Red thumbs prohibiting commenting on public threads

[pinkyandthebrain]

I did try to search the forum to see if similar topics exist, though as you can imagine searching for this is like looking for a needle in a haystack full of posts on red thumbs.

I understand why giving a red thumb should prohibit people contacting someone directly and privately to prevent intimidation and bullying. However I do feel it is a form of censorship when you are unable to leave a public comment on a thread because someone who has red thumbed you has spoken prior to you. This has happened to me on a few occasions. Someone gave me a red thumb because they didn't like me influencing everyone to vote them out in a WW game. They could have tried to defend themselves as is the game but no a RT for me it was. We still won.

Anyhow, these details are irrelevant. Now when this person posts a comment on a group page I can no longer post underneath. This is even happening in a group I set up where I am an admin and they are not even a member of the group. Surely posting in a public domain should not receive this level of censorship. For if the person who has been red thumbed, whether justly or unjustly, were to say anything further out of line then they would be reported as everything would be there for all to see. Nothing to hide behind. With the system as is, those who have been unjustly revenge attacked with a red thumb lose their voice for months on end as they never play with that person again and that person will have long forgotten that they also stifle the public voice of that player. Muted just because someone held a petty grudge needs to be fixed imho. There has to be a better way.

[Bunni3burn]

I wanted to second the silliness of it. Seems very odd that a member who created a group is not able to leave a comment on a thread in her own group because some who has her RTed commented in the thread. Also being that person hasn't even joined the group.

It makes sense from one angle, but the other side doesn't make sense. RTs are handed out easily on BGA. For this case, OP got an RT because someone didn't like her play style in a game. Not because she did something rude or bad. But now if that player, who isn't in the group, leaves comments on threads in her group, she can't even interact with her own group.

Some sort of another compromise should be found. The player that gave her the RT, can essentially prevent OP from interacting within her own group. Is it possible that if a player who gives an RT, then they shouldn't be able to post to a group owned by the other half? RTs are because a player wants to avoid another player. In this case the other player is doing the very opposite of avoiding the player they RTed.

It should be suggested, that when it comes to a public forum/group/thread, RTs shouldn't come into play. It's public. When a person interacts with something that is public, the expectation of safety and control goes out the door. RT help keep those expectations in play when it involves playing at a table or receiving private messages. Clearly a group has the option to be private, but that does limit people from finding the group. The group that is mentioned, is a large community based group. Making it private means players in the community won't be able to find the group and join the community. It would make the group exclusive instead of inclusive. Honestly, if you aren't willing to join a group, you probably shouldn't be allowed to post in the group. And if you join a group with an admin you have RTed, then that's a choice on the player who gave the RT.

[pinkyandthebrain]

Having looked at the settings it is a private by invite only group so I guess another admin invited them, they never joined but can still contribute to a thread.... However there is no way of checking who has been invited and who hasn't, which was something that frustrated us when we initially set up the group. General contention remains that with some players liberally handing out trivial thumbs in some types of games it means other players have had to start new threads to get their voice heard in a group discussion on that game.

[sXePotter]

Having looked at the settings it is a private by invite only group so I guess another admin invited them, they never joined but can still contribute to a thread.... However there is no way of checking who has been invited and who hasn't, which was something that frustrated us when we initially set up the group. General contention remains that with some players liberally handing out trivial thumbs in some types of games it means other players have had to start new threads to get their voice heard in a group discussion on that game.

It could also have been that someone on their friends list is a member of the group and commented on the post, thus they can see it on their feed. This itself is a whole other kettle of privacy fish

On the main point, I think it is ridiculous that we could have a group of 100 people, 98 of which you wish to interact with and who wish to interact with you, yet you would be unable to comment on a post if someone who red thumbed you commented on it. This is also totally different to a) this forum, which ignores RTs and b) the live chat of those groups. We need some consistency across what you can/cannot do if someone red thumbs you.

[furrywurr]

Fair points made above - seconded.