Ignoring A User Prevents Them From Posting In Your Thread
Threads are too often spammed by users I have on ignore. If I create the thread, ignored users should be prevented from posting in my thread.
Francis Clark commented
Ignoring someone only affects content you see, not what they can see. https://trap-thecat.com
Maryam Batool commented
What I appreciate most about MyAsianTV( https://myasiantv.com.pl/ ) is its commitment to providing high-quality subtitles in multiple languages. It allows viewers from all around the world to immerse themselves fully in the beauty of Asian storytelling, regardless of language barriers.
Celine Dion commented
You may want to review the platform's settings to see if there are any options to block or restrict specific users from interacting with you or your posts.https://foodlewordle.io
Lurker Bee commented
If I have a user on Ignore, that user should be blocked from posting in a thread I make. THIRD TIME requesting this. Quickly losing motivation to make threads knowing it will sabotaged and bombarded by trolls. THANK YOU.
The response from 7 years ago used flawed reasoning. If PTer B creates a new account (let's call it PTer C) then PTer A need merely block that account as well. As for saying PTer B can log out to read what PTer A posted they're still blocked from replying to the posts (which is the root of the problem: harassment).
This would fix a seriously broken system where malicious users can (and do) harass other PTers.
Ignore (as currently implemented) does not work. A malicious user knows very well that they will be quoted by other users, and also knows they have free reign to derail any thread that the ignoring party starts and/or posts in.
Follow the protocol that social media platforms have adopted by implementing a blocking ignore that not only prevents you from seeing their posts but that also prevents them from seeing yours!! The current method is outdated and highly flawed.
Someone proposed this idea 7 years ago and PT Support Desk shot it down despite it getting 146 votes. Their reasoning at the time was flawed.