So if the IGNORE Feature is for IGNOR-AMUSES....

[Bill Bored]

...what's the BLOCKING Feature for?


Could it be for...





...BLOCK-HEADS?:dunce:

If you can read this thread, discuss here!

[Redneck Socialist]

1. Ummm, is anyone actually using the new feature? n\t

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. oh, yes

One of the most prolific posters in this forum seems to have blocked at least half a dozen of us. I could understand if it were just me, since I am often reviled, and who knows what thoughts I might plant in impressionable minds? But the ones I know about are a pretty interesting range of people. Hard to believe that we are all 'harassing' the blocker.

[Felinity]

9. How do you know?

Is there a way to see if we have been blocked by others, or who is blocking whom?

For what it is worth, I am ambivalent about blocking; but would like to know if and when my comments are blocked I do not necessarily need to know by whom, but that would be reasonable, too. I would hate to be posting into a black hole.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. you can tell if you have been blocked...

If someone has blocked you, then you cannot reply to any of their posts, or anywhere in a thread that they begin. The "Reply" link is replaced by a "Cannot Reply" link. So, if you see a "Cannot Reply" link, you may be blocked by the poster you are trying to respond to, by the original poster, or both. If you don't, then neither one is blocking you. (But they may have you on Ignore, i.e., it may be that you can post to them, but they cannot read your response.* You might consider that "posting into a black hole." If you're blocked, you can't post at all.)

However, there is presently no way to tell who is blocking whom in general. I only know that so-and-so is blocking at least half a dozen people because the half-dozen people have said so, and I trust them. The administrators have said that they may consider making the block lists public (somehow) at some point in the future.

* EDIT TO ADD: And you can't tell if you are on Ignore. It's a hint if you PM someone and the message bounces, but the intended recipient may simply have disabled PMs. It's also a hint if someone tells you that s/he is putting you on Ignore, since then s/he is required by rule actually to do it (for a while, anyway!) -- but of course no one has to tell you.

[troubleinwinter]

15. Oh, yes, indeed.

Unfortunately, it isn't 'harassers' who have been blocked (as we already had 'ignore', 'alert', moderators, tombstones, deleted post systems in place), it is DISAGREERS who have been blocked.

I know, because I have been known to disagree, and am now blocked. I have virtually never had a post deleted, and I am not tombstoned, so I rekon I am not a "harasser" or a "stalker", but I have been known to be a "disagreer".

DISAGREERS are those who might post legitimate challenge, correction or discussion. NOPE, can't have that! Must have only agreers in one's thread. No challenges of facts or ideas. No questioning. The chimp has taught us how to surround oneself by those who are precluded from dissent or questioning.

I used to be proud of the open discussion on DU.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. in fairness

some people on DU feel that they've been able to use this feature to deal effectively with real harassment that falls short of meriting a ban. I myself can vouch that once someone gets the hang of calling you a suborned liar without actually spelling it out, the moderation system isn't entirely satisfactory.

I dislike the new system, but hey, I've gotta live up to my screen name, don't I?

[fooj]

2. Perhaps...

[dweller]

3. how would i know?

i'm just a lonely thread killer.

dp

[kster]

4. Bev Harris does an article, I make a thread on that article

Everyone runs to my thread and starts posting "Bev harris for newbies bullshit" which is fine, but why the hell do that in my thread, my thread is an important thread TO ME why not discuss the ACTUAL article. I like Bev's work, and you may hate Bev's work, the thread is not about Bev's personality it is about the ARTICLE.

Some people may not understand it, but, I have the right to run Bev Harris articles without everyone circling the band wagon with "Bev Harris for newbies bullshit". I'm not sure where you stand with Bev Harris, but this is just one example of why the new BLOCK feature is a great idea.

[Bill Bored]

5. This is valid point, but then think of how many more people read the thread that way! nt

[salin]

8. I had the same thought/response.

I often have little time to peruse the board - and often can not read all of the new threads. Hate to say it but sometimes the amount of "activity" on a thread (number of posts on it - as a proxy for amount of discussion) works as a 'highlighter' for me to chose what to open and quickly read.

The "block the discussion" feature seems to have depressed the number of posts on a number of threads - which means there isn't as much discussion - the thread is more likely to fall and people like myself who have to do quick reads - are less likely to "see" or notice the thread.

While it may be more convenient, and blood pressure lowering for the blockers, the action may be counter-productive in terms of getting stories "out" to more people.

