the flipside is it doesnt do the two obvious requirements for a blocklist - doesnt prevent hurtful replies to a comment, and doesn't prevent naming the poster in a way that google or other web searches will link to their own postings.

I think Ignore 2.0 - now its been explained - is broadly an excellent idea, its only failing is not quite going far enough.
(Carpe Cyprinidae, Fri 27 Dec 2013, 21:38, 1 reply, 10 years ago)

Ignore functionality aside though,
if you're a member of this site with a unique username that within a click or two through google will lead to your real life name and details, it's probably best not to post all over b3ta with hilarious admissions of drugs, theft and underage sex. If you look back at some of the qotw answers from, say, 7 years ago, you'll find plenty of dubious stories which would never have been tolerated or even encouraged to the same extent had today's reply police been in place then.

What I'm getting at is, in moderation, less-than-fluffy-r-u-ok-hun replies are a good thing if you're badly in need of taking a long hard look at yourself. As are many members of this site.
( drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Fri 27 Dec 2013, 23:13, Reply)

You make valid points.

I have some, too. We all type things we later think better of - the internet does have a considerable ability to forget stuff as the search engines deem it less current or relevant - and context is everything.

An off-colour remark in a thread of bad-taste comments might well be picked up and criticised at the time but the real danger seen here is of cut-and-paste recontextualisation; remarks that in context can be either discarded as bad judgement or even the fiction of an unwise mind may gain a new life as an accepted truth when constantly repeated; this also defeats the tendency of search engines to forget, or bury them in a sea of inane drivel

If a person took to following you around town loudly repeating things you'd said, out of context and in the most defamatory way imaginable you'd either sue them or get an injunction; on this site such actions are harder to bring and other tools you propose such as an ability to close your own ears to them while everyone else witnesses the full detail, and thus lose your right of reply... are of little use.
(Carpe Cyprinidae, Sat 28 Dec 2013, 1:16, Reply)

oh god yes
no criticism was allowed during the first couple of years after the reply function was introduced, so QOTW became an insufferable orgy of self-congratulation and textual onanism

as the OP would know if he'd been there at the time (inb4 OP saying "oh but I've been lurking for ages really, honest, I have")
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 29 Dec 2013, 18:00, Reply)