When to Block, and when to Not

[ajqtrz]

Let's face it, many of the people who should be reading this may have already made it so they don't see it. I'm aware of a propensity for people to be surprised when they encounter a forceful disagreement, forcefully argued. And then, in frustration with not being able to "slay the dragon" get frustrated and decide they just don't want to hear the speaker anymore. That's their right according to the rules of most forums. So here are some ideas about when to block and when not to do so.

When to block.

1) Consistent name calling. Consistent name calling is a pretty good indication that the person isn't interested in discussing anything. This includes anything which puts you down as a person or seems to needlessly call your character into question. Block.
2) Consistent discussion of your motivations. Generally a person attacking your motives is side-stepping the issue and thus, derailing the topic. If they are consistently doing this, Block.
3) Consistent Fallacies. Everybody makes mistakes. Ad Populum, Ad hominem, and other fallacies are common. The best you can do is point them out as they are not useful. Of course the person can deny they are the type of fallacy you think they are (and you could be wrong) but if they are consistent and the person denies them over and over when they are clear, no point in continuing reading bad reasoning. Block.

As I said, everyone makes mistakes. It's the consistency of these things which should lead you to hit "block."

When not to block.

1) Consistent argument. Yep, just because a person continues to argue doesn't mean they should be blocked. Look for argument development. If they are changing their reasoning and ideas it actually means they are engaged in thinking about what the subject. The more people do that, the better. Don't block, read.
2) Forceful argument. Just because they say it strongly doesn't mean they should be blocked. Debate is, at it's best, a platform of intense and powerful arguments striking each other. That produces sparks. Those sparks may light a fire of change in the minds of the listener. A forceful argument? Don't block, read.
3) Emotionally Challenging Arguments. You may not like it, but being wrong is embarrassing. It's painful to have to entertain the idea that you may have been wrong about something for a long, long time. Especially in a public debate where others are watching. Most people who debate in public are what Plato would probably have called "guardians." As such they take a stance and feel they are there to "guard" the position for all those who agree and are watching. They are the "champion" and it's important, therefore, to "win." Sadly that means they may have extra reasons to hold to their position, even to avoid engaging in ideas that are challenging. Nobody likes to publically admit they were wrong, and if you are the "champion" of an idea you lose a lot in doing so. But refusing to listen to emotionally challenging arguments? Don't block, read.

So as long as the first three reasons for blocking are not present, don't block. If you feel tempted to do so, it's probably one of the three "don't block" reasons and maybe blocking isn't such a good idea.

Finally, if you find you are often tempted to block for one of the three reasons given for "don't block" then maybe public debate isn't for you. Real debate is tough slogging and most people find it very distasteful. Everybody want's to be right and nobody want's to be wrong. In a public debate though, you are often revealing you are wrong, and that's not an easy thing. So best to just stay out of it until you have prepared and are ready to stand toe to toe with the other side.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

AJ

 

[Deleted User - 849192770]

i personly would almost never block anyone. All opinions are worth listening to and should be heard even when they're wrong if the person is a stubborn idiot then i would block, i have never blocked anyone though.

 

[NightshadeCS]

I block straight up trolls. There have been a few that drifted through here, though I think they drifted out just as quickly.

However, people can block in whatever fashion they choose. If it helps their mental well-being, that's fine. This is just a game, after all, and I don't think any argument on this forum is going to change our lives in a noticeable way.

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

Let's face it, many of the people who should be reading this may have already made it so they don't see it. I'm aware of a propensity for people to be surprised when they encounter a forceful disagreement, forcefully argued. And then, in frustration with not being able to "slay the dragon" get frustrated and decide they just don't want to hear the speaker anymore. That's their right according to the rules of most forums. So here are some ideas about when to block and when not to do so.

When to block.

1) Consistent name calling. Consistent name calling is a pretty good indication that the person isn't interested in discussing anything. This includes anything which puts you down as a person or seems to needlessly call your character into question. Block.
2) Consistent discussion of your motivations. Generally a person attacking your motives is side-stepping the issue and thus, derailing the topic. If they are consistently doing this, Block.
3) Consistent Fallacies. Everybody makes mistakes. Ad Populum, Ad hominem, and other fallacies are common. The best you can do is point them out as they are not useful. Of course the person can deny they are the type of fallacy you think they are (and you could be wrong) but if they are consistent and the person denies them over and over when they are clear, no point in continuing reading bad reasoning. Block.

As I said, everyone makes mistakes. It's the consistency of these things which should lead you to hit "block."

