Update on the new block function

[EarlG]

In 24 hours time, we will be making an update to the message board software which will affect those of you using the new "Block replies to me" function.

As you know, if you add someone to your block list, that person is not permitted to post anywhere in a thread that you start. One of the most-requested updates to the block function is the ability to see who a thread-starter is blocking.

As of 2pm ET tomorrow (Tuesday Jan 23) there will be a new link in the bar at the bottom of the first post of every thread, if the person who posted the thread is using the block function. The new link will say "View block list" and it will appear near the "Alert" link.

Clicking on this link will allow members to view the list of people who are blocked from participating in the thread.

We believe that enough time has passed now for people to get used to the idea of the block function. Note that it is permissable for members to acknowledge that they are blocking someone, or that they are being blocked. However, we will be reminding the moderators to remove posts and/or lock threads which call out or personally attack other members for using the function. If someone blocks you, then we suggest that you review your past behavior on DU to determine the reason why.

Admin will continue to review the new function until February 1. On February 1 we will make an an annoucement regarding its future on DU.

[Lithos]

1. Kick

:kick:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. Thanks For Your Efforts. This Is A Good Update.

I think many members will generally be surprised as to how few members are blocked in any given thread, and how not stifled the ability for dissenting discussion is.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Much appreciated, thank you n/t

[Karenina]

Thank you for this info, EarlG.

My one question is: Does the block function apply to LBN where the rule is one post per topic?

[TahitiNut]

6. Interesting question.

That'd mean that the blocked DUer would, in effect, be prevented from discussing that particular article/story in LBN ... and would be forced to do so in another forum.

[Karenina]

80. Which is yet to be clarified...

There are posters indigenous to LBN whose contributions I would hate to see locked out... Whither goeth we? :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

4. My, my. This'll be interesting, indeed.

Thanks for the announcement, sir. :hi:

[CatWoman]

7. what's that? did someone say something?

I must be *gasp*, BLOCKED!!!!

:)

[TahitiNut]

16. You'd be the very last, m'luv.

Even if I used those cyber-earplugs, I'd still pay attention to EVERYTHING you said - except "go clean out the litter box."

:rofl:

:* :* :* :*

[CatWoman]

20. ROFL!!!!

:hi:

:loveya:

[LoZoccolo]

5. Thank you. Now I can keep track of whether my block list is the biggest.

Kicked and recommended!

[mzmolly]

48. Heh.

:hi:

[LoZoccolo]

52. .

:hi:

[mzmolly]

87. Well, thankfully we haven't blocked one another.

;)

[jus_the_facts]

8. That's fucked up...it went from rules not stating who you put on ignore to....

....letting everyone see who you've got blocked?! :wtf:

[New Earth]

14. it's a good thing rather than a bad thing, at least in one way...

I think it will make people block others less frequently, when it's available to all just how many someone has blocked. It will be easier to see who's been abusing it :eyes:

[Bunny]

17. Yes, I think this will be real interesting.

I can't wait to see how this shakes out.

[jus_the_facts]

27. I disagree...there was a reason it became a rule to not discuss who you've put on ignore...

....THAT was a good thing...this is BULLSHIT and causing more trouble than it's worth because it's a personal choice to ignore who you want for your own personal reasons to do so...if they're going to make ignore lists public then what the FUCK is the point of having them in the first place...makes absolutely NO SENSE AT ALL. :grr:

[crispini]

Not ignore lists. Block lists.

It's a bit different. If you ignore someone, they can still post in your thread.

[Bunny]

32. Well, I may have someone on Ignore but not Blocked.

My interpretation of this new twist is that it will only display people that you have Blocked.

[Skinner]

35. First of all... Cool your jets.

Second: Your entire ignore list is not going to be made public. The only list that will be public is the list of people who you are blocking -- and only if you start a thread.

[jus_the_facts]

38. It's still bullshit...regardless...n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. You could always choose not to block people.

And then ignore them the old fashioned way.

[jus_the_facts]

61. True....just a lot of unnecessary drama..when there's way too much already...

....arrrrrrrrrrrgh. :argh:

:hi:

[JuniperLea]

73. unnecessary drama

can i get an amen?

this is going to digress into a popularity contest... mark my words!

[in_cog_ni_to]

76. Just like grade school!

This reminds me of those days. It's all so juvenile.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. Or kindergarden, agreed

[Marie26]

296. A perfect example

of how this feature is misused: Someone posted a thread about Kerry, which quickly devolved into a flame-fest. All the pro-Kerry people blocked the anti-Kerry people, and vice versa. Even though each faction had just blocked the other side, they kept posting about how unfair & awful the other side was for blocking them. It's just pretty ridiculous.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

283. did you mean to let blockers post on the blockee's threads and

block them on their own threads?

I don't know if you know about that, but it is happening in
Election Reform.

It seems to me that if someone blocks me, then they should not
be allowed to block me on my own thread.

Isn't that abuse?

[Catherine Vincent]

40. LOL!

You must have a pretty long list. :)

[TahitiNut]

46. !

:rofl: LoZoccollo beware!!! :evilgrin:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[seabeyond]

78. from what i have seen

he is not shy at all to the point of being boastful with his blocks. not thinking he will mind. badge of hanor. which is cool cause at least he is honest. not shy about it at all. i can respect that

[LostinVA]

Agreed

[AtomicKitten]

227. I agree.

A certain group of supporters of candidate "X" (and your first guess is probably correct!) have totally abused the block function by:

1) Announcing they were blocked by someone when they had put that person on block first.
2) Announcing they were blocked by someone when IT'S NOT TRUE.
3) Announcing they were blocked, feigning innocence, and then trash-talking that person.
4) Announcing they were blocked and posting third party/indirect comments and trash-talking that person.

They have taken a function meant to give some folks some peace around here and used it as a weapon.

[havocmom]

257. Since some have made big announcments about blocking others,

seems fair to see who is doing it and to whom. Have seen several cases where it was done with much fanfare for the reason that someone didn't like the other having the right to disagree. This new twist might cut down on some of that.

[WHAT]

34. another thing it does...

is allow for explanations as to why someone is on a block list. Maybe it is to keep an op on tact or to minimize thread jacking or manipulation by cliques that might be disrupting. Then, a blocked person has an opportunity to open a thread explaining their behaviour and others have the opportunity to ignore that thread if they're not "buying it".

[TahitiNut]

21. I don't recall that telling someone they were Ignored was ever against the rules.

I know that telling someone you Alerted them was against the rules, but not the other.

Oh, well ... memory is the second thing to go. I can't remember what the first was. :shrug:

[Pithlet]

30. I think it was at one point.

But that was a long time ago. To clarify, it was against the rules to tell someone you're ignoring them, but it's been allowed for quite some time now, as long as you actually follow through.

[Bunny]

36. You're right. At one point you were not allowed to tell someone

that you were putting them on Ignore. Then it changed to where, if you were going to tell someone that, you had to follow through and actually do it.

[TahitiNut]

41. I know the 'follow through" prescription - didn't recall the prohibition. (I'm old.)

:dunce:

[Pithlet]

51. I wasn't even entirely sure I was right that it ever was.

Just a distant, hazy memory :)

[Dinger]

66. I Agree. That Should remain Private

It's sort of like seeing who's been tombstoned, or who's posted a deleted thread, . . nobody's business. I predict that some will use this to call out posters here, and even if they get locked or deleted, they won't care. This is a bad idea IMO.

[crispini]

9. Hahahahaha. OMG. What's next on "As the DU Turns"?!

Now all the shit lists get made public! Bwahahhahahahaahaha! :rofl:

[LostinVA]

24. Bingo

[in_cog_ni_to]

47. I know! This is going to be a laugh a minute! DU's "Most NOT wanted List"

PUBLISHED! :rofl::rofl: I can't wait.:)

[Pithlet]

10. Thank you.

This makes it a little easier to take.

[GoneOffShore]

11. Thank you -

That should improve functionality and stop some whining.

[qanda]

12. I think that's an excellent idea

[Marie26]

13. An improvement

But it's still a fundamentally flawed function.

[havocmom]

259. Agree

[patricia92243]

15. Does this mean that all of DU can see their blocked list or just the pople that are blocked?

[LostinVA]

25. It means ALL of DU can

Hmmm... don't think this is a good idea.

[patricia92243]

43. I agree. Horrible idea. The problem is between the blocker and the blockee - not all of DU.

I understand that in the past the Admins have been know to change their mind. Hopefully this will be one of those times.

[LostinVA]

50. Yup, this will piss off certain cliques, groups, etc.

Some regular posters in smaller forums have already publicly stated they've Blocked anyone they know who disagrees with them... they've even went into some of the big forums to do this, including people who associate with the blockees. Bad blood here. And, many people who are blocked have done NOTHING in "past behavior" to warrant being blocked, except disagree with the blocker.

I have two people Blocked, both threadstalkers. That's it.

Oh boy...

[Bunny]

58. But I think it will illuminate those who Block whole groups of people.

And I don't think the illumination will be very complimentary.

There are cliques and other "gangs" that run loose here. If a particular person has ALL of them Blocked, that sheds light on both the Blocker and the Blockee(s), and allows us to form opinions about that as well.

