Reply #294: Just For Sake Of Accuracy, It Isn't The Admins Allowing That. It's The Poster Themselves.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

It is each poster's choice as to whether to block back or not, so it would also be their choice to allow the poster to continue to reply even though they have blocked the original poster.

This is one point that has perplexed me a little, because the poster who was blocked and upset at the other poster still being able to reply, acts upset that the blocker is able to continue to do that but proclaims "I will not block them back on principle. I don't block people" etc. Yet they don't hesitate in the same breath to demand that the Admins or mods include a feature to force the other person to not be able to reply. What's the difference? How can one act like they are standing on principle by not blocking back in reciprocation, yet find it acceptable to ask the Admins to do it for them? It's the same outcome isn't it?

Way I see it, since the poster still wouldn't be able to reply back, then it is in fact a reciprocal block no matter who engaged it; the originally blocked poster or the admins. So if a poster is going to complain that they are blocked but the blocker can still respond, why wouldn't they just block them back? Either they don't want them to be able to reply or they do. If they choose not to block in reciprocation, I don't really think they have a principled leg to stand on in demanding that the Admins force them to not be able to do such. Like I said, the premise is a bit perplexing to me.

So when it really comes down to it, the only one allowing a blocker to continue replying to a blocked person's posts is the poster who was blocked themselves. They already have the power to stop the practice, they are just choosing to not use it.