When not to block.

1) Consistent argument. Yep, just because a person continues to argue doesn't mean they should be blocked. Look for argument development. If they are changing their reasoning and ideas it actually means they are engaged in thinking about what the subject. The more people do that, the better. Don't block, read.
2) Forceful argument. Just because they say it strongly doesn't mean they should be blocked. Debate is, at it's best, a platform of intense and powerful arguments striking each other. That produces sparks. Those sparks may light a fire of change in the minds of the listener. A forceful argument? Don't block, read.
3) Emotionally Challenging Arguments. You may not like it, but being wrong is embarrassing. It's painful to have to entertain the idea that you may have been wrong about something for a long, long time. Especially in a public debate where others are watching. Most people who debate in public are what Plato would probably have called "guardians." As such they take a stance and feel they are there to "guard" the position for all those who agree and are watching. They are the "champion" and it's important, therefore, to "win." Sadly that means they may have extra reasons to hold to their position, even to avoid engaging in ideas that are challenging. Nobody likes to publically admit they were wrong, and if you are the "champion" of an idea you lose a lot in doing so. But refusing to listen to emotionally challenging arguments? Don't block, read.

So as long as the first three reasons for blocking are not present, don't block. If you feel tempted to do so, it's probably one of the three "don't block" reasons and maybe blocking isn't such a good idea.

Finally, if you find you are often tempted to block for one of the three reasons given for "don't block" then maybe public debate isn't for you. Real debate is tough slogging and most people find it very distasteful. Everybody want's to be right and nobody want's to be wrong. In a public debate though, you are often revealing you are wrong, and that's not an easy thing. So best to just stay out of it until you have prepared and are ready to stand toe to toe with the other side.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

AJ

roflol, you are talking £$%%^ at several places, people block you and now you tell them they should not?

Who are you to tell people what to do?
if they don't like you and they want to block you it's there choice. there is no good or bad in this or when you are or arent.

If your posts annoy them and they do not wat to see them it's a good reason to block you.

 

[jesikrey]

Trolls... ugh those deserve to be blocked and tear apart lol

If you are getting to the point where you need to block people.... smh.... you are taking this game waaaay to serious. Like @NightshadeCS stated "this is just a game after all."

Plus this forum is supposed to be fun and helpful!

Lets be happy that we have a place where we can chat and have fun!

 

[SoggyShorts]

As usual, your long-winded argument could be made much shorter.
There is only one question to ask before blocking someone:

"Is reading this poster's comments a positive experience?"

That's it. The "positive" could be new information, humor, a different perspective, or many other things even if they are in total disagreement, something positive can be gained from most posts and it's just up to the reader to determine if the positive outweighs the negative.

If players are blocking you and multiple entire games have given you a lifetime ban from their forums it must be something they are doing wrong?
When repeated conversations with you have actually driven players away from the game forever it's some flaw of theirs?
Or, perhaps you should consider some introspection. Maybe you should write yourself a list called
"How I can change so that people won't block me."

As someone who after many years added you to a completely empty blocked list I must say that that the few times I've clicked this button:

I've gained nothing by doing so. The whole forum has been a more positive experience for me since finally giving up on you.

But there is an upside for you: You'll always get the last word, so enjoy.

 

[TomatoeHu]

Anyone who creates a negative, lasting emotional experience should be blocked by the organization, not just the players.
" It's important to recognize our thoughts and emotions and be aware of the effect they have—not only on each other, but also on our bodies, behavior, and relationships. Negative attitudes and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness can create chronic stress, which upsets the body's hormone balance, depletes the brain chemicals required for happiness, and damages the immune system. The importance of positive emotions:

1. Broaden our perspective of the world (thus inspiring more creativity, wonder, and options)
2. Build over time, creating lasting emotional resilience and flourishing. " *see footnote

The option to Block is a positive emotional response if any player's impact on a community includes:
-negativity
-non inspirational
-irrelevant
-derailing of conversation/ clouds the issues / goes off topic
-diminished enjoyment of others or the game
-un-intelligent, illogical, or imaginary arguments ( debating something they don't actually believe in, playing devil's advocate)

Such behavior is adversely affecting the real conversation for moderators and new players in active threads. Blocking, allows players the choice to no longer be affected by or engage with individuals who negatively impact experiences, environment and restrain the undesired effects that player has on the conversation, and community.

