New Ignore Feature -- Block Unwelcome Posters

[omega minimo]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3076551&mesg_id=3076551



Like Triana said:


"Excellent! DU Admins rawk!" :yourock:

[Triana]

1. Saw that!

Excellent! DU Admins rawk!

[omega minimo]

2. Brilliant!!

:thumbsup:


Bully deterrent

[Deep13]

3. Don't like this:

"The revolutionary new feature is #4: "Block Replies To Me." This feature gives you the ability to block any other DU member from either replying to your posts, or from posting in your threads. In other words: If you don't like someone, you can choose not to have to interact directly with that person, ever."

Blocking someones access to a whole thread strikes me as a way to stifle dissent and prevent honest debate just because the OP is sensitive about the subject. Are we interested in finding the truth or do we just want to sit around patting each other's back like so many Republicans?

[omega minimo]

4. Esp. in this Forum, the positive is blocking serial abusers and disruptors

[Deep13]

5. Didn't realize which forum I was in, actually.

[omega minimo]

6. Link in OP to main thread

:hi:

[Deep13]

8. Hey, I hear Nancy Pelosi is the new House Speaker.

nifty

[Triana]

7. In this forum...

...I think it is more necessary than in some others because of the abusers and disruptors that frequent this forum. Their intent is just too obvious and we need to be able to shut them down. Not to stifle 'debate', but to stop the abuse. They're not interested in discussion. They're interested in verbally abusing the women who post here so they can salve their insecurities and feel powerful and dominant - like they're used to doing outside of such a forum.

[Deep13]

9. That's unfortunate.

That point of view and the need to be abusive not very progressive at all. Actually, it is more characteristic of the other party.

[omega minimo]

10. You said it

[Triana]

12. It seems so doesn't it?

We discussed that here - how a lot of progressive/liberal guys are angry/insecure/controlling/abusive and though they purport to support equal/women's rights - their actions, attitudes and behaviors say otherwise. They act more like - well - Republicans. It's disappointing.

EDIT: Really, though, all kinds of people have personality/behavior issues. All of us do really. No one is perfect. Some of these issues though, are *very* destructive and abusive to others and relationships with others. It's not limited to any type of person or party. And when those abusive types won't acknowledge their issues, don't recognize them, and just blame everyone else (women - the ones they're usually abusing) for them, then there's nothing to do but leave them (and their abusive personalities) behind. Both here, and IRL.

[omega minimo]

13. the disruptors disrupt. the trolls troll. the cool folks (f&m) get fed up and go away..........

Not any more!!!!


There are occasional opportunities on DU to improve communications with those who don't "get it" but are willing to actually HAVE discussion rather than shut it down or hijack it. Now there will be more of those opportunities.

[omega minimo]

11. Not any more!!!!

"They're interested in verbally abusing the women who post here so they can salve their insecurities and feel powerful and dominant - like they're used to doing outside of such a forum."


:woohoo:

[applegrove]

14. Sounds good. Way to go mods.

[femrap]

15. What a great idea...

now we won't have to be bothered by misogynists.

[omega minimo]

16. It's a Disruptor Buster

[Triana]

17. ROTFL!

Good name fer it. B-)

[VelmaD]

18. well, it has been less than 24 hours...

and I have already been blocked twice (that I know of) by people who just can't handle being called on their sexist bullshit. Still think this is a good new change?

BTW, pm me if you want to know who blocked me. It won't be a surprise.

on edit: make that 3

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[omega minimo]

20. I thought the new Block might get people acting better, not worse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3157888&mesg_id=3167909


Why aren't the Rules and the Mods enough?
Why are certain individuals allowed to "constantly harrass" multiple other DUers and not get banned?
Why are certain individuals allowed to "constantly harrass" specific Forums and not get banned?
Why is one Forum allowed to announce, organize, swarm, hijack and get locked another thread in another Forum?
Why are certain topics impossible to discuss in the Big Forums without "constant harrassment" and disruption of threads?
Why are certain subgroups resigned to keeping (themselves and their topics) out of the Big Forums?
Why are certain subgoups supposed to "know their place" and not dare attempt discussion in a Big Forum without being disrupted and hijacked?
Why aren't the constructive principles for discussion as expressed in the Rules possible to play out on the Board?
Why are people ashamed to show consideration for each other or at the very least just show basic courtesy and "respect" as in DU Rules?

