- Edited
Pallas I flat out requested the ability to block a user, as is possible on other platforms. You don't see anything they do. They don't see anything you do. I don''t see this as at all controversial or requiring permission from anyone else.
There are unfortunately bad actors out there who might seek to abuse such a system. Consider:
I hate user Bob. I unilaterally set a 2-way ignore so I don't see what he says, and Bob cannot see what I say. Then I go off starting threads about how much of a jerk he is, or lying about things he has said, or just throw passive-aggressive snipes at him.
Bob may not see any of it, or he may see partial responses from people manually quoting me, and be utterly confused and caught on the back foot about what is going on. But in any case, he is harmed because he doesn't have the opportunity to see what is being said about him in "hidden" posts he cannot control, and has no opportunity to defend himself. He also cannot control the fact that I have selectively hidden my public content, about him, from him. Months later, he later views the forum from a logged-out state, or does a Google search and sees threads where I am constantly spewing falsehoods about him. How would he feel?
I selectively take off the 2-way ignore and see he's now aware of my games. So I decide to make his life even more miserable. I take off the 2-way ignore, and shoot off to him the most foul PM putting him on blast. Then I immediately re-instate the 2-way ignore, so that he is unable to respond to me (I won't see it).
The mutual agreement method @Rubens mentions worked because he and the other member treated the situation like reasonable human beings, and mutually agreed to give each other space. Admittedly, that is the best case scenario