Just my two cents.

[Kelvin Mace]

43. Harris was banned here because of her conduct

posting articles about her circumvents that ban and allows her to possibly scam more people. We'll ALWAYS start counter threads to any attempt to reform Bev Harris.

Even with the ban feature, we will continue to post the truth about Bev. We'll just have to start a new thread.

[troubleinwinter]

63. It happens all the time.

Somebody posts an article on DU by a someone unreliable, a crackpot, a bullshitter, or a liar... like Doug Thompson of CHB, Alex Jones, Rense or some thrilling article by a holocaust denier group. Next thing ya know, DUers are posting challenging the source's reputation and history.

I reckon that might be why articles you post quoting proven and known LIAR Bev Harris have response posts challenging and pointing out her reputation and history.

(reposted from post #60)

[jarnocan]

7. I was active on a MIXED political forum but never put

anyone- even freepers on ignore- sometimes it is interesting to know what folks you disagree with are saying, and downright funny when they say something really stupid.

[Melissa G]

11. Well, BB..since you pmed me this link i'll respond ...

I've never used any of these features yet...there have only been a couple of people I ever ignored and I just did it the old fashioned way...I ignored them... no button...just ignored and avoided the black holes they created.

It seemed like others who were fun, interesting, conversationalists were doing that too and all the threads were drying up so I have to say that I might be glad for the new features if they resurrect good, productive conversation around here.:hi:

[Bill Bored]

20. I don't see how they can resurrect good conversation when the

whole point of them is to make that impossible

[Melissa G]

27. Well, here is how they might: If there are just a few people who kill threads

by posting constant, repetitive, nonconstructive crap, and those people go away by ignore buttons or block features. And then, those of us who got tired of posting here because of the constant, repetitive, nonconstructive crap, may come back now that we know that particular irritant factor can be avoided.

As I said, up to now I ignored folks the old fashioned way, but it made me ignore threads said irritants were likely to post in and I just spent less time in the forum since the conversation seemed to have degenerated.

Noticing the drop in threads and posts in general in this forum, I must not have been the only one who felt that way.:shrug:

The ability to block irritants, *If Used Judiciously* may make the place more attractive..It's like having a bouncer in the neighborhood bar to keep the really undesirable element out. :toast:

your still one of my fav's, BB, -even when you have grouchy Oscar days :evilgrin:

[Bill Bored]

30. Thanks. The problem is there's no way to determine who will use the

features to block flames and who will use them to suppress dissent.

I thought this was settled a long time ago by the founding fathers. Anyone can say just about anything. It seems undemocratic (or even un-Democratic) not to want to hear all the opposing viewpoints but I guess some of us have a streak of demagoguery in us.

[Patsy Stone]

32. I agree in principle that it's fundamentally wrong to stifle opinions

But while we are (most of us, anyway) Democrats, this DU of ours is not a democracy, and it can't be. Besides, the powers that be aren't the ones stifling speech in this case.

I see this as more of a tool. I tried to explain here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464141&mesg_id=464147

[galloglas]

12. On another thread

I have answered, honestly, all questions. In return, I asked questions, which were not answered.

So. When is it appropriate to "stop talking to someone"? I suspect it is when they are totally non-responsive, when replies have only the purpose of "baiting" someone.

I used the "ignore" option yesterday, for the first time. In that instance, I took three separate tries to communicate and finally notified the person (I think anyone you plan to "Ignore" has the right to be warned), in my last reply, that I was putting them "Ignore".

First thing that happened was that I was set upon by someone else, plying the same tactics. Asking questions, but failing to answer them.

Failing to engage a person, and answer their questions, does not lead to a debate. It gives the total appearance of harrassment.

It is a sad thing to have been resorted to by DU, and I don't know the consequences of it. It seems that the threads will become "segregated" and, though hopefully not, the sniping will continue. Which denies all readers of reading things that might be enlightening.

The thing that may come about from this, quite soon, is the old axiom that many parents taught. That one will be known by the company they keep.

Both at the state level, and nationally, there are changes that will soon be proposed. Given that the Powers that Be are currently running an Electoral Process that is anything but satisfactory, but have seen extreme discontent by voters, they will offer change/reform.

So, given that, what should Reformers be asking for? My opinion is that we should ask/demand what the Constitution does guarantee us, and fight for a system that is honest, transparent, and under public scrutiny from start to finish. And a system that is intelligible to the least technically adept of our citizens.

