This thread is mainly addressed to Nao as the creator of Lestrades, since it was mentioned that the ignore feature is possibly under consideration. If it is considered, I would recommend an adjustment to what Barter has. Barter's ignore feature is a) very black and white and b) the individual ignored receives no notification of it. So what I would suggest is if something like this is implemented to then do it more in line with Lestrades' philosophy.
I would then be inclined to recommend something like 'giving someone a yellow card' or a strike (or perhaps go to two strikes) before an actual ignore (red card or three strikes) goes into effect and allow the individual who gets it to be notified / see it as well, pared with the ability to allow the giver of the yellow card or strike(s) also to retract them again (the same would go for an actual ignore). That way I would assume there is much more room for both parties to talk out potential differences (assuming there is some civility between all parties involved).
So the idea of that would be to provide some ability for conflict resolution instead of perhaps too swiftly blocking people out of all future trades based on potentially too little evidence. Some people might still go for full ignores immediately anyways and this is certainly something that should not be moderated. It should allow many who are willing to communicate more room to successfully make trades happen in spite of perceived disagreements over one or a few offers. So basically it would be a tool to say 'I do not like this. Hopefully we can do things more constructively in the future. Maybe by discussing it to see whether the differences can be bridged.'
I would then be inclined to recommend something like 'giving someone a yellow card' or a strike (or perhaps go to two strikes) before an actual ignore (red card or three strikes) goes into effect and allow the individual who gets it to be notified / see it as well, pared with the ability to allow the giver of the yellow card or strike(s) also to retract them again (the same would go for an actual ignore). That way I would assume there is much more room for both parties to talk out potential differences (assuming there is some civility between all parties involved).
So the idea of that would be to provide some ability for conflict resolution instead of perhaps too swiftly blocking people out of all future trades based on potentially too little evidence. Some people might still go for full ignores immediately anyways and this is certainly something that should not be moderated. It should allow many who are willing to communicate more room to successfully make trades happen in spite of perceived disagreements over one or a few offers. So basically it would be a tool to say 'I do not like this. Hopefully we can do things more constructively in the future. Maybe by discussing it to see whether the differences can be bridged.'