I know of a person who Blocked nearly everyone in a small forum. When that person's Block list is revealed, it should be fairly obvious that they are unable to tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them 100%. I think that reflects poorly on the Blocker, and I think others are entitled to know this. It can help them determine how much credence to give to the Blocker's opinion.

[enigmatic]

62. You got it

Great post.

[spoony]

288. But your opinion won't matter

because it won't be heard. You can't reply to them, and you can't start new threads responding because they're considered continuing an argument. I doubt they'll care if anyone thinks poorly of them, so long as they have a hill they claim as their own.

[spoony]

287. And now the cliquers will

be able to collect lists to add to theirs.

The intial idiotic idea of blocking is now spiderwebbing into something even worse.

[GOTV]

100. Yes, that's the fundamental flaw of the blocking system...

... it's meant to allow users to control their experience, but it allows users to control the experience of others as well.

Making the blocklists public improves the situation somewhat in that the blocking isn't silent. I'll now know a thread has been censored.

[Moochy]

268. Public Proscription Lists

The original block reply feature was a bad solution in search of a non-problem, IMO.
Who was it that came up with big proscription lists again? oh yeah thats right, dictators, despots and tyrants. :evilgrin:

NOTE: In an effort to ease the development of other new-fangled solutions to control ones du-experience, I have purged all of my ignore lists, to lessen the server load.

[JuniperLea]

18. I think this sucks

Personally, I'm tired of the whole schoolyard mentality on this issue. I don't think it's anyone's business who is on who's block list. That is how wars are started.

I feel this is a poorly thought out function.

[seabeyond]

31. and i am seeing that we at least have an idea if a person might be abusing

the block ergo maybe we may see things a bet different. i like that they have to show the list of people they block. at least then the blocker gets a little of the lite shined on them too. prior it was a one sided war, but war i watched.

[in_cog_ni_to]

53. Right. When we see someone with 99,999 posters blocked...we'll know where he/she is coming from.

It will be interesting to see WHO put WHO on their list.:)

[JuniperLea]

68. "It will be interesting to se WHO put WHO on their list"

That is where the real abuse will begin, IMHO. That is where the real childish activity gets a shot in the arm.

[seabeyond]

71. real childish activity ... i think that ship has already sailed.

from what i have seen of the use of block

[JuniperLea]

67. If a person "abuses" the function

They pretty much cut themselves off... seems like a good thing to me.

[GOTV]

102. Only if people block them back, and I don't know if block-backs will be common n/t

[seabeyond]

105. i dont block back. to me that is even more silly than an initial block. lol

[Catherine Vincent]

108. I think you've just coined a new term...

The "block-back" key. LOL! I'd love to see a "block-back" smiley.

[seabeyond]

162. cute. with all this blocking i feel like i am playing footie footie football n/t

[GOTV]

120. If we're the norm, blockers will not become isolated. But their threads may be much more agreeable

... all mono-talk

[seabeyond]

158. eeeew. how mono boring n/t

[JuniperLea]

129. If you block a person, you can't respond to them

You block enough, you are alone with your opinions. Seems simple to me.

[GOTV]

130. Then what's the point of block-backs? Are you saying block-backs are effectively automatic?

I didn't really think about that...

[Pithlet]

131. They aren't automatic

I think what the poster is saying is operating on the assumption that many people will block back those who have blocked them. I don't know if that's actually how it's working out. I'm not sure I would block someone back if someone did that to me, because I'm so opposed to this feature to begin with. It still wouldn't be fair to other people when I start an OP, IMO. I've never felt that people own the threads they start. It's an invitation to discussion, or that's how it should be looked at, I think. If they get of hand, that's what the moderators are for.

[GOTV]

137. I've been blocked one that I know of, and I didn't blockback...

... so it would be easy for me to believe that blockbacks wouldn't be common.

I think the poster brought up a good point though. If I start a thread, can the person who blocked me see the thread? I suspect so. They would have to also ignore me to not see my threads.

So yes, I think I agree that it's not automatic.

[Pithlet]

140. I think I misunderstood you the first time. Yes, depending on how they use the function, they can.

If I understand this correctly, you can block someone, but not ignore them. You can still see their posts and even respond to them. I've seen this in action.

[GOTV]

139. Actually, now I don't think what you said is true....

... what you are thinking of is an ignore, which is different from a block.

If you've blocked me, but didn't ignore me - and I don't block you back, you can still see and reply to any post of mine I make. I can't reply to you, or to any thread you start, but you can still see and respond to any thread I start or any reply I make to another poster on a thread you didn't start.

[Pithlet]

142. I don't think that's true. I've seen someone reply to a person

they've blocked, knowing that the person can't respond.

[JuniperLea]

153. Well there's the rub

If you block or ignore a person, it should go both ways... always. Otherwise, the childish behavior breaks out... taunting is so neener neener.

[seabeyond]

163. yup..... chicken shit. baaac ba baaaac. teasing. maybe. kinda. n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

279. we have blockers responding to people they block all the time in ER

it is happening all the time in the Election Reform forum.

One guy blocks me and anyone who disagrees with him
or who provides correction to misinfo.

Then, I started an OP, and this guy came to my thread,
posted some stuff, and blocked me from responding to him
in my own thread.

Some of us are not using the block feature.

But to have someone block you, come to your thread and post, and
block you from responding - thats nuts.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

280. one quick way to tell a thread is started by a "blocker" is easy

folks who start an OP with plenty of blocks - their threads sink
like stones.

[Dinger]

70. I Agree. If This Is The Way It'll Be, Just Get Rid Of It Altogether (nt)

[seabeyond]

72. o.k. n/t

[HughMoran]

222. I think the whole concept is a disaster

After having someone smugly point out that they would "block" me for pointing out their nasty behaviour, I have decided that this a tool that actually promotes poor behavior.

[Kerrytravelers]

226. I'm with you on this.

At first, I didn't like the block function. Then, I realized that it wasn't so bad. But this seems like it has the potential to really get things boiling over.

And my list is now a grand total of one.

[Beetwasher]

19. Is There A Notification To People Who Have Been Blocked??

IOW, when someone blocks you are you notified or do you only get notified when you try to post or if you check the list?

[CatWoman]

26. I just blocked you

:evilgrin:

so go check your messages :)

[Beetwasher]

49. Oh No You Di'nt!

Ha! :hi:

[havocmom]

261. Hey, Cat, can one block ones self?

Didn't someone once discover they could put themselves on ignore? :rofl:

And, if I blocked myself, would I know?

[northzax]

330. no, you cannot block yourself

I just tried it...

[in_cog_ni_to]

69. I don't think you get a notice because people who have been blocked were surprised

that they were. I think you find out when you try to post to someone who has blocked you.

[GOTV]

103. You don't get a notice...

... the "Reply" link changes to "Can't Reply". If you are blocked after you've started a response, you get an error when you try to submit.

[depakid]

22. Should make life interesting! n/t

[bicentennial_baby]

23. Excellent

[Blue-Jay]

54. This is gonna give me the giggles!

[CatWoman]

55. SQUIRREL!!!

:hi:

[AlCzervik]

64. Let the hilarity ensue!

[Marie26]

97. I have a morbid curiosity

to see just how bad this can get.

[mike_c]

28. I remain strongly opposed to any function that can be used solely...

...to inhibit the free exchange of ideas and discussion in this community. This is not a good substitute for intelligent and open minded moderation, IMO.

You've still got DUers who are gleefully using the block feature to censor ideas rather than bad behavior. See #5 for an example.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. But You're Talking About Exception.

There will always be exceptions to a general premise. I'm still confident, however, that the majority of DU'ers overall will not be abusing this function and will use it appropriately. I think it will also become used more responsibly in due time, as we are still new into its release and upon such will always see a flurry of initial activity, as posters try it out.

Though undoubtedly some may use it to do nothing more than stifle dissenting discussion, overall most will not use it that way, and for any thread you are blocked from there are undoubtedly 99.99% of all the others that you are not.

In the more than a week since this has been active, I have not seen ANY dropoff in the amount of discussion and ideas put forth. There is as much diversity of opinion as ever and as many debates as ever. Since that first week probably would've been the week where such a change would've been most noticeable, I'm confident going forward that we will continue to see no real negative impact to the community as a whole or its ability to put forth a plethora of different ideas, viewpoints and quality debate.

I still implore everybody to be patient and give it more of a chance, as I think though they may be personally frustrated at times to the one off threads they might not be able to respond to, that overall they will not see their DU experience change much and will be able to discuss their opinions in 99.99% of all threads and cases.

[MadHound]

29. This still doesn't address the issues of abuse I'm seeing around here

Certain peope are doing the drive by slam, and then blocking the person. Sorry, but I think that this whole idea of blocking people is wrong, ripe for abuse, and frankly undemocratic. This is a discussion board, all that a block feature does is stifle that discussion.

[flyarm]

199. i could not agree more..if i chose to not engage in a certain discussion

i move on..

are we not becoming what most of us have fought against..the censors of those who we disagree with?? or might question..or learn from??

haven't we all screamed over and over about the censorship of our media??

had we not had free flow of info here on the internet and Du..where would we be today??

how do we know who is planted to spread disinformation..with no chance of rebuttal??

this whole idea bugs the crap out of me..

have we become what we despise??

have we become the keepers of truth or not??

have we opened pandora's box of censorship among ourselves??

this whole block thing bothers me to no end..what happened to the people who wanted net neutrality?? when we ourselves are neutering free speech??

who is to stop the government from planting people here and silencing people ??

they do it at aol..they do it on many forum's..why wouldn't they do it here??

this just really unsettles me..and will make me think strongly about this..and DU..