The Powers that Be have had in place a corporatized, corrupt, outsource dependent system because they wished to have one, not because they were too dumb to know better. Is it to be assumed that they will change it any more than they must? I don't think so.

So, in an attempt to avoid other controversial rifts in ERD, I would say that, since reform will have to be enacted by the PtB, we have three paths to choose from in getting that message to them: pleading, asking, demanding.

I am of the opinion that those who usurp power, or those who usurp your wallet or purse on a dark street corner, do not respond to pleading. They will seldom respond to asking. But, the PtB will respond to demands that have implied force behind them (i.e., "These are our Contitutional Rights. Give them to us or you will never get re-elected, if we have anything to say about it." or "We have the Initiative Process in our state. If you don't deal with us, we will launch a drive" or "OK, this is a small county. You are the County Clerk. You have to run next term. Do you want to give us our rights or do we have to elect someone who will.")

My point is this. I am of the opinion that there must be an alternative to both pleading, and making back-room deals with PtB who will co-opt citizens (hell, they co-opt anyone) and have them take less than what is their rightful due. And, voicing that opinion has resulted in others (who may, or may not, have compromised) in attacking, here at DU.

A parallel exist in the Civil Rights Movement. There were those who called others "Uncle Toms" and others who called the activists_______ (fill in the blank with your choice).

In the end, it was obvious that the Civil Rights bill was acted only because of the activism of some. Without the Montgomery Bus Boycott, how much longer would it have gone on?

The schisms I see at DU-ERD are much the same, I think. And I can't get anything done if I have a particular person, or clique, dogging my steps all day.

So the "Ignore" option is (maybe?) the best route to go. Because, unless (as was the case in the Civil Rights Movement) there are also agents provacateurs at DU who are doing the dogging, those who wish to try the "asking route" from the PtB, should not be dogging those who want to go the "demand route". And, sadly, I have found that the "dogging" goes on.

By whom? I know the monikers, but not the real agenda. I only know what is said.

And, in some cases, what is said is not productive, nor is it meant to be. So, should I be obliged to spend forever debating the same points with someone whose sole wish is to divert me from the task at hand?

I don't think so. When put in that position, as was the case yesterday, I will use the "Ignore" option, by stating so on list that I have done so.

At least until I am provided a better option.

[Bill Bored]

33. I agree with some of this. (It's a long post!)

The part about the local action is good.

Work with me on this:

Congress has no authority over Presidential elections, except that which we saw on Jan. 6, 2005. So don't fault the Rush Holts or John Ensigns of the world for not fixing what is essentially a State-controlled process.

On the other hand, as long as there is some kind of manual audit, statewide races such as for President, Senator and Governor are the hardest ones to rig and local races are the easiest. Just do the math if you don't believe me. So why aren't the HCPB folks acknowledging this? Could it be because there is more attention to be gained by doing what they're doing rather than by worrying about who gets to be Dog Catcher? I think so, but try telling that to the dogs!

If you want 100% HCPB, the best place to do it is with local races which are the easiest to rig. If you can't convince elections officials to do hand counts of the races that are easiest to rig, why do you expect Congress to mandate HCPB for Statewide races and US House races, and especially for Presidential races which they have no jurisdiction over in the first place?

So it boils down to this:
Once a Holt bill such as HR 550 (or hopefully something significantly better) passes, you're biggest concern will be US House races, which may not be audited adequately, and local races, which are practically unauditable. If Holt does audit the House races adequately, then your biggest concern is who gets to be Dog Catcher, State Senator, etc.

So if you're really committed to HCPB, don't you think that's where you should be concentrating your efforts? Hand counting the races that are easiest to rig? The problem is, it's not sexy enough.

Dissenting views are of course accepted on this or any other of my threads!

[Melissa G]

53. BB, I disagree. Statewide and national races, IMHO, are easier to rig than local races

if you have the means to rig because it is harder for a statewide candidate to afford the recount.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

55. please see this link

I have done my best to answer your questions, spent alot of time
doing so.

I knew it would take alot of time, so didn't do it till now.

Here's my best effort.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464950#465272

I hope to find time to make a full web-page of it with links to
each action, and maybe pictures of the handouts we had for rallies,
and the photos of speakers.

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. excellent post

The North Carolina story is rich and complicated, and you are in a position to tell a lot of it.