Mental health is everything and if a player gets their kicks from inciting negative emotional responses, hiding behind an invitation to debate, they should be banned from every forum they prey on. If bored, go do a puzzle. Benefiting from another's emotional response is psychotic and if that person still doesn't realize they are doing this, or simply will not accept and amend their approach while engaging with a community, then blocking the player is likely to be the safest, most logical and positive experience an abused player will take away from an abusive environment. Abusers do not have the right to petition or request a response from their victims! If a blocked person cannot accept that their behavior is wrong and seeks no rehabilitation, are a repeat offender, there should be no surprise that a community blocks or bans their activity.

** I did not read AJ's post although i am familiar with what this player's posts are like and choose to not read them because they are never a positive experience, not once. I have now decided to absolutely block this person instead of just scrolling past their posts. No one has the right to question how AJ makes me feel or if that feeling is right or wrong. I follow players like @NightshadeCS and @CrazyWizard who both posted engaging opinions. Discussing whether or not it's ok to block a player found to be dissatisfying to engage with, is utter nonsense. It should be everyone's right to block anyone who lessens their experience in a game or forum regardless of reason, that is at an individual's discretion. I do not have the right to question anyone who blocks me, even if i apologize, that does not lessen or "right" the offense. Imagine the audacity of telling people which motivations are acceptable for choosing not to interact with them.

Thank you to those who actually contribute and help further this game in a meaningful and enjoyable way.

Spoiler: footnote for quotes used

**footnote : University of Minnesota - Taking Charge of your Health and Wellbeing and Dr. Fredrickson "who has spent years researching and publishing the physical and emotional benefits of positivity, including faster recovery from cardiovascular stress, better sleep, fewer colds, and a greater sense of overall happiness. The good news is not only that positive attitudes—such as playfulness, gratitude, awe, love, interest, serenity, and feeling connected to others—have a direct impact on health and wellbeing, but that we can develop them ourselves with practice

"

 

[shimmerfly]

Such a reasonable concise explanation.
Thank you @TomatoeHu
I like this woman!

 

[CrusaderMichael]

"Block".... synonymous with "Safe Space".

No thanks.

There may be times to block someone if they are being nasty or spamming etc, but 9 times out of 10 when I see people blocking online, it's simply because they are thin skinned and just not capable of handling certain social situations properly.

To some, thin skin is a virtue though, so they block, and tell the world like the world cares. No point arguing with such people... even writing OP posts like this aren't going to help. They'll either learn to value free speech or they won't.

They'll either learn not to get so upset over little itty bitty gaming words... or... they won't.

Also... people posting about how they block people, and how good it is they blocked someone, and how glad they are they won't be able to read the blocked person's posts, come off EXTRA thin skinned... even retaliatory.

Another quality I'm happy to say is not a part of my life.

Unless yer a mosquito and you bite me... i'll squish you back.

"Hey everyone I blocked joe shmoe, and i'm so glad, and i can't read his posts !!!".... good for you kid.

Worse than the offenders most times I see this sort of talk, which sadly, is often in gaming. Just picking a fight with someone you say you don't even want to talk to, but while safe spaced in an untouchable corner cuz you blocked them.

Not becoming.

If you want to block someone, block them and then block your own mouth on the person too.

 

[Yogi Dave]

If you want to block someone, block them and then block your own mouth on the person too.

Touché I've deleted my earlier post.

 

[helya]

Forum members are welcome to block whomever they would like for any reason at all. Obviously if you block everyone the Forum will be a dull place, but there are no rules surrounding when it is appropriate to block someone.

People need to do what is necessary for their own sanity. It is not being thin skinned to block someone over excess use of the word "yellow" if the word yellow drives you batty, for instance.

I'd also like to caution all of you to refrain from attacking each other, I'll have to hunt down Xelenia and her delete button.

 

[CrusaderMichael]

Touché I've deleted my earlier post.

OK Helya.

And Yogi... in many ways, life is a series of tests, and all for good cause.

You pass. (bows and exits)

 

[SoggyShorts]

There may be times to block someone if they are being nasty or spamming etc, but 9 times out of 10 when I see people blocking online, it's simply because they are thin skinned and just not capable of handling certain social situations properly.

I get where you are coming from, but this is the 1/10 not the 9/10
If you weren't so new you'd know that almost no one on these forums blocks anyone. The community is almost without exception extremely tolerant and even encouraging of dissenting opinions.

AJ is the exception, and even he was given years of tolerance until he actually started driving players away from he game and enough was finally enough.