My family just buried an incredible woman Saturday..my mother in law.. who wore the uniform of this nation, an officer in the Wacs in WWII..and cover gal for Stars and Stripes..during WWII...she worked to protect the very freedoms, that many American's today think are so unimportant...and today are so willing to just give up on..

While her picture from WWII was displayed and when we were putting together the pictures, i really reflected on what her life and the life of my dad and my father in law, and so many who fought for our freedoms and had their lives so disrupted ..and so changed ..or so many lost their lives fighting for those truths and freedom and to preserve those truths... and so many today.. who wear the uniform ..they did it and do it ..to protect our freedoms..albiet many are lied to ..is it not up to those of us who know the truth or what we perceive to be the truth..to speak out ... so many of us take those freedoms for granted..and it almost makes me sick to my stomach, that so many today are so cavalier about those freedoms..

i feel sad that this is being done here..the place i thought stood for truth and freedom of speech..and honest debate..and learning and teaching of others...and sharing information freely...that one person can block another's truth..because they disagree...or could have a possible agenda..of
disinformation...i feel sorry for our children..that they may never know what honest debate is..i feel sorry for those young people here,that will see this abused ..as it surely will be..

blocking one person's truth..is
blocking all truths...disagreement is good..desent is good..debate is good..even anger is good..if one learns from it and uses it constructively.

anytime a freedom is lost..it seems they are never regained...at least i have never seen that occur...

fly........

[havocmom]

262. fly, you just nailed the whole issue! BRAVO!

Excellant points you raised there. Hope Skinner reads your post and does some hard thinking.

[flyarm]

271. well what i said i believe ..100% i raised a son ..now 29 and my most proudest moment

in raising my son was when he got his first "C" in high school..he was a constant "A" student..he was crushed to get a "C"..and he got it because he argued with a teacher about the right of women to have an abortion...the teacher took her opinion out ..on him ..for his opinion..with his grade...


I told him the day he got his grades i was never so proud of him that he stood up for what he believed in..and he listened to the teachers opinion..but he was not swayed ..he used his own judgement..and he studied the subject..and he was not swayed to change his view for the teachers sake or anyone elses opinion..that he stood up and tall for his opinion..and belief...and could not be coersed ..or bullied into changing his belief...or even threatened with a bad grade to change his view by pressure...

i even went an made a huge sign and put it on the front of our house to tell him how proud i was of him...that he was his own person...


now i see this same type of crap going on here and it leaves me with a feeling of doom and dismay...

i can't be part of this..
it flies in the face of what i believe of in free speech and free thinking...

and honest and open debate...

i respect everyones opinion..and life experiences..and intellect...yes.. i do get mad..and yes i do sometimes disagree with others..but that does not make me disrespect their right to their opinion and their "truth " of matters..that they believe in..

I have learned from so many here..and i hope others have learned from me...and people have gotten pissed at me..and visa versa..but isn't that what makes this free flow of thinking so incredible??

haven't we made great strides to save our nation because of that??

I have been a delegate in the state of fla..and i have done public speaking about the lies of 9/11 and people 5 years ago called me every name in the book because they couldn't put their arms around what i was telling them..and i respected that..and today so many have come to me and thanked me for telling them the truth they couldn't grasp at the time...

i have had many, many republicans thank me today, who hated what i was saying then...5 short years ago...

please DU..drop this idea...

it will slow the flow of truth..a truth we have all fought so hard for...

our kids deserve no less than that truth...

after all, many of us are the true teachers to our children...if we do not believe in freedom of speech..will they ?? will they ever know what we allowed to be stolen from them..if our skin is so thin we can not stand debate..or truth?? or even some troll we can not handle, by just shutting the computer down and taking a deep breath and ignoring them??

fly

[troubleinwinter]

275. "honest and open debate..."

It's what we thought we had here.

I KNOW well the true bravery you have shown and how hard you have fought so many times.

I am sad for this situation.

I stand with you here:

"please DU.. drop this idea...it will slow the flow of truth.. a truth we have all fought so hard for."

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

290. This is the single best analysis of this whole topic I have seen.

And this is my first and last opinion on this subject. I think DU will shrivel up and die if the vibrancy of reasoned discourse (and discord) is lost. I think all the most interesting posters will drift away to other sites where they can be intellectually challenged.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

282. truth is the biggest casualty

a thread should be quarantined if open discussion is not allowed.

Or put in a Snopes forum, so people know that fact checking of
the OP is not allowed, or is censored.

[LeftyMom]

33. Uh, do we really want to give threadstalkers public attention?

Can I just trade mine in on a mutual forced ignore then? That's what I wanted to begin with.

[GOTV]

106. Because it's not right that you can censor a thread I'm reading without my knowledge...

... is what I'd say. I want to know before deciding to read or participate in a thread, if free exchange is welcome or not. If you are not blocking anyone, I can trust I'm seeing all opinions expressed.

[LeftyMom]

116. Well, I have one person on super duper ultra ignore. Not because of opinions,

like most people this person says some things I agree with and some I think are utterly retarded, but because that person is unhinged has a history of harassing me and a few of my DU friends and trying to circumvent the ignore function.

I don't think blocking one DUer out of the 100,000+ registrations is hindering debate, but if you feel otherwise, I suppose that's your right.

[GOTV]

123. I don't know if it's hindering debate or not...

... since I don't know you or them. But now, I do not have the ability to make that determination for myself.

Wouldn't it have been better if the block function worked exactly as it does now, from your perspective, but left my ability to make my own decisions intact?

I can understand you, after suffering a thread stalker, to want to silence that person so you never had to see their posts or people replying to their posts. I don't see why you need to be able to prevent *me* from seeing their posts though.

If the person you blocked is really so disrupted, I could have blocked them myself.

[LeftyMom]

128. This person has a habit of posting to my threads when they know they are being ignored,

presumably to make snarky comments. You can see the person I've blocked posting on any of a million threads on DU. Not mine though, because I refuse to deal online with anybody I'd never willingly share a room with in person.

Again, you can think less of me for that, or not, honestly I couldn't care less. But I wanted to illustrate why calling attention to people who were in some cases blocked due to their instability is probably not the best idea ever to find it's way to DU.

[GOTV]

135. I'm not being clear perhaps, I'm not doubting your intentions...

... and I'm certainly not saying I think less of you. I'm just saying that you've made a decision for me that I would have preferred to make for myself. It's not a fault of your's, it's a fault of the tool.

I have no problem with you using a tool that was provided to you to make you're time more enjoyable on DU. I am complaining about the implementation of the tool in that it allows what should be a private decision for you - blocking people that you don't want to interact with - into a public decision that affects me.

Obviously you don't need to explain yourself to me and I don't expect you to.

Do you feel it is necessary for you to have prevented ME from seeing your blocked poster on your threads? Or would it have been enough if you were just able to make that poster disappear for you?

[LeftyMom]

138. Yes.

Here was the problem. Previously if you ignored somebody they could still post to your threads and cause trouble. So you'd usually know who it was, that person could post attacks against you, and all that would happen is that you'd have no capability to see and respond though you could still see your thread go off in crazy directions or devolve into a flame fest. So it didn't really discourage people who wanted to disrupt and in some ways it actually facilitated the behavior.

Now in that sort of situation (the only sort of reason I'd personally use block, ignore works fine on most people who are merely trolls, annoying or a bit crazy) one can keep that person from dragging one's threads off track, which unfortunately is a sport for some people.

[omega minimo]

332. "one can keep that person from dragging one's threads off track, which unfortunately is a sport for"

"some people."

[Pithlet]

136. The power is potentially too influential

to leave it anonymous, IMO. If I see someone is banned from a thread and I'm able to see who that is, I can think "Oh, yeah, that person is a total troll, no loss to this thread" and then continue to read and participate. If I don't know who it is, I won't know if I'm potentially missing anything, or that this is a subject that the person is trying to edit and control by banning people who really aren't a problem, but just disagree. This new feature goes so far beyond regular ignore in that it gives us a lot more power. To have the power to essentially edit and control our own threads by banning DUers from them needs some kind of a check. Because sometimes one DUer's PIA is another DUer's respected friend who's input is valued. If a respected DUer is being shut out by someone abusing the system, I'd like to know that. I think it would be better to scrap this new ignore and possibly instate mutual forced ignore more often for the bad cases, but if they're going to keep it, I think people have a right to know when it's being used, because it's such an influential power to have.

[LeftyMom]

141. I'd rather see broader application of mutual forced ignore, too.

I think it circumvents most of the pitfalls of this system, but I can see why the mods wouldn't want to get involved in some of the interpersonal squabbles.

[Pithlet]

144. Me, too.

I understand why they're attempting this new feature, even if I don't think it's a good thing for DU.

