Hookup, Find Sex or Meet Someone Hot Now
Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
Hookup, Find Sex or Meet Someone Hot Now
| Blogs > community > AFF Headquarters |
Blocking Members - Need Your Input
|
Blocking Members - Need Your Input Take the Poll I've been hearing from you that Blocking a member isn't really effective. Many people are saying that a member can still read your blog and they shouldn't be able to. Right now you can Block the Flirts and Messages from any individual member. I think the correct change is to block them site wide. They can't see your profile, see your blog or find you in search. Basically you fall off the face of CityHookups.com as far as they are concerned. Now I'm having a little trouble convincing my bosses that we need to make this change. It's a pretty big one to implement. The more input I get, the more ammo I have. So I want to hear from you. How important is blocking a member site wide to you? If you have other ideas, please leave them in the comments. Take the Poll  |
|||||||
|
When I first started on CityHookups.com I had two different stalkers. To be able to totally block them would allowed me to end the harrasment long before I did. They should not be allowed to read my profile or blog. Donna Someday is today.
| ||||||
|
I recently had to close my blog to my friends network solely because of people the fact that blocking only censors - it does not block. I tried for about two years to ask this person to not visit - that they were not welcome - I finally had enough as this sight has done nothing to prevent blocked members from becoming blog lurkers and stalkers. They are still able to view profile - still able to read your blog - still able to find out what is going on in your life if you choose to write about it... Still able to "stalk" you the only thing that cannot do is comment. Blocked should mean just that - not able to have anything to do with seeing the profile. Additionally the censoring or as CityHookups.com refers to it as blocking - does not stop the blocked person from voting in polls. There is a particular blogger that has disagree votes on all of her posts from a person she blocked. I guess censoring the person only means words not voting ability. The entire idea of blocking an CityHookups.com member is nothing but a piece of duct tape placed over their mouths...It does nothing more than that and it is not blocking or banning a member. I am a gold member who is mostly here to blog. Changing the setting on my blog to friends certainly makes paying for the privilege something that I probably won't continue when my membership is up. I have 54 people who are my friends that is a lot of money to spend when I could do the same thing for free on another space. Again this is because CityHookups.com considers censoring - to equal blocking or banning - it is not equal. It is sadly lacking in being effective.   Star light, Star Bright, First star I see tonight, I wish I may, I wish I might, have this wish I wish tonight: Find me the man who when he sees me, his heart fills with joy, a man who wants to tell me about his day, a man who will text me just say, Hi - I was thinking about you, a man who knows I make his life better by being a part of it.
| ||||||
|
Yeah I think that it would help people who do have the stalker thing going on, but also reduce tension on the site as a whole, there is a lot of tension and personality clashes that happen because people butt heads.... if blocking another member would result in people disappearing in a manner that takes that contact away.... out of sight, out of mind.....
| ||||||
|
The idea might be nice in principle but unless other policy changes are implemented it would be impossible. The only effective way to do it would require a high level of assurance on the identity of each member. Currently it is very easy to create fictitious secondary accounts. Even with assured identity, friends of a malefactor could still pass on the information found in a blog. The only way you can implement something partially effective is to require identification for membership and ban the person who is causing problems. This requires that you take sides in fights between members which I suspect you really don't want to get involved in. All you can do currently is to revoke membership of anyone causing problems each time they create a new handle and hope they get tired of it.    The perversity of the universe is unbounded.
| ||||||
|
i would like to block people directly from pages sent on the IM...even trying to find people on my viewers list is difficult, as i can't seem to see to the bottom of the list...(when i am on cam) it's usually when i am on cam and getting annoying or abusive comments from men that i notice who i would like to ban or block...so, would be good if i could click on their page and have the option to block them from there... that would make my camming experience soo much better!
| ||||||
|
I think that once a member has been blocked they should no longer have access to you in any way, including reading your blog. I have blocked members that still read my blogs, and as for the cyberstalkers, giving us as many tools as we can to stop them from interfering in our lives would be great. Thanks for asking us our oppinion about this, it is a very important issue.
| ||||||
|
 Blocked Means Blocked! By handle and IP! Does the site management really not understand this? CityHookups.com Parody Of a Real Sex Site 
| ||||||
|
Just say no. I agree that the ability should be there for members to completely block unwanted attention from others.
| ||||||
|
Given the nature of this site, privacy and security should be a priority in all regards. Disgruntled members, stalkers, trolls, harassers of any sort should not have access to those they wish to bother. Why should they? It only seems to escalate the problems and there is a blanket of worry over the "victims" head and they can no longer fully enjoy this site and often wind up leaving. What possible purpose can it serve to allow these people access to those that don't want them around? It's not as if there aren't thousands or millions of others for them to find fun with. Right?