He's a solid manipulator and skilled at twisting words in order to fit his narrative but even that would be tolerable if he didn't act like the self-appointed thought police that he does.

Just look at this thread and the opening paragraph. See how he insults his victims by putting them down and then blames them for not liking him.
Your post follows the same line of reasoning, that if someone is blocked it must be that the blocker is thin-skinned, not that the person deserved to be blocked.

If you really want to take a "side" on this, I recommend making an informed decision and if you have a few months read some of his longer posts towards the end of any discussion, especially ones that mods eventually locked to further replies.
Or better yet, just look him up via google and see how other game forums have perma-banned him.

 

[Aritra]

Anyone who creates a negative, lasting emotional experience should be blocked by the organization, not just the players.
" It's important to recognize our thoughts and emotions and be aware of the effect they have—not only on each other, but also on our bodies, behavior, and relationships. Negative attitudes and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness can create chronic stress, which upsets the body's hormone balance, depletes the brain chemicals required for happiness, and damages the immune system. The importance of positive emotions:

1. Broaden our perspective of the world (thus inspiring more creativity, wonder, and options)
2. Build over time, creating lasting emotional resilience and flourishing. " *see footnote

The option to Block is a positive emotional response if any player's impact on a community includes:
-negativity
-non inspirational
-irrelevant
-derailing of conversation/ clouds the issues / goes off topic
-diminished enjoyment of others or the game
-un-intelligent, illogical, or imaginary arguments ( debating something they don't actually believe in, playing devil's advocate)

Such behavior is adversely affecting the real conversation for moderators and new players in active threads. Blocking, allows players the choice to no longer be affected by or engage with individuals who negatively impact experiences, environment and restrain the undesired effects that player has on the conversation, and community.

Mental health is everything and if a player gets their kicks from inciting negative emotional responses, hiding behind an invitation to debate, they should be banned from every forum they prey on. If bored, go do a puzzle. Benefiting from another's emotional response is psychotic and if that person still doesn't realize they are doing this, or simply will not accept and amend their approach while engaging with a community, then blocking the player is likely to be the safest, most logical and positive experience an abused player will take away from an abusive environment. Abusers do not have the right to petition or request a response from their victims! If a blocked person cannot accept that their behavior is wrong and seeks no rehabilitation, are a repeat offender, there should be no surprise that a community blocks or bans their activity.

** I did not read AJ's post although i am familiar with what this player's posts are like and choose to not read them because they are never a positive experience, not once. I have now decided to absolutely block this person instead of just scrolling past their posts. No one has the right to question how AJ makes me feel or if that feeling is right or wrong. I follow players like @NightshadeCS and @CrazyWizard who both posted engaging opinions. Discussing whether or not it's ok to block a player found to be dissatisfying to engage with, is utter nonsense. It should be everyone's right to block anyone who lessens their experience in a game or forum regardless of reason, that is at an individual's discretion. I do not have the right to question anyone who blocks me, even if i apologize, that does not lessen or "right" the offense. Imagine the audacity of telling people which motivations are acceptable for choosing not to interact with them.

Thank you to those who actually contribute and help further this game in a meaningful and enjoyable way.

Spoiler: footnote for quotes used

**footnote : University of Minnesota - Taking Charge of your Health and Wellbeing and Dr. Fredrickson "who has spent years researching and publishing the physical and emotional benefits of positivity, including faster recovery from cardiovascular stress, better sleep, fewer colds, and a greater sense of overall happiness. The good news is not only that positive attitudes—such as playfulness, gratitude, awe, love, interest, serenity, and feeling connected to others—have a direct impact on health and wellbeing, but that we can develop them ourselves with practice

"

I am still here and haven't blocked anyone, despite serious annoyance at some of the arguments that develop from decayed discussion. When I come across another tirade on their soapbox (usually repeated topics), I just move on (regarding multiple forum regulars). Fortunately, I have been around just enough to recognize the repeat aggravators and topics so I don't get drawn in as easily. I scan and make my determination, but not read so deeply as to let it get to me. If it is hostile, I scoff, roll my eyes, and move on.

