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:
I for one appreciate being given the discretion. We may recognize that lines are being crossed that feel dangerous to us and it feels good to know we have the right to take an extremely concrete action immediately should we feel we need to to protect ourselves.
For a long time women especially have been basically pooh-poohed when our senses told us something was amiss, something was wrong. In my brief time on this site I have seen the following things which technically may not break rules but felt weird to me .
A male who only follows females and only those with profile photos of their faces, not necessarily in the same geographic area. It appears he has a specific type.
A male who tags a female to show “interesting observations” in which the species are mating. The species are not of scientific interest to the female, nor has she ever asked to be shown mating observations.
I have neither blocked nor reported either person because while both set my “ick, nope” sensor a-tingling, I do not feel threatened , but I appreciate that if I did, the option to block is available to me. Threatened includes my mental well-being . Someone else’s threatened may be different, that person may feel more vulnerable, temporarily or permanently, and that person should have the right to determine what feels right for them as far as blocking goes.
This is NOT to say anyone here has been creepy or weird, but to say that because creepy and weird do exist in the world thank you for allowing us to retain access to an instantaneous block function.
I am struggling to understand why the existing system is problematic for some, who keep calling for it to be done away with or the limit for how many to be blocked lowered.
I say this because despite the fact that multiple persons, myself included, have given concrete examples of non-identification reasons blocking would, might, or has been necessary, persons continue to ask for reasoning why blocking is necessary and make comments like What personal reasons could there be? “I didn’t like his avatar” doesn’t count.
Please can the community just accept that:
Blocking exists because there are legitimate reasons it needs to exist.
If you do not behave in ways that draw blocking, you need not worry that you will be randomly blocked hither, thither and yon.
However if you find you are blocked on the odd occasion and believe it to be done so as part of a wider pattern of retribution against corrective identification you can bring it up to Staff and it will be examined and may be reversed.
However if it is not, the world will not end. If you are concerned about being the “only” resource for a particular taxon, for goodness sake, qualify someone to help or ask someone qualified to help. (The healthiest organizations are the ones where someone could drop dead and the organization would not skip a beat.)
Nobody will assume you are a bad person if you are blocked. Or even know, really.
That said, nobody is entitled to demand from another a reason for a specific block, even as we recognize that knowing it could be helpful in preventing an unwanted behavior from being repeated.
The Staff has determined the blocking number that works for this site to be three.
Please if you ask for examples recognize that providing them often comes at an emotional cost for those who provide them. At this point the non-acceptance and “non-imagination” is beginning to feel… aggressive.