I will simply say for the record that I thought my answer to galloglas's nine-part question on the other thread was succinct and appropriate, and that the insinuation that my "sole wish is to divert (him) from the task at hand" is unfounded (as well as somewhat ironic after posing a nine-part question). Oh well.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. if you put out incorrect information

its one way to make it easier to spread to folks
who don't know better.

Just prevent anyone from providing correct info
on your thread.

Then, activists who fall for the mis-info
spread the stuff, (one said they were printing
the Collins story off and taking it to their County
BOE in North Carolina).

Then, these activists lose their creditability before
the very people they hoped to influence.

[Time for change]

28. I think that's a VERY important point

Spread of misinformation hurts us all badly.

There is no way to prevent it entirely, but when people have the opportunity to do it and block anyone who might disagree with them, perhaps that makes the thread more pleasant for some, but what does it do to our search for the truth?

I frequently read threads where I have to ask myself about the validity of the information presented, and often I have no way of knowing unless I have the time to spend lots of time researching it. By allowing dissenters to respond, that assists us all in our search for the truth.

For example, if I read a thread with an astounding claim and 30 people have responded without a single reasonable dissent that provides me with a good deal of confidence that the astounding claim is likely to be true. But with the blocking function, how can anyone have that confidence any more?

Of course, someone can start a new thread that challenges the original one. But most people reading the original thread will very often not even see the new thread. It's a very awkward way to search for the truth.

[Land Shark]

58. Striking the balance between reducing bad information and reducing bad objections/corrections

A BALANCING PROCESS (it seems to me)

Let's say something true or basically truthful, or alternatively something true to DU Election Reform principles, is posted. (Assume the truthfulness arguendo) Upon the posting of this solid OP, a bunch of objections, technical or otherwise, are posted. It then appears that the truth (or altnernatively DU Election Reform principles, as the case may be) have been discredited. But this is a misleading appearance. The OP in this hypothetical gets falsely discredited by the posting of inaccurate objections, especially technical ones.

I focus on the technical objections especially because, while in theory one could do original research and MAYBE resolve those technical objections, responding to the objection with a correction of the correction will NOT restore the thread to the appearance it deserved - that of support for a truthful or at least true-to-DU post that others may wish to adopt. What's left is a he said/she said debate on a technical (though perhaps quite important) objection.

Under the terms of my hypothetical above, these technical objections that are misleading tend to have the actual effect of derailing an otherwise good OP, creating the FALSE IMPRESSION that the OP is defective. Misinformation is just as likely, or even more likely, in a reply as it is in an OP because replies tend to be fired off with less thought (on average).

Uncertainty, doubt, hesitancy. These are BOTH appropriate qualities as well as tools that derail movements when they are inappropriately present.

CONCLUSION: There is no agreed upon PROCESS for truth-determination or testing. The scientific method is not binding we are not all scientists, nor all we all lawyers, etc. If the objection is in the nature of something that is not readily verifiable by just about anybody (chicago is in Illinois, not Indiana, for a simple example) then the poster of the reply may feel in the depths of his or her soul that they've corrected misinformation but the only thing that has happened FOR SURE is that the OP has been obstructed.

The solution to inaccurate speech, classically, is more speech. That's why it's correctly pointed out that people can always start their own threads.

THere's just as much, or more, misinformation in replies as in OPs.

As a lawyer I've experienced "objections" flying left and right.... Usually those objections are made most emphatically when the presenting lawyer is entirely correct and the objector wants to trip up their momentum. However, an observer in the gallery is relatively clueless as to whether the objection has merit or not. The only thing that has happened FOR SURE is that the momentum of one side has been disrupted.

Thus, it seems to me, that while I'm not at this time using this BLOCK feature, it strikes a balance to be able to block someone who is a permanent objector or "nemesis" of some sort. If one falls into that kind of relationship with another person on DU, either the objections are of low quality (and therefore not to be missed) or else if they are of high quality someone else will make them, or they can be made in another thread.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. it enables historical revisionism

If someone wrangles with your freehand interpretation of HAVA, or questions your premise that the forum never argued about HCPB before the 2006 election, or points out that you have apparently contradicted yourself in consecutive posts, or argues that it is principled to believe that consequences matter, you can block them and then mutter about their non-responsiveness and hidden agenda.

The problem is that no matter how sure we are that other people's motives are flawed (or pure, for that matter), it doesn't relieve us of the obligation to test our own beliefs. Well, I think it's an obligation. Here it may become increasingly optional.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

17. its a lot like like this

and

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

16. Check out a prime example of blocking to prevent corrections

Case in point: Look, see comment 85, posted on a thread that I started:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464643&mesg_id=464957

It is more excuses and justification for posting a conspiracy theory
:tinfoilhat:
based on incorrect information. It is also an excuse for spreading
incorrect information all over internet.

Its posted on my thread, but I can't rebut it because the person
wont allow it.

Hilarious.

:rofl:

Hipocritical

:spank:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

59. Those were "Southern Dems" words, not mine

Kurovski said:

"And please, please don't tell me you just used the old Right Wing intimidation technique of calling something a "conspiracy theory"? "

I wasn't using intimidation tactics to post an excerpt - word for word - from "Southern Dem's" Daily Kos diary

"Time to Doff Tin Foil Hats - No Suspicious Undervote in NC 08"

"The Southern Dem's diary :: ::
Now, conspiracy theories are cropping up surrounding the 4.2% Mecklenburg
County undervote in the 8th Congressional race between Larry Kissell and Robin Hayes...."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464950&mesg_id=464950

Southern Dem is a Democrat who provided the correct information to set the record straight

Spreading incorrect information is very damaging to the election integrity movement.
Incorrect information is ultimately debunked during the "fact check" phase, and then good election
advocates may end up with egg on their faces.
Good activists may be relegated to the status of the "little boy who cried wolf".

One person posted this comment on Southern Dem's Daily Kos diary"

"Sensational misinformation does a great deal of harm to the efforts of so many people who are doing impeccable research and working for real reform to real problems. Thanks for clearing up the undervote misinformation about Mecklenburg."

Southern Dem also posted her blog here

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/18/111023/378#c5
and
http://www.bluenc.com/time-to-doff-the-tin-foil-hats-no-suspicious-undervote-in-meck-nc-08

The blog at BlueNC is particularly interesting because people from NC who watched the election - posted comments.

Southern Dem is a democrat who lives in Mecklenburg County, I am told.

[eppur_se_muova]

19. It's the IGNOR-ANUSES we have to worry about ...

But, but, but ...

Don't be a but ho.

[Febble]

21. Well, here's my two pence

I think the block feature is nuts. Ignore was stupid enough, but at least it only protected willful IGNOR-AMUSES from the risk of learning something.

But the block feature means that not only are the ignoramuses left in ignorance, but everyone else is too.

So in effect, it means DU is no longer a discussion board. It's lost its peer-review process. And what is worse, is that what looks a post that is open to critical review ain't necessarily so.

So anyone who has me on ignore can take it off now, because I shan't be posting (except of course they won't see this post....) If anyone wants me, feel free to PM - I get PM alerts by email.

And there was me thinking it was only the rabid right that banned dissent.

Good luck, guys. You are going to need it.

Lizzie


edited for sense

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. aauuuugggghhhh! they killed Febble!

Just kidding, folks. Remember the scene where Obi-Wan Kenobi drops his light saber?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hunter]

24. The nuclear ignore is radioactive.

It eats away at the person using it.

Yeah, it eats away just a little at the discourse here on DU, but it can consume the person using it entirely.

I don't have a lot of concerns about the overall health of DU. Threads weighted down by ignores will sink like stones, taking the ignorant posters with them.

[Bill Bored]

25. This is also true. nt

[Time for change]

35. I agree with the first part of this post, but not the second part

Threads that block a lot of posters in order to stiffle dissent will not sink like stones. They simply will not contain dissent. And anyone reading the post, except those who are blocked, will have no idea that dissent is being stifled on the post.

It's just like Bush's "Town hall" meetings, where everyone is prescreened for attendence, in order to avoid any possibility of dissent. Anyone watching who isn't aware of the prescreening gets the impression of a normal public meeting, embracing the best of our democratic process. Many are totally unaware that the lies being spewed out have not chance of being rebutted.

And getting back to the blocking function on our posts, people reading threads that have been blocked for the sole purpose of supressing dissent will have no idea. I think that at least if a person wants to block people in that way (or any way), the information on the blocking should be publicly posted so that people are aware of it.

[hunter]

38. I don't pay any attention to Bush "Town Hall" meetings either.

I don't watch Fox News and I don't ever post on right wing web sites.

Most posts I ignore by not reading them. For these posts the new block function changes nothing.

I'm not even going to be upset if people block me. If someone goes to that trouble, then what they say is probably a waste of my time anyways.

In response to a snotty English Profesor's obeservation that 90% of science fiction was crap, science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon noted that "90% of everything is crap."

The percentage of crap is probably a bit higher on DU. Many posters approach 100% crap and I think it is these posters who will block the most people, thus eliminating themselves from the pool of intelligent discourse.

[Time for change]

39. My point is that dissension helps to sort out the crap from the good stuff

We know that Bush's Town hall meetings are crap because we know that there will be no dissension allowed. If they allowed anybody to ask whatever questions they wanted to, they might be worth watching.

With the blocking function, we don't know what posts are blocked to prevent dissent and which ones aren't. That prevents me (and I assume many other DUers) from being able to assess their validity as well as we otherwise could.

If I was a whole lot more knowledgable than I am, then maybe I wouldn't need the possibility of dissent on posts in order to help me judge their validity. But then, if I was that knowledgable maybe I wouldn't need to read them in the first place.

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. I suppose it depends on the crap

It's often easy to tell that someone has very little to say -- no dissension is necessary. People will either agree with it or not, but there is really no point in arguing about it. (A lot of "discussion" about candidates seems to be like that.)

I think the "crap" that has your back up -- and certainly mine -- is the stuff that purports to offer evidence of X, but actually doesn't. (As WillYourVoteBCounted has satirized here).

[hunter]

41. A nimble mind is a wonderful thing...

The only possible way to block a nimble mind is escalation. Will they next be sending the secret police to my front door?

I can hear the wicked which cackling: "How about a little fire, Scarecrow?

But who knew? All it takes is a bucket of water...

Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!! You cursed brat! Look what you've done!! I'm melting, melting. Ohhhhh, what a world, what a world. Who would have thought that some little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness. OHHHH! NO! I'm going...ohhhh..ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. that's an interesting image

I sometimes fantasize about certain posters chanting, "I am Oz!" (I suppose they reciprocate, more or less.)

Well, we will see what happens next.

[Time for change]

42. Exactly

Nobody on DU is an expert in everything, yet most of us like to read stuff on which we're not experts, in order to keep informed about things of interest.

If evidence is being offered, or if an analysis is offered, and if we don't have the time to look into it in great detail ourselves, the fact that there is a lot of agreement on a thread and no disagreement generally tends to give us a certain measure of confidence that the main points of the thread are valid. But I'm afraid that with the new blocking function, the lack of disagreement will no longer provide that measure of confidence.

I got an idea! Maybe we can have separate forums for those who want to use the blocking function. That way, those people who are interested in having nice conversations without dissent or disruption can use one forum, and those who believe that the possibility of dissent tends to improve the accuracy of the information we receive, and who care about that a great deal, can use the other forum.

[Bill Bored]

29. Can't PM either.

One of these nutty features BLOCKS that!

[salin]

31. So, I can prevent someone PMing me, responding to my

entire thread, and responding to individual posts on threads on which I didn't start the OP - but somehow I can post to that person? This is the oddest part - that I can respond to *you* while not allowing any response. When I read the 'rules' about the new feature, I really thought that I read that this wouldn't be possible (that if one totally blocked someone -that one couldn't first egg on the person than then leave that person "speechless" (can't respond.) Very dysfunctional. :-(

So many potentially vibrant discussions cut off on the one hand, and antagonistic behavior further splintering the forum (ala doing the "I will block you, but prevent you from responding" thing). Such a loss to the community - on so many levels.

[Bill Bored]

34. It boggles the mind, doesn't it? nt

[Time for change]

37. Exactly -- But there may be some ways around it

Here's an example of someone who blocked me from responding either to any of his threads or any of his posts, and yet he responded to my post on another thread, in an attempt to defend himself against the accusations being made against him on that thread. Not having any better ideas, since I couldn't respond to him directly, I responded to him through a response to the OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464643#464976

[Time for change]

36. I agree for the most part, except

I think that saying "DU is no longer a discussion board" is too extreme. There certainly remain a lot of people on DU who will not abuse the blocking function by using it to stifle dissent, and to the extent that that is true, DU will still be a discussion board.

But the unfortunate problem is that in most instances, readers of a thread will have no way of knowing the extent of that abuse.