I am referencing a post I made commenting about my perception of the occasionally toxic environment: https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/cross-tier-trades.25056/post-201539 This is not exactly what was described here, but I was reminded of it when your comments regarding impact on community and mental health aspects resonated. The hostile come-backs drove me to post less often, and I did visit the forum far less frequently for awhile. The whole forum isn't this way by any means, but there were too many "arguments" (as opposed to simple expression of differing opinions) and it stressed me out even to just witness it. Elvenar is a place of relaxation and escape from RL stress, and the forum is a great tool for information and relationships. When visiting the forum created more stress than benefit, it was time to take a break and check in later. It hasn't been quite as bad lately, in my opinion. It is great that this is a place that is open to differing opinions, but some are less respectful in their expression than others, and this is a line I do not tolerate. But, again, I don't block; I just move on to other threads/topics. (added note: among multiple reasons, I do not block because I have the hope that "this time will be different" when I come across those threads and maybe they've caught on, eased their approach. If blocked, I'd never see it.)

 

[hvariidh gwendrot]

i was going to like crusadermichael and yogi dave then realized i'm in the lounge

 

[Aritra]

i was going to like crusadermichael and yogi dave then realized i'm in the lounge

Same. (including SoggyShorts and TomatoeHu)
Went to "like" and was confused by the absence until I remembered I was in the lounge.
(I still think there has to be a way to set up ability to like without affecting the tracking in the main forum.)

 

[hvariidh gwendrot]

i was thinking about going to another thread and liking a comment of theirs there so they got the like credit

 

[ajqtrz]

Forum members are welcome to block whomever they would like for any reason at all. Obviously if you block everyone the Forum will be a dull place, but there are no rules surrounding when it is appropriate to block someone.

I agree. But the reasons to block are not necessarily healthy. Mental health is based upon growth, not upon feeling good and positive about everything you encounter. It's the ability to handle without losing ones sense of balance, whatever comes at you. It's not about an unbroken chain of positive thinking about yourself, especially if situations come up that show your shortcomings. It is a sense of mental balance, and I argue below that blocking people who disagree with you may be undermining the continuance of that sense of balance and thus be very unhealthy.

Now to address some of the problems with other posters reasons.

1. Blocking someone because you don't like them would, I would think, mean they have done something to you that is deserving of being "disliked." If they have done nothing to attack or lessen your self image and reputation then disliking them would be tantamount to refusing to eat your peas. A child does this and his parent(s) or guardian(s) tell him or her to "eat your peas because they are good for you." Well reasoned and strongly presented arguments are healthy, and refusing to "consume" them is just like the child throwing the plate of peas off the table. It's not a mature response. Lack of maturity in an adult is evidence of arrested development, and that is unhealthy.

2. Isolating yourself from ideas and opinions which you don't like means you have a restricted world. Just as a child runs to a "safe" place when scared, blocking somebody who has done nothing to harm your reputation and has stuck to the subject, is a sign of being afraid (and frustrated), not with them, but with your own lack of abilities. A prize fighter does not enter the ring against an opponent he/she feels she cannot beat. In debate when you block you are saying, "I can't handle these arguments and thus, because I feel frustrated, I will isolate myself more." That leads to a circle of mirrors where everyone in your circle of friends, looka and acting just like you. That is not healthy since it does not challenge you to grow. And, in the long run, it often leads to intolerance and, in it's worse form, bigotry.

3. Just being annoyed with a person because they disagree with your point is not a sufficient reason to block them. A healthy debate is one in which all participants feel free to express their understanding, and views about the subject at hand without having to endure personal and acrimonious attacks.. When you start with the personal attacks you are moving toward bullying because instead of tearing down the arguments the other person is putting forth, you are tearing down and harming your opponents reputation.

4. It is unhealthy to shut off communication if the person with whom you are communicating has not attacked you and just has a better and more deeply understood position than yours. If they've stayed on the subject at hand and brought forth forceful arguments for their position, you can learn from those arguments. If you are uncomfortable learning (not necessarily agreeing with) those arguments that is to be expected. But forcing yourself to go back and work out the errors of your opponents arguments means that you will feel more confident and able once you are done. Self worth is like a muscle of the mind. If you don't perform but run from the hard race you never grow and that's unhealthy. But if you do the hard slogging of real discussion and debate, you grow, and that's good for your self image.

Anyone who creates a negative, lasting emotional experience should be blocked by the organization, not just the players.

** I did not read AJ's post although i am familiar with what this player's posts are like and choose to not read them because they are never a positive experience, not once.

I do not have the right to question anyone who blocks me, even if i apologize, that does not lessen or "right" the offense. Imagine the audacity of telling people which motivations are acceptable for choosing not to interact with them.

You quote the following as characteristics of a positive attitude.

