I have had a problem with someone on this site and other. I have kindly said no thank you to a match but the person still kept sending match request. I guess he didn't understand. So unfortunetly I had to use the Block. I am happy that there is that option to use.
@Oilman: Here I thought this was a fighting site. If someone cannot take the minor inconvenience of being blocked by someone, perhaps he's better off on nickelodeon.com.
Everyone agrees that the block function exists to prevent unwanted messages for whatever reason.
However, as can be seen from previous posts here, blocking without messaging is often perceived as rude or bad-mannered, whether or not the blocker meant it as such.
If members aren't happy with those who block in this way we still have a problem to deal with.
No, the block function exists for a reason; to prevent people receiving unwanted messages, for whatever reason. The onus is not on the blocker to justify their actions, nor should it be, bruised egos of complete strangers notwithstanding.
I don't know if it is feasible to set up but the use of the block feature might be controlled as follows:-
A member contacts another, who then replies he is not interested. If the first guy messages again, then and only at this point onward, the block button could be activated and used if necessary.
This would prevent people just automatically blocking without messaging and encourage them to be a bit more polite.
Maybe you were just unlucky - or what did you say to them??
I've been on here over 2 years and only had one block. I found it totally inexplicable as I'd never messaged the guy but looked on it as no loss and perhaps that's the best way to deal with it - be philosophical and move on.
Oilman has a point but on a message system there is no obligation to enter into unwanted dialogue - just delete!
It seems like there is a problem with interpreting people's intentions when blocking.....
Some guys obviously want to stop others communicating with them full stop. I know of other guys who are just using it to filter messaging so that needless dialogue with guys they don't want to wrestle is saved in the future. A lot of guys don't want to do lots of messaging and they only want to wrestle certain others.
Maybe 'blocking' is the wrong word to use; it does have a negative connotation and the word 'filter' could be better. Also there could be a choice of reasons given when you hit the button so that the receiver understands the other's intention.
And surely it's only courteous to have said 'no thanks' before using any block/filter button.
The only time I block someone is when they act like an asshole OR tell me they're not interested. I don't want to inadvertantly send a message to someone who does not to receive it.
It would be nice if people could be more polite, but they have a right to block anyone they want to without giving a reason. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'watch out' for them.
Naming and shaming them is definitely an overreaction. Not everyone is going to be interested in you, but you have to be mature enough to deal with rejection without responding in this way.
wrestlnfool (42)
5/26/2012 3:18 PMI have had a problem with someone on this site and other. I have kindly said no thank you to a match but the person still kept sending match request. I guess he didn't understand. So unfortunetly I had to use the Block. I am happy that there is that option to use.
turpin (71)
3/28/2012 11:35 PMWhat's Nickelodeon.com?
Seriously though, if someone's getting blocked a lot he has to ask himself what he's saying to people, as I'm sure for most it's a rarity.
Personally I find the standard "no interest" reply discourteous, rather than a useful feature - but that's just my opinion!
Ironbull (94)
3/27/2012 8:06 PMI see the guy who originated this has deleted his own profile. Toys out of prams?
brightonbelly (1)
3/25/2012 4:46 PMIt seems to work for the most part, and generally fulfills its function - I don't see a better way of doing this.
SileX (196 )
3/25/2012 7:25 AM@Oilman: Here I thought this was a fighting site. If someone cannot take the minor inconvenience of being blocked by someone, perhaps he's better off on nickelodeon.com.
Oilman (31)
3/24/2012 8:35 PMEveryone agrees that the block function exists to prevent unwanted messages for whatever reason.
However, as can be seen from previous posts here, blocking without messaging is often perceived as rude or bad-mannered, whether or not the blocker meant it as such.
If members aren't happy with those who block in this way we still have a problem to deal with.
Sturdy (31)
3/24/2012 7:53 PMNo, the block function exists for a reason; to prevent people receiving unwanted messages, for whatever reason. The onus is not on the blocker to justify their actions, nor should it be, bruised egos of complete strangers notwithstanding.
Oilman (31)
3/24/2012 8:42 AMI don't know if it is feasible to set up but the use of the block feature might be controlled as follows:-
A member contacts another, who then replies he is not interested. If the first guy messages again, then and only at this point onward, the block button could be activated and used if necessary.
This would prevent people just automatically blocking without messaging and encourage them to be a bit more polite.
turpin (71)
3/23/2012 9:22 PMMaybe you were just unlucky - or what did you say to them??
I've been on here over 2 years and only had one block. I found it totally inexplicable as I'd never messaged the guy but looked on it as no loss and perhaps that's the best way to deal with it - be philosophical and move on.
Oilman has a point but on a message system there is no obligation to enter into unwanted dialogue - just delete!
Oilman (31)
3/23/2012 8:11 AMIt seems like there is a problem with interpreting people's intentions when blocking.....
Some guys obviously want to stop others communicating with them full stop. I know of other guys who are just using it to filter messaging so that needless dialogue with guys they don't want to wrestle is saved in the future. A lot of guys don't want to do lots of messaging and they only want to wrestle certain others.
Maybe 'blocking' is the wrong word to use; it does have a negative connotation and the word 'filter' could be better. Also there could be a choice of reasons given when you hit the button so that the receiver understands the other's intention.
And surely it's only courteous to have said 'no thanks' before using any block/filter button.
Admin
3/23/2012 7:43 AMDear swusafight,
This is not a name-and-shame board. Please don't try to use it as one. It is against the Term of Service §3.
Best regards, Admin.
fmrhugger (17)
3/23/2012 1:56 AMThe only time I block someone is when they act like an asshole OR tell me they're not interested. I don't want to inadvertantly send a message to someone who does not to receive it.
Sturdy (31)
3/23/2012 12:03 AMIt would be nice if people could be more polite, but they have a right to block anyone they want to without giving a reason. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'watch out' for them.
Naming and shaming them is definitely an overreaction. Not everyone is going to be interested in you, but you have to be mature enough to deal with rejection without responding in this way.
untouchable1 (12)
3/21/2012 11:21 PMSome people will do it so paths don't cross when it's already been discussed. May be that, if not, then the last reply :P
Ironbull (94)
3/21/2012 9:32 PMThey have bad manners and worse taste :)
swusafight (0)
3/21/2012 7:30 PMHave had 2 guys recently who I sent messages to and rather than tell me they weren't interested they just blocked me. What's with that?
They are:
(Names removed – Admin)
Watch out for these guys