Yeah, see...fine if I can Marcie or unMarcie a whole poster just by clicking on one post of theirs, convenient and all, but if I just want to see that post, but not any of their usual stuff?
I'm not sure I'm getting the point of post-level vs. user-level blocking, but that may be just a matter of how I imagine the process flowing. In my mind, it goes,
1. I don't like poster X, so I block him/her
2. There is either (a) a kerfuffle or (b) something that looks interesting in reference to a particular one of his/her posts.
3. Using the link in the post header, I unblock him/her and read.
4. When I'm done, if I haven't changed my mind and decided X is a misunderstood genius, I block him/her again.
This does require an "unblock" link in the header rather than going to another page, and I'm very much in favor of that either way, but it's not like unblocking for one post requires me to go back and read all of X's past stuff. I guess I'm not seeing why it requires a separate feature aside from blocking/unblocking.
Apologies for the borderline-ooky use of "process" and "flow" btw.
Cool. I was thinking like meara, that I'd want to be able to unblock a single post, but Jon and Amych's explanation works for me.
There is nothing ooky about process or flow, grumble, but otherwise I'm with amych.
There is nothing ooky about process or flow
Nothing at all ooky about the, uh, process. I was just looking over it before I hit "post" and said, "ooh, buzzword!".
amych needs to revocabularize her paradigm.
Good of you to give amych pushback on that, Jon.
it could be designed so that "unblock-a-post" would be an add-on. That is, let's get the block-a-poster-and-all-his/her-posts done first. Adding the unblock-a-single-post wouldn't require us to undo what had already been done.
In terms of my usage patterns at TT, I don't see the value in separating them. I block user X, and I'm good with that, except that someone reacts to post #1557, and I want to go and see what that post says. I do
not
want to unblock the poster, I just want to know what this particular kerfuffle is. I don't want to set up a scenario where I have re-blocking overhead to do after I click to read that post.
I think we need to sunset our outdated terminology and repurpose ourselves.
I see ita's potential usage.
In the blinvisible message, I'd prefer there not be a link, what with the eye-catching and all. At that point, I've already taken the action. Perhaps a link to the putative relevant faq portion elsewhere?
I think the best-of-breed experience we're blue-skying here will be extensible into new vocabularistic domains by EOY.
