I'm really glad you linked that, since you start this last comment with such a similar one to what I made which you called absurd. that's classic.

Maybe in that delusional fantasy of yours, but I'm not seeing any parallel between my statements above and what I said in that thread.

There can be no consensus on personal choice, and there is nearly never a "one size fits all" ruling one can make. You come across as someone who can put thoughts together and understand basic principles, but you lack the ability of seeing the "Big Picture" or the reality of something. I can imagine life would be frustrating.

Consensus can be established on how to regulate a particular power or system, and this consensus need not be a set of guidelines that details a fitting response to every circumstance. It only needs to be adequate enough to provide a basic outline of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable conduct, while remaining broad enough to allow each case to be judged based on its own merits. None of this requires the codification of "personal choice", so you need not worry about the apparent inability for people to reach a consensus on it.

You come across as someone who likes to make shit up about their interlocutor because it's a convenient and lazy way of discrediting them without having to actually having to form a substantive rebuttal. That's what you've done every single time we argued and that's what you have done just now. And unsurprisingly enough, you're wrong. I can imagine life would be frustrating for you, too, always being wrong about your assessments of others. It's almost as if you lack the ability to actually analyze something as complex as another's personality and identity, so you feebly resort to crude and oversimplified depictions of the other person as a go-to heuristic.

I'd give any nut-bag standing on a corner ranting about the sky falling and the world ending today. Then getting the hell off your corner so you can rant on, telling the wind how we're living the wrong lives, and how we should spend our money.

Because it's always easier to paint critics as crazies rather than actually defending your position. Then again, I can't blame you, since your position is simply untenable. It doesn't change the fact that you sound like a crotchety conservative bitching about the idealism of those damned pinkos and air-headed young'uns talking about that evil thing called "change". When you're done rambling on that soapbox of yours, do us all a favor and step down. After all, I should be the one up there, right?

Have at it, I, and everyone else, are going to go right back to living the way we want, using the blacklist as we personally see fit... As it should be, freedom to personally choose.

In other words: "Fuck those kids and their talk about making the world a better place! I'll live my life however I damn-well please and you can't do anything about it! I'm entitled to my opinion! It's my God-given right to do whatever I want, so stop trying to take away muh freedoms!"

When you want to grow up and join the rest of the adults, be sure to have a valid rebuttal prepared. If not, you're right back at the kid's table.

Ok, I'll reluctantly remove you, but only because the swype system on my phone loves to call "so" "do" and "is" "I'd" it's really confused with those "S" and "D"

Well no one does anything wothout a reason and as I've said, I prefer not to go into judging other people's reasons. The reason might be silly to me but to someone else it might be justified.

Maybe there always is a reason, however slight, but I think that reason should always be judged (or at least open to judgment). Why shouldn't it? I'm not saying that you should prefer to judge people, but should you? While it is true that some reasons may be silly to one person and justified to another, that doesn't mean that both necessarily are.

Is it really fair to say that CyberEvil's (presumably frivolous) reason for blacklisting you above is valid? If so, then at which point is a reason invalid? Or is any reason to blacklist someone valid, albeit at varying degrees? Would you say that it would be a valid reason if someone blacklisted you or another user solely because they simply wanted to click the "blacklist" button? If not, then what makes a reason like CyberEvil's joke one valid, but not that one? If both are invalid, then what makes them invalid while your avatar or because they were in a bad mood are valid reasons for blacklisting you? Where does one draw the line? And a line must be drawn, for otherwise reasons can neither be valid nor invalid and therefore the reason is incapable of being judged.

Someone might have just been in a bad mood and blacklisted me for no other reason than his bad mood, and I still can't say that's unfair seeing as there are no rules governing the blacklist system so there is nothing to measure the justification of how one uses the option.

I admit that blacklisting for even a reason like that may be "fair" by the strictest application of its definition of "in accordance with the rules or standards" [Oxford Dictionaries (US)], and perhaps that's part of the problem. If we assume that those "rules and standards" are moral principles or some ethical system, however, then we now have a means by which we can determine the fairness of that reason and the decision that it informed. Would it still be a fair reason then? For example: in your opinion, would being in a bad mood be a fair reason for blacklisting you or anyone else? Would you blacklist for that reason and, if so, would you revoke that decision at a later date, such as when you're no longer in a bad mood? The rules and guidelines of SteamGifts are neither divine law nor complete, so perhaps we should look to another source to guide us.

While I, of course, judge the fairness of things in accordance to my moral principles and ethical system, I don't expect others to follow them as well. That's why I think it's crucial that we begin discussing, as a community, what protocols or standards of propriety should be applied to the blacklist system, which could then be codified as rules and guidelines if they are enforceable. It's obvious that the current standard of "do whatever you want with your blacklist" is not working, since it's causing strife in the forums and increasing hostility within the community. If we could agree upon certain rules and standards for the blacklist system, perhaps then we could begin making accurate assessments of whether instances of blacklisting, and the rationale that informed them, are fair.