[GOTV]

180. I think this could be all fixed by making the implementation match the stated intention...

... of the feature. When you block a poster make the block only affect your view of the thread. The rest of us can still see the blocked poster's posts and still engage that person if we want, but the blocker simply sees the thread pruned at each post from a blocked poster. They don't see the blocked posters or any of the replies to the blocked posters post.

I would have no problem with this implementation. The blocker gets the peaceful thread they need while the rest of us see the thread with only our blocked users missing.

* No need to wonder what's missing
* No need for public block lists
* Everyone's experience is under their own control.

[enigmatic]

37. If we're going to keep this, this new function is a good idea

I want to see who the blockers are.

Thank you!

[in_cog_ni_to]

39. This should be interesting.

:)

[sufrommich]

42. Seems like a good thing to me.

If the ignored cast of characters turns out to be posters who do not bully and merely disagree with the OP,it will be a lot easier to judge whether the ignore function is being abused.For the record,I think the whole thing should be dumped.

[enigmatic]

45. Exactly

You got it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Yeah.

I'd like to know who's weaseling out of honest debate.

[seabeyond]

74. the is the F*in' funniest. all the people opposed to block for this. those for block

dont like this feature.... hm..... bah hahahaha. i wonder why. funniest

[in_cog_ni_to]

77. That's why this is SO hilarious!

Now they'll be exposed...unless they have all rushed to clear out their 'blocked' list since they've had a fair warning.:) Tomorrow.... 2 P.M. I can't wait.:)

[seabeyond]

81. cept the d*mn blocks last a week huh

hey a funny. got an email from one person that blocked another cause he thought they had blocked him. but they hadnt. the person who started the thread blocked em. so then the person that was mistakenly block says wtf... i am blockin you. dont knw what i did but you block me i am gonna block you

so then i get an email from one to tell the other mistake

and the other tells me to tell him gotcha see ya in a week

and i send that to the one that originally blocked by accident

now.... follow that shit

[in_cog_ni_to]

89. Good grief.

How sad.

[seabeyond]

90. actually it became quite funny. i was happy i was used as the

go between. both people arent blockin kinda people so probably a little humor lesson from universe for all of us. now i have a funny story to tell.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

133. Guilty! LOL

It was pretty sad actually, and taught me a personal lesson a little bit.

It was quite embarrassing, actually, but thankfully I was at least partially able to make it right by having the poster informed that it was completely accidental and of no ill will.

Though the poster and I may have had some passionate opinions back and forth, I'd never block somebody for such a reason. I welcome debate, even when spirited or passionate. Though some may be opposed to its use altogether, I do find it useful for blocking out those who refuse to reply with the context in mind and instead only reply with personal name calling, abuse, attack or otherwise, since if they aren't going to debate the topic; even passionately; I'd rather them not waste my time at all.

But in this case I was completely wrong and almost immediately realized my error, but by then it was too late. See, I went to respond to the poster in the middle of a passionate debate we were having, and all of a sudden it said 'cannot reply'. My stupid ass thought they blocked me and were going to reply additionally, so I quickly blocked them back because though some disagree, I think if someone blocks you it may be wise to protect yourself from having replies thrown at you that you can't respond to (depending on the person). But in this case I totally jumped the gun and shoulda used my head. I didn't, and proceeded to block a poster that did nothing more than passionately disagree with me, because I thought they had blocked me when it was in fact the OP who had blocked me. When the poster realized that, they blocked me as well so I couldn't PM to explain to them my error LOL.

Totally embarrassing, totally my fault, total stupidity on my part, and I'm thankful to Seabeyond for assisting me in letting the poster know that I appreciate their spirited debate and that it was a total accident that they found themselves blocked by me.

Like I said though, it did give me something to think about and taught me a pretty valuable lesson about impulse and use of the block feature.

[in_cog_ni_to]

143. :) You REALLY didn't have to explain that to me

here 'in public.' I'm glad you learned something from it. I can understand blocking a poster who blocked you just so THEY can't throw jabs at YOU without you being able to respond, but I don't think I'll ever do that either. I just don't like the entire feature. It seems so UNDemocratic.:( I'm really good at ignoring all by myself.;)

I'm glad you got the whole thing straightened out. :) Seabeyond is a sweetie.:)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

160. Oh, I Don't Mind. I'm An Open Book And Have No Problem Standing Up In Public And Declaring I Was

wrong when warranted. Sure, it was embarrassing to admit and totally stupid on my part, but that's life. Making it publicly known I'm the one in question is merely taking responsibility for my stupidity as well as mildly punishing myself for having erred to begin with LOL

Hey, if I'm gonna call others out on their misdeeds I best be prepared to dish it out to myself too, ya know? You should see how many times I might wake up in the morning, read a post I made the night before, and declare to myself "What the fuck were you talking about you fool? God you can be such a dumb fuck sometimes!" LOL. Sometimes I wish I had a separate screenname so I could reply to myself in dissent. Problem is that I probably would end up blocking myself, so I guess it's no biggie. :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

171. LOL! You're funny.

"What the fuck were you talking about you fool? God you can be such a dumb fuck sometimes!" LOL. Sometimes I wish I had a separate screenname so I could reply to myself in dissent. Problem is that I probably would end up blocking myself,

I think we've ALL been there, done that!:)

[seabeyond]

174. that is so cute operation.... lol lol. well... if nothing else, there has been a lot of humor

to be had. a little self reflection and an understanding of a lot of people on this board the last couple days. if i didnt have that ONE person block me, i would still be oblivious to the whole blocking issue and missed out of all the fun. think this blocker will appreciate a thank you in my sincerest tone for blocking me. lol. higher in all things.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

176. And Ooga Booga Smooga Wooga To All! LOL

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

I Always Wondered If That Was Just Me. Do You Wake Up With A Completely Different Brain Then You Go

to bed with?

I'm amazed sometimes as to how different my perspective on something can be between morning or night. I used to remember that a lot way back before marriage, when I was datin. Those nights of inflection of "Know what? Tomorrow I'm gonna tell her blah blah blah" or "Tomorrow I'm gonna put my foot down and blah blah blah", only to wake up in the morning, remember the self-conversation, and think "Yeah right LOL What the fuck was I gettin so worked up about anyway?" LOL

It has always fascinated me the things I might think I care about at night, but then truly end up not giving a rat's fat ass about come morning. :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

183. Sure do, sometimes. Sleep does wonders for ones perspective

I think. Depending on what the issue is, I can lose sleep thinking about it, but come morning and a fresh perspective, it doesn't seem quite as important as it did. :)

[jgraz]

241. Maybe we all do (cue twilight zone music)

:scared:

[seabeyond]

166. i wasnt going to say. just tell the story. i think it is a good story for people to hear

and see the humor in it. and maybe make sure you really want ot block. and two good people. hope you dont mind. i said no names. but see that is what makes you a good guy whether we agree or not... better to speak out and say, then hide in shame. amen brother. hallelujah and praise the lord.



shhhhh... was going to email you before you saw but i had to pick up the kids.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

172. No Worries! I Don't Mind One Bit! I Think There Was A Good Lesson In It, And I Also Don't

mind owning up to my own stupidity when necessary. I appreciate you leaving it up to me to choose whether to mention my name or not, but generally in life I never hide behind anything I do. If I do something worthy of critique then by all means, let me have it! LOL

[seabeyond]

175. ya... me too. so much easier. n/t

[Pithlet]

95. That is funny.

I'll have to remember that cautionary tale if I ever find myself blocked. :rofl: I can see myself doing the same thing.

[Catherine Vincent]

118. lol!

That's funny. :)

[Marie26]

119. D'oh!

Oh, imagine the drama that will ensue...

[enigmatic]

79. Me too

I've got 2 blocks on me; one by the person who had a "Legendary" thread in GD recently, if you know what I mean:), and another by a person who I've (to my knowledge) had excatly one conversation in 3 years here. It got heated, but I didn't have any posts deleted, but they blocled me anyway.

That same person has said since the new rule has happened that they have put 2 people on SuperDuper Block, both of them threadstalkers, so that's not true right there.

[in_cog_ni_to]

93. Ah Ha! Now I know who blocked you!

:)

[Bunny]

154. You?? A threadstalker?? Please.

That's such a joke. Now I know who did it, and all I can say is wow, how pathetic of them. And if you respond to this, I'm going to claim you're stalking me and you'll be my very first Nuclear Ignore! :D :hi:

[enigmatic]

156. I know

I had to laugh about it; what else could I do?

Blocks always come in threes I've heard, so go for it!:rofl:

[Bunny]

164. THAT'S IT, BUSTER!! WELCOME TO MY LIST!!

Hoo boy this whole thing has sure opened up a can of worms, hasn't it? ;)

[enigmatic]

167. I think it might be a new reality show in the making

We just need a title now to pitch to the networks:)

[GoneOffShore]

322. How about -

"Revenge of the Blockheads?"

[seabeyond]

173. if you respond ... you're stalking me . yup yup yup . lol n/t

[enigmatic]

178. That's happening

And it's going result in the Mother Of All Message Board Gridlocks now, I think..

[seabeyond]

181. i know it is happening. lol loll. i posted to one last night not in agreement.

didnt buy what he was saying at all. and when i called him on it thought twice about the possibility of a block. wanted to thank him after the conversation that though we didnt agree, he didnt block me.