[Skittles]

21. sorry, I think this feature absolutely STINKS

I find it very disconcerting that DUers cannot simply IGNORE people but feel the need to CENSOR them. THAT IS SAD.

[omega minimo]

22. Hi Skittles. Another way to look at this (and its intended use for "constant harassers")

is that disruptors actually "censor" other DUers discussions.

Now they don't.

[Syrinx]

23. I never harassed you

Yet you had me on your list.

[Skittles]

25. which tells me

people using the block function were more worried about differing opinions than they were by "harassment"

[omega minimo]

28. Sure were a lot of abusive types worrying about other people's "misuse" of the Block tool

As for the "differing opinions" thing, too many were screeching about that before the thing even got going. The Admins said that too many folks DIDN'T EVEN GIVE THIS A CHANCE TO WORK. it worked really well when a multitude of people all put the SAME TWO individuals on Block immediately. Tired of those same two disruptors hijacking threads, "constantly harassing" others.

"What a pantload" indeed. You're "APPALLED" that DU would test out a new function that might have enhanced constructive discussion and caused LESS CENSORSHIP/DISRUPTION of topics by abusers. But you're not appalled at how hateful people can be here, pissing on the Rules and each other. :puke:

[Skittles]

30. yes, it appalled me

if you don't like a DUer, IGNORE them but do not drag other DUers into your disputes....most of the people I saw blocked did NOT harass - they just had different opinions and personalities than the people who wished to SHUT THEM DOWN - THAT'S WHY THEY GOT RID OF IT

[Syrinx]

29. exactly!

Thank you.

[omega minimo]

35. if you were part of the swarm that killed the thread or the backwash afterward

you were on the list.

You're right-- I don't know you, I didn't know any of those people.

So it's their problem.

The weird thing - aside from the bullies screaming at people about being cowards (which would be ironic if it wasn't so pathetic) - is all the bullshit artists messing with other people's threads and posts and then acting like they couldn't understand why they were Blocked.

:eyes:

[Skittles]

24. what a pantload

if you don't like anohter DUer, USE THE IGNORE FEATURE. Don't CENSOR them so other DUers cannot know their opinions in your threads. Well it looks like DU got rid of that crappy feature - I am APPALLED people used it on a DEMOCRATIC board.

[Midlodemocrat]

26. .

:applause:

[omega minimo]

27. see that sort of bullshit belligerence is really unecessary.

[Skittles]

31. if you can't ddeal with differing opinions stick me on ignore

BLOCKING is what was f***ing unnecessary

[omega minimo]

32. you just proved how wrong you are

I say Hi Skitles, here's another way to look at it.......... (as in being nice to try, ya know, DISCUSSION)

You say What A Pantload

I say that belligerent bullshit is unecessary

You say belligerent bullshit = "differing opinions"


The people screaming loudest about the Block don't know how to make a point without being obnoxious and couldn't handle having to face the consequences of their behavior, not their "differing opinions."

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

33. So put them on ignore.

What's so hard about that?

The block feature was abused TERRIBLY, and I'm actually not really talking about you when I say that.

[bicentennial_baby]

38. you don't know Skittles, hehe

To know her, is to appreciate her sometimes belligerent nature :)

And Skittles, I mean that in a nice way :hi:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. Dissent is not disruption. Disruption is not censorship.

Censorship is not letting other people state their views, not not letting them state their views unopposed.

