Basically, the title. I’ve been flagged multiple times by a user who has blocked me. I don’t have a problem with that inherently, but I’m a little confused and frustrated as to why I’m not allowed to weigh in on a topic/thread that directly concerns me. I don’t even receive notifications– I was only made aware by a curator DMing me the first time and @ ing me the second time.
While I imagine the rationale is that this is because blocking is specifically designed “for situations where you just can’t get along with someone, and they won’t leave you alone, despite your best efforts to settle disputes in a civilized manner”, the very next line on the help page explicitly states “It is not a way to hide from people”.
At the end of the day, I am simply asking for the opportunity to ask clarifying questions, provide context/my side of the story, and civilly engage in a conversation that has the potential to end in me being suspended from the site entirely. I don’t want to interact with this user who has blocked me any more than I have to, but the way this system is currently set up feels as though I am left muzzled, as I must either DM individual curators or ask them to post a message on my behalf.
I would love to hear curator/staff insight on the topic, as I’m sure y’all’s experience with the matter has resulted in some wisdom that I may be lacking.
As a curator I will say that we cannot see who blocks who, so if someone (eg a curator) tags you on a flag by someone who blocked you, we cannot tell if you ignored or failed to receive the notification vs if you did not respond due to being blocked (If you are tagged I would suggest to message a curator involved, so they can make a note that you are blocked and not deliberately ignoring)
However I’m not sure if you will get a notification when tagged in a flag by someone who blocked you. Were you receiving such notifications? If not, the idea of someone being tagged and unaware they were tagged does concern me as a curator, as it can make it look like deliberate ignoring (however we do have to account for tags just getting lost in notifications)
Beyond a curator leaving a note that you are blocked, having someone post on your behalf to get around a block might be considered harassment.
I should clarify that blocks no longer apply to taxon flags
The primary motivation for blocking was to prevent interactions with stalkers and similar safety issues, which is one reason why a blocked person cannot comment on a blocker’s flags. Secondarily, the point of blocking is to prevent unwanted interaction and this flag could become another place for unwanted contact. It’s not ideal, obviously, but I don’t think there’s a perfect solution here.
Correct, flagging content does not generate a notification for the content’s author, regardless of whether they’re blocked or not.
Here we’re trying to emphasize that blocking does not prevent the blocked person from seeing your content. We want to make it clear that if you’re worried about someone seeing your location and what you’ve been posting, blocking will not prevent that.
I understand that. In my cases the flags have proven to kinda gone nowhere (curators determined my actions were acceptable and not violating any rules), but I get this rationale applying to more extreme cases.
We are the #1 and #2 identifiers of a taxon, so crossing paths is sort of inevitable. In this instance, the user flagged a comment of mine disagreeing with their ID and claimed that my doing so was me trying to get around his block.
Do use the links tiwane offers you. This sounds as if it needs iNat intervention. I recognise you as an identifier - for my IDs which go to IsAFish and then I need to @mention for help with Disagreements.
For transparency: I hid a comment above because it was bringing up specific details about a specific moderation concern, which is not allowed on the forum. Specific moderation discussions should be had on flags or via an email to help@inaturalist.org.
Isn´t that a discussable issue in itself? I find it weird if my content or action is being flagged that I might not even know and be able to put it into context..
Imagine it from the other POV. What if you flag someone for violence or hate speech, and they find out you made a flag about them. they’re already a crazy person, so it becomes a safety issue to you. By not informing the user of a flag, they protect the flagger’s privacy and let it get resolved through a curator.
while I have some questions about the origin of the blocking, that’s not appropriate to discuss here. INat help says: “Blocking someone prevents them from messaging you, commenting on your observations, identifying your observations, and otherwise interacting with you on iNaturalist. It also removes their observations from your search results and removes your observations from their search results. However, it does not make you invisible to them. They can still find your observations and view your profile, they just can’t interact with you.” https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000173516-what-are-muting-and-blocking-how-do-i-block-or-mute-an-account-#Blocking
It would seem that the text above needs clarification, because it is clear that interaction can still occur, in the nature of what OP has said happens.
Sure, I think that’s an OK topic to discuss. @squidtk’s response, though is the main reason why users aren’t notified about flags on their content. Again not ideal but I think on balance I think it’s the right one. I could see it being made a bit more nuanced, like a copyright infringement flag should may be generate a notification, but not one on a comment. FWIW on the forum I believe most flags don’t generate a notification for the flagged user. It gets sent to moderators so they can take a look. If they decide to hide the content, a the flagged user is notified via message.
I can check this week when our test server is back up.
This has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads. Blocking is an important function on iNat. Can it be misused? Of course, just like many other platform features. But many of the proposed alternatives risk disenfranchising victims while inadvertently favoring harassers.
For example, imagine someone is being cyberstalked across multiple platforms, including iNat. The stalker’s behavior on iNat alone might not clearly violate any specific site rules, and without the broader cross-platform context, it could appear benign to staff/mods. Under your proposed system, the victim would either have to tolerate the behavior or disclose and document the full context; having to relive or formally document harassment can be uncomfortable at best and traumatizing at worst.
I have often thought this as well, but I think there can be scenarios where someone is engaged in IRL harassment and you need to block their iNat account even if their iNat activity itself is not clearly against any rules
Kudos to some for not being able to imagine scenarios where iNat behavior alone might make someone desire to block another. My position remains unchanged and unimpressed that once again heads are poking up to wonder aloud why this function exists: