Abusing the block feature?

[Behind the Aegis]

I have poured over the two threads announcing the new feature on blocking replies to yourself from others. I may have missed this, but I have a couple of questions about abuse of the new feature. Normally, I would just PM one of the administrators, but I thought others might benefit from the answers (besides, given the length of thread two about this topic, I wasn't sure it would be seen).

1. Person A places Person B on block, but before doing so gets in one last "potshot." (I know there was talk (and trying to see if it was possible) to allow one last post from the "blocked.") Would this not be considered abuse (posting to someone, then blocking him/her)?
   
   
2. Person B is blocked by person A, but person A didn't start the thread, so person B can reply to someone else in the thread about person A blocking him/her and then provide a response. Is this considered abuse of the block system? If so, then will the 'offending post' be deleted?
   
   
3. Person B is blocked by person A, but person A didn't start the thread, so person B can reply to someone else in the thread correcting false/inaccurate information posted by person A (or asserting a differing opinion) but doesn't mention/state that s/he (person B) is being blocked. Is this considered abuse of the block system? If so, then will the 'offending post' be deleted?
   
   
4. Finally, person A has placed person B on block, but person B has chose not to block person A. Person A continues to post to person B, knowing that s/he (person B) cannot reply to his/her (person A). I am not talking about threads started by person B, per se, but within threads already established. Would this be abuse of the blocking system?

If these questions would be better answered in private, please PM me. However, as I stated, I felt that others might also have these questions. If they were answered in one of the two threads about this feature, I apologize for re-asking, but ask that you direct me to the answer.

Edited to add numbers to questions.

[annabanana]

1. As far as I can tell. .

the new feature doesn't concern me at all. At least not so far. Should I ramp up my nasty? Should I be more easily insulted?

[originalpckelly]

2. I think I got blocked...

and I have no idea why. No one else looks like they have blocked me either, and I wonder if the block I did get might have been a mistake. Oh well.

[smoogatz]

56. What if eventually everybody blocks everybody else?

Huh? What then?

[LoZoccolo]

3. HAHAHAHA LOL IBTL!@!!!!!!!

[mikelewis]

4. Blocked Message

[porphyrian]

5. Bad block feature! You're stupid and will never amount to anything, block feature!

You didn't mean that kind of abuse, did you?

[Behind the Aegis]

11. It is not the feature I have an issue with, per se.

It is how it is being wielded by some. The idea was that this feature could be used to "enhance" the DU experience, so I don't see how someone abusing it is enhancing anything. If anything, it is being used as a bullying tactic, when it was provided to stop such things.

[peace13]

15. Nothing about the feature enhances Du as far as I can see.

Please don't block me for saying this!

[Behind the Aegis]

17. It may for some.

But the reason I asked these questions is because I have seen places where the feature is being abused, IMO. I wanted to see what the opinion of the administrators was regarding these situations.

As for your comment...you dissented...you are now blocked!

;) (kidding)

[porphyrian]

18. At least it's being tested completely, and it is a test.

If it turns out more people are abusing it than getting something positive out of it, they said they'll ditch it. If someone is really bothering you, report and/or ignore them. It's just text on your computer screen, and you can't control what other people do with it.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. I understand it is a test.

As it is a test, I am asking what the parameters are. I am not going to hit alert on something that is not considered to be "abuse" as that just clogs up the cogs. I have no desire to control what other people do, which is why I don't have anyone blocked.

[porphyrian]

21. Well, aside from what's in the offical post about the feature, I think we're determining it...

...by doing this trial run. We're pioneers in that respect. I'm not sure I understand how blocking someone else is controlling what they do, especially if it's the easiest answer to someone bothering you by abusing the blocking feature, though.

Edit: omitted "it"

[Behind the Aegis]

25. Well...

"I'm not sure I understand how blocking someone else is controlling what they do.... See post #6. If the block feature evolves, then we shall see how it is used. Some are using it now for the reasons intended, others, it seems, are using it as the complete oppposite of the very reason it was created.

[porphyrian]

29. It doesn't prevent them from starting their own thread on the subject.

It's not really controlling anyone else at all. If you look at a thread someone starts like their house, it's like kicking them out, but still allowing them to look in the window (read the thread). Maybe threads you can't reply to at all should be hidden. That is a matter of functionality, however, not of controlling other people.

[JuniperLea]

34. Brilliant idea!

Hiding the thread. Something to ponder. I wonder how that would play out if it were part of the post blocking. Seems logical.

[porphyrian]

38. The downside is that you miss out on whatever posts are on it...

...and some of them might be great to read, even if you can't reply to them (which is, I think, why they aren't hidden now). I could go either way on it.

[treestar]

164. Yes, I just don't see the benefit of hiding something from

yourself.

Even if someone is harassing you, what's the improvement in not knowing about it?

It's like ignoring symptoms. You still have the disease.

[porphyrian]

234. I believe everyone has a right to define reality for themself, even if they're wrong...

...or crazy or whatever (they don't agree with me, because I'm always right). It's only a problem if their delusion affect mine in some negative way. Something like that.

Edit: Added Tangential Question - Have you seen David Lynch's "Lost Highway?" It's weird, but it kind of addresses the idea of someone remembering his life the way he wants to rather than how it was.

[Morgana LaFey]

59. You get an option to do that automatically when you block someone

When someone blocks you, the "reply" link at the bottom of that person's post says "cannot reply." You can click on that and you're taken to a page that tells you what you already, by that time, know: you've been blocked by this person.

That page also gives you the opportunity to "counterblock," as I refer to it (or is that the official term?). If you do THAT, you can choose 4 options and one of them is basically to automatically hide that person's threads. There may be one to hide the original blocker's posts, too. I wasn't paying that much attention.

I was surprised to find myself blocked yesterday, and I counterblocked -- which I'd never thought I would do -- but felt it necessary to do to avoid having a situation where this person would respond to MY posts in his typical way, while I would be prevented from responding at all.

[JuniperLea]

87. Interesting!

Thanks for the info!

[Behind the Aegis]

35. In some cases what you say is true.

However, there are some forums that don't lend themselves to that (LBN is one). To start another thread because (let's say I blocked you) you can't reply to my thread, then your thread would be a dupe and if I started the thread first, then yours will get combined with mine, and then you will be unable to reply once again.

[porphyrian]

37. That's something to point out on the pinned thread, if someone hasn't already.

I seem to remember someone talking about LBN on there, but I can't remember what it was about exactly.

[question everything]

140. It was. I used the example of the I/P forum

where, as with LBN, only news stories can start a thread, so a reply would be quickly deleted or locked.

No one replied.

[greyl]

40. Yeah, LBN could cause a lot of trouble. nt

[LostInAnomie]

98. Actually, it can.

There was an incident a couple of days ago where a poster started an inflammatory thread and blocked out many with opposing views. When those that had been blocked out started a thread giving the opposing view their thread was locked. Apparently, the OP of the original thread said that the second thread was "continuing an argument" and had the mods delete it.

This new rule effectively gives the most childish of DUers the ability to stop all conversation of which they don't personally approve.

[porphyrian]

101. Not really. That's the actions of a moderator who perhaps wasn't considering...

...the new feature and how it was being used, not the feature itself or the person using it. The blocked people were able to start a new thread, even if it eventually got locked. It's possible that this was done in a forum that has stricter (more strict, whatever) rules about duplicate posts - they aren't all the same, and different moderators have different styles/tolerances.

[jgraz]

105. And how do you think the mods found out about follow-on threads?

From alerts by the cowardly OP who blocked replies in the first place!

This is happening in GD, on posts that simply offer an opposing viewpoint. In the past, people have pulled extended replies into their own threads with no problem. But now, with the lovely new block feature, these replies can be locked for "continuing the argument".

[porphyrian]

132. That's an issue that needs to be resolved with the moderators.

No one has a right to post on someone's thread. No rights are being taken away here.

I'm not advocating the blocking feature, I guess I just don't really care that much about it. Maybe you guys just aren't used to being ignored as much as I am...

[jgraz]

138. So many things wrong with what you just said

First off, the OP doesn't own the thread just because they started it, so there's no way that you can post on someone's thread. Furthermore, you're not just taking away my right to post (and, yes, I do think it's a right), you're also taking away everyone else's right to see a true peer-review of your OP. And since the blocks are SILENT, you're also taking away people's right to even know that they're not seeing a true, open debate.

All around suckage, IMHO.

[porphyrian]

139. Oh, really? Let's see who's wrong...

This is what I said:
"No one has a right to post on someone's thread. No rights are being taken away here.

I'm not advocating the blocking feature, I guess I just don't really care that much about it. Maybe you guys just aren't used to being ignored as much as I am..."

Now, let's address what you just said.


"First off, the OP doesn't own the thread just because they started it, so there's no way that you can post on someone's thread."

I didn't say the OP owned anything. You did. You're wrong.
I said "someone's thread" to indicate origin, which is apparent from context. Sorry to confuse you with the obvious.


"Furthermore, you're not just taking away my right to post (and, yes, I do think it's a right),..."

You don't have a right to post anywhere. You're wrong. Read the rules.


"...you're also taking away everyone else's right to see a true peer-review of your OP."

No one has a right to view a post here. You're wrong.


"And since the blocks are SILENT, you're also taking away people's right to even know that they're not seeing a true, open debate."

The blocks are only silent if you're illiterate or never try to post to something the person blocking you posts. And no one has a right to know they're blocked. Again, you're wrong.


What sucks is that there are so many people here that feel entitled to control other peoples' behavior while complaining that other people are controlling their behavior, which is externalizing responsibility, hypocritical and wrong.

[LostInAnomie]

146. I think you misinterpreted what he said

"And since the blocks are SILENT, you're also taking away people's right to even know that they're not seeing a true, open debate."

He was saying that since the rest of the thread is not aware that individuals are being blocked from participation they are unaware of all the opinions out there and the reasons behind those opinions. Which is another reason the old "ignore" feature was superior.

I also take issue with something you say: "I didn't say the OP owned anything."

You may not have said that but the implication is obvious. By agreeing that the OP is the de facto judge of what is allowed to be posted and seen by everyone in their thread you are indicating that they do own the thread. There simply isn't any other conclusion to draw.

"What sucks is that there are so many people here that feel entitled to control other peoples' behavior while complaining that other people are controlling their behavior, which is externalizing responsibility, hypocritical and wrong."

Please, explain how is wanting to freely participate in a forum they joined and in many cases bought memberships for is "controlling other people's behavior"? You've said yourself that the OP does not own the thread, therefore by implication the OP should not be able to control the content of a thread or what other people are allowed to read. That is the job of the mods. They have the right to ignore other posters, and there used to be a handy option for that that impeded no one.

[porphyrian]

151. I'm not the one claiming that blocking is controlling other peoples' behavior. That's...

...what I've been arguing against.

[LostInAnomie]

167. The please explain, how the OP blocking people from participating in...

... threads they don't own (by your own words) and keeping others from reading their opinions in a free forum, is not controlling the behavior of others? If anything it is at least intrusively controlling the forum access of the blocked and those that may read them.

Also, please explain, how are the blocked poster is wanting to control the behavior of the OP? They simply want to participate in the free exchange of ideas that this forum was designed for. Explain how that intrudes on the ability of the OP to do the same in any way that a simple ignore couldn't handle.

[porphyrian]

190. Jesus Fucking Christ, is everyone daft?

The person who acts is responsible for their action, not anyone else's. The person who blocks is responsible for blocking, not what you do or don't do after that. What you do or don't do after that is your action and your responsibility. No one makes anyone do anything. You are inventing a false victim scenario.

You have no right to post here. You have no right to read anything posted here. You are allowed to by those who own the site. How many times do I have to repeat this?

[LostInAnomie]

191. "The person who blocks is responsible for blocking..."

They are responsible for blocking access of others to the full use of the forum, something you yourself has said they don't have the right to do because they don't own the thread. They are not admin., they are not a mod, so they shouldn't have the power to do these things.

If the mods and admin. felt that we truly had no say in this they would not be going through the test, they wouldn't be asking for our opinion in the pinned thread, they wouldn't allow us to challenge their rulings, and they wouldn't allow threads like this one to continue.

We are simply highlighting the ways this new feature can and is being abused. If you don't really have an opinion on the new rule beside "What the mods say is right." then why are you even posting in this thread?

You may be right, and our complaints are futile. But as long as the mods and admin. stop us, we have the granted right to do so.

[porphyrian]

192. You are wrong, for the reasons I've stated enough. - n/t

[LostInAnomie]

193. Right, I forgot.

"What the mods say is always right."

How can I challenge that logic?

[porphyrian]

195. When you start LostInAnomie Underground, you can make whatever rules you want.

As long as you post here, however, you'll do whatever the owners say you can do, not whatever you want or feel entitled to. Do you get it yet? Can I make it any clearer than that?

[LostInAnomie]

196. And, how can I make it any clearer than saying...

... the admin. and mods have given us the latitude to discuss the pluses and minuses of the new feature, and that is what we are doing. If they didn't want to give us this freedom they would not give us all the options I have already listed.

If you do not actually have any pro's or con's to discuss about this feature besides stating that the mods have the ultimate word, then why are you even participating in the discussion. If truly doesn't effect you either way if that's your view.

[porphyrian]

197. OK, you are simply daft. - n/t

[jgraz]

201. See?? The good ol' fashioned ignore switch works just fine on you

cya :hi:

[porphyrian]

206. About time. - n/t

[jgraz]

159. See, it's exactly that kind of snotty attitude that will get you blocked

Not by me, since I've used that same tone (usually with much more merit), but you certainly will find yourself blocked by many other people.

Other posters have done a decent job of showing you where your reasoning went off the rails (assuming it was ever on), so I won't pile on -- I'm sure that would cause you to block me anyway.

[porphyrian]

165. I don't care who blocks me or who doesn't.

My reasoning didn't go "off the rails." I'm sorry you don't get it. And you obviously don't know me if you think I'd block you, but that was apparent when you first started criticizing me without knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

[jgraz]

171. Obviously I don't know you

But from your posts I'm guessing you're around 12 years old. (See? snottiness. But to be fair, you really had to work for it)

One thing you'll learn as you get older is that disagreeing with someone's reasoning (i.e. saying "you're wrong") is NOT the same as criticizing them personally.

Why don't you try giving LostInAnomie a substantive response? He's actually done a fine job representing what I actually meant in my post.

[porphyrian]

188. Yeah, that's funny.

Save your condescension for someone who gives a fuck what you think.

I gave a substantive response - this entire argument is moot because no one is entitled to post here, nor does anyone have a right to do so. An individual's actions are their own, not a result of someone else's actions. And I don't care if people whine about it, but it does no good unless you take it up with the people making the rules here.

I'm sorry you have such a difficult time understanding this, despite the number of times I've repeated it on this thread alone.

[Deja Q]

225. What if a person followed another just to be a petty jackanapes?

Surely that is a valid exception to the rule?

And even then I'd disagree to the usage of that special function. We all know the rules about trolling and stalking...

[enigmatic]

238. I don't think it is

Because the old rules applied just as valid as the new SuperDuper Block. That's why I think it's worthless.

[LostInAnomie]

126. "...able to start a new thread, even if it eventually got locked"

That is exactly the point. The new rule allows the cowardly blocker to censor all views divergent from their own by claiming it is "continuing the argument." What is the point of starting a thread offering a different point of view if it will assuredly be locked?

If the ridiculous rule is going to be allowed to continue, the mods are going to have to be better instructed on the criteria for locking an opposing thread. Giving in to the laments of cowardly douche bags is a poor way to run a forum.

[porphyrian]

131. It won't assuredly get locked, like I said.

That depends on the forum and the moderator and the content of the post. The original poster didn't make anyone do anything.

[LostInAnomie]

134. The OP did make someone do something.

The OP made the poster go somewhere else to discuss a topic.

The OP made it impossible for the poster to respond to replies to their own posts.

The OP forced the mod to make a decision about locking a thread, thereby censoring the poster's views again.

The OP and mod made the poster doubt their right as a member of DU to make their opinion heard.

First of all, I can assure you that the locked thread did not contain any inflammatory content (especially, when compared to the OP's). Second, we are talking about the GD forum here. The forum where the widest variety of opinions are expressed, and the mods should have the highest tolerance for divergent ideas. Even giving the impression that divergent ideas will get your thread locked is a major betrayal of good faith.

[porphyrian]

136. You have a twisted sense of who is responsible for their own actions if you believe that.

People don't make other people do anything. One person does their thing. Other people do their own thing, perhaps in response to someone else's thing, but not necessarily. The person doing the action is the person acting, and no one is responsible for their actions but themselves.

The OP blocked people from posting to their thread. The OP is responsible for blocking them. However, people neither have to post to that thread nor have some special right to do so. What they do or don't do is not the responsibility of the OP.

Everyone does have a right to their opinion, but they don't have a right to post it anywhere or in any way they want on DU. There are rules. Those rules are not entirely inflexible, nor are the mods. If there's a grievance, take it up with them. If they still say you're wrong, oh well.

I don't care what the thread was about. I have no investment whatsoever in the thread you mention, or the blocking feature that's being tested. I'm simply making the point that you are responsible for what you do, I'm responsible for what I do, but you can't make me do anything I don't choose to do and I can't make you do anything you don't choose to do. The actor is responsible for their actions, not everyone else's.

[LostInAnomie]

141. In a way you have made the point I was trying to make.

"Everyone does have a right to their opinion, but they don't have a right to post it anywhere or in any way they want on DU. There are rules."

DU is a forum. That implies that posters should be allowed express their views without fear of being censored, unless they are breaking the rules that they agreed to when joining DU. When a poster starts a topic they are by implication opening up their views to critique, and allowing contrary views to be expressed. In a forum, it is the height of bad faith to start a thread and then block posters from expressing their views if they are not breaking any of the forum's rules. If posters only want one side of an issue to be expressed they should go to one of the many groups on DU, or find another forum to post on.

It is also the height of bad faith for mods to lock threads for "continuing the argument" when this new rule essentially forces those that are blocked to do so if they want to discuss the specific topic. The blocker has the right and ability to hide the offensive thread if they don't want to see it. Why should the rest of DU have to conform or even have to worry about conforming to their fragile world view?

This new rule steps too far into the realm of letting others impede your ability to freely post. If the whole point of it is to "personalize your DU experience" then the old rules sufficed. They allowed the poster to block the offending poster from their sight and their sight alone, and as long as they weren't breaking the rules no only else was effected. The new rule only serves to undermine that actual point of a forum.

[porphyrian]

142. DU is a forum, but it isn't a free and open forum.

It has rules we must follow, and none of us are entitled to post here - they can tombstone us any time they want. You have no right to post at all, nor to read posts, reply to posts or anything else.

It's not that I don't understand your argument, it's that the argument is moot.

[LostInAnomie]

144. Then there is absolutely no reason for this whole thread...

... or to even announce rule changes. You are essentially saying "No matter what, you have to eat it and smile." The mods and administrators on this forum, in my experience at least, tend to be fair and play by the rules they have set. That is why people have felt free enough to challenge this new rule and it's implementation without fear of being tombstoned.

You are correct in saying that the mods have the final word, but if the argument were truly moot they wouldn't give us the option of airing our grievances or challenging their rulings. Ultimately, the discourse makes this forum a better place to post.

[porphyrian]

152. I'm not the mod or the owner(s) of DU.

If you think you have a legitimate beef, take it up with them. Complaining here is the waste of time, not my pointing this out.

[omega minimo]

147. Especially as the mistaken assumptions being spread as facts are the work of suspicious minds:

You said it, porphyrian:

“What sucks is that there are so many people here that feel entitled to control other peoples' behavior while complaining that other people are controlling their behavior, which is externalizing responsibility, hypocritical and wrong.”


Especially as the mistaken assumptions being spread as facts are the work of suspicious minds:

* "There was an incident a couple of days ago where a poster started an inflammatory thread and blocked out many with opposing views."
* "When those that had been blocked out started a thread giving the opposing view their thread was locked."

--How does this person know who or how many were blocked out? Does he really mean When HE had been blocked out and HE started a thread...........”?

* "Apparently, the OP of the original thread said that the second thread was "continuing an argument" and had the mods delete it."
* "And how do you think the mods found out about follow-on threads? From alerts by the cowardly OP who blocked replies in the first place!
"* "The new rule allows the cowardly blocker to censor all views divergent from their own by claiming it is "continuing the argument."
* "The OP forced the mod to make a decision about locking a thread, thereby censoring the poster's views again."

--“Apparently”? There’s no way of knowing who or how many DUers alerted on a thread. Why would someone assume that it was the original OP? How does this person think they know that? ...There’s no way. These ill assumptions build on each other and are broadcast as facts-- isn’t that a bit "cowardly"?

* ”Giving in to the laments of cowardly douche bags is a poor way to run a forum.”

--Ah yes-- true colors. Don’t suppose the bullying tone had anything to do with getting blocked, then?

* "First of all, I can assure you that the locked thread did not contain any inflammatory content (especially, when compared to the OP's)."

--Now here we have not just “assurances” but a continuation of the campaign against the infamous “OP.”

* "That implies that posters should be allowed express their views without fear of being censored, unless they are breaking the rules that they agreed to when joining DU"

--The new tool gives us the option to block those who ARE breaking the Rules by “constantly harassing" us.

* ”One person's lively debate is another person's dickishness (dickosity?). Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder, so people are faced with the challenge of "not being a dick" according to every poster's differing definition."

--No-- that’s what the Rules are for. That will help with “the challenge of "not being a dick."”

*********

I won’t assume that I am the GREAT AND POWERFUL OP that was “making” people do things. There were a familiar ring to the story, though..........

I OPed last week with a simple four line statement, followed by an online essay with link and really cool illustrations. The OP took off, the thread grew. There was some good discussion, some incoherent drive-by posts and a few aggressive posters arrived with continuous insults.

Now here’s where the DU Rules can really help people who are “challenged” with that “dickishness is in the eye of the beholder” thing. Don’t come in acting like a jerk first thing and then blame the person who eventually may give up trying to discuss with your belligerence and if pushed far enough may even decide to Block you.

I gave one guy every opportunity to quit badgering me and finally blocked him. I draw the line somewhere between “continuous abuse” and “viciousness.”

Unbeknownst to me, he went off and started a retaliatory opposition OP. There were a couple dozen copycat threads in the Lounge. One Lounge OP was “Who wants to go hijack the ____ thread with me?” So a huge swarm of DUers showed up to disrupt the thread. Which was locked. Hijacked.

In fact, the person that I blocked is spreading the lie that “the OP put up a silly language police thread and then blocked anyone who dissented. Hence the new threads.”

Somehow he is pluralizing what happened to him as if it was “anyone who dissented” and and pretending that-- as you point out-- “the OP“ is responsible for his behavior.

As much as he and others may pretend in various “Ignore” threads to self-righteous indignation-- never quite figuring out that if they act like “dicks,” chances are somewhat might block them-- the truth is the instigators are the ones “abusing” the new Ignore feature. Some are acting obnoxious and TRYING to get Blocked so they can call people “cowards.”

Here’s what one of them said to another that was gunning for me:


“Dude how have you not been blocked. “You are clearly not working hard enough.”

[porphyrian]

150. What're you gonna do?

:shrug:

Some people just aren't happy unless they're not happy.

[jgraz]

178. Gotta say, OM, for someone who's not interested in what I have to say

you sure are following my posts closely. Sadly, you earned yourself all the suspicion by posting a factually incorrect accusation and then blocking a response. Had I been allowed to respond, I would have pointed you to my FIRST post which did, in fact, contain a substantive criticism.

This experience is proof enough that the blocking feature is hopelessly broken. In most cases, arguments such as this would have quickly resolved on their own. But now, with the block, they're expanded over several threads and several days. Instead of just being a temporary annoyance to me, you're now the "cowardly blocker" who posted a hit-and-run response and then decided that some views were unacceptable for other DUers to read.

Instead of fulfilling their role as sheriff of our little town, the mods have handed each of us a badge and a gun. Are they really surprised when people start getting shot?

[porphyrian]

189. My name isn't "OM," and I don't care what you think. - n/t

[jgraz]

200. Wasn't talking to you -- try to keep up

[omega minimo]

221. It's a thought experiment

The thoughtless are fixated on "cowardice" when they know they can't get away with being constantly belligerent.
They don't realize it takes more courage to be thoughtful, than to be a bully.

in the meantime, it's Lord of the Flies.

"Some people just aren't happy unless they're not happy."

Signs of the times. People are runnin scared.

Take care, P :hi:

[LostInAnomie]

177. First off...

... I'll ignore how many times you called people a sexual slur in that post. You really should watch that. I know you put quotation marks around it, but as some people are fond of claiming "context doesn't matter" it's still the "language of domination". So I'll just ask you to please stop with your bullying and viciousness, or I will have to alert the mods. Maybe try reading the rules if you aren't familiar with them.

"--How does this person know who or how many were blocked out? Does he really mean When HE had been blocked out and HE started a thread...........”?"

Well, first off I wasn't blocked from the original thread, that should be easy enough to check. Second, I didn't start another thread, that should be easy to check as well. Third, I know people were blocked out because they posted in the alternative thread that they were. I can find you the links if you want.

"There’s no way of knowing who or how many DUers alerted on a thread."

That is one of the inherent flaws of the system. It allows cowards to hide behind anonymity and alert the mods to threads that they don't like. Instead of actually engaging the arguments being made like an adult, they can make the accusation that the thread is "continuing the argument."

"--Ah yes-- true colors. Don’t suppose the bullying tone had anything to do with getting blocked, then?"

Like I said earlier, I wasn't blocked. Maybe you should try a little fact checking before you make accusations.

"--The new tool gives us the option to block those who ARE breaking the Rules by “constantly harassing" us. "

The tool also gives childish posters that can't stand to see their black and white world view challenged the ability to block off opposing views. Especially, when the OP doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Constant harassment is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't like someone or what they are saying, put them or ignore and the problem is solved. You shouldn't be able to block their access to the forum, or block others from reading contrary opinions. Especially, if no rules are being broken.