[TahitiNut]

59. It deprives the passive-aggressives of concealment..

:shrug: By far, they'll be the biggest complainers.

[seabeyond]

75. yep... brought some balance to the whole thing. a little more anyway.

[Zodiak]

57. I use ignore for bad behavior....

and only bad behavior. There is nothing progressive about being a bully. There are moderates and liberals on this list.

I have no problem with people seeing my ignore or block list (they are one and the same). Each of those people, save one or two, was warned that they were acting like a bully and were completely unapologetic, even more insulting later.

But then again, I do not start a whole bunch of threads. About 5 a year.

[porphyrian]

60. I don't know if that's good or bad, but it'll be fun to see who complains about this now. - n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

65. My chief and serious concern is the use of blocking to prevent full

and open discussion of controversial issues. I see it as an invitation to censorship and I strongly oppose it. Being able to see that a thread includes some blocked participants does not address the overriding issue of making sure that ALL relevant facts and viewpoints are available to people reading the thread. It would be all too simple for a person who backed a particular agenda and posted biased material to block the few people who might see the thread and had the initiative and knowledge to post rebuttals or additional evidence not otherwise cited. The result: conversion of discussion to propaganda and suppression of important information.

I believe the block feature is bad, seriously bad, for DU. Moderator alerts and the ignore feature already do the work of mitigating the efforts of trolls and other disruptive individuals. The block feature is both unnecessary and a dangerous tool for censorship.

[EFerrari]

82. I agree with you. And more, people who stalk other posters

are not going to be deterred from disrupting by this feature. They are rule breakers and they will find a way around it by either spamming the board or using someone else's thread to act out.

This feature will not do what the admins seem to intend, imho.

[Nothing Without Hope]

225. And few know more about the strategies of trolls than you do

from your own awful experiences with them. I agree that this block feature cannot truly counter them if they are determined, as the worst of them are.

What it is very effective for is suppression of dissent and clarification - a very, very dangerous development.

[troubleinwinter]

145. I utterly agree. It can stifle legitimate disagreement or correction of misinformation.

[Nothing Without Hope]

214. Yes, that's it exactly. And there are some individuals at DU who already

lean along those lines - this would enable them in their agendas and encourage more abuse from others. Indeed, ALL of us have our own biases and areas of ignorance or misinformation, however much we want to be free of them, and so the openness to rebuttal is vital to us all. We ALL need to have our mistakes and even unintentional biases corrected. That's the great and precious value of free and open discussion. It's so important, and it's well worth the irritation of some trolls. Usually their efforts are pretty obviously biased anyway. But when posts are BLOCKED, the reader doesn't have the ability to weigh their information in making their own judgement on the issue being discussed. Key material may be hidden, censored.

I feel this is a very serious decision for DU and that enabling the blocker facility would be a strong blow against openness and full disclosure. It would enable censorship which would undermine what I had believed was one of the most important aspects of DU as a forum: the ability to rebut and clarify posts. I already am concerned about aspects of what I consider to be censorship on sensitive topics at DU, but this blocker option would take that problem to a whole new level. I don't really understand why the blocker option is on the table at all. It doesn't seem necessary -- the combination of moderator alerts, the ignore feature, and not-feeding-the-trolls seems sufficient to control all but the most determined disruption -- and it would inevitably lead to far more severe abuse along the lines of censorship and propagandizing. Further, as pointed out by sfexpat2000, it doesn't seem to be an effective way to counter trolls.

I feel that the future of DU as a valuable and mostly trustworthy forum is on the line with this decision.

[troubleinwinter]

232. I have already seen an example of the dangerous consequences.

A person wrote and article with BOGUS data and posted it on DU. The poster blocked those who he knew would point out and challenge the BS.

Another DUer came along, saw the article and that it was not challenged or questioned, so assumed it was reliable and was going to send it around to her activist group. Fortunately, she poked around and came across a seperate thread challenging and correcting the original.

The seperate thread had to be started because it was the only way to debunk the bogus information because of this 'blocking' tool. She was fortunate to have happened across the second thread.

Imagine how many threads full of misinformation will appear to be reliable because the thread won't permit disagreement, correction or challenge?

Truth loses out.

[Nothing Without Hope]

245. Very, very scary. I am hoping very hard that Skinner and the admins

listen and decide NOT to adopt the block function. The future of DU is on the line here. In the past, Skinner has been very concerned about the reputation of DU and has taken various steps to reduce the frequency and prominence of "conspiracy theory" threads or other content that he thinks undermines DU's credibility and opens it to ridicule. As the example you give shows so clearly, the block feature invites exactly that kind of abuse -- not necessarily with "conspiracy theory" posts (which are usually deleted or buried in designated obscure forums) but with biased, factually deficient posts. And with dissent and clarification censored, any of us might unknowingly pass on bogus information posted by someone with an agenda. Or simply learn to avoid DU altogether.

[havocmom]

265. Truth loses out and DU turns into a bushco Cabinet Meeting

Limit the input and one cripples the possible good that could be created.

[troubleinwinter]

269. My father was a physicist

When I was a kid, he showed me photos from the cyclotron or bevatron (what do I know?)... anyway, he explained that they wanted to see the shape of an object so small that it could not be seen with any instrument. So they took charged sub-atomic particles and shot them at the object from all angles and traced the tracks as they bounced off the object. By tracing these tracks, they determined the shape and size of the object.

I sometimes see DU as doing this. An OP may be dumb, brilliant, truth, lie or exaggeration, but maybe we don't know which. It is often the feedback and responses that help us to distill shade from light and shit from gold.

[flyarm]

218. NWH..i totally agree with your assessment!!

we are now entering a very dangerous process i believe..one most of us came here to avoid in other places !!

Freedom means seeing what others say ..and their opinions and being allowed to agree and disagree...

didn't we all come here because we felt the lack of freedom elsewhere????????

this whole premise disturbs me.
and i fear it will chase many intelligent people away..people with experiences we may have never encountered before open and freely..people we could learn from or help educate...

who will post what they really feel if they fear being blocked..honestly..people will hold back what could be incredible insight...

i think the whole thing ..is what i was encountering elsewhere before i came to DU..censorship at its worst!

i know it will inhibit me..and that will make me look elsewhere ...because i treasure my freedom of speech more than anything i could possibly own!

fly

[Nothing Without Hope]

223. I feel the same, Fly. It would make me look elsewhere too.

Loss of DU as a reasonably open forum would be a huge blow to online progressive discussion.

I'm already troubled by what I see as too much censorship on some controversial topics, such as those pertaining to the actions of the government of Israel, but full inaguration of the block feature could basically convert DU to a personal propaganda forum in my opinion. A BIG personal propaganda forum, but otherwise like so many thousands of others out there. And as concerned and informed people reacted by staying away, the propaganda function would be strenghthened still further.

I see the future of DU as a valuable and mostly trustworthy forum as resting on the decision on blocking.

[troubleinwinter]

234. Indeed.

If I read a thread now, even with a 'list of blockees', I have no idea what someone might have posted, were it not for this 'gag' tool. Maybe something valuable and important and insightful? I cannot know or read what it might have been.

[jgraz]

83. EarlG -- will you clear block lists at that time?

Like many people, I've blocked a couple folks who had blocked me. It would be great to "restart" the feature with the lists cleared since I think many of us would prefer not to be identified as someone who is not open to debate.

ETA: and thanks to all of you for your continued attention and work on this feature.

ETA2: I still think the whole thing needs to be dumped.

[enigmatic]

84. That's a good idea

I'd like to see this, too.

[jgraz]

104. It's SERIOUSLY unfair not to do this, even to the folks who were "abusing" it

To tell someone "use this feature, it will be private" and then -- surprise! -- change your mind and expose everyone's list is patently unfair. You HAVE TO give people the opportunity to clean out their lists, especially given the current 7-day persistence of the switch. I'm guessing many blocks were added in a fit of pique or just to try out the feature and now people wish they could remove them.

[EarlG]

161. To be fair

We never said the system would be private - in fact we said the complete opposite. From Skinner's original thread:

"If the system works pretty well, then we might consider the possibility of building new functionality into it. For example, we could make the block lists public so it is easy to tell who is blocked from participating in a particular thread, or we might publish a list of the most-blocked members so everyone can see who seems to be causing the greatest amount of consternation on the message boards."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3076551

Now, you can argue about whether or not the system is working, but we did not try to hide the fact that we might make the block lists public, nor did we say anywhere that we would keep them private.

The new function was introduced on January 9, which is almost two weeks ago. We assumed that the "just trying out" or "fit of pique" stages woud be passed by now.

[jgraz]

168. Funnily enough, I'm actually sticking up for folks who blocked me

Personally, I don't care if you publish my two little "block victims". But would it be so hard to just clear the time limits and allow some, er, "excessive" blockers to clean up their lists?

Anyway, I appreciate all the work you guys must be putting in on this. I've had a bit of experience with rolling out features that were met with less than overwhelming approval.

[seabeyond]

177. "fit of pique" stages woud be passed by now..... lmao/ bah hahahah. you got

that wrong huh. took me two weeks to become aware of the issue and have it done to me. hence my two week late "fit of pique" . i totally didnt care about the whole issue until i was blocked.

[Karenina]

195. I'm still trying to get a clue about LBN

The rule is one post per topic. I fear the application of this new feature could be devastating to that forum. Please respond.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

197. It's Been Almost Two Weeks. Has It Been Devastating To That Forum So Far?

If it could be, it probably would be already.

[Karenina]

198. How is it that YOUR posts are suddenly reappearing on my screen?

Können Sie mir bitte von ihre Anwesenheit befreien? :argh:

E-A-R-L-L-A!!!! :wtf: Was soll denn das???

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

200. No, I Can't. But Anyway, Did You See The Question I Posed? It Was Pretty Valid.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

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

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

203. What Is Your Malfunction? Seriously? I've Been Nothing But Polite And Asked A Sincere Question.

Jesus christ are you abusive.

Was the question I posed that bothersome to you? Was it not a legitimate question? Did it hurt you or something to realize that maybe you were being reactionary and that LBN actually hasn't been destroyed? What on earth is your justification for being so belligerent?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

204. "FUCK OFF!!! EAT SHIT AND DIE!!!"??? That's Nice.

And To Think; I Don't Know You From A Hole In The Wall.

[Karenina]

212. You're LYING.

This must be a "bug" as at the sight of your first reply I used the "Ignore" function yet AGAIN. Still you're getting through. Ignore should suffice. I want to know why it's not working. Is there also a private "Gaslight" feature? :tinfoilhat:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

213. Actually I'm Not. But I Did Just Do A Google Search By Site And The Only Thread With Us I Found Was

a Cynthia Mckinney one. Is that what you're so upset about still? It's the only hint I have to go on. Cause as far as I know, if I did converse with you at some point it must've been so many months ago that I don't recognize your screenname at all, and therefore a little strange and perplexing that you'd still harbor such melodramatic animosity.

But I'm more than open to hearing your gripes. What exactly was it that we once fought about that has you so angry?

[Karenina]

230. In spite of your patronizing entreaty, I will engage you now

in the hopes that some clarity be shed on our new circumstances.

You have been a member of this board for 1 year. I recall celebrating 5,000 registered users. I've seen a lot of people, from trolls to really fine progressive people, come and go. To say that you do not recognize my screen name at all is informative.

I don't put people on "Ignore" lightly. EVERYONE on my ignore list has proven him/herself to me to be either a dyed-in-the-wool racist (stealth or overt) or a general blood-pressure-raising-dimwit PITA. When I see "Ignored" in thread after thread with the responses calling out the poster I've ignored by name and long, exasperated, sometimes eventually deleted subthreads, then I figure I've spared myself some much unneeded aggravation. I check on occasion to see if I should remove the blinders the feature provides. Usually I find several tombstones. I've waited for yours, NOT because of any words we've personally exchanged (I opted out), but MORE because of the regularity with which your posts offend the sensibilities of thoughtful, fair-minded, sensitive, long-standing members of this online community.

To me, you are a white alpha-male BULLY. You announce it proudly in your handle. Now some of my BEST FRIENDS are white alpha-males ;-) but they're NOT bullies. I dislike bullies intensely. What I want to know is WHY, having TWICE put you on Ignore, I am again dealing with a persona to whom in face-to-face contact, I would not give the time of day. ELAD!!! EARLG!!!!! SKINNNER!!!! (OOPS, babykins is sleeping and Papa is racked. Get some sleep, Papa :hug: No, you didn't hear anything, you and Mama get some rest). EEEELAAAAD!!!! EEEEARRRRL!!!! WHY is this guy again in my face??? Is my ONLY OPTION the dreaded BLOCK??? WHY ISN'T IGNORE WORKING???

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

239. Nah, I'm Just Blunt, Logically Strong, Honest, And Care About Accuracy.

And yes, I may reply sometimes with a tone of arrogance, cockiness or sarcasm, but I do so within context and avoid personal attack however possible. Sure, that may rub some people the wrong way sometimes, but I'm entitled to my opinion on things as much as they are. Furthermore, I'd say it's likely that the people you are referring to were the ones being the bullies, and I was the one defending against them with logic, which they may not have appreciated.

But I'm not a bully by any means. I'll just simply be damned if I allow others to get away with their being as such, and will always defend the honor of innocent posters being abused, will always attempt to correct false premise stated as fact, will always call out intolerance and broad brush generalizations, will always try and provide a voice of reason where there hadn't been any, and will always put facts, honor, integrity and the Democratic mission first. Sure, that may piss off some who reply from their emotion rather than their heads, but that doesn't mean there isn't a need for a counter balance to their points of view.

And I'll fully acknowledge that I can work on my tone or sarcasm at times. But even with that room for improvement, I'd still never even think for a second of abusing someone to the levels that you have done to me right now. So please spare me the bully rhetoric, as you are far more guilty of it here than I.

And I have no problem being open. So I therefore also have no problem whatsoever with you providing any links that justify your case in any shape or form that I'm a bully in those long subthreads, as opposed to someone defending his point well with sound logic and substantive reasoning. Just because someone believes in their premise and defends it well and steadfastly and will refuse to let others get away with personal attack instead of debating the context, even if in a stubborn manner, does not make them a bully. It simply makes them someone with a different opinion who is willing to defend it; nothing more. And just know, for each of poster that doesn't appreciate me, I have 5 that love me and thank me.

But telling a poster to "Fuck off, eat shit and die!!!", that you haven't even spoken to or had interaction with in months, without even being provoked, is not something that is EVER justified or appropriate. I hope you know that.

[Karenina]

243. Marvin K. Mooney can you please go NOW???

Click! Click! :argh::argh::argh:

EEEEEELLLLAAAAAAADDDD!!!!!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

244. No Problem. But Is There Really A Need For Such Frustration? I Don't Get It, But Whatever.

This whole conversation has been quite disturbing actually, and I'm left utterly perplexed.

No biggie though. I didn't know you to begin with and it's no real sweat off my back if you choose to not converse with me. I would only ask that in the future, if we cross paths, that you do so in a far more civil manner than you have tonight.

Just know I have no idea as to your gripe and have no ill will towards you whatsoever. Sorry you feel the ways that you do towards me, but since you are unwilling to resolve it I guess there's not much I can do. Like I said, I've had very little interaction with you, so I guess it really doesn't matter anyway.

Peace, goodnight and good luck,

OMC

(only a quick p.s.: You don't have to act so frustrated that your ignore seems to not be functioning correctly. All you have to do is simply stop coming into this thread and reading my replies. That really would've been an easy temporary solution.)

[Karenina]

205. Earl G, Elad, SOMEBODY!!!

How IS IT that PREVIOUS and quite sufficient features have lost their functionality???? :argh::wtf::argh:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

206. Oh For Christ's Sake Get A Hold Of Yourself. Jesus. Just Go Into Options, Ignore List And Do

what you must.

But holy cow, I've never seen such lack of justification for this level of outrage in my life.

Do I even friggin know you? :shrug:

On edit: You've gotta be kidding me. You're this outraged still over the fact that I didn't approve of Cynthia Mckinney's actions way back when? Seriously? Jesus, I ain't even had a conversation with you about ANYTHING since. Do you think maybe it's time to let that go? Maybe? Guess that's up to you, but man, did you still make my jaw drop.

[seabeyond]

207. deleting cause

[foo_bar]

242. a couple points

Has It Been Devastating To That Forum So Far?



Today's DU reach is 50 people per million souls; prior to the end-of-DU-as-we-know-it function, DU's audience was 100 ppm (in the same period, DU went from Alexa rank <10,000 to #18,538 today). Some of it is post-election fatigue (the end of 2004 saw a DU dip on alexa, before 2005 came in like a lion), but if anyone was expecting a "bounce" from this feature (the discussion of which appears to receive more pageviews than the remaining threads) they might be disappointed. Where DU will be after three months of this feature is beyond me, but I won't be around to find out, if the trend persists.

If it could be, it probably would be already.

I understand that also doubles as the argument against global warming.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

246. I Understand What You're Trying To Say, I Just Don't Understand How These Things Are Related

whatsoever.

I might be missing something. Could you explain a bit more?

[foo_bar]

267. they may not be related; the Jan numbers could be the result of "seasonal affective disorder"

All I can say is the ratings are declining, according to Alexa, when the introduction of new features historically produce a spike (like the Valentine's Day '06 heart bank). Alexa uses a (relatively small) statistical sample, so it's possible that DU's audience isn't dwindling, just the share with the Alexa client installed (a sample likely skewed towards other webmasters more than users). But these block threads are getting far more page views than any other GD topic at the moment, most of the responses are negative, and many of the responses reference a fear of replying to other threads (on the assumption that these meta blocking threads are block-free (when the owners can simply TS)), so the trough in audience participation isn't completely out of line with expectations. But I'll try to separate my personal feelings from the scientific endeavor at hand, namely the feasibility of "Lord of the Flies" as an advisable system of self-governance.

If we give the new system a chance and try it out for a while, but still everyone hates it, will you get rid of it?