1. Broaden our perspective of the world (thus inspiring more creativity, wonder, and options)
2. Build over time, creating lasting emotional resilience and flourishing. " *see footnote

Which are true. But what the person is speaking about is a habitual state of emotions, not an individual experience or set of experiences. The "negative attitude" is internal to the thought processes of the individual and are what they take into the experience. When he says "positive attitudes" he is not speaking of our reactions to the experience but our state of mind going into the experience. This is in keeping with the research. Notice that it based upon our sense of mental health -- that we can handle whatever is coming our way.

More to the point, when you emphasize, that "Anyone who creates a negative, lasting emotional experience should be blocked by the organization, not just the player" are you including just plain being proven wrong? If I woke up tomorrow and argued a position and you came along and proved my position wrong, could that not create in me "a negative, lasting emotional experience?" If so, should Tomatohu therefore be blocked by the organization? In other words, it's not the experience of the reader that should determine if the organization blocks that person, but if the words are themselves of a nature that attacks the reader personally.

The whole section on abuse is sad. It's called poisoning the well because you link the arguments made with "abuse" and imply the motives for making the arguments are psychotic. Thus, poisoning the well and an ad hominem fallacies.

When you quote "Negative attitudes and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness" you are right. All the research over the last 30 years has demonstrated the positive effects of positive thinking. But the "helplessness and helplessness" of which those many studies speak is a "helplessness and hopelessness" derived from a negative self image. It is what the person takes into the situation, which is positive or negative, not the experience of the situation. In other words, mental health is about having the mental stability to believe you can handle what comes your way. I would argue that isolating yourself form the growth inherent in rubbing up against those who oppose your ideas, beliefs, even feelings, does not build a positive self image because it does not give the person experience in handling the negative. The cancer patient with a positive attitude does not refuse to admit he/she has cancer, but uses the positive self image to give themselves the courage to face the treatments. Thus, running from a debate may be a sign of a negative self image. Not healthy.

In the end you have an incorrect understanding of the research on positive attitudes in medicine and allow yourself to become emotionally engaged in your writing (thus devolving into fallacious reasoning). Honesty is, itself, a great way to build self image because if you are honest and admit you have problems you can work on them. You can be mindful of them. And that's a healthy thing too.

@SoggyShorts

You ask, "If players are blocking you and multiple entire games have given you a lifetime ban from their forums it must be something they are doing wrong?" It's a good question, but I do have to ask what "multiple entire games have given [me] a lifetime ban from their forums?" I am aware of one which did after a long debate. They were taken to task in the courts and we won the case of breech of contract since they could show no posts of mine in violation of the rules. Since that's the only one of which I'm aware, "multiple" must mean you know of others. Please let me know what they are. It shouldn't be hard since where I've played and forums where I have posted are no more than 5 or 6. You've made a claim, how about providing the evidence? If you can I'll admit to the claim, if not, how about explaining why you made such a strange claim? Thanks.

AJ

 

[Kekune]

But the reasons to block are not necessarily healthy. Mental health is based upon growth, not upon feeling good and positive about everything you encounter.

It is a sense of mental balance

I was gonna stay out of this, but this bit REALLY hit me.

Please don't judge. You're making some pretty bold assumptions with your posts, and you have no idea what people are doing or need in order to maintain their mental health.

For a lot of people going through tough times, this game is an escape. It's a place we come for positivity. That doesn't mean we're burying our heads in the sand, or demanding that the world only show us the nice things. For a lot of us, this positivity IS the balance to other difficulties. There's enough hard stuff happening in the world without making this difficult, too. If someone finds a person in an online game forum stressful, they should by all means block them - we often can't escape the other sources of stress in our lives, so it's ok to control it where we can.

Games should be fun. I, for one, didn't come here for personal growth and have plenty of opportunity for that elsewhere.

 

[Aritra]

I was gonna stay out of this, but this bit REALLY hit me.

Please don't judge. You're making some pretty bold assumptions with your posts, and you have no idea what people are doing or need in order to maintain their mental health.

For a lot of people going through tough times, this game is an escape. It's a place we come for positivity. That doesn't mean we're burying our heads in the sand, or demanding that the world only show us the nice things. For a lot of us, this positivity IS the balance to other difficulties. There's enough hard stuff happening in the world without making this difficult, too. If someone finds a person in an online game forum stressful, they should by all means block them - we often can't escape the other sources of stress in our lives, so it's ok to control it where we can.

Games should be fun. I, for one, didn't come here for personal growth and have plenty of opportunity for that elsewhere.

*thumbs up*

(no like button... yet)