Now you are making a lot of accusations about people's intentions and honesty. For anyone that is interested they can PM me and I will send them the links to the threads in question and allow them to decide for themselves about bullying, harassing, badgering, and viciousness. See, I'm all about the free exchange of information, not just the information that agrees with my fragile world view.

[jgraz]

180. Um...(raises hand)

I think she's referring to me. Not that any of your arguments aren't absolutely correct, mind you.

Like I said, without the blocks, this argument would have been resolved quickly and, more importantly, in the original fucking thread!! But this way is soooo mch better, especially since the feature hides all evidence of cowardice, leaving the "blocked and locked" to simply wonder how many times the OP decided to take such shameful action.

[LostInAnomie]

211. Don't you hate it when some coward blocks you after they get the last word!

I mean, I'm not going to point fingers or anything but if you look closely they usually aren't hard to pick out.

Their personality type is usually the professional victim. They spend a lot of their time claiming that others are bullies yet ignoring their own hostility. The phrase "blaming the victim" comes up frequently. They absolutely hate when you use their own words against them to prove that they are hypocrites. They are completely incapable the simple introspection that would allow them to see that they are really a childish human being that only feels secure when are threatening others or their own half-witted world view is being reinforced. They really should be pitied because they are so pathetic. But, I'm only generalizing.

Surely, no one we know of fits that description.

[jgraz]

212. "Surely, no one we know of fits that description"

No one we can reply to, anyway.

My only consolation is when I think that some son or husband or male coworker will perhaps spend a few hours less in therapy because we were here to be the target of "no one's" aggression.

[LostInAnomie]

213. Yeah

Although, I truly doubt that someone who fits that description could actually hold down a job. Afterall, when you spend that time basking in your own self righteousness you don't have time for anything productive in your life.

Good thing "no one" we know fits that description.

[LostInAnomie]

219. Shhh... did you hear something?

I thought I heard a broken record playing somewhere. I swear I heard "You're a bully. I'm a victim. You're a bully. I'm a victim. You're a bully. I'm a victim...." You would think someone would eventually get tired of playing that same old tune. I guess not though.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

223. LOL You Ain't Kiddin.

I don't even need to elaborate on the utter irony or hypocrisy of that record you are hearing. But I will comment on the silliness of the concept that some are declared bullies when all they've done is not agree completely with a faulty premise to begin with. That has always cracked me up here, when I see posters that are so insecure about their arguments that anyone who doesn't agree with their arguments 100% are targeted viciously as if they violated the poster's ego somehow by having not agreed.

I can't tell you how much more valuable I think discussions here could be if some posters had the thick skin necessary to engage in back and forth civil debate, and had the capability to defend their arguments with substance and logic rather than personal attack.

Disagreements and difference of opinion are going to happen all of the time here. When they are able to move forward with full explanation and logical defense of position then posters here can not only see deep into both sides of the argument, but also can learn so much from it and take away a well rounded impression of the entire topic. That is invaluable in helping one to forge their own opinion on the topic.

But when those discussions veer off to a poster abandoning civility and contextual debate but instead making it personal by casting personal accusations and attack, then the argument derails completely and from that point forward there is very little value to be gained by other posters. It is what destroys parts of GD every single day.

Cracks me up though when those that engage in such childish tactics actually have the audacity to turn around and claim victim status and that they are the target of bullies, when all anyone else did to begin with was nothing more then *gasp*, disagree with a premise.

I think the number one rule of engagement that people should remember to abide by is that no matter how passionate, how stubborn, how boldly, how bluntly, how steadfastly a position you hold; that no matter how much in contradiction some others opinion on your position is, that it should never be personally acceptable to lower oneself to the level of abandoning the contextual debate and engaging in personal attack. To shorten that rule, it's basically "Don't ever make it personal. Just stick to the logical defense of the topic itself". If people did that religiously, there would be so much more value and this whole blocking feature wouldn't have any need whatsoever.

[jgraz]

230. Excellent post, OMC

I think what really is needed is a button to keep all your "bullies" from talking to each other. That's the only way I see to preserve certain people's façade of victimhood.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

233. Thanks! And The Broken Record Is Skipping Again. I Think It's Stuck In A Rut.

The humoring part is that the broken record thinks others are hearing a welcome tune, when in fact they are all wishing the broken record would just cease to play.

[jgraz]

235. See, that's where the old ignore feature works just fine

As soon as you're convinced that a poster has nothing of interest to offer -- poof! No more interactions with time-wasting morons.

[omega minimo]

210. Typically bullies accuse others of everything they do, using reversals to blame their target

and prove porphyrian's point. Again.

What I said in my post was that those statements were ill assumptions that folks are falsely claiming as facts.

I also said that I was not going to assume that those comments were about the thread I OP'd.Then I described what happened to that thread. You are accusing me of making accusations I didn't make. Please read more carefully.

Your threats about PMs and links are a continuation what happened there and are clearly a violation of DU Rules. So check yourself.

If "Constant harassment is in the eye of the beholder" there wouldn't be any new Ignore tool, rest assured. The meanness and smallmindedness speaks for itself

I said I set the bar somewhere between "abuse" and "viciousness." Somehow all the words that I used to describe what happened to me are showing up in your post, being thrown back at me-- as if it's being done to you...

Classic bullying and abuser behavior is to turn everything around in crazymaking reversals and blamd the victim. One of the points of my post to porphyrian was that I hoped the new feature would cause folks to treat each other better, not worse.

Since you are "all about the free exchange of information" you might want to get a dictionary, so you can build your vocabulary and not use other's words against them.

In all the bullshit hatefulness that went on with that OP (and this one) I managed to use the new tool once. That was after giving someone every opportunity to stop the bullying, harassing, badgering, and viciousness. He kept it up. His choice.

After seeing the extent to which people will go to intentionallly hurt each other and piss in the face of all the DU Rules and the supposed reasons we're here, I'll reconsider "customizing" DU for an improved look and feel.

[omega minimo]

215. Typically bullies start with hostile words, continue with hostile words,demand the last hostile word

and are still confused about why people don't want to talk or be with them.

So they bully some more.


Regarding the new Ignore tool, I thought it was intended, as Skinner said, for "that person who constantly harasses you on DU." I've been here two years. There were 2 out of 10,000 members I (and many others) needed that tool for.

In the past few days, two more have begged (actually more than that have tried to goad application) to be Big Ignored, by starting hostile, continuing hostile, despite repeated opportunities to calm down and talk like a normal person, and continuing, continuing, continuing, with hostility.

There's no satisfying a bully. There looking in the wrong place for something to fill their soul, looking for someone to blame.

It's terrible for them when the victim can say-- 'NO. NO MORE.'

I hoped the new feature would cause folks to treat each other better, not worse. It seemed like a lot of the folks worrying about misuse of the tool were projecting their own motives or worried about being blocked themselves. Bullies don't see the irony in calling other people cowards.

[omega minimo]

267. Poor cowardly bullies. Must drive them crazy to be Blocked/Ignored and just wanking each other off.

:wow:

[Midlodemocrat]

255. Dude, you rock.

And, FWIW, not just one person has been blocked as a result of that thread, a whole slew.

And, as you well know, the hijacking occured for the reasons you stated in your first paragraph as well as the fact that the OP was beyond ridiculous and made this entire website look like idiots.

If you don't like a particular word, don't use it, but that OP was so beyond stupid, it was begging to be hijacked and locked.

[LostInAnomie]

262. That thread was the perfect prototype...

... for the abuse of the new rule. You had a professional victim with an extremely fragile ego that can't have their world view challenged for an OP; a laughably poorly researched Original Post; and an inflammatory topic. It was clear that nothing good was going to come of it.

It's funny if you go back and look at that thread how many lines of dialog come to a sudden stop. It's also funny to go back and count how many people are called bully, vicious, or abusive by the OP. If you made a drinking game of it you'd be shit-faced by post #50.

"...made this entire website look like idiots."

I don't think that it made the whole site look like idiots, but it sure certified that one member is.

I'm glad the lounge finally stepped up and took charge. Lizards up! :headbang:

[Midlodemocrat]

275. IMHO, if you have blocked someone, you shouldn't be allowed

to start a new thread. The block feature prevents you from participating in any thread started by the coward who has you blocked and I don't like that aspect of it.

Turn about's fair play and all that.

[jgraz]

277. Yep, since apparently that poster has no problem with vicious homophobic imagery

"'wanking each other off"? Seriously, how much must someone hate gays to use that phrase as an insult? If you want to attack us, go ahead. But to denigrate a normal, healthy part of gay male sexuality? That is just beyond the pale. I suppose she won't be happy until all gay men are forced back into the closet, where they can only wank off themselves.

Or perhaps she's just opposed to wanking in general. It's this kind of attitude that has been used to oppress young boys for generations. Perhaps we should all resume threatening our sons with blindness. Or feeding them saltpeter. Or just gluing their hands to their penises like in that horrific anti-male wankophobic movie American Pie II???

It's just sad how much bigotry still exists in this supposed enlightened society. Until this kind of language is removed from our vocabulary, no male will feel safe taking matters into his own hands.

[Warren Stupidity]

207. So perhaps the OP's block list ought to be ignored.

What I find obnoxious is that the OP can start a thread that his block list can't reply in. I understand that this was one of the intentional features, but I find it very wrong. I can sort of understand block replies to your non-originating post, but the ability to cut off all contrary debate to a topic is plain old wrong in a forum like this. As was pointed out originally by the admins, this feature will allow the pro-x camp to post new threads with all known anti-x'ers blocked, and vice versa, and as noted here in this thread, initiating a new counter thread falls afoul of the 'continuing the argument' rule.

So on reflection I amend my statement. Either the OP's block list should be ignored or the continuing the argument rule, for that OP, should contain an exemption: if the OP has a non-empty block list then counter threads must be permitted.

[The Backlash Cometh]

157. I think someone did this to me a few days back.

But I had the last laugh because a major Democratic politician stated an opinion on national news which was similar to the one that got my subthread pulled on DU. Oh, how I laughed.

[salin]

241. Someone blocked you?

Wow. Your posting style tends to be thoughtful and nonconfrontational (from what I have read over the years) - yet you got blocked? To me that speaks of some sorta thin-skinnedness on someone's part.

I have never received a mod warning - yet I anticipate that before long, I too will find I have been blocked by someone (you know me, - there goes that offensive salin again - ;-) )

[spacelady]

110. But sometimes a new thread on a subject gets locked because

it is "a continuation of an argument on a previous thread."

[porphyrian]

133. That's a moderator issue, not a feature issue.

The rules will have to be modified or interpreted to take the new feature into account if it becomes a serious problem. It's not the fault of the person using the feature, though.

[JuniperLea]

27. I don't think it hinders anyone at all

They could merely start their own thread if they felt their speech was being stifled. And it wouldn't be a dupe either since their perspective is the starting point.

[porphyrian]

30. Right, that's how I understand it. - n/t

[GreenArrow]

71. maybe

except some DU'ers are reporting that the answer threads they have started after being blocked are being locked.

[LostInAnomie]

128. Exactly

[GreenArrow]

227. BTW

Your arguments and logic in the back and forth up above were impeccable.

[LostInAnomie]

231. Thanks

But, something tells me I was wasting my breath (or fingers). :toast:

[The Backlash Cometh]

156. I think you're right.

An ignore button and tomb stoning an individual for outrageous behavior is sufficient. Anything more is superfluous. It comes across like a retaliation tool for immature souls.

[Dorian Gray]

175. I guess I haven't noticed...

but I tend to respond sporadically and it isn't a huge deal for me.

[Lars39]

6. I think it is stifling speech.

I found out I was blocked by a person that started a thread.
I can't reply to *anyone* in that thread, not just the OP.
My voice was silenced.

[JuniperLea]

36. You could start your own thread with your own opinion ... n/t

[Lars39]

50. There's normally a give and take with civilized conversation.

That's kind of akin to pulling up your own soapbox to compete with the OP.
I might not necessarily feel that there is a need to start a thread with my opinion, but I do feel that I can sometimes contribute something to an ongoing conversation.

[Morgana LaFey]

62. Excellent point nt

[mondo joe]

99. I concur. Good old IGNORE allowed everyone to control their own experience -

but ONLY their own.

I don't see why anyone has the power to block someone else from responding to them.

[Midlodemocrat]

274. But when you are blocked, that is EXACTLY what the person

who is blocking you wants. They don't want you to be able to participate in case you *gasp* disagree with them.

Cowardly if you ask me. I won't put block anyone because I feel strongly enough about some things to withstand the bullshit flung by the one who blocked me.

[BuyingThyme]

7. I block everybody who posts in anti-block threads.

And everybody whose screen name ends with a Z where an S should be.

[Catherine Vincent]

28. LOL!

How spongebobby of you!

[Atargatis]

8. And as a new "kid" around here, another question about this

interesting feature.

I've been clicking around the forums and groups and I've seen this in play.

What if person A who has a history of being a contrarian or combative within a forum or group and seems to just post to the group or forum to stir up things, puts several/many/all of the most vocal members of the forum or group on block, then posts all the aggravating and contrarian posts they choose?

Is that an abuse of the block feature?


edited my punctuation.

[mikelewis]

12. Well, they "offender" would probably get booted off DU pretty quick...

...so the game would be short lived anyway. Trolls are dealt with quickly round here.

[Atargatis]

13. Good to hear.

Thanks for the reply.

:-)

edit to add: though I'm watching just such a scenario happen in one of the forums on here; so far the "offender" who appears to have been here a while, is still here. Oh, well.

[mikelewis]

19. Don't be afraid to hit the alert button...

The mods are very fair people... If they determine the persons just a troll, they'll boot them. If the person isn't really doing anything wrong, they'll be left alone and no one's the wiser. If they're still annoying you, just ignore them and they'll usually just go away.

[Atargatis]

33. Good plan. Thanks.

Though, in truth, they're not annoying me so much as some others.

I was mostly concerned with what appears to be an unintended consequence of an "interesting" feature.

[crispini]

61. I'm seeing that happen as well, in the subforums.

I'm not entirely sure what the mods/admins intend to do in this situation.

[Atargatis]

74. Hopefully the alert button will still work and the thread/post/poster

will be dealt with accordingly.

Hopefully...

:D

[sammythecat]

78. Perfectly simple. That's the way it was and

that's the way it should have been left.

[seabeyond]

168. i agree. put me on ignore. alert on me. but to block me and then taunt me

is an abuse of the very rule being implemented. let the moderators be the judge ad jury on my comment, not a poster that disagrees with what i say.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

116. No, just wait 'til Skinner has to change a diaper ...

... then troll like hell for a few minutes.

That'd work, right?

[wryter2000]

58. Welcome to DU

:hi:

You may be new, but you have a better understanding of this than I do. I guess I'll just have to be reasonable and hope no one ignores me.

Helllooooo...is there anyone out there? :evilgrin:

[Atargatis]

60. Hi! and Thank you for the welcome!

I may be new to DU but I'm not new to message boards.

Your post reminds me of a saying...the idea of which is "if 'they're' pissed off I must be doing something right" (the 'they' mentioned being the opposition of course) :D So, perhaps in some cases, if you, or I, or some others are being ignored by 'them', perhaps we're doing something right?

:evilgrin:

[Morgana LaFey]

63. And I think I can guess one place where you've seen it, too

Huh?

[Atargatis]

72. Ya caught me!

:blush:

That was precisely the thread/forum I was thinking of when I made my first post in this thread. Seemed as though that particular poster was "gaming the system" in order to offend and verbally brutalize those whom he doesn't like (?) while shoving a gag in their mouth so he doesn't have to "fight" so hard.

Given what appears to the way he makes a living, I would guess the scenario I just posted would, er, appeal to his, er, uh, "business instincts."

:puke:

[Morgana LaFey]

96. Perfect analysis.

And thank you for it.

:thumbsup:

[tblue37]

135. Isn't that what Bill O'Reilly does when he cuts off the mike of anyone who tries to

respond to his arguments?

[Atargatis]

170. Precisely.

Bullies and their tactics are bullies from either/any side of the aisle.

[LostinVA]

67. That's already been happening

And yeah, I think it's abuse. They also answer themselves, so they can still snipe at posters.

[Atargatis]

76. I've seen it.

It's the equivalent of having a captive and gagged audience.

Oh well, I'm pretty sure I got myself added to a long list of blocked users today. And based on what I've read from those posters, I'm in some damned fine company!

:D

[LostinVA]

77. hehehehehhe

The Roll of Honor or something.

[Atargatis]

83. Hey, I like that

...the Roll of Honor of Irreverent Posters...

I'm in.

:rofl:

[hfojvt]

9. you should number those questions

Question 2 - if the offending post is about the blocker, rather than the blocker's ideas, then it should be deleted per the rules.

The last might be seen as some kind of stalking, but is easily answered by a counter-block.

[Robbien]

10. Oh don't be silly

Blocking is a lovely feature.

Why care about any one silly post. If a person is an insufferable bore in one thread, he will more than likely be so in all threads. With one click of your mouse, whoosh that bore is gone from your DU world. None of this A/B micky mouse posting business.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. I suppose it's better

then organizing posses to get specific people banned.

[JuniperLea]

24. There is a lot of that!

I like the block feature. My biggest hope is that it will cut down on threads like this:)

[Behind the Aegis]

26. This is true.

[rug]

16. There are more variations than in GO.

[JuniperLea]

22. This is too funny!

Sounds like someone is afraid they won't get the last word in! Too funny.

[retread]

23. I can't live without this feature. I have become addicted to it. I am a

blockhead.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. As far as I can tell, there is not such things as 'abuse' of the feature

There are no rules saying "you must not use it this way ...". It's up to us to decide if someone is being silly with it, and take action (eg blocking them, or pointing out how they use it) as we see fit.

I'd like to know if someone obviously starting a duplicate thread to one from which they're blocked by the OP (in a 'no dupes' forum like LBN or I/P) will get it merged with the original, or if it will just be deleted.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. Which is why I posted in the first place.

Though not admin, from what I remember of the two threads...

"I'd like to know if someone obviously starting a duplicate thread to one from which they're blocked by the OP (in a 'no dupes' forum like LBN or I/P) will get it merged with the original, or if it will just be deleted."

...if I remember correctly, the dupe thread will get combined with the first thread or it will be locked as a duplicate. However, that may be incorrect. I think it was addressed in the first thread, which can be accessed by going to the second thread and punching the link.

[fishwax]

46. That's how I took it too ... you bring up an interesting point about LBN

It hardly seems fair for someone to block other users from a thread in LBN, where only one thread is generally allowed for each topic. I can see it in GD or elsewhere, where people might want to maintain some control over the subjects they start, but nobody should be able to control debate about breaking news topics.

I wonder how difficult it would be to work an LBN exception into the feature.

After reading this post, I searched the two official threads for answers. It appears you raised this point in the first one and Marie26 raised it in the second, but I can't find anyplace where it's been addressed. It's understandable that not all questions wind up answered, but I'm very curious about this issue.

[seabeyond]

199. i pointed out the silly of the poster that blocked posting on my post

i was respectful even in that. the poster yells not fair subverting block. and i was deleted. not the poster

[muriel_volestrangler]

205. Strange. I'd ask for a complete explanation from the moderator

and admin, if I were you. I thought they'd made it clear we could draw attention to getting blocked.

[AtomicKitten]

32. from what I can tell

the ones that have done the most whining about it on the boards are the ones most likely to have nudged
Skinner to put it in effect in the first place and now are unhappy with the results

oy vey

[Redneck Socialist]

48. That's been my take on it too.

Me thinks they doth protest too much.

I think it's pretty simple, don't be a dick and you won't be blocked.

[jgraz]

107. See, there's the problem

One person's lively debate is another person's dickishness (dickosity?). Rudeness is in the eye of the beholder, so people are faced with the challenge of "not being a dick" according to every poster's differing definition.

That's why leaving this kind of management up to experienced mods is so important. Even mods have differing levels of tolerance, but at least they know how to manage a forum properly.

[Redneck Socialist]

137. Maybe on an individual basis

but if someone is a dickwad they are usually a dickwad to more than one person. If enough people block that person then they just might get the hint and either change their posting style or go away.

[jgraz]

173. How is that better than the current alert system?

If someone's being a dick, they get reported to the mods. If they get reported too often, and the mods agree they're being a dick, they get tombstoned. This has worked fine in the past -- why mess with?

[Redneck Socialist]

222. I'm not sure that it is, but...

it does give one a measure of individual control if they feel they are being stalked by a jackass. There are folks who post here with regularity that *I* think cross the line continually, people whom I would have banned long ago, but the mods apparently disagree, so those folks linger on and their jackassery continues. For me the old ignore function has worked just fine, for others they may like the extra level of control it gives them. :shrug: I think concerns that it will be abused are overblown, time will tell.

[sandnsea]

41. Somebody blocked me, so I have answers

First, I'm delighted to learn only one person has blocked me (so far). I fully expected not to be able to post anywhere except in the Kerry forum. hehe :)

1. If you care about getting in the last word, grow up.

If someone has blocked you, you can't participate in their threads AT ALL. So that takes care of 2,3.

If someone is attacking you, per 4, the correct response is always 'alert'. Not that I always do that myself.

Hope that helps. I don't think this blocking thing is going to be too much of a problem.

[fishwax]

42. I wouldn't consider any of those abuse, personally

at least not abuse in the delete-worthy sense--petty, perhaps, but not worth deleting, unless they violate some other rule. That's just my opinion, though.

As far as "abusing" the block feature, my understanding of the new feature (from reading the other threads) is that it doesn't bring with it any new rules, so posts such as those you listed wouldn't be breaking any rules, per se, unless they broke some other rule unrelated to the blocking feature.

If the post in your first example was a personal attack, it would be deleted, I assume, but otherwise I don't see how it violates any rules. I would imagine that is how it would usually work, in fact (I'm sick of arguing with you, you're wrong and this is why, and I'm putting you on nuclear ignore).

I suppose the second example might be considered calling another DUer out, which would make it against the rules. Personally, though, I think if Person B is unable to let it be known that they have been blocked, it is damaging to other readers, who otherwise might assume Person B dropped the point. One of my concerns, personally, about the new feature is that Person A, by blocking Person B, now prevents all other people from seeing Person B's response. It seems to me that some mechanism by which that tactic is revealed is fair, then, to everybody else. That's why, personally, I wouldn't have a problem with that one.

I wouldn't have a problem with #3 (for the same reasons), though I'm not sure why Person B wouldn't mention being blocked.

Number 4, depending on the situation, might constitute stalking, but as Skinner said in the original thread, this new feature gives Person B the tools to address the situation, and if posters aren't willing to use the resources admins have provided for them, then mods are unlikely to do it for them. For that reason, I doubt #4 would result in deleted posts.

That's just my opinion, which is obviously unofficial :)

[AtomicKitten]

44. it is a completely voluntary system

Some DU'ers complain about being "stalked" or "harassed" simply because they don't like being challenged. If they really feel that way, they have the power to change that dynamic.

I'm also suspicious about those declaring moral superiority in not using the ignore function at the same time belly-aching all over the boards about being blocked.

I don't think the functional purpose of the block itself is a weapon but rather a solution to the fractious environment to maintain peace in the kingdom. Primary season is coming up and I don't think there is enough Excedrin on the planet to assist the mods otherwise.

The nuclear block is available to everyone if they choose to use it.

No doubt the system has some kinks that need to be worked out.

[jgraz]

108. I am SO blocking you for that post!

Given your experience with the "Kerry 2008" threads, I'm surprised that you aren't raging against this feature. Do you really expect ANY give-and-take to survive when tempers start flaring over candidates? GDP will quickly be balkanized by mutual blocks, turning into a mash-up of the individual candidate forums.

This is censorship, plain and simple. It has no place on an open, democratic forum.

[AtomicKitten]

122. I have acquiesced to the fact

that GD-P has already been balkanized into individual vacuums that are hermetically sealed for your convenience vis a vis the nuclear block, where the the truth is as elusive as a butterfly attempting to land on the head of a lit match, and where candidate "X" is incandescent and poops golden eggs. If you play your cards right, they will chant in your honor, "One of us, one of us, we accept you, one of us."

[Horse with no Name]

127. Oh my goodness

:rofl:

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Thanks for your response.

I am not sure whether any, all, or some combination therein constitute abuse, which is why I posed the questions.

In regards to number 4, your opinion, that is, what would be the purpose of blocking someone only to respond to things they post knowing full well they cannot post back? I don't know that it would be 'stalking,' which is a violation of the rules. But, it does create an unbalanced playing field, and, IMO, is abusive. If I block you because I don't like you or your responses, then why would I bother to respond to you knowing you can't say anything back? It seems to me that the blocker has become the bully.

[fishwax]

49. no, i agree that it creates an uneven playing field

but I would have the means at my disposal to address it. All I would have to do is block you back. As I understand Skinner's posts, if I were to complain to the mods about that, they would tell me that, if I wasn't willing to address the problem, since I have the means at my disposal, they wouldn't spend their time policing you for me.

So I would agree that would be abusing the system, in a sense, but I was thinking of that one in a rather legalistic sense--abuse, perhaps, but not abuse in a delete-worthy sense, just because I don't think the mods would invest their time deleting such posts. Petty and unfair, yes, but as Skinner said: "If there seems to be a personal problem between two members, but those two members refuse to take advantage of the block function, then *why* should the moderators be involved at all?"

Thanks for posting the questions, though. I'm still unsure about the feature, if for no other reason than, not knowing why and how much it's used, it's hard to know how it has impacted DU for other users (like me, who hasn't used it and hasn't, afaik, had it used on me) :) It's certainly worth discussing.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. Some points...

Like you, I agree about the "uneven field." However, you say that you have the means at your disposal to prevent the unevenness. My point is that this feature was introduced to prevent 'bullying' and the like. Fine. I can accept that rationale. The feature was also introduced to allow DU'ers more control over their experience at DU. So, if I block you, then continue to post to you, knowing you cannot respond, then you choose to block me, am I not controlling your experience? Basically, I have forced you to block me, thereby, I have exerted control by first blocking you, continuing to post to you, until you finally have to block me. Do you not see that as abusive and contrary to why the new feature was introduced? Now, I don't see a problem with blocking someone and then never saying another thing to that person, that's your choice and your experience, and you make that choice without affecting the experience of the person you have blocked (with the exception that they cannot post an any thread you create).

The other way I see this feature as having potential for abuse is if both people block one another, yet one (or both) continue to post snipes at each other using a third-party. Now, they are disrupting the experience of yet one more person and getting them caught in the middle. Would you see that as an abuse of the feature.

It is interesting that I posted these questions and many posters in this thread make false allegations and innuendos as to why I posted. I don't really care. By my posting, I am asking for clarification, and it seems that others also had some questions/concerns of their own. However, I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues.

[AtomicKitten]

53. you have posed legitimate questions

The nuclear ignore has provoked some interesting scenarios. The problem is deciding who is the abuser and who is the abusee. It seems to have more to do with a cult of personality thing rather than a right/wrong paradigm, which leads me to conclude a mutual block for some might be the best answer.

[fishwax]

54. well, I'm still controlling my experience in the sense that

I can either ignore you or I can block you back. You have controlled my experience in that I can no longer respond directly to your unjustified attacks (;)), but I still control my experience in that I can keep you from making such in the first place. And if you continue to answer me and continue to block me, I can (depending on the answers to your numbers 3 and 4) comment on that suspicious behavior elsewhere in the thread. But I think you're right that such a situation could wind up pretty disruptive. And as for controlling other people's experience versus your own, I share some of those concerns, since, as I said, by blocking me you're actually controlling the DU experience of everyone else who might be following our conversation by eliminating my input.

The other way I see this feature as having potential for abuse is if both people block one another, yet one (or both) continue to post snipes at each other using a third-party. Now, they are disrupting the experience of yet one more person and getting them caught in the middle. Would you see that as an abuse of the feature.

I could see it getting out of hand in that situation as well. That kind of thing happened without the block feature, too, though, so I'm not sure if this would be a case of abusing the feature or I suppose the end result would be more and more people on block.

It is interesting that I posted these questions and many posters in this thread make false allegations and innuendos as to why I posted. I don't really care. By my posting, I am asking for clarification, and it seems that others also had some questions/concerns of their own. However, I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues.

I'm glad to discuss it :) All the threads about the new feature do seem to spark controversy :hi: I don't see asking questions about the new feature as an indictment of those who use it, though.

Personally, I doubt I'll ever use it, just like I've never used ignore. Even though I don't use ignore, I think it's a great feature and helps the overall community. I'm adopting a wait and see attitude on the new feature though--I can see where some have found it very useful personally, but I don't know about the effect on the community overall. I guess I'm cautiously optimistic.

[jody]

43. One solution could be to prevent the blockee from seeing any posts by the blockor. That's the

reverse of current DU policy because the blockor can not see posts made by the blockee with the present procedures. :shrug:

[Morgana LaFey]

66. Not ture

IF I understand you correctly.

Two people (that I know of) have blocked me and I can see their posts just fine. HOWEVER, when I went in to counterblock -- to prevent them from sniping at me and me not being able to respond -- I had the OPTION of hiding their threads automatically and, IIRC (wasn't paying much attn since I didn't want either of these 2 options) of also hiding their posts.

[jody]

79. I misspoke, I should have said old DU ignore policy. n/t

[northzax]

69. nah, I shouldn't be able to prevent you from seeing what I say

if I want to avoid seeing what you say, then that's my problem.

I personally love the feature (although I don't intend to use it, since I've never used 'ignore') if someone blocks me, then as far as I can tell, they can't handle a discussion on a topic. fine, saves me from wasting my time trying to respond to someone who can't handle a discussion. (and yes, it's already happened to me, someone didn't like my criticism of a topic on a thread and blocked me and another poster, of course, since we were the only people posting on the thread, having a very civilized discussion that simply disagreed with the OP, it killed the thread completly. but at least I didn't waste my energy responding to a poster who was more interested in absolutes than dicussion.

[jody]

80. OK, we disagree. n/t

[Kurovski]

47. 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.

[Zodiak]

92. That was a great post Kurovski

a truly great post. I agree completely as my radar is tuned for rudeness.

As an aside, if anyone was on my ignore before, you are on the new feature, too. Nothing personal...never was.

[jgraz]

109. "Exercising good judgment and care is foremost"

BWAHAHAHAHAHA :rofl:

When's the last time you saw that on DU???

[Kurovski]

120. I admit it's a little bit funny, this feeling inside,

but I've seen it. Hell, I've even practiced it.

And you know what they say, "practice makes perfect." :D

Maybe this will make folks think twice.

OK...so we'll maybe get two, maybe three weeks of this experiment and then it'll be back to the old ways. I dunno. :shrug:

Now quit botherin' me before I block yer ass but good...:D

[Megahurtz]

52. These are Good Points.

I saw a thread a few days ago where this feature seemed to be abused by one person. The person had blocked 2 people in the thread because they didn't like what the other two were saying, and because they wanted to dominate the conversation, which they did, but the other two people spoke up about it. The person doing the blocking seemed to be a bit of a Control Freak.

So yes, all of the other scenarios you describe are possible, as there are jerks everywhere.

I liked the old Block function much better.

[NNadir]

55. My opinion is that the block option is for cowards who cannot see their ideas confronted.

If your ideas stand up, you are willing to see them tested and challenged.

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

57. Well Said

Block and Ignore are not for me.
Furthermore I must say I was shocked that DU added the new block feature. 5 years of innovation should not be followed up with a step backwards. IMHO

[northzax]

73. and that's the brilliant part

it frees the rest of us up from having to spend out time dealing with the cowards and the weakminded. It's like hanging a big sign around your neck saying "I can't handle discussion"

[Morgana LaFey]

85. I have to agree with you -- now

The people who blocked me simply do not appreciate strongly-worded oppositional opinions.

I wasn't particularly impressed with this idea when I read Skinner's thread, but I wasn't exactly against it either. I was PARTICULARLY not in agreement (in that thread) with the sentiment you posted. However, I've come to see it as absolutely true. How sad -- not for me, for the people who can't handle sometimes rough and tumble debate. And apparently there are a lot of them.

I also didn't agree with the sentiment (in Skinner's original thread) that these people were cowardly. I definitely do now. AND, I'd thought more highly of the people who have blocked me than I do now -- not because they blocked me (if it bothered me I wouldn't be talking about it, I'd be embarrassed), but because they are such small-minded cowards. I can only conclude they saw me as a much bigger threat to their wrongheaded but cherished ideas and agenda (one of them clearly has an agenda to promote here) than I ever could've imagined -- That's quite a compliment!

[seabeyond]

163. i didnt care about it one way or another til a user did it to me too, in a cowardly fashion

i was not attacking. i was not abusive. i simply didnt agree with what the poster posted. in saying i disagree the poster calls me names and says i am blocking. then when i post on my post to respond i am deleted as the poster whines about me going around the blocking feature.

still.... and even with that, i did not attack, was not disrespectful. i did laugh at the immaturity of it all

and i was deleted.

the simple experience in this is it creates an atmosphere where debate is discouraged, the whole premise of this board. and the freedom to discuss is limited.

[Morgana LaFey]

194. You're exactly right -- debate IS being discouraged

I find your experience horrible, esp. that you were deleted. There was nothing *I* read that said you couldn't respond elsewise. If you're going to get deleted for that, they really need to make their wishes explicitly known, don't you think?

Or if I'm wrong - if there IS written material that if blocked we can't respond in ANY way, then I hope someone will point it out to me.

[jgraz]

113. That's really how I've seen it used -- to stifle debate

And, of course, by people who have BEEN blocked and then attacked when they cannot respond. One of the saddest parts of this feature is that the mods are explicitly relying on schoolyard retaliation (you block me, I block you) in order for blocking to work "as intended".

Even though I HATE (hatehatehate) this feature, I've felt compelled to block people who continue to attack after I've been prevented from responding.

I'd be willing to bet that very few instances of actual stalking have been prevented, since determined harassers can find no end of ways around the block (new threads, sibling response, etc, etc) Only honest posters will really be hurt by this.

[seabeyond]

166. and i refuse to block, havent blocked, wont block. regardless of the frustration

of being block. it does take me to the past of elementary school, instead of a more mature adult behavior. re fused to paricpate as a kid, i refuse to do it as an adult. but man.... it is frustrating for a person to be able to shut you up, not even simply telling you to shut up, but making you shut up with this feature.

[jgraz]

179. One thing I have to say in favor of the block feature

Is I find myself agreeing with so many people with whom I've never found common ground before. Way to bring the community together, mods!

[seabeyond]

182. wink..... lol lol bush does the same thing. take away freedom of speech

and watch us unite. lol.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. Anyone who uses the block feature

Is an asshole.

That's my position.

[Morgana LaFey]

86. What do you call those who COUNTERblock? nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

88. Assholes

:-)

[mongo]

187. Of course, there are already posters that have you blocked,

and lie about it and call you closed-minded, and they should be reserved for a special class of assholery.

Sorry I couldn't respond to the appropriate person above.

[jgraz]

202. Those are pretty much the only people speaking up in favor of the block feature

It's a whole new wonderful addition to their bag of passive-aggressive tricks.

And don't worry -- we all know which poster you're talking to.

[Zodiak]

93. Then I am an asshole

nice to meet you.

And here I thought I was only blocking the same. Silly me. Obviously not you, though....mine is an exclusive club.

[alcibiades_mystery]

97. You have said it

:shrug:

[crispini]

65. Here is what I would consider an abuse (although this is JMHO.)

Poster A has a certain opinion, let's say they like Candidate X. Poster B does not like Candidate X. Poster A and poster B have had disagreements in the past, but they have usually been civil. Nevertheless, Poster A blocks Poster B from their thread, not for any behavioural reasons, but simply because of Poster B's different opinion.

I would call that, not fair play.

[LostinVA]

68. And, it appears to be happening already

This is something I was very afraid would happen.

*sigh*

[jgraz]

104. My guess is that this is BY FAR the most common use of the block

I'd love to see a survey of "trigger" posts that caused a block. I'd be surpised if most of them were even alertable.

[Skidmore]

70. I can block someone out who is talking to me across the

table if I so choose, and they wouldn't be able to do anything about me not tuning them in. What's the big deal? DU is a giant electronic conversation. People can elect to zone out if they want.

[northzax]

75. that's ignore, not block

block is that not only can you not talk to the person across the table, you can stop them from talking to you, or to the other people at the table on the topic you choose. different.

[Skidmore]

81. It's called "hanging up" when you are on the phone, and

"walking out of the room" when you are face-to-face, if you want to get technical. Same effect. Ignore/block--whatever. You can shut someone down either way.

[crispini]

89. Here's the difference, though,

The old ignore is like being in a party with a bunch of people and just choosing not to "see" someone when they are talking to you.

The blocking function is like throwing a party and saying, YOU and YOU and YOU specifically do not get to come to my party, and you cannot talk to any of the people at my party.

Or, to bring it back to what it's getting used for, it IS already being used to create a "monoview" kind of thread, so that a poster blocks everyone from a thread that doesn't agree with his point of view and then uses that power to make it appear that everyone on DU agrees with them.

[Zodiak]

117. And that is wrong

and immature. Some toys are not suitable for children under a certain age.

[GreenArrow]

91. more like a conference call

where you have the power to block one person from responding, both to you, and the other people on the lines. They can hear what's being said, but they can't participate, even if other people on the conference call might be interesting in hearing what they have to say.

[quiet.american]

82. I know this is an "A" and "B" conversation, but I have a question about Person "C".

Just kidding!:P

(Good questions.)

[northzax]

84. well both A and B have blocked C

already, so it's a moot point.

[salin]

90. Just this morning I read a thread where A blocked B, but

then posted on B's thread *and* I believe directly to B - but B couldn't respond to the post (that was a direct comment to B from A). That seemed to be an abuse of the system. I think that if you block someone, than you shouldn't be able to respond to that person's posts. Seems really off that one can keep responding to the blockee - but that the blockee can not respond in turn.

[Zodiak]

94. I can certainly agree with that

People that I have ignored (now blocked, too) I felt had nothing to contribute than to increase my blood pressure. Why the heck would I want to respond to their posts?

If I did...yes, I would consider that abuse.

[salin]

95. Thanks for the response, because

I am not one who blocks or ignores, and generally has a rather 'civil style' such that I don't draw much heat or invoke much heat... I was looking at the situation more as an observer than a participant. It felt "off" - but it is very nice to hear from one who does engage in debates more directly - and thus might find the feature useful - to validate my gut instinct that the behavior just doesn't seem appropriate.

Hope the admin takes this into consideration as the evaluate the test period.

ESPECIALLY since we are walking up to primary season - and last time around the 'camps' behind different candidates were at times very antagonistic towards one another. I think the ability to post to a blocked poster could just heighten the sense of 'righteous indignation' that leads to baiting the 'other camp'. :-( Hope that if the feature becomes permanent, that this gets addressed.

