You can already keep them from showing up on your profile by suppressing the 'friend of' feature. I do it.
And unless you ban them, why shouldn't they be allowed to reply? (I find the fact that people would ban someone because they disagree on viewpoints to be slightly disgusting, but that's just me-people can do as they will).
Definitely. I think a lot of people don't want to utlize that particular option.
And I don't block anyone. I can only recall doing it once when a journaller was threatening another journaller, and decided that was out of control and banned the offending party.
That doesn't mean control over another person's journal should be given to them. (Control by means of controlling their friend's list). There's an option, they should use it. This doesn't call for a new option that blurs the line over privacy and control.
That's different from blocking 'diebabiesdie' because you have a hifference in ideas and beliefs.
*sigh* It's a complicated issue. I realise I'm in the vast minority here.
I think the main thing is being able to block them from the profile and being able to block them from commenting on the journal. I think if you make public posts on your journal anyone who's logged in or not can see them just by logging onto them.
I don't think that crosses a privacy line personally as it's the same options currently available, it would just make them more accessible to all users to utilize as they please.
If diebabiesdie has never done anything to you, but wishes to reads you, and friends you, should you have the right to block yourself from appearing on his friends list? Even if you ban him, should you have that right (because as you said, public entries you can't really do anything about)? And if you should, why should you?
If you ban him from commenting and he wants to read, why should you have the right to stop him from placing you on his friends list? It's not spamming, it's not trolling; he just wants to read what you have to say. You've already done all you can (and, I feel, all you should be able to do), but your journal exists in a public space. You shouldn't have the right to infringe on someone else's right to read it.
Then perhaps it's more important that it isn't blocking him from having it on his friends page but showing up on either parties friendslist in their profile area, and only there. Then everyone can still read the items, but there isn't hte issue of having my or diebabiesdie's name on either of our profiles.
But you're on the internet. That's the risk you take. Everything else is just ....
Stupid, I guess.
(I really don't know why I feel so strongly about this, either. I just think the solution should be a nice 'get over yourself'. But that's why I'm not running for anything. ;))
:) I think this is a good compromise for all involved.
The compromise being looking for a way for neither name to show up on either friends list?
What should happen is (if you're going to continually call it a 'friends list' someone can only appear on either list if the exchange is mutual- cut out the friends and the friends of crap.
Otherwise, call it, 'journals subscribed to' or something, which is a whole lot more accurate, and let whomever the journal user subscribes to, appear.
I don't hold a lot of hope for the second (my preferred) option, but the first, the compromise ... that's actually a decent compromise. A realistic one, one that still retains full sovereignty of both parties' hidden "friends" list. :) And then diebabiesdie can continue to read you, and you can remain in the peace of not being associated with him.
See? I like you. Now go win!
Thanks love. :) I like you too. *hugs*
I really feel that I can make a difference.
You're willing to negotiate a compromise, which is a huge plus in my book, as TPTB seem to MASSIVELY FAIL at doing it. :)
It's something I've always been pretty good at. I think it comes down to the fact that I actually listen. I don't think that enough people do that.