I would recommend to you, Febble (since I share your concerns), that you (and anyone else who feels similarly about it) e-mail the administrators about your concerns on this matter. I have done so with respect to a specific post that I felt indicated a severe abuse of the blocking function.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

54. its causing crazy things to happen

I guess if people like the block feature, let them have it.

I think Hunter is on to something, about how its actually working out.

Perhaps we should just wait and see, or just learn to live with the
system.

I posted a thread, and guess what - the person blocking me posted on my
thread, and he blocked me from responding to his comment.

My previous comments about that blocking were removed by the moderator,
so this is an attempt to post a "sanitized" version of the facts.

Hopefully this comment won't be deleted too, just read it quickly,
it may be gone in a flash.

[Patsy Stone]

26. ?

[BeFree]

44. Yeah

I have two members on ignore. Mainly because I feel they ganged up on me and almost got me banned.

There is no longer any contact between the two and BeFree, except if they do somehow post something in one of my threads I might ask someone to apprise me of the post. That way if the post has any import I will be able to have independent confirmation. In this way someone else has figured that the post had some import and I can be assured that it might merit being looked into.

I doubt that I'd ever BLOCK anybody, but ignoring some posters makes my DU experience somewhat more pleasurable. Ahhhh, yes.

***************

[BeFree]

64. Well

I read through this thread again and have decided to take one person off my ignore list in the interest of keeping the discussion going as it seems so many of you here have such a high regard for such discussion.

Yes, DU members have, once again, influenced me. If it doesn't work out, and I get banned, I can always blame yall, eh?

[Kurovski]

46. Here's something I posted on another thread

I warn you: it's pretty "nutty".

" I think it may be a good thing.

The expert, purposeful disruptors who remain within the rules of DU could be dealt with. Do they exist? Do they? I'm really asking, because while I believe they might, I've not made a study of it.

Do some get paid to promote products on DU that may not be all that beneficial? Do such individuals seem to appear here chiefly--and near to exclusively--to tell you how stupid you are for not finding the product or system or person a very good thing? Are they incredibly rude yet within the DU rules? Have they done so for months and even years?

In that case the block feature can eventually rid the board of "advertising" and promotion through intimidation and other means, expert though it may be.

I'd imagine--if such individuals exist--they would be shouting down the new feature quite loudly. Mocking it and those who use it. After all, if they are indeed paid, their income from the activity could eventually dry up as the board no longer becomes profitable for those who pay them, as the message--or meme--can no longer be delivered effectively.

On a personal level, stalkers--if you have one--can be dealt with in a relatively pleasant manner.

Of course abuse of the feature is always possible, but then abuse is the reason the system was created in the first place.

Exercising good judgment and care is foremost."

[hunter]

47. The most obnoxious of them work for nothing...

Let that one lie as it may.

[Kurovski]

49. How can one know that?

Why not give it a prod and see if there's any life in it?

[hunter]

50. I think it's a kind of chemotherapy against advertising, but not the way you think.

Your hypothetical sorts of advertisers will not be "shouting down" the blocking feature, instead they will be making excessive use of it.

Imagine you are part of some cult that believes, let us say, that eating peaches will solve the problem of global warming, and that you have in fact created a very elaborate numerology that demonstrates to you and other members of your cult how this might be so.

I think you would be upset by people who questioned your methodology, maybe upset enough to block them.

Now, before anyone here in ER takes offense by thinking I am calling them peach-eaters, let me say that I believe the United States itself is such a cult. It's the "advertisers" of this cult, paid or not, who are the ones who are most likely to abuse the blocking functions.

[Kurovski]

51. I've actually thought about this: I believe it's the other way around.

Advertisers listen everywhere and to everything. They do surveys, they study everyone. EVERYONE. And everything. They are perfectly marvelous at forging new roads in a wilderness.

They want to evoke response. They would no more shut down an opportunity to advertise, an avenue to promote--positive OR negative--than they would throw away peach-flesh while eating the pit. They want to hear EVERYTHING that's being said. They'd never shut out a voice. The voice is meaningless to them anyway. It achieves worth only when it can be supported, lifted, twisted or maligned into a voice promoting the advertiser.

So, we disagree.

[hunter]

52. You see how it is a game of chess...

Watch or play.

[kster]

57. HERE YOU GO BILL BORED, perfect example

this is probably the 500th time Kelvin has said the same thing to me. While I may not use the block feature, this would be a PRIME example of why I might.