What you're talking about is the basis of "the social contract" - do me no harm and I'll do you no harm, and methods of behavior modification via social judgment.

Perhaps I am talking about developing a sort of social contract: an agreement among community members to use the blacklist system in accordance to some basic rules and standards, which may involve sacrificing one's unrestricted liberty to use the blacklist system however one pleases, in order to ensure that it is used in a way that benefits the most people and best represents the interests of everyone involved. I'd much rather prefer a method that is not punitive and does not facilitate vengeful activities, as the blacklist system does, but I cannot think of a better system to fit its function. Unless we abolish the system itself, or someone devises a better one, the blacklist system is probably the best option we have.

While those are accepted as the basis for our entire human society, you cannot expect that what one subsection of the society will find harmful would be considered as harmful to another. There is no consensus/decision on wether unsupervised and unregulated blacklisting is considered to be harmful in our little societal subsection (SG) so you cannot apply it.

I think it is harmful because I have both observed and experienced the effects of the blacklist system in its current state, as both a giver and recipient of a blacklisting, and it has convinced me that . I have also spoken to numerous users about this issue and there are ample complaints on the forums about the blacklist system that echo this sentiment. While I'm not sure whether there is a significant minority of users who think and feel this way (or in a similar way), let alone a majority, the only way of reasonably settling this issue is through a community-wide referendum and discussions on the topic. Accompanying that is the fact that this is an autocracy and not a democracy (if we're going to apply political theory to all of this), thus it would probably be more effective to try and convince cg than it would to convince an entire portion of the community. Given these two conclusions, I doubt any of this will ever happen.

We have CG to determine and decide what is harmful and how any harmful behavior is to be treated so, until the decision has been made we can choose how we wish to react to occurences which we, individually, judge to be harmful to ourselves and others.

But this method doesn't seem to be working, in my opinion, since I (and, I suspect, many others) have noticed a significant increase in hostility, which has included threats and announcements of blacklisting. I believe that both of these are not only causally related, but that it has led to a decrease in civil discourse and inclusivity within the community and has had the effect of stifling free discussion on the forums. You even seemed to have noted this, as well, by recognizing that a mere shift in attitude could cause one to become "resentful and paranoid about sharing [one's] thoughts" in the forums if they see their "blacklisted number growing after participating in a discussion or anything else". Although I am but one case, I can personally attest to this experience.

From my perspective, we shouldn't be judging whether a given behavior, action, or decision harms ourselves or another in particular, but whether it has a significant chance to harm anyone in general. This is because while you may not personally be harmed by it, and you might even determine whether the other person would be, this doesn't necessarily mean other people won't if and when they are placed in each (or both) of those positions.

Do I find someone blacklisting me harmful to myself? No. Do I find them blacklisting me and then entering my giveaways harmful? Nope. Distastefull, certainly, but not harmful. Would I find it harmfull to learn how many have me blacklisted and have done so? Yes, it would hurt my feelings and possibly have a negative impact on my behavior here.

If you would find it harmful to know how many have blacklisted you, does that not entail that you would be harmed if someone blacklisted you, assuming you were aware of the incident? It seems to me that you are implying, intentionally or not, that what harms you is the knowledge of being blacklisted, but not the event itself. Although that may be true in some ways, knowledge of the event is the only way you can take action in response. Lacking this knowledge, you cannot take steps to prevent it from recurring, either to protect yourself or to protect others who might be subjected to the same treatment as you were. Regardless, even if you are unaware of the event, what of the real effects of that blacklisting, such as losing access to giveaways by the blacklister (and perhaps others)? You might not describe that as "harm" per se, but surely it negatively impacts your ability to enter giveaways on this site? Does that not have any significance?

I, personally, am very careful with my blacklist but I have no right to ask or expect of others to do the same as I'm just a member of this site and I, like everyone else, am free to leave if I do not find the rules acceptable.

You seem to be treating the rules as if they cannot be questioned. If you do not find the rules acceptable, why not challenge the rules instead of leaving? I find the current lack of rules or guidelines on the blacklist system unacceptable, yet instead of simply leaving the site and forfeiting all the benefits that it gives me, I am challenging those rules because I think they are permitting misconduct in the community that harms myself and others. Do you suggest I simply leave instead of doing what I'm doing?

Of course you have a right to ask and expect others to be careful and responsible with their blacklists, Luxy! If you have a right to abuse the blacklist system and ask and expect others to (you do have that right), then why would you not have a right to do, ask, and expect others to do the contrariwise? It might not work, but the efficacy of an action does not determine its righthood.

[Second half is below]

If he wanted, or thought it prudent, he could have put a set of rules in place and requested that each time someone wishes to blacklist someone else they must first contact the support and provide proof/ask for permission to blacklist someone.

