My understanding is that twit filters are a per-user setting, so they wouldn't prevent the 'target' from posting. It just would make it so that if (for example) I never wanted to read another thing that mouser wrote, I could have the system help me out with that instead of having to avert my eyes.
Since it's a personal setting, I see no particular problem with enabling it (no one can force anyone to read posts anyway).
-mwb1100
The reason I thought they weren't a good idea is for more practical reasons than anything else.
What I've seen happen in some forums I'm involved in (where filters are used) is that the person filtering doesn't see all the posts.
Sooner or later what happens is that two separate conversations start to develop because of it. Things get challenged that were already explained, questions are asked that were already answered, etc. because the person who is blocking is missing pieces of the dialog.
This can create a great deal of frustration for the other participants. Usually the person who's doing the blocking ends up feeling they are being treated unfairly when they're eventually told: "Well, if you could be bothered to read the
entire thread before you post something..."
So that's why I feel it's not a generally good idea.
I'm all for allowing someone to block somebody from PMing or otherwise messaging them. Because messages are
private conversations. But a forum is a
public one. And in order for a public conversation to be conducted effectively, all the participants need to be on the
exact same page.
Works much the same way in the non-digital world. At a social gathering, nobody expects us to have a conversation with someone we don't really want to talk to. But we are expected to act politely and civilly towards them while we're there. And when they're rude, not to respond in the same manner. It's the responsibility of the hosts to deal with the chronically unruly and impolite.
Just my