We know that there is likely to be a fair amount of confusion and disruption for a while as people get used to the new system. Eventually, we think that everyone will grow accustomed to it and learn to appreciate the greater control they get from it. But if we are wrong, and if everyone hates the new system, we will not hesitate to get rid of it. We've changed our minds plenty of times in the past.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3086082

[flyarm]

252. how would you know if it wasn't??

and what if someone had an agenda of propaganda..and they were not countered by the opposite view or truths..because the person who could counter the idea or thoughts or with the qualified experience or expertise was blocked??

you would not know..would you??

i would not use anything at Du as reference if this block was continued..ever because i would not trust that what i am reading is unbiased or put here as propaganda!!

and i mean that sincerely!!

for that kind of crap i can scan the aol message boards for planted bullshit!!

fly

[Marie26]

201. I asked the same question

Never got an answer. So I guess we can assume that's there's no exception for the LBN forum, and people on the OP's block list cannot reply to a story in LBN. A real flaw, IMO.

[Karenina]

210. I believe so too.

Keph did such a stellar job building that forum. Since his death Judy, Sabra, Rodeodance, DMM and so many others have come to the fore. What I see now is a race to be the first post in order to gain control of the replies. This is in NO ONE'S best interests.

You can see another flaw in the replies to my posts on this thread. Maybe it's just a "bug." ;-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

251. The best one could do would be to repost the story and hope it's merged in

with ones own comments getting in, as well as the linked story. For the purposes of correcting bad information, that might suffice - but I realise it wouldn't allow a continued rebuttal of points.

If one started a parallel thread in GD, some kind person might copy across the necessary rebuttal, but it would be a tedious way of having to do it.

[maddezmom]

292. as far as I can tell it hasn't been a problem yet in LBN

The mods haven't rec'd one complaint about someone not being able to post. :hi:

[Pithlet]

91. Maybe allow a grace period so people who choose to remove

a poster before the time limit, can. Some people might not want their lists cleared, but I can see why in light of this new development some people will.

[jgraz]

109. Just reset all the time limits...then people can make their own choices

The mods should not just arbitrarily expose poster info they said would remain private, even if that info is the result of "abusing" the feature.

[havocmom]

266. LOL

That's amusing.

[hunter]

85. That makes a poisonous feature even more poisonous...

... to the person using it.

But I was sort of looking forward to seeing how anonymous blocks panned out. Now I will never know.

Sigh. I was sort of looking forward to all the side-channel discussions and gossip about who was blocking who. I never got to participate in that sort of thing in high school, I was loopy then, but always out of the loop.

[seabeyond]

94. funny u. lol lol n/t

[Phillycat]

86. Awesome!

I love this. I want my block list to be available to anyone who wants to see it. It's pretty obvious the kinds of people that make the list. Anyone who spends any appreciable time in the lounge will be able to see exactly why I wouldn't want to interact with certain people. Bullies, rude people, stalkers, cliques who like to bully in tandem, and just boring idiots...it's so tiresome. This feature allows me to not have to interact with them AT ALL. Love it!

AND they can't stalk me for HAVING them blocked anymore either. I love it!

[seaglass]

88. I think this sounds like punishment for the person who is

blocking others - as if they are doing something wrong. Likely it's because of the prevalent attitude that I'm seeing of blame the blocker. There really are people that deserve to be blocked (or at least I would block them if they treated me the way I see them treat others).

In fairness, I think names shouldn't be exposed but numbers should - for every poster on DU.

Somewhere, maybe along the line where access to the users profile/PM is could be a designation that states:

This person has blocked X number of users
This person is blocked by X number of users

I don't honestly know what I think about the block feature. I think it has a legitimate purpose for some people and I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to people that they won't use it with bad intent (and I still do believe that most won't), but I have to say I haven't seen so much calling out of other posters as I have in the last few days - it's creating a lot of ill will, hurt feelings and anger.

[mike_c]

98. some are openly using it to censor differing view points....

One, who has posted in this thread to brag about the possibility of having the biggest block list on DU, is openly blocking people who's politics he/she disagrees with-- NOT using it to prevent bad behavior. He/she is quite unrepentent about it.

This means that he/she can make assertions in threads and not be challenged by folks with other perspectives. I think that particular DUer is an anomally at the moment, but I suspect more and more of that sort of thing will happen as folks get tired of defending the merits of issues or candidates or whatever and start simply blocking those with opposing view points, creating an echo chamber where honest discussion would have occurred otherwise. It has started already, and I think it's very bad for the DU community.

[seaglass]

112. Yes, I know some people are using it that way. My thoughts

are that if the function is used how it is intended, the block lists would be fairly small. We all use our own judgment, but I think most would agree that an enormous block list says something about the blocker not the blockees, right?

I don't know that I see the same future that you do.

I guess I'm on the side of the people who have been made miserable by stalkers/harassers - why should DU be a bad experience for them just because someone for whatever reason doesn't like them?

[seabeyond]

99. maybe those of us that have been blocked because we disagreed

even respectfully.... see it as a bit of justice for a person to have to own their blocks. i will wonder about the person that feels the need to block some of the people i have listened to for years. maybe not agreed with, but have been able to have amicable disagreements with. maybe a person will think twice before hitting the block key and abusing it.

i personally dont have a clue if it is just a key. i dont have any idea how to block. i am so disinterested in blocking that i havent even thoguht about checking out how to do it.

this post i post to you.... would be the level to warrant a block by at least one person i know.

[Pithlet]

101. That's how I feel.

I've been fortunate enough to not find out I'm blocked. I can only imagine how upsetting it is, especially if it's the OP, and it's a thread you really wanted to participate in. How frustrating. I've seen a lot of people awfully gleeful about this new feature and some even posting threads bragging about it, and I've seen a lot of hurt and confused posts by people finding out they're blocked. People that I would never consider blocking in a million years. I can understand how an unusual situation with a particularly bad poster that just won't leave you alone will prompt using such a feature, but I'm worried it's being way overused, and I think making it open might help. People might think twice before hitting that block button.

[seaglass]

147. I get what you are saying Seabeyond and I can't make a

judgment about a situation I don't know about. In general I would say that because 2 people can cordially disagree with eath other does not mean that the person you disagree with is cordial to everyone.

I'm not saying that there is no abuse, I'm just coming down on the side of people who have been made miserable by others who now have the ability to stop it.

[Pithlet]

151. But it's not as if they were completely powerless, before.

That's what ignore was and is for. Those who were made miserable could easily click the ignore button and never have to see another post by that person again. When they block as well as ignore, that directly affects how another DUer is participating, and when they start their own thread, it affects how everyone else reads that entire thread. People are calling this things like uber-ignore, or super ignore, but this is really a power to control other DUers above and beyond the ignore they already had. It's a lot more power because you can start whole threads and completely shut people out on a whim. And because it's so powerful, I think it's too tempting to abuse, even for people who wouldn't intentionally abuse it. I personally think that except in bad cases where DUers really are just being a pain and are harassing someone, a lot of people are blocking to punish other DUers for not getting along well with them, instead of just ignoring them. That's what it boils down to.

[seabeyond]

182. yes. see i even forget about that. the only time i hit ignore it was a friend

and i accidently did it.... and had to have help to unignore that person

[Pithlet]

188. I actually use the regular ignore

For the longest time I resisted on principle, but then I realized that I avoid people that annoy me in real life, so why not on DU? It has to be pretty bad for me to consider it, and a lot of times I'll put people on, and then get over it and take them off. There have been posters I've put on and off ignore several times, even. The one time someone on my ignore actually replied to me, it was a nice post offering support, and I felt so guilty I took them off right away. There are a few that stay on there all the time. It's almost never because I disagree with their opinions, their style of debate just really grates on me. I just find them too obnoxious and my DU that I experience is better off without them. I could get by without even the ignore, and I'd be fine, and in fact I take everyone off when I mod. I just see it as a convenience and it has probably saved me from getting in trouble on DU. It's not affecting anyone else's DU and the people ignored are none the wiser. I do admire people who can get by without ignoring at all.

[seabeyond]

190. that is funny the guilty and take off. my problem. i dont even pay attention

to names. so i will have people i debate one day and agree the next. i had one poster i kept disagreeing with and he felt stalked. but my reality, he kept posting stupid so i replied. once i got his name in my head, i would glance at name and realize once again i was replying to his name. once i recognized that i made a conscious effort to not post on his posts regardless if i had something to say.

i dont look at names a lot. or dont retain them.

[Pithlet]

193. Same thing happens to me.

I'll often respond positively to someone I just had a flaming exchange with in another thread, and not realize it until after the fact. Then I wonder if they think I'm really strange :) Not that I wouldn't still feel sincere about the positive post, but I might worry that it was unwelcome.

[seabeyond]

196. ya... so i just dont worry about it

i know there was a thread you and i really went at it... then other threads we have been right on.

[Karenina]

302. There are now 100K+ registered users on this site

Each one bringing his/her own set of idiosyncrasies and perceptions. The written word is a very imperfect means of communication which opens us all up to misunderstandings. Reading between the lines is, by nature, a subjective endeavor.

This response is directed to both you, Seabeyond and Pithlet whose post I am quoting below.

"For the longest time I resisted on principle, but then I realized that I avoid people that annoy me in real life, so why not on DU? It has to be pretty bad for me to consider it, and a lot of times I'll put people on, and then get over it and take them off."