Arguing a differing opinion in a thread is only disruption in the sense that it's making it harder for the OP to convince people that they're right, and that's in no way immoral. It's not disrupting their ability to put their case, and it certainly isn't censoring them.

Beforehand and currently, censorship was/is virtually impossible on DU except by the moderators. The new block feature made it possible, which I think was a bad thing. I think the moderators made the right decision.

[omega minimo]

36. You're right. There is a difference but your equation is off a bit.

Dissent is not disruption. Disruption is disruption. You are a good example of the former. You take a contrary stance on many of the topics I've seen. So far, though, you keep it in the realm of discussion or "civility" AFAIK.

"Dissent is not disruption. Disruption is not censorship."

So dissent is not censorship. Agreed. And pretending that people who don't want to be harassed by disruptors are trying to prevent "differing opinions" is a phony argument. The people concerned about "censorship" or limited discussions didn't seem to look at the fact that when disruptors hijack threads or get them locked, they are limiting and blocking the ability of others to discuss.

This tool was intended for "constant harassers." All the arguments about misuse were premature and mostly from people who were afraid they would be blocked for their behavior, not opinions.

Thanks for checking in.

[mongo]

37. Do you mean the disrupters and harrassers like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=5905&mesg_id=6098

Unfortunately, the real harrassers and distrupters would never be blocked in this forum.

[omega minimo]

39. No like this.

"And it also makes me just a little more knowledgeable about what it is and is not, who is consuming it, who is making it and who is against it and why. A little better than getting all my information from a few "feminist" blogs written by emotionally scarred and damaged women taking their own pain out on any form of sexual expression they don't like. Why should someone come to terms with being abused by a family member, if they can turn that anger outward onto "porn"?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=5622&mesg_id=5661


The fact that you are trying to a cause trouble and breaking rules by linking to a quote in another thread that another person said about an individual, in a reply to my comments to that individual in this thread :crazy: is a great example of the kind of disruption and harassment we don't need in this forum or any other.

The quote from you is a great example of the kind of viciousness and hatred we don't need in this forum or any other.

"The real harrassers and distrupters" seem to think you have the right to bully and accuse others of being the problem.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. Ah. Now I'm afraid I'd classify that as a clear example of dissent, not disruption.

It may well be disruptive, in the sense that it turns an echo chamber into a disagreement, and it's certainly intended to cause offence (although that's not the same thing as "untrue"), but I think it's a clear example of legitimately expressing a differing, valid opinion.

I think that "disruption" is a very dangerous concept indeed. The idea that you can label some positions as "just disruption, not real arguments" and hence ignore them is one I disagree with strongly.

The only posts that could arguably be dismissed as disruption are those which don't make any attempt to put forwards arguments relevant to the matter in hand, and are purely mockery. And even in those cases, I think the thing to do is to pay them no heed, not to prevent them being made - they're harmless, and there's nowhere you can draw a line that will exclude them but not some genuine dissent.

If you want an example of something that could arguably be termed "disruption", read the nine responses to my post 83 in the thread you linked to, many of which contain no substance and no attempt at substance whatsoever.

[mongo]

41. Hmmmm....

he fact that you are trying to a cause trouble and breaking rules by linking to a quote in another thread that another person said about an individual, in a reply to my comments to that individual in this thread :crazy: is a great example of the kind of disruption and harassment we don't need in this forum or any other.


Well, first of all, I'm not breaking the rules, because outside of DU groups, there is no rule about linking to other threads, except if you are carrying a flame war to another thread. I was posting an example of "harrassing and disruptive" behavior you were talking about above. Personally, I think that the post I linked to is a perfect example of the kind of viciousness and hatred we don't need in this forum or any other. There is no point made, except that the poster is unwelcome in the forum.

Second, Ms. pot calling the kettle black:

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

[omega minimo]

42. You are not allowed to call out individual posters with links to other threads

except in the Lounge, apparently :evilfrown:



Goodbye mongo

[Wickerman]

43. locking

thread in GD if you still have a need to discuss this.