That's always going to happen when many people are around. It's not like in good ol' 2010, the review section was occupied solely by wise sages writing paragraphs after paragraphs of stellar constructive feedback.

Doesn't mean it's time to drop the review guidelines as the ideal standard, or rename the section to comments. It's for the author's benefit after all, and as long as there are at least some people who tell the author something useful, it matters.

Where the hell is this option to select and choose which stuff you want to block out? Is this a Supporter-only feature?

If you block someone on the forum you get a prompt that asks to block him just on the forum, on everything, or to just select which things you want to block them from

That explains it, because none of the people I've blocked are commonly on the forum.

I am in favour of blocking reactions and reviews when you block someone. If someone has you blocked then they don't want to engage with you, this also goes for if you block someone. In that case you have effectively told them you no longer wish to contact or engage with them and you certainly don't want to see their username.

If you want to react or review their things, then you are attempting to contact them as they'll be notified of your reviews and reactions. If you blocked someone and you saw their name in your works, that wouldn't make you want to stay on NG, as it showcases people can circumvent the blocking system fairly easily to continue their harassment, not to mention purposely giving you lower score/review than what a work may actually be.

People who are blocked are often with good reason, and blocking reactions and reviews avoids encouraging stalking the content of a user who has you blocked, or you may have blocked. It's so very easy to call people 'snowflakes' if you haven't been part of targeted harassment before, maybe the snowflake is the one crying about being blocked in the first place, who knows.

I have already addressed these points, multiple times now. It's almost as if people don't bother to read. I have suggested, again multiple times now, that people who have others blocked not receive notifications from the blocked parties since, presumably, they do not wish for these interactions. You should be able to leave reviews or reactions and at the same time not have it being abused. If you are still going through everything, despite not receiving notifications, just to find things to get angry, triggered, or annoyed about, this seems like a you problem. It should be easy enough to ignore.

Also, I can't speak for anyone else, and surely people can be asses and just zero-bomb everything their "enemies" make, but I have already gone in-depth into why I do not do that, as I don't think it's very fair. Also, people can already zero-bomb things as-is anyway, and there are people who do, or even people who have used multiple accounts to do so. Preventing people from reviewing or reacting to reviews does not prevent this in the slightest. In fact you have not suggested any remedy for this problem.

And people are also often blocked without good reason. And there are a lot of snowflakes out there who can't take the slightest hint that they or their works may be anything less than perfect, and may need improvement, without going into full meltdown mode. The immaturity levels of some people are insane these days.

I certainly don't encourage stalking and if anyone is stalking people, then they're very lame at the least. Again, if it's actual harassment, that can be flagged, and those users banned. I don't see why good reviews and responses need to be removed just to satiate some snowflakes' over-sensibilities though, or make people appear artificially more popular than they are (since it's an easy way to weed out opposition and make it look like everyone agrees with you).

But alright let it be known you are in favor of censorship, and let people view you accordingly.

I really don't care if people block me so go ahead and block me if it suits you. If you're too offended about what I might have to say, I think that speaks more about you than about me. I just think it's bullshit that it effectively creates a censorship of public opinion. I'm against censorship, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of harassment or whatever other strawman arguments people might care to make about the topic.

Already addressed:

Harassment -- these users get banned

Don't want the notifications -- won't get the notifications

In b4 others repeat yet the same already-repeated points.

By the way, I went in to my own block list and went down the list and individually toggled off for "Portals" and "Reviews" on everyone on my block list. I'm not entirely sure what "Portals" means but I assume it has something to do with the submissions. If this is enough to allow blocked users to give reactions and reviews, or if anyone could elaborate more that would be great.

I certainly don't wish to be any sort of hypocrite, and I do abide by what I say, or at least try to. So if I've blocked you and you wish to give negative reactions to all my reviews or something, have at. It should be your right.

While the blocks remain in place for PMs, chat, newspost, etc...

A forum post is for discussion, don't get antsy if people respond to it. Ironically your "don't say the same things b4 other repeat it" mentality is more censorship inducing to those who disagree with you more than what anything I said has been. This isn't exactly a post with the most room for different lines of discussion, so of course you are going to bring people here who will either agree or disagree. I am someone who clearly disagrees. It's hilarious that your response to this is to try and get me to block you?

You talk about censorship a lot but I don't think you know what that means.

Blocking Someone:

Blocking someone is often personal. This typically refers to an action taken by one person to prevent another person from interacting with them. The primary purpose of blocking is to protect oneself from harassment, unwanted communication, or other negative interactions. Reactions and reviews on their work is breaching communication. Blocking is a personal choice and is usually done by individuals to create a safer and more comfortable online environment for themselves. They aren't snowflakes because of this. Newsflash, but your opinion isn't that important to people who don't want to converse or see you.

