True Block

Hi I’m just wondering why block is done in a pseudo way where one can still easily interact with the content of blocked users.

Having a true block where all of the blocked users content is unavailable in my viewing experience I feel like is something that would be useful.



Did you set the user as ignored in your settings?


1 Like

yes, you can still see blocked messages (that are folded in between normal discussion so I’m wondering)

1 Like

I think we could benefit from a feature like this. They cant see your posts, you cant see theirs without an override, much like Twitter.


Yea thats along the lines of what I mean.

Even if a two-way block isn’t implemented, I don’t think ignore should continuously suggest that there is content from blocked users, and allowing one to easily read it without changing the block settings.

This is the case with youtube too, if someone blocks someone else they both won’t be able to see each other’s postings unless one of them is a moderator.

I agree could be good for there to be a block feature that is different than the current mute/ignore. I never use those because when I have tried them with a user that is being annoying, I still often read their posts and am annoyed by them when I see there is a button to “show hidden replies.”

Seems like this is more practical for if dealing with a high volume of posting, then would be easier to ignore the footnote about additional comments that may not be worth reading, unless a lot of people express they are upset about whatever was said then it may be a good idea for a moderator to read/respond to that.

Not necessary for users though, especially if they are wanting to not get involved with arguments.

I know this has been requested before, but the thread was closed, thus preventing any discussion or discourse about it.

Saying that blocking people is “detrimental to discussion” is the perspective of men talking to men, not the perspective of women floating somehwere around in this pool of “discussion”. For women, it’s the only way to survive the internet, to exit out of the microaggressions and macroaggressions, to not generate stalkers or vandalizers by having an opinion or calling someone out or whatever else is women’s daily experience.

Suggesting Admins should handle this is like wanting from Admins to fix the world. It’s not possible. We just want to be part of communities and be light-hearted and hang-out with nice people, like everyone else.

There is a reason why there are so many communities with almost zero or zero female participants. And this is one of the biggest reasons: to not being able to pull out of being subjected to certain things.

So, this is my voice for a proper block function. Bonus points if it prevents the blocked person to see the blocking person.


As a 7-year moderator on a Discourse forum, I have to second this request.

Some users really need protection from some abusive posts, while enjoying the rest of the community.
This is especially true for women, in particular in the music field.

Offering the capacity for a user to protect themselves from abusive persons would be a good feature.

A way to do so would be to offer the abused user to hide completely an abusive person’s output and existence, and in the other hand completely hide the protected user’s output for the abusive person.

This would be stronger than the mute functionality, but in my opinion and experience would be enough to answer the need for the abused people to hide and avoid being triggered by the abusive output.

This would only impact the experience for the abusive person, in a way that is not too harmful.

Please take this suggestion seriously, as such situation can be hard to moderate.

I’ll just add a big thank you for what you do, I really love Discourse.


This is a recent open topic on the subject so I’ve slipped your post over to keep them grouped together. :+1: (the more people who describe their different use cases, the more compelling the feature request can be)

I think there is a case to say that topics/conversation can get disjointed when you can only see parts of it (which is why the Ignore feature allows you the choice to open up an Ignored reply in case you may find it relevant rather than blanking it out like it never existed).

I think the Ignore function also prevents direct contact through PMs and Personal Chat as well, but having more power to avoid problematic behaviour, especially when it’s persistent, is something that’s always worth considering.


I do think the fact that a discontinued conversation gets weird for people that get hidden from is not a priority compared to the need from the person that seeks protection. Users that behave peacefully still get the “full experience”.

It’s worth mentioning that a user can be considered abusive by the targeted person only, without the community or the moderators to be aware of it. It is not something that has to be judged, the user that needs protection should get protected if they feel the need, same as one can filter harmful content in the internet.

The Gordian knot would be how to treat replies by third party. I’d be for hiding them as well, for both sides (protected person and abusive person).

Those are some heavy statements what you wrote there.

With discourse the first step is flagging posts if they are inappropriate, then it is the responsibility of moderators to respond to those reports. If moderators are not present or incompetent, those are good reasons for both men and women to abandon those sites.

Anyone can be an administrator of their own site, and therefore immediately terminate the account of anyone who bothers them.


Trust me, we have our share of moderation. But abuse is not black and white, there is a whole blurry zone when a person can feel attacked and needs to disappear, while for anyone else it’s random talk.
For instance, your own message right here can be perceived as shutting someone down. I’m not saying it was your intention. But I wonder if you see it.