Your thread is about Blockheads, I used Bev Harris as an example, you politely answered my post, even though the exchange was done between us, Kelvin decided to let me know about Bevs personality, ONCE AGAIN!

He could have made his own thread about Bev, but instead decided to use your thread as the vehicle.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464880&mesg_id=465162

[troubleinwinter]

60. It happens all the time.

Somebody posts an article on DU by a someone unreliable, a crackpot, a bullshitter, or a liar... like Doug Thompson of CHB, Alex Jones, Rense or some thrilling article by a holocaust denier group. Next thing ya know, DUers are posting challenging the source's reputation and history.

I reckon that might be why articles you post quoting proven and known LIAR Bev Harris have response posts challenging and pointing out her reputation and history.

[kster]

61. HERE YOU GO BILL BORED perfect example #2

This post is still about the topic of your thread, but this post is completely off the subject, of your thread, Why do they keep doing this, OVER AND OVER again. This is yet another example of why some people may START considerING using that little BLOCK feature.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464880&mesg_id=465295

[troubleinwinter]

62. Oh, heck.

Maybe I shoulda put my post as a response to your post #4, as there is where it belonged, rather than a response to a response, etc., etc. (ya know how things go sometimes on DU). To clean things up, I'll go post it there too.

[kster]

65. HERE YOU GO BILL BORED, perfect example #3

And now there are two identical posts in YOUR thread that have nothing to do with the topic of YOUR thread.

By now You are probably considering the new BLOCK feature.

#60- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464880&mesg_id=465295

#63- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464880&mesg_id=465305

[OnTheOtherHand]

66. ?

kster, I feel I have some standing here, as I have actually defended you against "BevBot" stuff.

If you would show some sign of understanding that people's complaints about Bev Harris aren't just "personality" issues, and dealing with the substance, maybe we could make some progress. I'm an eternal optimist, or I wouldn't have survived on ER this long.

[salin]

67. A GD thread discussion on this topic

points to problems or dysfunctions of the function. Appears to be happening in many other forums (or would the plural be fora? Fori?) as well as here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3157888 heck some of the behavior described on that thread is worse than what I have seen (so far) in the ER forum.

My hope is that folks would recognize that the discourse on various threads has gotten so much shorter, that important stories are more quickly overlooked, that when the time-out period comes up (the 'you can't remove the block for seven days') that some would remove the block.

[troubleinwinter]

68. Thanks for the link, I added my 2 cents.

[kster]

69. HERE YOU GO BILL BORED perfect example #4

I apologize, I know your thread isn't about Bev Harris but these are perfect examples of why someone may decide to use the block feature, If I would have debated, with them, on the Bev stuff, your thread "about the block feature" would have become a vehicle to Bash Bev Harris or "BEVBOT" as they call me or anyone else that makes a Bev thread.

By now you have to be Getting the picture, Right? You haven't responded to me yet, and I was just curious what you thought, I know we all may jump off subject a little while we are posting in each others thread, but these are 4 post, that are in Your thread, that have NOTHING to do with the block feature that you were asking about. What do you think about that? Would you not get tired of this silliness?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464880&mesg_id=465366

[Bill Bored]

70. What can I say?

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to MY THREAD,
Where they are not blocked or ignored,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

[Wilms]

71. .

[kster]

73. -

:bounce:

[kster]

72. OK, I GOT YOUR NUMBER BILL BORED

Give me your tired
(WHO WILL BE FREE TO BLOCK IF THEY CHOOSE)

your poor
(WHO WILL BE FREE TO BLOCK IF THEY CHOOSE)

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
(WHO WILL BE FREE TO BLOCK IF THEY CHOOSE)

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
(WHO WILL BE FREE TO BLOCK IF THEY CHOOSE)

Send these, the homeless tempest-tost to MY THREAD,
Where they are not blocked or ignored,
(AND OR ARE FREE TO BLOCK AND IGNORE IF THEY CHOOSE)

I lift my lamp beside the golden door
(WHERE THEY WILL BE FREE TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICE)

THATS WHERE I STAND, HOW ABOUT YOU BILL BORED?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

74. blocking - now shows list of those blocked

hey, now you can see if a person is blocking someone, and
even review their list of blocked.

I saw one list that had 24-25 people blocked.

Fascinating.


(I couldn't keep looking at Shrub's SOTU,
it got on my nerves.)

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EarlG]

76. Locking

If you want to discuss the block function, please do it in the GD thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=14094&mesg_id=14094