here is a prime example of why the super nuclear block feature is a bad idea....

[mike_c]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3067271#3067504

The DUer-- who is more than welcome to reply to my posts, BTW-- has blocked me for ideological reasons. Read the exchange-- not only is there no animosity or incivility, but the DUer in question was not even a participant. He/she simply used the block feature to prevent the exchange of ideas. As I feared, it was only a matter of time before this began.

This is not what this community should be about. When I began posting here there were often rancorous discussions-- remember Carlos?-- but I think we were all (mostly) adult enough to recognize that we all learned something from the process even when we had to agree to disagree about specific issues.

I expect there are a number of folks who will use this feature to prevent discussion, especially as the primaries approach. I think this is a real shame, and a detriment to the entire DU community.

Skinner, Elad, and EarlG: This feature is not a substitute for intelligent and open-minded moderation, IMO.

[Solo_in_MD]

1. Agreed

And I am not on anyones block list (to my knowldege)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. I agree: it's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and

yelling, "BLA-BLA-BLA-BLA. I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

And it shows about the same level of maturity and ideological self-confidence.

[Catherine Vincent]

3. What do you expect? You're a Hillary-hater!

(just kidding)

Did you check? Maybe the poster was just kidding? :shrug: But if he did, maybe he'll realize how silly that was and switch it back!

[mike_c]

5. yes, I checked-- he/she really did it....

And he/she wasn't even a participant in the discussion. That's what's taken me aback so. The DUer forthrightly said "I simply don't want to hear what you have to say."

[Karenina]

22. I don't get it...

The poster that blocks you prevents you not only from responding to him but also to anyone else in the thread EVEN if he is NOT the OP??? :freak:

[Swamp Rat]

28. How 'bout dem Saints!

:hi: :hug:

[Karenina]

37. O lawd, I wanna be in that number!

:loveya: Thanx for the PM! :hug:

[Swamp Rat]

42. não tem problema... beijos

:* :loveya: :hug:

[mike_c]

36. no, you can still respond elsewhere in the thread, but not to that DUer...

...in that or any other thread, and not at all in any thread for which that DUer is OP.

[Karenina]

41. Thanks, Mike. I was getting confused.

The poster who was the subject of a now locked thread was my first block. I discovered that upon attempting to K&R his thread that was falling into oblivion. I don't recall ever having butted heads with him :shrug: so I just put him on ignore and am spared the aggro of seeing his threads at all. And so it goes...

[Karenina]

51. Is LBN exempted from this feature?

[Tace]

4. I Don't Exactly Get Nuclear Block, Either

There's one or two posters I prefer not to read... mostly because they bum me out. I understand that Skinner et al are hoping this will ultimately lead to fewer good people getting tombstoned... but I don't see how it can work out.

But then, I was resistant to "The Greatest," when they first tried that... and it's turned out to be fantastic.

I dunno'.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

6. I think it is detrimental to open dialog, but...

there are more than a few people I know that have relayed tales of being stalked. If used with utmost discretion I think it has value. In other circumstances -- I think Lydia nailed it! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3170628#3170668

[whistle]

7. Hold onto your sock mike_c, skinner locked my discussion thread

...a earlier on a similar topic about the DU block feature. So don't be surprised if that happens here

[mike_c]

8. well, at least then I'll know that he's seen it and registered the circumstances....

That's OK.

[Catherine Vincent]

9. Maybe this feature was activated because of the upcoming

presidential campaign. It can get quite ugly in here.

[mike_c]

11. yeah, I'm a veteran of three DU campaign seasons now...

...so I know it can get ugly. But read the exchange I linked-- there wasn't any incivility at all. The block was used solely to prevent the exchange of opposing ideas, not to prevent personal abuse. That's the essence of the problem, IMO, and frankly I think this will be the way the feature is used more often than not.

[GreenArrow]

44. i'm starting to believe this

With a two year campaign commencing, we might be looking at a "three monkeys" style discussion board.

The whole thing seems very poorly considered.

[enigmatic]

10. It's a disaster

I think it's pretty obvious now.

[sammythecat]

12. It's my opinion that 99% of the mature among

us will have no use for this "feature". The juveniles among us will be the ones to abuse this. I'd be willing to bet that if this is used 100 times, 90 to 100 of them will be cases of childish petulance.

We have an ALERT button to notify MODERATORS to take action if someone is being abusive. Isn't that a point to have moderators in the first place?

Should all civilians, 16 and over, now carry a gun so they can deal with bothersome people on the spot instead of troubling the police who don't want the aggravation of intervening in disputes?

[mike_c]

14. even worse is when it is used simply to prevent discussion...

...rather than to prevent abuse or incivility. This is not what DU should be about, IMO. This community should provide the means to FOSTER dialog, not to block it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. This Community Does Not Exist To Foster Dialogue Of Not Supporting The Election Of Demorcrats.

If you don't like that, go somewhere else.

And if you don't believe me, why don't you post a thread with the title of "If Hillary wins the nom in 08, I'm not voting for her" and see what happens to it.

[mike_c]

29. I'm sorry, when did it become the nature of this forum to prevent discussion...

...about the merits-- or lack of merit-- of democratic candidates, or simply potential democratic candidates?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Never. Nor Is It Now.

You weren't discussing the merits. You were publicly declaring that you would not vote for her if she wins the nomination. As a member of this board, you are expected to support the election of the Democratic candidate no matter who it is. I hope you realize that.

[mike_c]

39. dude, I've been a member of this community since 2001...

...and I do know the rules. If Hillary Clinton is nominated I am free to express my opinion, but not to urge others to vote against her. Note that she has NOT been nominated and we are in the process of discussing her. I've been through three national elections on DU and I'm fully aware of my responsibilities here.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. The poster simply stated that he could not vote for Clinton.

There is no rule here that states you must always support any potential Democratic candidate no matter who or under what circumstances. Clinton is not currently the Democratic nominee for president, and until she is, advocating against her being so, by for example pointing out that you could not vote for her, is not, in my opinion, against the rules.

If Lieberman is our nominee will you vote for him? I won't.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Yes There Is, As A Matter Of Fact.

If Hillary gets the nomination, we are expected to support her and it is against the rules to support opposition to her being elected. That is black and white.

And lieberman won't be our nominee, so nice try. (Might as well throw somethin out of your ass like "what if hitler ran, would you vote for him?".

Publicly declaring here that you won't vote for the Dem nom is equivalent in my opinion to condoning victory for the republican.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. What if hitler ran?

If it was against the rules then the appropriate action would be to alert the moderators.

So what if Hitler, dead lo this many years, was our nominee? Would you vote for him?

And Lieberman, if I recall correctly, was our VP choice in '00, was a (pathetic) primary contender in 04, and who knows, might run again in '08. After all his ego is almost as large as his asshole. He certainly should be considered. So would you vote for him as our presidential nominee?

I won't. That simple statement is a massive violation of the rules, right?

[sammythecat]

34. So, we're not members of a political party that is open to dissent?

We're actually more like a religion?

Your stridency is disturbing. I have to say that. It really is.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. No One Said Anything About Dissent. Dissent All You Friggin Want.

But come election time, we are expected to support the Dem candidate, period.

Expressing dissent or disagreement with certain Dems running is fine, of course. We are all going to have our favorites and those we see flaw in. But that wasn't what happened here. What happened here was a straight out and out declaration of "I will not support the Democratic nominee once chosen", which is against the rules to do come election time.

[sammythecat]

45. Well, I'll tell you what. I've been a Democrat my whole life,

I will never vote Republican, but I don't wear a "brown shirt". If the time comes that I don't like the Dem candidate I would most likely not vote at all, although I don't see that ever happening.

You say, "But come election time, we are expected to support the Dem candidate, period." There is something about the "absoluteness" of that statement that sounds like an order. Again, your stridency is disturbing. It really is. It reminds me too much of "my country, right or wrong", which is one of the most despicable phrases I've heard in my lifetime.

[sammythecat]

24. Exactly, we do have the childish and juvenile among us,

all groups do, and they will be the ones to use this. In a childish and juvenile manner.

[Pharaoh]

13. I've only put 1 person on ignore once

cause he was being a jerk,I'm not even sure of the diff between block and ignore,

but there are those immature people out there and if it can calm things down for the moderators perhaps it's OK,

after all we probably don't see all the crap that goes on here.

[cynatnite]

15. I've never used block or been blocked that I'm aware of...

this newest feature stifles discussion, IMO. We're all supposed to be adults here and it's less hassle to just move on rather than block those not to your liking for whatever reason.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. I agree and this thread is doomed. nt.

[mike_c]

17. yeah, but it has to be recognized before it's doomed...

...and that in itself is a good thing, IMO.

[kentuck]

18. Doomed...

into the moderators torture chamber... :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Oh Get Over It. So One DU'er Blocked You. Poor You. And It Is Inappropriate To Call Out That

DU'er in a separate thread because your feelings were hurt.

And no, there shouldn't be discussion here anyway about theoretically supporting the republican nomination for president. This is the wrong board for that. So I agree with her premise completely (though I wouldn't block members for it).

But so what. Someone blocked you. Get over it. Your life will go on, I promise.

[mike_c]

23. yeah, it will....

Did you read the exchange, or was that simply your knee jerking? Who said ANYTHING about supporting any repub candidates?

I don't give a rat's buttocks about the personal issue-- I'm concerned about the effect on this forum's ability to foster the exchange of ideas-- even ideas that might be unpopular at times.

There are rules about what kinds of posts are inappropriate-- we don't need to block dialog to deal with those. That is what tombstones are for. Note that there was no incivility or impoliteness in the exchange itself, and no violation of DU rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. Declaring You Won't Vote For The Dem Nom = Condoning Election Of The Repub One.

I do think that the block should be reserved ONLY for those who constantly abuse and attack personally rather than responding to context, and guess I will bend to admitting that you shouldn't be blocked for such comments above.