Being a woman on the internet is not an easy thing. Being truly conscious of this, as a man, is a long road. Check the video above, I found it eye-opening. It’s a lot of nasty things, from micro-aggressions (often unconscious, such as mansplaining) to the whole stalker stuff, a broad range really.


This theme-component may help. However being aware of hidden content. One should be able to resist the temptation to unhide the content.

There is also a theme component to allow users to block keywords

But I am sure one of the component authors might be able to provide a code snippet to hide the hidden content bar between posts. @JammyDodger might be able to assist on this.

Here is the user blocked words.

Choosing to peak at content that is hidden by your own doing(ignore user) is a choice.

If there is harassment involved blocking/ignore prevents the person from harassing the person who blocked them Otherwise this is also where flagging comes in. (Other community members & mods(

Now that being said the default threshold iirc is 5 ppl ignoring a user. This triggers the system to send the potential toxic user a notification that the community is maybe finding them toxic. The system also notifies the moderators.

I had a user that claimed another user was toxic an his complaint was he could still see replies to the user he blocked. He was able to ignore opening the ignored content.

He demanded that user be banned. The threshold for the community has not been met. Meaning less than 5 members were having an issue with him.

That is why I am in support of also hiding direct reply trees to the blocked user. As some are overly sensitive.

As for the “ignored Content” that can be expanded? This can be remedied with CSS to hide that between posts. For those who cannot resist opening a mystery box

1 Like

Couldn’t agree more.

Being a woman in a heavily male dominated online community can really, really suck sometimes. It’s been this way for decades and it’s so exhausting.

It’s all kinds of little things over and over, and there’s just this pressure to put up with it if you want to participate or be viewed as a peer.

Like, I’m a discourse admin for a very large membership-run, membership-led organization. In our organization, anyone who is a member must have access to our discourse forum. It is the only org-wide communication platform, and is where members go to keep up with what’s happening. So, they cannot be banned, but we have used silencing when necessary. Our members also come from a lot of different backgrounds and generations, and the focus of our organization is such that it tends towards those who love to debate.

Being kind of a condescending mansplainer isn’t an expellable offense, nor should it be. But if there’s a non-male member who’s really tired of a guy who just can’t help but “well, actually” them, they should be able to block them and move on and be done with it. Of course as an admin I know we are working to combat the microaggressions and work really hard to foster a healthy culture, but the OP is right - it is nearly impossible to eradicate.

Just today I made a pretty mild reply in disagreement with a proposed term for what we’d call a team - and received a reply back that almost hit the character limit that explained what a team is, complete with images and diagrams, written as if I had never heard of such a thing. The topic at hand is in my field, and I’ve got decades of experience. I…know what a team is. It is tiring to be condescended to on a regular basis, and this is what it is like for women constantly in so many male-dominated spaces, especially ESPECIALLY if the moderation team is also male-dominated, which…a lot of times it likely is!

Politely, this is an example of what I mean. We are all in this community because, I would assume, we have familiarity with Discourse. I’d bet it’s pretty unusual to post here not having ever participated in a Discourse-based forum! Would you agree that it could likely be the case that the person expressing frustration about the nature of some online communities, who is advocating for a feature to be added to Discourse, on the forum dedicated to discussing Discourse, already knows how flagging works in Discourse?


No, do not see any reasons at all to agree with that.

Should really avoid stereotyping. It is these prejudices that promote disharmony imho. Much like how some people promote only white ppl are prejudice.

Man, woman or other. There are always strong minded folks out there that are condescending about their viewpoints being the only valid ones.

We see the same issue with ppl promoting “Millenials” being the entitled ones. Each generation often feels the next are “entitled” while ignoring other age/generation entitlement issues


You think a person who is clearly more than likely an admin, obviously understands how the current ignore and mute features work, and who is requesting as stronger alternative block feature to what is already available in Discourse - doesn’t already know how the flagging works? :thinking:


Well we do know we have new people come here often. Asking about things in general that already have topics. I do understand ppl’s frustration when answering the same questions over and over again.

While flagging systems are nothing new there are nuances to each platform. Even Discourse with adding Category moderation while mostly similar to a full moderator. To which some think it should give full flag manage permission while I am sure others would be opposed.

We should if practicing “civil Discourse” should avoid presumptions. Even though admittedly it does get tiring. At the peak as essentially a lone moderator volunteer for a company. I was reviewing over 1000 posts/day during their KS when the small community exploded to 6000+ members who were very active. Especially when they were excessively late on delivering. I say lone moderator as their staff practiced almost zero moderation

1 Like