Thanks for your response. :-)

[Zodiak]

100. Welcome

I also tend to be civil at all times. I suppose the reasons are two-fold. One, it is better to be nice to ostensble political allies...I do not "hate" anyone. Two, when I do exercise the right to ignore, I feel better that I did not contribute to the situation due to my own behavior. I simply have a bad heart and cannot take a great deal of stress chronically...people being nasty to each other for no good reason is a stress trigger for me, so I remove it for the few that tend to display that behavior chronically.

And as long as I try to be nice to others and do not abuse ignore/block, I feel my use is justified. I am willing to be called a jerk because of it...no sweat off of my back because my reasons are sound and not politically-motivated. Both wings of DU are represented on my ignore list, which is about 10 people.

It would irritate me to no end if others abuse the feature and it is taken away, because I feel I would eventually not be able to participate and be left with bothering my family/co-workers about politics...like in 2001.

As for abusers..perhaps take that power away from those deemed to overuse it (I'm even willing to support a tombstone...gaming the system to suit one's advantage is not nice, not productive, and dilutes the community's positive impact).

[salin]

106. I know what you mean

there are some thread topics that I simply avoid altogether (blood pressure thing and all of that.) I respect what you say. I haven't come to a conclusion as to whether or not the feature is a good one (per blocking) as my concern is that if folks are shut out of conversations i would anticipate an escalation of "rival threads" which shuts out other topics. But that my concern would be greatly counterbalanced if there was more civil discourse. However the loophole I described above (the post to the person I have blocked, knowing they can't respond) would do the opposite. Then again - old fashion alerts to the mods per the abusive behavior might take care of that problem as well.

I hope that there is increased more self-moderated civility - which would prevent the silencing of needed voices, for the reason you suggest (too much additional stress) and leaving folks with a much smaller world with which to vent frustration (and access to more info about which can be shared) about the insanity unfolding around us via the bush misadministration.

[Zodiak]

115. One more thing, salin

I forgot to say this.

I do not start threads very often....about 5 a year. This board is so full of people who post lots and lots of OP's about everything pertinent and imaginable that I see no need to increase the signal-noise ratio with my threads (its a throw back from my SmirkingChimp days...a VERY micro-managed and stringent board).

I can definitely see where people who post a lot of OPs need to be judicious about their use of this feature. I can agree that some people's blocks are not equivalent to other's.

If Pitt or Octafish or Hubs2Sparkly got all happy with their block feature, that might have a stifling effect on the commnity as a whole.

My block will hardly be noticed, and I suspect that those who find themselves shut out of my responses won't really much care because I am not Mr. Prominent DUer and I post only in spurts.

[Febble]

243. Well, I seem to invoke heat

although I have rarely had a comment deleted.

I see absolutely no reason for the block feature, and any number of reasons against it, on a discussion board, and what makes it even worse is its lack of transparency. There is vigorous peer-review (or was) on DU, and at least you used to be sure that if a post had no adverse comment, then no-one had found anything to criticise. That assurance is now gone.

I have already said I won't post on DU unless the feature is abandoned, and I've only come out to post this.

I just see no point in a discussion forum that blocks discussion. It puts DU in the same category as UD.

If a post complies with DU rules, it should be visible to all.

[jgraz]

118. Here's another common case

A blocks B, B blocks A back. Then A brings in C, D, E, and F to attack B in a thread started by A.

[salin]

153. Yikes!

A believable scenario - but still Yikes! I would hope that an active alert system would deal with this - meaning more, rather than less, work for the mods.

[jgraz]

158. Not believable, actual

In other words, I've seen it happen. The only choice to stop it is to block all of the "friends" as well, leading to some kind of childish blocking war.

[LostInAnomie]

265. I think if you put someone on block...

... and then respond to their post it should automatically take that person off of block. That would do away with "Neener, neener, neener!" posting.

[salin]

271. I *like* that idea

even better than the go on auto ignore if one uses the block.

[Theres-a]

102. OMG!They're doing this right now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3152368&mesg_id=3152368

[crispini]

121. Wow, that thread is amazing.

The thread starter was blocked by someone who then CONTINUED TO POST (very rudely) IN HIS THREAD.

Amazing. It seems to me that the thread starter would have been more justified in blocking the other poster.

[Theres-a]

124. Hence the OMG

Ironically,I had gone from this thread to that thinking the whole "block controversy" wasn't that prevalent.Surprise,surprise!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. I Was Civil. The Poster Wasn't. Pretty Clear Cut.

Nice to know some are so willing to defend or sympathize with some cold blooded murder who just thrust a knife into some mothers neck in an unbelievably brutal manner.

Tell me, what exactly didn't make that person a cold blooded murderer? Can you tell me that?

And to the poster below you, they are the ones abusing the block feature. I was justified for the use of the block. They are using it for the most dishonorable reasons: For mere spite. (Not that I care, I don't know that poster from a hole in the wall and have no interest in replying to a mentality like that anyway, but I did find it amazingly ironic and pathetic that they block me for such petty stupidity. Pretty childish LOL)

[Guaranteed]

278. Besides the murder OP issue, I think you overreacted in blocking him.

Yes, he called you an asshole. But people name call here all the time- usually it means they're losing an argument. There's no need to "go nuclear" over a one-time, trivial thing such as that.

When people attack ad-hominem, just call them on it. Everyone knows it's a pretty bad way of getting a point across. It'll gain you sympathy points, anyway.

I'm not sure why you blocked that guy, but you should rethink it, and your use of block in general if you've blocked others under similar circumstances. Forget the drama.

[Jcrowley]

103. Don't get it

Why block? Why ignore?

See no point to any of it. Intense discussion and debate even contentious is okay with me. We're just involved in virtual conversations it's not like someone can reach through the screen and smack us (I hope).

If it gets too much just don't respond and move on.

Conflict in the way of ideas and raging arguments can be useful and helpful to avoid more damaging conflicts.
There are very few "easy" threads that are worthwhile learning experiences. The ones with friction often have the most compelling ideas and exchanges even if it gets hot.

Yea of course it can get a bit obscene at times but that's when you turn it off and remember the sky and the sun.

Human condition.

[Zodiak]

111. While I agree that debate is inherently full of conflict

I do not agree that everyone's style of debate is suitable for a meaningful discussion and sometimes precludes meaningful discussion. Its like conducting a chemistry class while someone drags a dead body through the room....impossible to learn anything as you gawk and the blood and the gore. That is the effect of a stink-bomb on an otherwise meaningful thread or subthread. At least for me.

People have a weird tendency to act and react differently to the same stimuli. If one's reactions to another are disproportionately negative in an otherwise pleasant environment, then ignore and block are just the thing to fix the problem. As long as it is not done for political reasons, I see no problem with it. People who are abrasive know they are abrasive, hence they know that being ignored comes with the territory of being a free-spirited stink-bomber. I do not consider it reasonable that abrasive people demand that everyone, incuding more sensitive people, subject themselves to unsolicited written abuse without consequence, espcially when the DU rules are so clear about civility.

If one is strong and detached emotionally and can handle all personalities here...great. Not all can, though, which should not preclude participation. Without ignore...that would be the case.

The new policy introduces a new thing....certainty. People who are on others' ignore lists are finding out about it. I am not sure they knew before. I have mixed feelings about that..especially if the ignore was done for purely political reasons.

[jgraz]

119. If that's the case, then why should those people be deciding what *I* can read

This is the inherent logical insanity of the feature: We believe that some people are so petty and out-of-control that we're implementing a new feature that only works if people refrain from being petty and out-of-control.

Silly.

[Zodiak]

129. Silly only if both are petty and out of control

but for those that are not, the feature is useful.

We can think of it this way...its an excellent trap to ferret out those that are petty and out-of-control. By your hypothesis (which I do not contend), these sort of people cannot resist abusing this feature. Such usage would become obvious and prompt attention from the mods.

I am fully-behind tombstoning those that abuse the system to create, as I believe one person put it, a monothread fiefdom. That is plainly wrong and should be obvious.

Does blocking a person mean they can't read another's thread? I thought it was just postng on their thread.

[crispini]

123. I agree about the value of ignore

It's good to be able to control your own DU experience, and if somebody consistently makes your bp go up, then you should just ignore them and go on.

This new block thing, though.... I don't know. It does bring a certain amount of control of others into the thing.

[Zodiak]

130. A certain amount, yes.

But I definitely concede the point that in the wrong hands...it could lead to terrible things.

In the right hands, it might clean up some of the chronic bad-faith discourse that amounts to brinksmanship with the DU rules and free up some of the mod's time.

A "trial period" is a good idea. It offers an opportunity for review.

In the meantime...a lot of air is getting cleared by making it obvious who is ignoring whom. It is good to know where people stand, but only once in a while, like Festivus.

[sendero]

112. The block feature....

... is the dumbest thing this board has ever implemented. A "solution" for "harassment". No, the solution for harassment is to alert a moderator and get the offending post removed. Or to send the poster a message explaining why his post is unacceptable.

This is another case of technoids trying to apply a technical solution to a human problem that cannot be solved by technology. If someone is out of bounds, warn them then if they don't stop ban them. Letting everyone control their little thread fiefdoms solves nothing.

[jgraz]

114. "technoids trying to apply a technical solution to a human problem"

SPOT ON. This is one of the first rules of engineering, right after "always pad your estimates". I've seen people fall in love with ideas like this and I have yet to see one result in anything other than a dismal failure.

[sendero]

148. Oh....

... and I say that as a confirmed and unrepentant C++/OOD technoid :) I'm sure I've made similar mistakes in the past but I think I avoid them now.

[jgraz]

169. Funny, I've always thought C++ was the best example of this error

Dedicated Objective-C head here :P

[sendero]

240. He he...

... C++ is a great language but it has its share of useless features :)

Fact is, you can write elegant, clean code in any language, or crap in any language.

Well clean code in almost any language, some would argue it is not possible with say, Javascript or VBscript :)

[jgraz]

270. "C++ is a great language"???

Now you're REALLY getting blocked!

Seriously, it's always nice to run into another OO wonk. We're a strange and dwindling species.

[MrPrax]

143. Hmmm...

4 points, or 'questions' that drive "People with a strong opinion" insane...

But every link I click still yields a text to read and hearts to win...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

145. Personally, I Think The Use Of It For Stifling Legitimate Debate In A Cowardly Fashion Is The Worst

abuse of it.

Using it to thwart child-like mentalities who are not capable of replying to context or skilled enough to engage in debate; and therefore only issue personal attack and abuse, is what it was designed for. But some use if for far more pathetic reasons such as:

Spite blocking (ya know, the 3 yr old tantrum block. The 'I didn't like what you said to my friend so I'm gonna block you even though you don't know me just because nyah nyah' block)

Clique blocking (Ya know, all the kiddies in a certain clique all block someone just because)

Knowing they're dealing with someone who they can't beat in a debate, so they avoid the discussion in a cowardly manner type block.

And finally you have the 'I'm too weak to handle any dissenting opinion and I'm going to cry really really loud and block you if you don't agree with me cause I just can't handle an opposing viewpoint to my own!' type block.

I think all of those are pathetic violations of the spirit of why the block tool was put forth. Though it's my opinion only, I think the only legitimate reason for blocking someone is if they've shown that they are persistent abusers and attackers who break the rules in reply and can't handle heated debate while maintaining some level of civility and focus on context. Those that harass and attack mercilessly, with name calling, taunting and otherwise, while ignoring all intellectual context of a post whatsoever. To me, those are the EXACT kind of poster who should be blocked, and kept from engaging in their uncivil and unproductive behavior. But those that do it just to stifle voices of those they don't agree with, or do it for spite, or merely to run away from any risk of intellectual challenge whatsoever, are pathetic in my opinion and completely abusing the system.

[seabeyond]

161. personal attacks ect get deleted with alert. i had it happen yesterday

i was simply disagreeing and not disrespectfully and in the person blocking went on to personally attacking me in his goodbye post. when i posted a reply on my post, he then says i "cheated" the block and went on with further attack. my posts on my posts got deleted because i was answering the blocking poster.

i cannot believe this is a reality that post on my posts are deleted, if i am not breaking rules of not attacking, calling names, or doing anything against the du rules.

[jgraz]

208. In your single legitimate case,

the MODS should do the blocking. This would be a reasonable enhancement to the current rules, e.g., we've decided you're being a dick to this person, so we're barring you from replying for 1 week (or however long)

I think I've heard that the mods have imposed mutual ignores on people who can't stop fighting. Blocking replies would be a more severe penalty, but one that some people have earned IMHO.

BUT, allowing individual users to abuse this feature is the height of insanity.

[GeorgeGist]

149. If you want to abuse yourself...

please do so in private. It's quite embarrassing to watch.

[qanda]

154. Number 4 is not only abuse of the system, but is just plain old abuse

Some people need help that DU cannot provide.

[TroglodyteScholar]

155. The only thing more pathetic than this blocking feature...

...is that someone would take enough time to develop and ask questions about the hypothetical scenarious in the OP. It's borderline obsessive.