| ||||||
|
Too many sic and immature people on here. Blocking would allow many members to stay.
| ||||||
3/19/2009 4:22 am |
Blocking means more security. I agree with MichaelAngelo. He said it perfectly well. Inteligencia=erotismo 
| ||||||
|
It would be GREATLY appreciated if when we blocked someone they were blocked across the board... no looking at our profiles, no reading our blogs, no searching for us, no being able to SEE us at all or following us around.
| ||||||
|
The only thing I HAVE to do is eat, shit, and die. Everything else is a choice.
| ||||||
|
While some changes are in order...I have a slightly different opinion - It's obvious many simply agree (in entirety) w/the "popular" respondents & consensus on here. I personally feel if you ban an individual they should not be able to interact w/you verbally or in writing, Voting/Polling/Camming/Pages/IMs inclusive  I however don't agree they should be unable to view your blog unless it's set to "Friends Only". We further have the option of making any single post as "friends only" so what purpose does it serve to hide all posts from a member unless you've written something inflammatory? This would just leave the door open to throw each other under the bus w/o recourse. As it stands when a member slanders or otherwise abuses another we can request a review of their post & removal as applicable  W/o accountability flagrant disregard is inevitable. I like the idea of the IP ban w/escalated features dependent on level of harassment. That way habitual abusers may be excluded from accessing the site completely or at least in direct proportion to how they use/abuse it. Yes this goes on w/even "respectable" longtime bloggers - Gold, Silver & Standard. Shocking I know *smirks*  Closing a blog or even a post is limiting to the blogger who may be at no fault in the situation. Why should they have to change their own space to accommodate trouble makers? Even if you close individual posts there is still the problem of comments. They are still viewable by anyone unless set to pending. Standard members can only use the quote feature and any comment by the blog owner is visible by anyone. Only the respond keeps things private. Not only that, in the pending mode, the network friends commenting cannot see what others leave as a comment. Again, more limitations on someone who may be guilty of nothing. The shift has got to go back to the trouble makers and leave the blocker their full use of the site with as little disruption as possible. While we can report posts and such for abuse, there are many that have become gifted in pushing the limit and yet not technically crossing it, while still managing to do their desired damage. Also, reporting abuse doesn't guarantee it being removed or removed before the desired damage is done. I do like the idea of escalated abuse levels.
| ||||||
|
The general opinion is blocked is blocked is better. No half measures, for half measures avail us nothing. If you have to go to the lengths to block someone, obviously you don't want them involved with you at all, obviously for a good reason. Please make the change.
| ||||||
|
yes, would be really great if my whole profile would be invisible to people I choose, there are reasons why I've blocked some people... A bit weird when someone I've blocked has been writing testimonials for me (surely not published...), checks my profile daily, and so on. Or then gives me bligs etc. Have noticed that in 'my blocked list' some boxes don't stay ticked even if ticked several times. To my mind ALL the features on the site, incl testimonials and blings and profile views, should be blockable. Only universal or also in Scotland Where to start my day or is it month Of course I39ll change I39ll do whatever you like Heatseeking missiles  Squirter's life
| ||||||
|
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT _MichaelAngelo JUST SAID AND COULD NOT SAY IT BETTER ALWAYS LOOK FORWARD THE PAST WE CANNOT CHANGE BUT THE FUTURE IS OUR,S TO WRITE     
| ||||||
|
OK I'm simply gonna say...what Michael said  cant really put it any better myself so I'm not gonna try! _MichaelAngelo_ knows best so listen to him Darla 
| ||||||
|
i would like to block people directly from pages sent on the IM...even trying to find people on my viewers list is difficult, as i can't seem to see to the bottom of the list...(when i am on cam) it's usually when i am on cam and getting annoying or abusive comments from men that i notice who i would like to ban or block...so, would be good if i could click on their page and have the option to block them from there... that would make my camming experience soo much better!
| ||||||
|
If all the offenders has "static IP addys" it would be in the realm of possibility, however most ISP's do not have "static IP's" for their users...sorry to play devils advocate here...but it's just the way things are...and the current blocks on this site are woefully inadequate...especially in the realm of the IM...they are only good for that session...in chat rooms the ignore list only makes their input invisible to you...not to others in the room...just sayin... W.D.