It could have also significantly reduced the number and frequency of unjust blacklisting. Regardless, I don't think that the SteamGifts administration should be the ones determining whether a given blacklisting is just. Believe it or not, I think the determination should be made by the blacklister, just as it is now. What I think should be changed, however, is that the community should decide on some basic guidelines for what we as a whole consider a just, fair, or otherwise appropriate blacklisting; encourage these guidelines among its members; and for the SteamGifts administration to implement features that help users know who blacklisted them (and perhaps why), and which gives users a means of appealing that blacklisting to the user who blacklisted them. This won't eliminate abuse of the blacklisting system for a number of reasons, but it can significantly reduce its occurrence and provide users with tools and and a supportive community to oppose instances of it. If nothing else, we could just scrap the blacklist system entirely, since it's intrinsically flawed, anyway.

Now, we all know that this is not really an option as support would be overwhelmed by these requests, but that still does not change the implications of giving people an option to do so as they like-> they are free to do with it as they like.

Giving someone the option to use a given tool or power entails the the ability to freely exercise that power or utilize that tool in whatever way they wish only if there are no conditions that fundamentally limit certain actions with that power or tool. I'm not talking about rules or policies, but limitations in the power or tool. For example, just because you have a hammer, does that mean that you can freely cause it to fall through the entirety of the earth by simply throwing it on the ground? No, because both you, the tool, and the action you perform in relation to it is limited, for example, by the nature of the system in which it occurs and the physical behaviors that govern it (like gravity), or by the properties of those three elements (like the attributes of that hammer) . I'm not sure whether this could be applied to the blacklist system, such as incorporating certain limitations that could check the occurrence of abuse of the blacklist system, though.

Regardless, even if giving one the option to use a given tool or power entailed the ability to freely exercise that power or utilize it in whatever way one wishes, this does not therefore mean that any such action ought to be done. We can possess the option to do things while still abstaining from doing them because they should not be done; the entirety of ethics is an exercise in this. The solution to this issue, therefore, is in either eliminating that option (removing the blacklist system) or compelling the agent to use it properly (causing the user to blacklist reasonably and justly). This latter solution could be achieved by developing those community guidelines, particularly ones that—if followed—would cause the resulting blacklisting to be reasonable and just, and applying social pressure on members of the community to follow these guidelines.

I neither find myself qualified nor invited to judge other people's decisions, especially here where I have no idea what might have influenced someone to make a decision, so I would think myself a pretty insensitive pedagogyst to do so.

What qualifies an individual to judge another? I would assume the ability to judge, especially in a rational, objective, and nuanced way. Unless we are talking about a particular position, in which some specific qualifications might be required, I would assume that you qualify to judge anyone and anything anywhere, any way, and at any time so long as you are capable of judging. As for being invited to judge other people's decisions, I could contend that the very existence of that decision is itself an invitation. If you mean an explicit invitation, then for what it's worth, you're free to judge anything and everything about me, as well as anything and everything I do and say (which includes my thoughts and feelings). I would like to think, and surely hope, that you are and have been judging the merits of what I have been saying thus far, as well, as I have with yours.

As for determining what might have influenced someone to make a given decision, you could always ask. That's what I've done whenever I discovered someone blacklisted me and wanted to know why.

Now please, keep in mind that I'm not saying what anyone else should think, do or feel about this subject since we all have different backgrounds and needs we come here to fulfill. I am simply expressing my current feelings and thoughts about the subject.

And I appreciate that. I would say the same about myself, but I don't think that would be true given what I've said thus far. Nevertheless, just because I said someone should X something, that doesn't mean they have to. If I was, I would be denying their autonomy.

But, I believe that in the current situation, given your concern about being blacklisted the choice is simple- either avoid such subjects or accept that you wish to express you opinion regardless of the consequences.

I have done both and neither is fully satisfactory. Although I will probably have to choose one of those two each time, I wish there was a third option: that I can express my opinion without fear of being blacklisted for doing so.

Such is the state of things in RL and here - if you say something someone doesn't like, and if that person has issues accepting other people expressing opposing thoughts, you're gonna end up not being liked by that person which will leave you without the possibility to gain any gifts/other benefits from that person.

I hadn't considered the parallel between forum activity and blacklisting (and whitelisting) on SteamGifts, and interpersonal relationships in physical reality. Thanks for pointing that out.

Now how about this for a rant? ;)

It was a longer response than I expected, but I—in my usual fashion—tend to break down every response in order to address (almost) every significant point at once rather than chose only one or a few. This naturally causes discussion responses to grow exponentially, since the response to each point tends to contain multiple points of their own. It's totally fine if you don't follow suit, though. It must be frustrating enough for you to receive a wall of text for a response. Regardless, I'm grateful for your replies. If nothing else, hopefully I've better clarified my position for you.