# Locked from Thread...but no ban



## Mistwell (Jun 24, 2018)

I seem to be locked out of the "5e nerfed Charm" thread.
Except...I had never posted in that thread, and never did anything which got me banned.
A glitch?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?477817-5e-completely-nerfed-charm-for-YOU-anyway


----------



## Nagol (Jun 24, 2018)

Perhaps Morlock is ignoring/being ignored by you?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2018)

There's nothing that the moderators have done that would keep you from the thread.  

If it is a glitch, you might see it resolve if you do the dance of:

1) Log our from EN World
2) Clear browser cache and cookies
3) Completely close browser (not just the EN world window, but exit the application entirely)
4) Restart browser, log back into EN World

(Not that I think you need that outlined for you, but every once in a while you find someone who doesn't know that procedure, so I always state the whole thing)


----------



## CapnZapp (Jun 24, 2018)

If you can read and post in the thread normally while using the EN World app, then the most likely explanation is that the thread starter has put you on his or her ignore/block list.

This doesn't just make that user's posts invisible; it makes the entire thread inaccessible (while logged in).

For some reason. Can't recall seeing this peculiar behavior anywhere else.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> If you can read and post in the thread normally while using the EN World app, then the most likely explanation is that the thread starter has put you on his or her ignore/block list.
> 
> This doesn't just make that user's posts invisible; it makes the entire thread inaccessible (while logged in).
> 
> For some reason. Can't recall seeing this peculiar behavior anywhere else.




Oh good idea. I will try the app. Thanks Capn!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 24, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Oh good idea. I will try the app. Thanks Capn!




Because, as we all know, when given an indication that someone doesn't want our input, we should go charging in to give it.

Not forbidding it, but do consider the ramifications of working around the block feature before you post, hm?  And try to not respond directly to the OP.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 24, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Because, as we all know, when given an indication that someone doesn't want our input, we should go charging in to give it.
> 
> Not forbidding it, but do consider the ramifications of working around the block feature before you post, hm?  And try to not respond directly to the OP.




I doubt Morlock will notice; he hasn't been active in more than 2 years.  That thread is one of the recent spate of necros.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 24, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Because, as we all know, when given an indication that someone doesn't want our input, we should go charging in to give it.
> 
> Not forbidding it, but do consider the ramifications of working around the block feature before you post, hm?  And try to not respond directly to the OP.




Uh Umbran, the guy who started the thread hasn't been here for 2 years. Pretty sure he won't mind.  But no, I had no plan to respond to his two year old messages. [Edit - Ninja'ed by Nagol.]


----------



## Umbran (Jun 25, 2018)

We have recently had a few cases of people trying to work around the block function, so when it came up here, it made sense to note the point, regardless.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 27, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Not forbidding it, but do consider the ramifications of working around the block feature before you post, hm?  And try to not respond directly to the OP.






Umbran said:


> We have recently had a few cases of people trying to work around the block function, so when it came up here, it made sense to note the point, regardless.




Apology accepted


----------



## Umbran (Jun 27, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Apology accepted




Dude, how about you talk about apologies when you are harmed, hm?


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 27, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Dude, how about you talk about apologies when you are harmed, hm?




That's not what that was referring to Umbran. It's OK man. I know you are looking for a grievance, but there is none to be had here.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 28, 2018)

One of my writing teachers noted that, in any communication there are three texts:  The one the Author intended, the one that was actually on the page, and what the Audience received.

It's okay.  You can go ahead and keep on thinking that things being taken wrong are entirely on the part of the audience.  I'm sure it keeps life simpler for you.


----------