| ||||||
|
If we look at things in their most simplistic: The site: They want as many members as they can and paying at that. The members as a whole: Want some measure of safety, peace, harmony and fun w/o limiting themselves to trouble makers. Troublemakers: You can't realistically get rid of them, but you can make things difficult for them. How do you combine all three? You really can't. It would probably be a programming nightmare to even contemplate. The best you can do is keep the majority of the "good" members happy with the best you can do and that may be a graduated banning and include a "no see" ban to the given troublemakers. For every possibility, there will be problems and you have to select which allows the most freedom to the people at the least inconvenience to the site. Like [blog WALawGal] said, you will have the "he said, she said" battles and the site won't want to involve in those. The blogging community does tend to police itself, but the site has got to step in at times and just say enough is enough and yes, that does put them in the parental position. There will always be those who abuse any aspect of this site for their own purposes. You can only make them as uncomfortable as possible and hope they remove themselves or get tired of their nonsense when they don't get what they want. Frankly, I don't see why this should be a hard sell to the folks upstairs. If I'm not mistaken, internet stalking is being taken more and more seriously these days, some actions considered illegal and it is only in the sites best interest to put better measures in place. Members will have more confidence in being here and will be more likely to pay. I'd bet if you look at your numbers, the dollars, more members renew a paid membership to have greater access to the blog features than even the ability to view and e-mail profile. Or at least damn close. Ok, I could be totally wrong on that, but seriously, look at how many members pay that have blogs? This site is unique. I think everyone realizes that. We have such freedom of expression here that you can't find anywhere else. This community made up of its members, regardless of which functions they use, are a community. Leaving or not renewing a paid membership is a definite concern to the site and without a better ban plan being implemented, the trouble makers make it more likely that you will see less dollars. This listings by _MichaelAngelo_ seem to have covered pretty much everything that we could reasonably hope for. It's not perfect, but certainly it should be doable? Perfect would be trouble makers don't exist in the first place.
| ||||||
|
It is difficult to add anything new to posts that are so cogent and comprehensive. CityHookups.com needs to rethink and retool how it protects its members or people will continue to leave the site. Blocking someone from contacting you should be complete, not simply a band-aid. It does need to be restated that making blogs "friends only" is completely defeating the purpose of making new contacts and meeting new people. Personally, I rather enjoy looking through the most recent posts from time to time just to see if someone new has started a blog or if someone has made a post that particularly intrigues me. It isn't about following the most popular blogs, rather it is about following the ones that I'm most interested in. Having blog after blog come up as "friends only" is a source of frustration to me. I'm losing out but I believe they are as well. Where there is a will there is a way. I hope your IT people don't have a defeatist attitude about this. They are supposed to be SMARTER than the creeps and stalkers out there. They are supposed to be problem solvers and innovators. They are supposed to be able to think outside the box. Please don't rest until your membership on this site feels safe. rc
| ||||||
|
Well if the blocked member can still read the blog why the site give us the obtion to block the member.If the meber is blocked he/she must not read these.Because when you use the block button it means you dont want the member to see your activities to read what you have written in your blog.
| ||||||
|
I just want to point out what a couple of members said about the fake profiles that are being created. Often these fakes steal and use other members photos. To stop or prevent this from happening why don't CityHookups.com print your username or handle in the corner of every photo you upload to your profile? Surely this would stop photos being copied and used on fake profiles? I have read a few blogs where members have complained about this. Other sites use this as a precautionary measure so why not CityHookups.com?
| ||||||
|
So I'm drawing up the functionality for this right now. Getting into the specifics of how it works. Here's one problem I can't figure out. Say you block me. Then you go over to Cozy_Red's blog and leave 5 comments. After your 5 comments, Cozy's blog now has a total of 25 comments. Everyone sees that the blog has 25 comments. But then I (the person you blocked) goes over to Cozy's blog and starts reading. I can't see your comments, so I only count 20 comments when it said 25 at the top. Then I get angry and call CityHookups.com a fraud and demand that they fix it. The most logical thing would be to show me (the blocked person) just the count of 20 comments on the top. This is, according to my tech doods, too complex of a function to do. It will drag the site and slow it down when 100,000 of these happen at the same time. I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Open to any suggestions. However, if that doesn't work, I agree with curious1_4U that the count shouldn't really matter to anyone but the blog owner and furthermore, the person blocked will get the hint that their behavior was intrusive. The site could also e-mail everyone or have a section in the help to describe this action. It will happen that there are people that will over ban members without good cause, but who are they really hurting but themselves? They will get fewer and fewer people interacting with them. Is it an IT nightmare? I'm not a programmer so I wouldn't have a clue. I suspect not easy, but well worth the effort.
|
Become a member to create a blog
