Why the 200 block limit?

I think that the 200 block limit doesn't make sense.  If there happens to be more than 200 jerks in this site (there has bound to be), then why should someone get punished?  I respect your opinions that think it should be that way, but disagree with it.  Thoughts?

I suggest that the site could maintain a "jerk-score" and then sort your blocked list by the amount of jerkiness, so that it is obvious to you when you want to add #201 that you know exactly who to unblock?

I wonder though if it might be easier to have a time expiration on blocking. So that when you block someone, you can say "forever", "2 weeks" and such.

Either of these two solutions would help a lot in the world of blocked list maintenance.

It takes a very dismissive person to be searching for two hundred persons to dislike.

Time is better spent looking for two hundred persons that have more pleasant character traits

+1

@heinzie One doesn't go looking. When one finds people worthy of inclusion on that list, one just adds them. It surely is not unreasonable that on a site of this magnitude that 200 are worthy, no?

No, I just can't believe that any sane person would block 200 people.

What does sanity have to do with it? People have different thresholds for what bothers them. This is reasonable. Some people interact with more people than others. Also reasonable. Why is it unreasonable to want to block more than 200 people?

Makes no sense.

Hard limits in general are not a good idea.

This logic reminds me of people who cry foul when, heaven forbid, one of their opponents is taking even 50% of their allotted time, and has more than 100 games going at the same time!

"We need an upper limit on number of games", they cry.

*Facepalm*

 +1

If you need to block 200 people then you need to take a good long hard look at yourself.

And what if you need to block 700 people? What is the exact number of people where you should be taking this long look? Perhaps at 47 you should not look, but at 48 you should?

Grrr

Meeting impolite people is quite common, but people who behaves so badly that blocking is the only solution are quite rare. Of course in principle there should be no limit to the blockable number, but 200 is really an high number anyway. I don't think that in a lifetime on chess.com you would really need to lock more than 10 people. Most jerks get tired if you simply ignore them, others make so evidently stupid posts that there is really no need to block them. I think that what Knightmage means is that only a quite intollerant person can really think about blocking hundreds of users. This is just my personal opinion of course, i hope it is not going to earn me a block 

 I would say any more than two.

The only reason I can think to have the limit there is for performance reasons. But it is a reason.

There isn't a reason why you would put a business requirement of "no more than 200" though, you're right.

For you maybe. It is not unreasonable that some people have a lower threshold for blocking. Some have higher, some have lower. Some don't block, some do. What ever happened to tolerance?

Are you talking to me? I take pride in not blocking anyone because I don't believe in a filtered experience. But I made this decision when the blocker would not see content from the blockee in threads. It just seemed rather stupid to auto-filter out people's content, just so that I could prevent them from posting in my threads, or from sending me messages.

As you may know, I also have a zero block list at Sleator's site and Sleator's free offshoot site. But hey, everyone's entitled to their own, right?

Maybe they feel similar to me?

So what is the effect, currently, of blocking someone?

And here's the answer:

Once blocked, a member cannot do any of the following:

• post notes to your account 
• send you messages, 
• accept your game seeks
• be auto-matched with you in open seeks 
• join tournaments that you are running 
• post in content that you created