If someone on a message board bothers you, there's a VERY easy solution that doesn't involve any special blocking feature or messages to mods: don't pay any attention to them.

Seriously, I think some folks could give that a shot.

Now, I'm going to go put this thread on ignore :eyes:

[seabeyond]

160. i had a person yesterday block then taunt. when i replied to that message on my post

i got DELETED. this person is allowed to block me. then allowed to taunt me. and i am not allowed to answer on my post, that will go thru, answering that taunt, even when i continued to be respectful and not personally attack. i have been sittin here this morning wondering how to address this. i see such an abuse in it. i see the cowardness of the blocker and taunter. the sense of my justice and fairness scale is WAY out of balance on this. any answers. am i not allowed to post a reply to the taunter thru my post.... to allow it on the board in an answer to the taunt?

[jgraz]

172. But according to the mods, this is supposed to *reduce* bad feelings

So I'm sure you feel much better toward that person than you would if they'd simply put you on ignore. :sarcasm: (of course)

[seabeyond]

174. ha ha ha i put you on block you preachy little mother. and then i cant respond

i feel sooooooo much better.

[jgraz]

181. And...

this is taking time that could otherwise be put to use beating each other up over John Kerry. Think about what it will be like once the blocks start falling on THAT topic.

[seabeyond]

184. oooosh. lol. actually i have thougt about it and seeing how out of control

it wll all become.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

162. This block feature is really getting troublesome.

I agree with whoever it was with the post that said those who nuclear block are cowards. Is simple "Ignore" not enough? All the block feature seems to do is piss people off and stifle debate.

[dogday]

176. Help me, Somebody help me

Mash potatoes,cranberries, and gravy. ohhhhhh


I think it sux, but what do I know?

[NNN0LHI]

203. I just love that commercial. I can't get it out of my mind n/t

[FogerRox]

183. I do not, or plan to in the future, use the block feature.

[seabeyond]

186. right there with you bro/sistah..... high five. we unite, lol. n/t

[AngryAmish]

185. I don't understand this fancy new block feature

So I won't use it. I'm just a simple unfrozen caveman lawyer...

[izzybeans]

198. I think the admins are right. There is a disincentive to do this. We are seeing

that disincentive work as we speak (evidence: all the discussions about unfair blocking and fellow Duers sanctioning the silly blockers). I suppose over time people will have to eventually stop blocking people for childish reasons. If this features sticks around it will become part of that small set of things posters have to get used to as they go through the growing pains of new membership (i.e. where they hell are the smilies?) I think it will force some folks to grow up or move on.

I'm saving it for the stalkers but I've never had one. So I doubt I'll use it.

[Warren Stupidity]

204. so I was blocked, and it was upsetting to learn about it.

And I was so upset that I of course immediately counter-blocked the blocker. And then I thought about it and went back to my ignore list and unignored just about everyone on it, except of course this person, who I cannot unblock for a week. All in all I think for me it was a good thing. Not fun, but good.

[Tellurian]

209. I have never used the ignore or block feature..in all my yrs at DU

Not that I never will..but I know I am capable of pushing away from the computer for awhile.

Maybe skinner's system could use a little refinement due to the questions raised by aggrieved posters feeling abused by this new enhanced (gagging) "experience."

My suggestion is this. A compromise..

What If posters are allowed only (3) blocks a month and no matter what is happening because of theirs or someone else's posting style or grievance with another poster if they use up their (3) blocks, they must wait until the 1st of the following month for their 'block bank' to be refilled to their original allocation of (3) blocks.

My feeling is Too Much of One Thing is as bad as not enough of something else. In this case, respect for the free flow of ideas and conversation is at little risk of interruption and is teaching self restraint on the part of all posters.

Now, the nuclear block has turned into a "golden block" because the supply is limited to just (3) blocks a month. "Golden blocks of DU Wampum" to be managed in such a way as not be wasted capriciously or for reasons of expediency just to shut down another poster because of (whatever) disagreements with their opinion.

If the so called abusive serial blockers have limited resources, they may think twice and be more careful of precipitous blocking just because the can...

Anyone can expand on this notion if they care too. I have many other ideas to add, but it's way too early.
My idea takes the edginess out of the blocking feature and encourages development of social skills rather than coming down on the side of gaming the system to potential abuse.

[GreenArrow]

228. Here's a simpler solution:

Deep six the mother fucker.

The arguments against are immeasurably stronger than those in favor of it. The blocking rule is anti-social.

[jgraz]

229. hear hear n/t

[seabeyond]

237. i agree n/t

[Codeblue]

214. I dunno bout that

but the whole feature seems kinda ridiculous. It's like blocking out anything you don't want to hear. I didn't think that was what this place was about.

[Time for change]

216. I can tell you of a much worse abuse of the block feature that has occurred

already.

Pure and simple, the use of the block feature to suppress dissent. I consider that the worst abuse of the block feature, because it allows false or misleading information to go unchallenged. This is not just a matter between poster A and B. Anyone reading the thread loses in such a situation because this has a very good potential IMO to lead to the spread of misinformation. Not that it doesn't happen anyhow, but this just increases the likelihood of it happening.

[troubleinwinter]

242. Stifles dissent, cuts off discussion, permits spread of unchallenged misinformation.

[riderinthestorm]

217. Wow. Something like 5 hours of posting without any comment from Admin or mods?!

Hello?! Anyone out there??? These are valid questions....

[Behind the Aegis]

218. Not 5 hours...30 hours.

I was hoping for something by now as well. However, there is the possibility there is discussion happening based on the questions (and some of the posts in this very thread) and rather than make a pronouncement too early, they are weighing options. Then again, perhaps...

[seabeyond]

226. the more i have been listening to others on this subject most of today

never having given it much thought at all prior to yesterday,.... i am seeing consistantly the blocks are not used against the "stalker". this block seems to be used almost exclusively to stop debate or conversation in a power play. really? what is a message board for. if a person cannot come on here, and deal with different personalities, and different opinion, ideas and thoughts, what in the world is anyone using the board. i finally read skinners rules on this block. it approached almost exclusively with the attitudes those using the block are being picked on, yet... i am seeing the block used in a totally opposite manner, more the passive agressive picker on...

if nothing else, this whole thing is becoming an interesting social experiment seeing all kinds of things in behavior with this and group behavior.

[enigmatic]

236. It is being used to block debate

there's no question about that now; I've seen too many threads here in the past few days for it to be anything but the truth.

I think it's also happening in the sense where the blocker knows they can'y get a Mod to delete the post in question because it doesn't break any rules except in the poster's mind, so they do a little vigilante justice themselves.

[blues90]

220. Only a block PM is needed

If some people would grow the hell up and simply not post sarcastic remarks to a topic they clearly have no real intent to reply with any input then there would be no need to block anyone .

It's one thing to post replies whether one agrees or disagrees but for gods sake have something to say that pertains to the subject or simply don;t respond .

[seabeyond]

224. man i thought you were going to say grow up and not be offended by some stranger

mouthing off that means nothing to you and has no power what so ever in the words they use and not take it personally, lol lol. it would be nice if people werent jerks on the internet, but that isnt going to happen. it is not in my power to control all those on internet, just myself. hence taking responsibility for myself by not being bothered by an unknown meaningless internet voice who is working off their own agenda.

[omega minimo]

232. Why does DU need the Block feature?

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?




Some of the biggest reasons for the need for the Block tool are on this thread. They have even found each other, congregated and described-- eloqently and somewhat hilariously-- their own abusive behavior (as if it's somebody else's problem). Even proclaimed how important it is to focus on issues and "never make a personal attack at all."

Well yeah. And if you didn't, there wouldn't be any need for the Block. It's hard to tell if "constant harassers" think through and believe their own crazymaking bullshit or if they are completely unaware and -- well, crazy. :crazy:

Which goes back to that list of question. Do belligerent DUers think that they have the right to provoke and antagonize forever-- and other people better put up with it or they're "cowards"-- and anyone who stands up them is the problem. They can't see their own assholishness? Even if they purport to provoke and antagonize in a "civil" way, the "constant harassment" looks like belligerrent bullshit to other people. The bully expects other people to either put up with their shit or back down. They really can't handle someone who tries to have a conversation with them rationally, giving them the opportunity to stop being abusive. That's not the game they're playing. But why do they get to play that game here at DU?

So is this really just about a pecking order?

[Neshanic]

245. Since this is not my forum, the people who run it make the rules, but

as I remember, being taught in school and life, you are exposed to all types of people and opinions. How you handle them is your own business. That being said and through the magic of the "internets", what people would do if confrontoned by a differing or what they find offensive point of view or belief can now be erased from existence.

I am pretty much daily reminded of what I am and what people think, at a firm that is a progressive one. Being gay in that firm still does not stop the gay jokes, the under the radar gay inuendo, or overhearing the couple of ex-football players in the firm making little bon mots about sexuality and other items, knowing that you can hear them.

I do not ignore, nor do I block. I have a conversation with the person, and these being repeat offenders, but I am making my point, that talking about gays, or telling gay jokes, or the all inclusive "that's gay" is not good thing to be slinging around an office; especially when some of our clients are gay.

Maybe I should block them. Act like they do not exist. Say nothing. Have no converstaion with them about the things they say outward that everyone can hear.

That's the answer. Do not accept, or act on anything I do not like, and by all means do not engage in any interacation with them after a certain point. Like sitting at my desk with my fingers in my ear and singing.

If this is a test of this function, I hope it goes away. If it is policy, then we as a group have failed in a significant way.

It's a high school reponse. It's not worthy of the people who post here, and do such good, to have a group, which I think would be rather small, make such a ruckus for something that can be solved by having another site called "Democratic Underground for people like me".

[seabeyond]

247. switch it around a little. the xfootball players BLOCK YOU......

and though you respectfully challenge their thinking, they dont want to hear it so they block you. they still make those little jokes and you have to sit on the sideline, not given the opportunity to respectfully speak out. doenst that feel even worse?

i think so

[Neshanic]

249. Yes it would. But they do listen, There has been progress.

They do not block me, by dismissing me or telling me basically to go pound sand. The gay derogatory items have decreased.

The point being that you cannot make any progress on anything if one party just hangs up the phone, slams the door in your face, or in this case, makes you dissappear.

What this is akin to is me walking in the office, and the partners telling me to not go within 20 feet of a certain area, because an individual wants me not to exist.

What is next? Forum blocking maps? Will this be color coded, or in a list format showing who has who on block?

It's bizzare.

[seabeyond]

250. It's bizzare. ... i agree. and defeats the purpose of a board, imo n/t

[omega minimo]

253. or "this is akin to... the partners telling" THEM "to not go within 20 feet of a certain area"

where you can be free of any of their harassment.

[Neshanic]

266. Short of physical threats from them, which has not happened,

and I do not think would ever happen, up to that point I would not "block" them in an office environment.But talking to them, explaining things have made a difference. Of course that does not change their overall personal view of gayness, and having gay people in the firm, but it at least shows them that they have crossed a boundary and it is not appropriate in the office. What they do ouside the office, is none of anyone's business.

Can this be overreaction? Is this possible? Are there that many people that need to be silenced? I have never seen a physical threat, or a truly nasty personal attack. Maybe someone thinks that I do, since I have posted some items that have been questions about sacred cows in our Democratic world.

Putting people on ignore, if need be is a good system.

No matter how you slice this one, it's not good.

[omega minimo]

269. That's good. And you're right, it's important to give people the chance to

learn from each other.


"Can this be overreaction? Is this possible? Are there that many people that need to be silenced?"

Does preventing a harasser from harassing or a disruptor from disrupting (or a swarm of disruptors) = "people being silenced"? That's why I picked up on your personal example. Those "constant harassers" (and no there aren't that many but it's enough) disrupt threads and forums, silence others, limit-- and even kill-- discussion. And cause good people to leave DU entirely.

"No matter how you slice this one, it's not good."

If you believe that, I would ask you to take another look at the questions in my post above. Take a look at the "constant harassers" on this thread revealing themselves for what they are, while pretending to be the exact opposite.

[seabeyond]

273. i am not seeing it used to stop harrassing. i am seeing used because

someone does not agree with them. it would be like, right now.... you being bothered that i dared suggest a different perspective on this and saying.... boom i block you.

what it has done is made me aware everytime i may see something differently than another flash.... hm, potential for a block.

just saying

[omega minimo]

252. Great post. Sounds like you try to be reasonable and encourage them to do the same.

There's probably a lot that all of us discussing this agree on, in what we're looking for. The main confusion seems to be:

People are repeating the notion that some folks are being blocked for differing points of view, as if the blocker can't handle contrasting opinion or discussion. That may be happening. What I am talking about --and what the tool was presented as intended for --was "constant harassment" which is quite a different thing.

I have kept my ignore list small (up til now) because I did want to know what DUers think and say-- I did not want an artificially sanitized view of the Forums. I've been positive about continuing to try to communicate with people who may seem hostile, with the potential to reach across from the "two sides." That has happened on occasion-- not always seeing eye to eye, but learning from each other and able to find rapport and continue discussion. Those folks mean a lot to me. I see that as one of the best things about a board like this.

