Currently users you block can still see your posts, reply to those posts, and trigger notifications when they do reply.
You can read the beginning of messages people you have blocked in your notifications tab, but have to unblock users to see the rest of what everyone else reading the replies to your post can see.
A “blocking” feature that is only inconvenient to the blocker is worse than no blocking feature at all, equivalent to trying to escape a fistfight by turning invisible but actually just closing your eyes.
I’m guessing that when you’re losing an argument, you like to post a response and then block the other person so you get the last word, then convince yourself that the other person was a “sealion” or something. Reddit’s block system is primarily used that way. If you don’t like how blocking works here, I recommend Reddit.
I personally came here to get away from Reddit’s “features” like private downvotes and silencing people who disagree with you, because they promote exactly the kind of toxic discussion I want to avoid.
If you’re being harassed, report it.
No, I just like to be able to end conversations when a person engages in bad faith for over 10 hours.
You don’t need to block someone to end a conversation. Just say “you’re acting in bad faith, and I’m done here”, then stop replying to them. They’ll most likely reply to you once or twice, and that’ll be it. And if you use kbin’s block function, you’ll never even know.
If you’re engaging with someone who is acting in bad faith for that long, you’re most likely trying to convince the audience that the other person is wrong. If the fact that they’re arguing in bad faith 10 hours in isn’t abundantly clear to any person with half a brain reading your thread, then maybe they’re not acting in bad faith and they just disagree with you on something you feel strongly about.
Also, you kind of said the quiet part loud there. “Engaging in bad faith” isn’t, in and of itself, the same as harassment. I’m sure that there are individual communities on kbin where critics of particular ideas and ideologies are silenced, and if that’s what you need in order for your ideas to stand, then I’d suggest staying in those communities. The general consensus here seems to be that if you’re out arguing in public and someone isn’t actually harassing you (even if they disagree with you in a way that you believe constitutes “bad faith”), then they should be allowed to speak. Reddit’s toxic climate has just been exacerbated by their bad block feature, because now the motivation when you get into an argument is to be the first to block so that you’re guaranteed to have the last word. It doesn’t lead to useful discourse.
Bare minimum, if you want block to function this way, then you should have to delete any un-replied-to comments of yours in order to be able to do it so as to remove the perverse incentive to abuse the feature to “win” arguments. I’m sure you’d find that agreeable?
I just told someone to fuck off when it became clear they weren’t engaging in good faith and then they started sexually harassing me.
I’d like to not have to put up with that, nor have the solution be “if you don’t run, they can’t chase you”.
If the mods/admins failed to act on your report of sexual harassment, delete the offending comment, and ban the person as appropriate, that’s the issue you should be taking up in this thread, not demanding carte blanche to silence anyone you disagree with.
I just want to keep bad actors from replying to me.
People have strange ideas about what people should be expected to put up with in here.
Why not start up your own fediverse instance and make it that way, then?
Then block em and forget about them. Why you care or gotta control what goes on at their end?
“Funny you should say that when I happen to know you fuck dogs.”
And that’s what everyone reading the back-and-forth will see undisputed as the last message in the thread.