I really don't care if people 'block for no reason', the reason why has no bearing on their right to make their area for those they only want to engage with. A user decided they don't want to interact with you one day, that's their choice. Why make reactions and reviews accessible to those a person has blocked if once again, they'll just be flagging spam and harassment for unwanted comments they are receiving?

Now, imagine if the situation above happened to every person on this website who has blocked someone - this will just overburden volunteer moderators and add unnecessary stress on them. Why do that when NG can just block reactions and reviews to those who have been blocked by a user outright and never have to deal with that issue at all? Simple. People who zero bomb can be reported, it's most likely easy to track, new accounts activities are also easy to track if it's made just for harassment and it's not on me to find a solution, that's on the developers. But you suggesting to make reactions and reviews available to blocked users will exasperate the situation you concern-troll about here even more, as instead of making new accounts it gives harassers even more avenues to continue it without even having to log out.

I've never met a person in my life who has blocked someone and thought "Oh yeah, I'd love to hear their opinion on my art!" They have every right to curate the experience they want and that's not censorship just because the people they blocked aren't a part of their desired experience.

Censorship:

Censorship, on the other hand, is a broader concept that involves controlling or suppressing information from the masses usually by an authority or institution.

Someone blocking you (including reactions and reviews) is an individual telling you they don't want you or your opinion near them. If you can't grasp that concept then this is exactly why this needs to be a thing.

Blocking is a self-protective measure taken by individuals to manage their own interactions, while censorship involves the control of information flow by an authority or institution for broader societal reasons. What is happening in Russia and North Korea is censorship.

While both concepts involve limitations on communication, the motivations, scale, and mechanisms behind them differ significantly.

Not sure why you're barking up this tree personally. The system is working as intended and you're in the minority. The layered option to pick and choose the level of how and where a person is blocked is already way more nuance than other sites give you. You come off like you just want the freedom to leave graffiti on peoples accounts who want nothing to do with you. The whole project system thing is admittedly pretty funny though but it follows the safest logic. Dont be an asshole or argumentative with people, or annoying and people wont block you. I'm one of the most openly blunt/hostile people on this site and yet the people who have me blocked will fit on one hand.

Be respectful with your reviews and people wont block you. You can give criticism while remaining respectful.

No. It's saying to actually read before you respond because it gets old repeating points that have already been addressed. Sure, you can write whatever you want, but if you keep asking the same things which have already been addressed, this doesn't exactly make you come across as very informed, and your points will have no value, since they have literally already been addressed. You basically responded, after reading the title, but not the thread, and it shows.

For example, you took offense that people would receive notifications from blocked users. In literally the original post, I suggested a change to Newgrounds that reactions and reviews should be allowed from anyone, in the content areas of the sites, but that, specifically, notifications should not be sent to people who had blocked them. You didn't read. Don't even try to pretend that you did.

I'm open for discussion. You literally haven't brought any points which hadn't already been adequately addressed. Tell me something new.

I don't really care if you block me or not. You hilariously claimed that I cared. I don't.

Oh I think I know exactly what it means, but you sure do seem confused. Funny how those who most wish to censor are also those who wish to redefine what censorship means.

You personally blocking someone from PRIVATE areas of the site (or at least the less public areas) is your own prerogative. Do as you wish. Blocking someone from the PUBLIC areas of the site, is indeed censorship. And, contrary to your selfish motives, public interaction isn't just for your own benefit, but for everyone.

Okay this isn't hugbox central. If you want that you're on the wrong site. Plenty of other sites for that. Reactions and reviews are not for the exclusive use or benefit of just one person. Might be hard to grasp if you're a narcissist though.

Because if people are being nuisances to some people they're probably being nuisances to others as well, and the more they do this, the closer they are to a ban. I fail to see how this is adding unnecessary stress on site moderators. If anything, it should bring troublemakers to the limelight sooner so they can be removed sooner. This is a good thing.

Also, even in the event people are blocking truly vile users and not just being snowflakes about it (though there are plenty of the snowflake variety), this still doesn't address the problem of abusive users, only brushes it under the rug and allows them to further abuse other users.

Well, as-is, it's certainly impossible to report anyone based on voting patterns, so unless you are suggesting some sitewide changes for that, your statement is blatantly false. Also, people can zero-bomb some submissions and 5 star others, or even zero-bomb everything of their "competitors" and 5-star everything of their "friends". Nothing on the site prevents any of this. In fact various crews have done exactly these things for years.

Making reactions and reviews on public content available won't change that in the slightest but it will provide a more honest view of what people really think, instead of a censored view. And if people are harassing people they'll eventually get banned for it anyway.

