
No. If you blocked someone, no messages need to get through in either direction.
1 Like
I think they’re asking “If person A has person B blocked, and person C mentions person B in part of their message, should that part of person C’s message be blocked out for person A?”
Let’s say you’re player A. You block player B. Player C mentions player B. Is player C’s message blocked too? That was the question.
1 Like
I think that would be exceptionally technically challenging to get a computer to reliably parse messages like that.
Should they see person c’s messages @person b? Is an easier question to ask.
I say yes. Person a is not blocking person c.
That’s my thought too.
What? No! The proposed question I responded to talked about whether or not you would see an addressed post directed to someone you have blocked. I proposed that you would be able to see it since it isn’t the blocked person speaking.
You shouldn’t be able to interact with the blocked person at all. That’s the whole point of blocking someone. You shouldn’t be able to see anything about them or interact with them until you unblock them.
But again, this is a proposed addition that works with the already implemented mute system to give an extra layer to avoid people.
I’ve been off on a vacation a bit.
I’ll be looking through the proposed ideas to see what is feasible to implement, and how it can be done.
There is a bit to read up on, so have patience with me!
3 Likes
I see @Talon has already explained a bit about realms.
Just to hear it also from me;
Realms has been one of my goals from the very beginning.
A realm:
- is a completely separate server instance
- will be accessible under its own subdomain name (eg. realmname.mucklet.com)
- shares the same login account with all other realms
- has its own admins/moderators/builders
- has its own set of rules (but may not have rules that goes against the ToS)
- does not share data with other realms. The includes, areas, rooms, characters, scripts, etc.
- may have its own style/theme. For starters, it will just be theme colors and fonts. Later more styling options will exist.
Think of them as similar to Discord servers. You have a single Discord account that you use to access multiple Discord servers, where each server has its own purpose/set of rules/moderation team.
Difference here is that each realm also has its completely different set of characters, and each realm will have their own client. If you want to access two realms at the same time, you’ll have two browser tabs open.
This is what I am currently working on to make possible.
The latest release, Release v1.67.0 - Info formatting, was to enable realms to have their own set of rules. Next release will be about improving the infrastructure to allow automatic upgrades of realm servers.
So, this is at least going to happen.
And yes, this will mean there will be realms where certain types of roleplay will be completely prohibited.
3 Likes
(I still think a content warning system is the ideal solution, not seeing any flaw with it. Shocking the conversations even gone on for this long)
I think the block function solution listed earlier is the ideal way of going about things. It’d make a lot more people happy.
Adding my re-thought-through opinion that content labeling is the best idea.
Content can be objectionable. People being objectionable is a problem to me.
On by default shadow banning of people with certain tags is just creating an ageplay ghetto.
In other words, i would like a non sexualized cub character, or one with objectionable content such as certain tags, properly hidden, to be able to be in the park and heard speaking. Defending themselves, probably, but audible so long as they aren’t pushing the fetish stuff out there.
If somebody wants to ghettoize even non sexual cub characters… again we’re down to considering people as problems and not content.
1 Like
Forcing people to either be shadow banned or closeting themselves by simply not listing a given tag is not an ideal solution to me. Opt in or opt out, that’s what will happen if implemented. There’s also the issue of the fact that this would not be limited to only the tag(s) under scrutiny. It might be the most prevalent tag banned… sorry, muted… but it wouldn’t be the only one.
I think simply putting the information in question behind a spoiler (with a label of one of the default tags) is the best solution.
Granted, the tag list would need expansion as there are extreme kinks that don’t have a default tag and apparently the tags themselves will be under scrutiny.
Look, I get why people would like to pretend that something simply does not exist. I can think of a number of kinks I’d love to not run into. But being able to press a button and erase an entire category of people isn’t equality. It’s jim crows laws made manifest again. Separate but equal is, in fact, not equal.
The comparison of filtering out underage kink content to Jim Crow is ludicrous and unwarranted. Between this and someone else’s invocation of the poem about the Holocaust, I think some of the folks here need to take a step back and recognize that this is no way similar in kind or in severity to either of these, holy shit.
People should be allowed to hide content they know in advance that they don’t wanna see. Character profiles are a type of content.
1 Like