As I've said, two people out of 10,000 in two years have earned the immediate honor of having the Block applied to them by me. That's pretty good. But it's also bad that they have been allowed to "constantly harass" many of us, in Big Forums and in small Forums. One of them was immediately put on Block by who knows how many people, everyone knew who he is without naming him, it had become an open secret that he was on everyone's last nerve and may even be singlehandedly a large part of the reason for the feature. Yet he is now pontificating about how unecessary the Block is and criticizing those who use it. The question in my post above was How do these abusive types end up staying here antagonizing so many of us, without being banned, so that a Block becomes necessary? The fact that they get to continue lowers the bar and makes other abusive types think they can do it too.

And unfortunately, this new feature has brought out the worst in people, trying to see how far they can go, acting obnoxioius and disruptive (!!!) and then attacking those they attacked, for preventing them from attacking anymore. Some people want to trashtalk and act tough. So fine. But when they go after someone repeatedly or constantly with behavior that breaks DU Rules and isn't being stopped, now they may get stopped by the person they are intentionally pissing off. Their choice.

In your example, if your coworkers went further, targeting you with "constant harassment" and weren't stopped by the manager, there are laws for that. (Those laws may apply to the level it's already at, btw). There is a difference between discussing and expressing different opinions vs. having verbal attacks, direct insults, shouting down and shutting YOU up, disrupting everything you are trying to do, blocking you as if YOU don't have a right to be there-- because of who you are, what you are and what you are presenting to the group. What right do they have to do that to you?

That's what the tool is for. The people screaming loudest about "free speech," "cowards," "can't handle dissenting opinion," etc. don't seem to realize that they are not being blocked for their opinions, but their behavior. AFAIK. Being "exposed to all kinds of people" on a Democratic board is good IMHO. Being subjected to "constant harassment" by the same bullies is not. Bullies want to abuse others and then act like the "cowards" have a problem-- gawd forbid anyone stand up to them CALMLY and explain what they're doing is unacceptable, giving them more and more opportunities to stop being an asshole. NOOOOOOOooooooooooooOOOOOOOO. THAT'S an infringement on THEIR rights to be a fucking jerk and whaddyagonnadoaboudit, chicken?????????!!!!!!!!!1111 Well now there is something we can do.

What if you wanted to improve the situation or look into your rights under the existing workplace rules or laws on sexual harassment or discrimination? What if you asked yourself-- "This is a 'progressive' firm? What's progressive about discrimination and harassment. What's 'progressive' about the management letting it continue?" Why are you expected to tolerate the bigotry and educate the boneheads with your tolerance of them? What if you tried to do something about it?

You might be backed up by the management and existing workplace rules (or not), or have to leave, or go to the law. You might be targetted for much worse. These 'innocuous" insults and innuendo might become very direct, focused and hateful, in order to force you to leave. You might be the one blocked out and prevented from presenting your point of view or even being there at all. The bullies might be successful in disappearing you. Maybe what is called a "progressive firm" these days is one where an openly gay person is "tolerated" because the owners and staff know there are laws about it, but meanwhile is reminded every day that s/he is "different" and not really "one of us" and has to constantly justify being there and negotiate the "innocuous" insults, innuendo and slurs.

At some point in that office, after "continous harassment" and no relief, a Block feature might not seem like a bad thing.


It's simple here, really. People can say what they want to say. It makes the person (all the bullies here) responsible for their own behavior-- and they are complaining that it takes their power away from them. Quite the opposite. They are empowered to choose to not be assholes.

If people need to be aggressive and hostile to present their "differing opinion" maybe their point isn't that strong to begin with.

[Neshanic]

268. I am curious to the behavior that warranted the block.

"That's what the tool is for. The people screaming loudest about "free speech," "cowards," "can't handle dissenting opinion," etc. don't seem to realize that they are not being blocked for their opinions, but their behavior."

What is this behavior? Is it completely over the top personal attack? Is it a physical threat? Do they know where you live? Are they stalkers?

Other than stalking, it would be a hard sell to tell someone that I had someone blocked because they did not like what I said, or the way I said it on a board that is about freedom of expression, that within the confines of the owner of the board is allowed to stay on the topic posts.

As far as my situation, I think that talking things out in quitest way is the best, with all parties involved, and as far as my specific situation, there are many variables. You learn to do this when you are gay, especially in a state where if you are you can be fired because of it. I am not saying that straight people do not have this skill, but gay people are presented with confrontation and other people's beliefs in your face more than say a straight person. I do not make these rules up, just ask another gay person. We have to have people bring things up and handle it without "blocking" more than straight people, and we have to adapt.

I would be the last person fired in a situation where the people who say things I do not want to hear would be brought into a room with me and the partners. This is why I work things out like this. But in a "blocked" world, the conversation would not occur.

"What if you wanted to improve the situation or look into your rights under the existing workplace rules or laws on sexual harassment or discrimination?"

Ask any gay person in a state other than the progressive ones like New Jersey, which can be counted on one hand, and it's not the way the real world works with gay workers. But that poses an interesting question. Is my voice of asking why and when we as gays will get equal rights, all the while supporting the dismal candidates that get served up to vote for, and my questioning it in an impassioned way, is that block material?

[omega minimo]

279. Repetitive disruptive hatefulness

That pretty much sums it up.

"Personal attack" and "stalking." Check and check. "Constant harasssment" at every opportunity. Check.

"...because they did not like what I said, or the way I said it on a board that is about freedom of expression, that within the confines of the owner of the board is allowed to stay on the topic posts."

The board Rules are "based on respect" which has gone rather out of fashion these days. "Within the confines of the owner of the board" they can't control or moderate all the abusive behavior that goes on. Just because some abuse "is allowed to stay on the topic posts" doesn't mean the owners condone it necessarily. So don't assume that something staying up means it is legitimate. That's what encourages the abusers. That's what necessitated the Block. Apparently.

Members of another subgroup on DU are consistently harassed for not "knowing their place" and expected to put up with serial abusers and others infected with Dittohead attitudes that have become "normalized" into the culture. I asked you "what if you tried to do something about it?" What if all you tried to do was come into the open, try to have open discussion as if it was normal, acceptable, as if there really was "freedom of expression" for people to discuss certain topics without being disrupted (yes, every time), attacked (personally and as a group), hijacked, locked, shut down, disappeared.

What if you had the option to limit discussion to people who were able to join in without trying to shut the thing down? There could possibly be more open discussion, not less and more divergent opinion with less belligerent Attitude.

Better than nothing.

:hi:


"Is my voice of asking why and when we as _____ will get equal rights, all the while supporting the dismal candidates that get served up to vote for, and my questioning it in an impassioned way, is that block material?"

If we try to have that discussion, and some DUers see it as a threat to them for some reason and they come in to attack and disrupt-- not discuss-- and do it on a regular basis, i.e. every time we try to have that discussion ..........................that's what the new tool is for.

It's a Disruptor Buster.

[LostInAnomie]

259. Most reasonable people would agree with you...

... and they are the ones that have blocked very few people. I myself have never blocked anyone, even if they block me. But, that's probably because I have a thicker skin than most and welcome having my views challenged (after all, that's what a forum's for).

The sad thing is though is that this forum has a few unreasonable people with whom disagreement equates to bullying and harassment. I'm sure if you look through the posts in this thread you can pick out one or two such people.

I personally wish the admins. would just go back to the old ignore rules. They worked well enough for years and had very few drawbacks. If you didn't want to converse with someone you didn't have to see them. They were allowed to continue discussing without having their ability to do so intruded on by others.

This new rule on the other hand gives the blocker far too much control over other posters ability to use the forum. Instead of only one person being effected by the ignore/block, now literally 100,000+ people are unable to read the opposing views.

The ability to abuse this feature is to great, especially for those that feel emboldened by it. I know some of it's advocates will claim that it will protect them from harassment and abuse, but abuse and harassment were already against forum rules. If it were truly going on the mods would resolve it. The new rule is essentially de facto censorship, and de facto tomb stoning from threads.

[jgraz]

239. POLL UP -- make your opinion known

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3168187&mesg_id=3168187

[B Calm]

244. I can understand why Skinner locked the other thread where

a person made public another poster who blocked him/her. It bothers me though if a person who choosen to block someone else can still respond to the person they have blocked.

[seabeyond]

246. i saw that and said, oooops, lock thread. yes i agree and agree

that a poster continuing to reply to the person blocked is bothersome. the answer to that seems to be that i am then suppose to block that person. this is where to me it truly becomes a childish display and i cannot do. for it to be used as a taunt, and my recourse is a block, i feel like i am playing a game of risk, or footie footie football. lol

[salin]

248. I am guessing that this one is being allowed to keep going

as it helps pull together info on how the block is being used - correctly and not. Hopefully the situation you described (as I have elsewhere) will be addressed if the feature is becomes a standard feature.

[Spazito]

251. This thread makes for fascinating reading....

as to the pros and cons of the new feature in it's trial phase. After reading it and seeing the feature being used in some threads, I would have to agree that, imo, the feature, while well meaning, isn't doing what it was hoped it would do and is exacerbating the original problem rather than reducing or eliminating it.

I am assuming that part of the reason for the institution of the trial feature was in hopes of reducing the "tit for tat" alerts being sent to the mods, limiting their ability and time for actually moderating the forums for which they are responsible. In reading this thread and seeing the function being used in other threads, I suspect the "tit for tat" alerts are still as numerous as previously, only the content of the concerns/complaints may be different.

[havocmom]

254. Feature good for those dealing with stalkers

but so far, I have seen it used, and announced with glee, when Poster A just doesn't like what Poster B has to say. The DU equivalent of fingers in ears and LA LA LA LA. Reminds me a bit too much of bush: "Who cares what you think".

And it does nothing to foster discussion or even help us hone our skills at making a case for a position.

If someone just wants everyone else to agree with their views, why the hell do they bother to come to a discussion board? Those who make a big show about placing someone on ignore and blocking further posts from them simply because they disagree are abusing the feature. They are also infantile and likely to remain so.

If I have a real problem with a poster, it is for more than just not agreeing with me. And if I put someone on ignore, it is without fanfare. Those who make a big TA DA! post about nuking someone have some issues about power, control, or no idea how to deal with life in general.

[jgraz]

261. Also, stalking is pretty rare

It's hard to believe the mods have trouble keeping up with the few incidents of true stalking on this board. This feature does nothing to stop a dedicated stalker, though. There are too many ways around the block.

To tell the truth, what the hell is the big problem with being stalked?? It's not like the crazies are showing up at your house. I've have this happen to me before, and I just put the person on ignore. When I got truly sick of them, I alerted the mods. That worked fine for me.

[havocmom]

272. Yep (n/t)

[BlooInBloo]

256. We're on Cowards Underground now.

[crispini]

257. This whole thing is too weird for me.

One person blocked me and I have absolutely no idea why. I don't think I've ever posted in a single thread by this person, or had one single hostile exchange with them. LOL.

The weird thing about this is that I have absolutely zero urge to block that person back. :shrug: One person blocked me for what could possibly be considered "just cause," 'cause I *was* a bit rude, so I blocked 'em back, just for the hell of experimenting with the feature. :silly: But I think when my week's up I'm taking that person off block. This whole thing is indescribably childish. It's leading to way, way too much petty drama. The thing about putting someone on "ignore" is that they didn't know, and you could just ignore them, or not. THIS feature is more like, "Hey, I'm putting YOU on my shit list, neener neener neener!"

The funny thing is that I consider myself one of the most low-profile posters around here. I mean, there ARE people who DO go around picking fights, getting into flamewars for fun, etc., and I'm not really one of them. :shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

258. The prevalence of the cowardliness is FORESEEABLE, as an instance of the...

.... aggregate-tends-to-the-lowest-common-denominator phenomenon.

One answers the question "why do trees grow so high (which carries a humungous energy/resources cost)?" similarly.


EDIT: The last string of words is now a bonafide *sentence*.

[crispini]

260. I feel like a lab rat at the moment, and I don't much like it, actually.

I have the distinct sensation of being Watched (at least in this thread) by The Powers That Be as they compare notes on how this feature is working out, who's blocking who, and why. It's like some bizarre sociological experiment. They are waiting to see if alerts go down, if threads like this go down, and what the tone of the boards are, as they pass messages amongst themselves and make notes in our Permanent Records.^TM

Hem. I think that means it's time to go outside to play. ;)

[seabeyond]

263. bizarre sociological experiment

smilin huge. lol lol lol

personally this is exactly how i have been watching this whole thing the last day or two, lol lol, saying exactly this earlier today. i am seeing this as an interesting big ole human behavior experiment and finding it very informative. am i part of the rats being watched, surely.... but i am also doing some watching too, lol lol

[jgraz]

264. Well, the dude is named "Skinner"

What else did you expect??

(Just kidding Skinner :) )

[Guaranteed]

276. I wondered, myself, how much there might be a boredom factor

going into this. The problems seemed foreseeable.

[pinto]

280. Locking.

At this point it may be best to address your concerns to one of the Administrators:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html

Thanks for your consideration with this.