Again, might be difficult to grasp if you're a narcissist, but reviews aren't just for your exclusive use or benefit. It is literally for everyone. You are censoring what information is available to other people, not just yourself.

Yeah it doesn't have to be. When you give the public a distorted view by restricting what information they have access to, this is also censorship, even if not done by a government, authority, or institution.

If you can't grasp why that is censorship (when you are also blocking what should be public information, rather than just private), then that is narcissism first class.

So yes, I grasp it. I fully acknowledge someone blocking me doesn't value my input. But my input isn't for the exclusive benefit or use of that person, either, when it is in public areas.

They're both censorship, particularly when you're not just blocking your own use of someone's input, but that of literally everyone else as well. You are literally controlling the flow of information. You are literally attempting to craft an artificial public consensus rather than taking it as is.

Even in the case of just blocking someone's exclusive private contact with you, this would still be a form of censorship, albeit a perfectly reasonable one. You are still preventing them from expressing their views. In this case no one else is affected aside from the blocked party, there is no manipulation of public opinion or censorship to the greater public, so there shouldn't be a problem.

Am I? There seem to be a lot of people who agree with me.

True. And that's a good thing. But I don't think reviews or reactions to reviews should be blockable at all.

Really? Once someone has shown themselves to be a snowflake (someone incapable of accepting any sort of criticism, even constructive criticism, and must have constant praise only) then I don't usually continue to review their submissions, even if they don't block me. But my reviews and other people's reviews shouldn't be censored merely because someone is too sensitive. And I surely should be able to back up or agree with other people's reviews in the form of approving reactions, which the current system does not allow.

This is false though. I'm not saying everyone is a snowflake or that every snowflake will block every person, but they are definitely out there.

I'm also not saying that every block is a snowflake block. Sometimes there may be legitimate personal differences. If it's truly abusive, perhaps sending a PM to a moderator or admin would be better anyway.

Even if you don't personally like someone, that someone should still be able to interact with others on the public content areas of the site and, as-is this is not currently the case on Newgrounds.

I can hate someone to all hell, but if they make a comment on a more public part of the site, then it shouldn't be removed unless it breaks site rules or is some more serious kind of threat that needs reporting to the police or something.

I fully acknowledge people will span the full spectrum of love hate.

On the topic of free speech versus censorship, let's consider panhandlers, because I think it makes a good analogy.

Panhandlers are usually allowed to do their thing, provided it doesn't fall under aggressive panhandling, which is usually illegal. Why? Like it or not and like them or not, panhandling of itself has often been determined to fall under free speech.

Now, if the panhandler continues to follow you around and harass you, even after you already told them you won't give them money and to ask somebody else, or if they go further than that and get violent, then it's considered aggressive panhandling, and at that point they can be arrested by police because they are breaking the law and it no longer falls under free speech.

If you go around silencing all the panhandlers out there, even the ones who aren't aggressively panhandling, then you are censoring free speech and this is censorship, whether you like panhandlers or not.

Now I personally do not like panhandlers in the slightest. I think most of them are a great nuisance to society and liars and frauds. But I don't have to like them. Provided they are not aggressive panhandling, it is their free speech right, and I need to just walk on by trying to ignore them best I can.

If, instead, I was going around physically silencing every panhandler I came across, because I not only did not want them panhandling me but also did not want them panhandling anyone else, (Perhaps with duct tape on their mouths? Perhaps by stealing their signs? I don't know) then I would be the one in legal trouble. I shouldn't do that, even if the panhandlers are a nuisance, because it would suppress their public free speech rights. That would be censorship.

@Leavesz all of what you said is true.

A bit convoluted, but true.

Still I'd rather not have the censorship. Whenever there's censorship, it always makes me wonder what else is also being censored.

Also yes I'm aware of people who have the same problems with the same snowflakes, or even are the first to remark to me about the problem (and then I'll encounter similar behavior). But unless it's people already on your friends lists, you're unlikely to know who all was affected so you can't know if it was 5 people silenced or 50 or 500.

There do seem to be patterns and people do tend to form cliques at times. Where it gets bad sometimes is when one clique member is problematic and others default to doing whatever that member wants. If they block a person, they tell all their clique buddies to also block the person, and some of them will. It's a problem of people not thinking for themselves.

So I blocked reviews from a certain troll but I can still see their reviews. The only difference is that I can't react to those reviews. Is this a bug?

Well if you've blocked someone, you can't interact with them anymore (like sending a PM to them, when you've blocked them for an example).

I dunno. It works as it should for forums, that is, I don't see BBS posts by the users I block. But for reviews, it doesn't work.

As of today, I can think of 2+ specific examples of NG users abusing the reaction/review blocking feature to silence criticism or even simple disagreement. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