But I still think you're being extremely childish by posting this thread, and also think anyone refusing to vote for hillary if she's the Dem nom is a narrow minded ignoramus foolishly standing by empty principle.

[mike_c]

30. and you sir, are welcome to express that sentiment in any of my threads....

We might not agree, but I appreciate your point of view, and applaud you for expressing it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. I Hear Ya.

Passionate debate is good, even if I completely disagree with you. I don't think blocking should be used for that reason. I think blocking should only be used to stifle those that can only respond with childish attack such as "you're an asshole!" or "mindfuck blah blah blah snort" or other nonsensical attacks that lack any context to the argument whatsoever.

But I'm all for heated debate, as long as it doesn't degrade to personal smear absent of context.

[Nomad559]

20. As far as I know

nobody has blocked me, but when the day arrives that someone does use this childish feature to censor my speech, that will be the day I stop donating money to this forum.

Why should I donate money to a "progressive" forum that allows others to censor me?

[mike_c]

25. hmmm-- good point....

I've supported this forum since 2001, I think. I've done it because I think this is an important community. Maybe it is time to reassess that.

[Swamp Rat]

26. I won't use it... The block feature will likely Balkanize DU.

There are some people with whom I disagree a whole lot, and a couple I just plain don't like, but I won't 'block' them. Either I will hit back harder, or I will just ignore them depending on the situation.

[salin]

33. it appears that in a few corners

this is alraedy starting to happen (balkanization).

[salin]

31. nevermind

self-edited - found the answer. Carryon.

[welshTerrier2]

47. here's the real problem with the block feature

it should NOT be viewed through the narrow lens of whether just one person is blocked on any given thread ... that's bad enough and i don't support it at all ...

what's worse though, is that anyone reading the thread, and this includes many, many non-DU'ers who are lurkers, can never know what opinions we are not hearing when we read a thread ... there's no way around that given the current system ...

what good is the public square if we can't tell who has been banned from it and what opinions have been blocked from it ... that's not a PUBLIC square at all ...

the ultimate wrongness of the new block feature is that it presumes to let the OP have total ownership and control of threads they start ... this is not how it should work ... just because you start a discussion does NOT mean you should have control over who participates in it ... public should mean public ...

my focus is less on those who use this feature or even on those who are blocked by it and MORE on the fact that the credibility of all DU threads is now rightly called into question ... we either have open discussion or we don't ...

and how will the admins "evaluate how it's going"???? that seems meaningless to me ... if you go to the public square and see no fights, can you assume all is well? it's nonsense ... the bottom line is that every single thread on DU is potentially tainted because each one is potentially no longer a free speech zone ...

the admins have been almost perfect until now; this is a very big mistake ...

[senseandsensibility]

49. Thank you for taking the time to lay out your opinion

so clearly. Your points are well taken. I agree, and hope the administrators read this. You are right about not knowing what is blocked in threads. It distorts the whole tone and flavor of the thread and presents a false image of harmony that doesn't serve anyone. And this applies to anyone who reads the thread, not just the blocked member.

[TahitiNut]

50. Just wait until the primaries are in full swing.

:scared:

[welshTerrier2]

54. allow me to share your own wisdom on this:

"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrowmindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion." — Lord Acton

it's your own sig line ... i couldn't agree more ... we should not allow the suppression of dissent (i.e. "attacked in front") in any thread unless it violates DU rules of civility ... the best we can do is provide a PUBLIC, UNRESTRICTED forum for "the simple development of the contrary qualities" ...

as for the much hated abuses of primary season, are we then to offer for public discourse only pro-candidate threads? i support candidate x and will block all the candidate y supporters? this is a public forum? it's nonsense ... i am not supporting any particular candidate and would like to hear a civil discussion of pro and con on any given issue ... instead, we may be offered one-sided presentations ... the point is, as thread readers, now we can longer tell ...

[porphyrian]

53. But DU isn't a public forum. It's privately owned.

The owners are just giving us more freedom than any other forum that I know about. Because it isn't a public forum, no one has any special rights to do anything here. We do it whatever way the owners allow, not whatever way we really want. I'm all for free speech, but don't be confused about what kind of forum DU is.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

55. Yeah there are plenty of dickheads

You've been on my ignore a few times yourself. Just as someone who DU loves has blocked me completely. So friggin' what. Everybody has their personal opinions and a right to not be bugged if they don't want to be.

[sandnsea]

52. Oh geez quit being a baby

I've been doing that to people for a good solid year. It doesn't affect anybody's DU experience except mine. Nobody is so goddamned interested in what I have to say that they even notice they're on ignore. I also love the new feature that let's me choose whether to ignore them completely, or just ignore their threads. For some of them, it's just their obnoxious 10 threads a day that get on my nerves.

Quit taking yourself so fucking seriously.

[Fenris]

56. Locking.

You are not permitted to call out other members of this board. Questions regarding DU features such as "Block Replies" should be addressed privately to the administrators.

[e-mail]