i know the blocking feature is fairly limited by design, but if blocking a person is supposed to keep me from seeing them on the forums... and i instead get their billboards (complete with event interaction link) right smack in the face each time i visit the forums... then it is uh, not doing what i would like it to be doing

A workaround is to hide the billboard and link with adblock, with the advantage that you can do that for users you haven't blocked (I had to do that last Survival as I thought a banner a little off-putting).

With that said, I fully support this. It makes no sense to have an ad of a user someone has blocked shoved in their faces like that. It could also lead to an accidental interaction, if the blocking is recent and the person isn't aware of it yet.

1000% that's why i posted this haha

like my first instinct was "oh i just gotta block that image real quick" and then i saw that they had more than one billboard running and i was like... i did my part? i blocked them so i could stop remembering they exist? i should not have to keep thinking about them + keep an eye out for them so that i can block any new billboards they put up? lmao

I would support this but there is a small caveat. Sometimes people do billboards for others and in that case it technically isn't the blocked users. So maybe it would just have to be a blanket hide of anything flower tot dance .etc with said username.

Can you give a more exact example of what you mean / what kind of billboard you don't think should be blocked?

--

I support this addition to the block feature. I don't have many people blocked, but many of the people I do have blocked have said some really harmful / gross things. I'd rather not see their username for any reason tbh.

I am saying I think it would just have to be a blanket hide of any of the flower tot .etc to the username you blocked. Because people can and have bought billboards for other users to boost their friends getting event currency. So I am saying that if someone has multiple boards it is possible not all of them are tied to their respective account. Does that make sense?

Ah! Okay now I understand what you mean. I thought you meant like linking threads or something.

I think in the grand scheme of things, that if a blocked user submits a billboard, it should be blocked, regardless of where it links / if the intention is helpful or not.

Allowing a bypass is too easily exploitable imho. For example, I could link to your flower link and then in my image say something like "feral wants you to flower Permanent!" And then the person still has to see my username that has me blocked. They should just not see anything I submit at all.

(In the grand scheme of things, a person wouldn't even miss out on too much traffic unless they've been blocked by an insane amount of people.)

Yeah I agree on blocking the blocked users' billboards. I just was also thinking there is still a possibility for the friend billboards. So since when you fill out the link for a billboard, it would/should also include those links to prevent accidental interaction

Ouu, bee's nest. Let me stomp on it a sec:

I still don't get how shops don't count as "accidental interaction" and therefore can't be completely blocked but billboards can be counted as "accidental interaction" and potentially can be completely blocked.

Please make up my mind.

strictly speaking, a click on a user billboard is tracked and attached to their account regardless of where the billboard is linked to (i have billboards linked to the news page and the pumpkin patch, and it tells me how many people have clicked those) so Technically, if the person i blocked had a billboard for their friend, and i clicked it, i would be interacting with the blocked account (which is what blocking is supposed to prevent) even if it was the friend’s flower link or kiss link or whatever. and like feral said, a link is whatever in the face of the blocked person having their name big and bold at the top of the forums each time their billboard comes up. which is what my actual problem is, and which wouldn’t be resolved by only blocking their personal event interaction links.

i had nothing to do with that suggestion so i’m not appreciating your attitude but the difference for me is the shop name doesn’t have the user name but the two billboards i saw have the person i blocked’s name in 20 point bold font impossible to miss, so yeah! i shouldn’t have to see that!

Again not disagreeing. The caveat was the additional part or warning of a situation that blocking just the blocked users' billboards would not cover. That since we pick a link for the billboards, if it involves the blocked user those billboards also be blocked.

I think the situation was trying to account for was different from what you're talking about - I think what they were talking about was where a person that you have not blocked posts a billboard advertising a holiday link of a person you HAVE blocked, rather than the other way around. It seemed to me that they were advocating that, while blocking any billboards created by the user you have blocked, it ALSO block any billboards simply containing the holiday interact link of the user you have blocked, so that you wouldn't see ones that their friend made for them either.

I support this. I agree that their billboard popping up nice and large in your face any time you visit forums isn't in keeping with the goal of blocking someone, wherein you don't have to see their existence on the site.

well that makes a lot more sense than what i read when i woke up, and i would like that too, tho i imagine that would be way more involved than just hiding billboards from a specific user ;w;

( apologies!! i woke up cranky but not coherent :x )

Full support!

I think that would be rather complex, I can see blocking instances of the action code = blocked user (and as a bonus this might also help with the events that have the Random functionality), but I don't see how that solves the problem of seeing the blocked user's name?

So I block userA and (if this is implemented) I won't see userA's billboards, great so far. Then userB makes a billboard that says: "Hey all, please flower my friend userA" and that links to userA's action code. So blocking the action code means if I click on the billboard, I won't be able to "interact" with the billboard, but it doesn't solve the problem of me getting userA's name in my face?

Or am I not understanding how blocking the action code would work?

No worries, I responded to your post at 5 am for myself so I too was probably not coherent. Thanks for clarifying. How I imagine the block to work would be that the block billboard wise would block billboards from said user AND/or billboards that are linked with blocked's username in link or scode. So it would catch the image since you cannot have a billboard without a link (if I remember correctly. Honestly been a while since I used it)

ah, yeah that makes more sense.

Well gee, guess I'm not allowed to put up billboards now...For what it's worth, I never knew billboards bypassed the blocking feature. =/