My experience has been similar. When the feature was first introduced my question was, "The scroll down button works just as well, eh?" As the site grew exponentially the function's usefulness in maintaining reasonable blood pressure readings became clear. (IIRC "Carlos" may have been the first to go. :rofl: )

"...their style of debate just really grates on me. I just find them too obnoxious and my DU that I experience is better off without them. ...I just see it as a convenience and it has probably saved me from getting in trouble on DU. It's not affecting anyone else's DU and the people ignored are none the wiser.

Being just as idiosyncratic as the next one there are "code words" that will set off my sirens and klaxons, such as the use of "Jew" as an adjective or references to race or religion that are not germane to the discussion. I'm an old lady and have neither time nor patience to do more that hit alert and then Ignore.

I deliberately employed the attention-getting device upthread to INSURE that the issue of an ignored poster's handle appearing on my screen would be noticed. My parents nicknamed me Sarah Bernhardt over 50 years ago. :evilgrin: I have my own reasons for preferring not to interact with the poster to whom my outburst of obscenity was directed. They are personal and were the normal Ignore feature working as it had up to now, would have remained so. I knew my post would be deleted. I'm amused that its repetion has remained. :silly:

All that said, I find the Nuke Block a threat to the integrity of this board and my original question about LBN was posed (to EarlG) as I clearly foresee a potential for dangerous abuse.

[seabeyond]

305. see.... i think you are fun

i can easily dance around outside of the box. thank you.

[seabeyond]

179. you know what hope, if tey are so sensitive, an internet board might not

be the place for them. you will not get the rudeness, outrageous comments anywhere in face to face life you get on the internet. we cannot be protected from all things. maybe we can have a room for those that get easily ruffled feathers, and have people help them to see words from some ass on the internet really does not hurt them. only if they allow it. only if they take it personally. i have been doing this for a lot fof years and have met an overwhelming number of good and interesting and challenging and differing people, and.... some asses real big and huge and stupid asses.

[seaglass]

208. You just lost me there Seabeyond. The rules of this site

define the way people are expected to communicate with each other, with civility, no personal attacks, calling out etc.,

I would prefer to have people who can't follow the rules timed out and ultimately banned if they can't change their tune, but I guess there are too many questionable cases, so this is the next best answer for now.

[seabeyond]

211. there are rules and from what i see with these rules if a person does not

follow those rules and an alert is hit, or moderator sees it they are deleted. too much, they are tombstoned. that is covered. but, for some people the simple fact that a person may disagree with them, or harshly critique a post, though respectfully, is what we are talking here. because if a person breaks du rules moderator takes action. i have to assume the blocking are for people where a poster is not breaking any rules, but the poster still does not want to hear from them.

right?

[seaglass]

224. That may be what you are talking about but it is not what I'm

talking about. I'm talking about personal attacks, direct, indirect and stalking - not disagreements. In the first thread on this topic Skinner explained that it is sometimes difficult for the mods to determine some of these attacks because they are under the surface.

Your assumption could be true about some blockings and not true about others.

[seabeyond]

240. an example.

up above with the eat shit. one poster does ot particularly like another. not because of interaction amongst each other but the feel she has with him. she will probably block him. she chewed his ass out good. he will be blocked and go on the list as a "stacker, disruptor" but really who was the disruptor in this moment and it seems the stalker handled it well, isnt bothered and will go on with life. this is what i am suggesting that i have seen in this stalking stuff. it is posters that are not agreeing that are getting blocked and then the person can say what they like to the person and off we go, blocked and getting on with life.

i have been on here workin on three years. i have never had a problem with a single poster. i have had people have problems with me. am i considered a stalker, harrasser. some would say. at this point of you and i talking, that could be the point. that even after a couple posts to me i still hold that the majority blocking people are doing it for other reasons besides stalking and harrassing. you may preceive at this point i am harrassing you. i feel we are talking, back and forth, discussion.

no... i do not believe there are that many people on this board being harrassed. but then i stay mostly on gd. i understand the lounge is a whole other monster so if this is what you are talking about, ... i will clearly say i do not know what i am talking about. but as a whole, gd and gd politics i am not seeing fusses.

[Karenina]

295. "...she will probably block him."

No she won't, as she finds the concept of the "Nuke Block" flawed and employed a dramatic device she was CERTAIN would be noticed to draw attention to a NEW flaw in the old Ignore feature. ;-)

[seabeyond]

297. you know

thank you for posting on this. i have been reading you and at first surprised, k.... maybe more than surprised. and then i used you as example and of course i had no idea your motive for behavior above, or you intent, was all a guess. thank you for clarifying. but i later read post where you oppose the block and talking about lbn and seeing you a poster since 2001, obviously a supporter of the board

then

i sat in confusion.

lol.

i may not get "it". but you sure are interesting

i still like my example.

[sufrommich]

215. There is an "Eat shit and die" post

up thread.Apparently the rules are more like suggestions.

[seabeyond]

216. that is an odd one huh. well if a person hit alert it will be taken care of

i have seen it often

[sufrommich]

220. Odd indeed /nt.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

217. LOL You Ain't Kiddin. Funny Thing Is, I Don't Even Recognize The Poster LOL

I did a google search and the only threads I was able to find with both of us in it dealt with Cynthia Mckinney. At the time, I didn't condone Cynthia's actions. I don't think I've had ANY interaction with that poster since. My jaw almost dropped to the floor when I saw their reply.

I mean, I can understand animosity or bitterness towards somebody if you go at it with each other constantly, or temporary animosity for a day or two if there was a really sensitive topic or somethin, but to harbor that much anger after such a long time? I couldn't even imagine. (Personally, the second I walk away from my keyboard what happened on here goes away. There isn't a poster on DU who in the next thread I couldn't converse with like best friends if warranted even if we had just had a huge flameout in a prior thread. And I'd never dare to talk to any DU'er that way, no matter how bad an argument had been. But that's just me :) )

[sufrommich]

219. I saw the backround

up thread.I hope you don't take this the wrong way,but you're written reaction made me laugh out loud.A true WTF !!! moment.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

221. LOL

There are a handful of posters I could've expected it from, but it totally caught me off guard. Not only didn't I recognize the poster, but I also was being sincere with my original question to begin with; as opposed to being provocative or somethin. Definitely was a WTF??? moment LOL

[jgraz]

270. I think your characterization of "disturbing" sums it up best

Sort of like watching someone throw up in front of you. Definitely a meltdown of spectacular proportions.

[bloom]

299. She explained herself quite clearly.

"To me, you are a white alpha-male BULLY...." etc.


I figure that you don't get it because you don't want to get it. That is no reason to LOL at her. Of course that is one of your obnoxious tactics. Feigned cluelessness, followed by condescension.

You're just proving her point.

[seabeyond]

300. white alpha male

has never bothered or intimidated me. i was raised in a house of em. i kinda see myself as a white alpha female. further.... those ole white alpha males (i live in texas) are really perplexed by me and intimidated in turn lol lol. one of my concerns is how much i am not intimidated by them.

bring em on

[bloom]

301. And then there are the people who encourage bullies....

for whatever reasons. :shrug:


You may recall that Karenina wrote, "Now some of my BEST FRIENDS are white alpha-males but they're NOT bullies."

[seabeyond]

303. but that would certainly not be me

i guess this is basically what we are talking about the block here. for one, having someone passionately disagree can feel bullyish. for others it merely feels like a debate. i have stated in the three years being on this site i have not had a problem with any posters.... but maybe it is because when i do get into a discussion with another i am not intimidated, i am not threatened or bothered and dont feel the need to claim i am being bullied. where as another may absolutely interpret it as bully behavior. does that make a person a bully? well it does to the one that feels it. doesnt mean it is necessarily true.

if that is the case though, with thought. i have had women issues, like rape, where i did not toe the line and i had more bullying behavior from female than any male.

[bloom]

306. It's not someone "passionately disagreeing"

It's people who enjoy being an asshole and putting people down in one form or another. Sure they will call it "disagreeing", or the bully will insist that HE is using LOGIC, etc.

Some of us know logic when we read it and bullying when we see that. Some people think bullying is fun. Some people don't. It's easy to ignore when it's happening to someone else.

[seabeyond]

309. but bloom

what you are not understanding or you do clearly understand is the comments you have made in two posts to me is my inability to discern bullying, or my willingness to accept and allow bullying because i dont agree with you. in essense putting me down. arent these exactly examples of what you are talking about but in the female more passive way.

i assure you the only time my hackles get raised is with bullying behavior of all kinds in all circumstances the stronger going after the weaker and have spent a life time recognizing and speaking out... not passively, but aggressively against it.

[bloom]

310. So you want to define bullying differently

from how most people see it.

I don't see the definition of bullying is simply disagreeing. If that is how you want to define it - then we are not going to have a reasonable discussion on this issue.

[seabeyond]

312. didnt you

do the same thing with me that you are complaining about in suggesting i allow bullying. it is not a matter of us disagreeing it is a matter of you insulting me. and it is ok. i understand where you are coming from, but i could suggest it is the very bullying you are talking

couldnt i?

[bloom]

315. Actually

I think you are either trying to not understand - or maybe you just really don't. Maybe you think that you do - but your responses suggest that you don't.

If you think that I am bullying you, that is.

[seabeyond]

311. none of this is hard for me bloom. given enough time

i can probably find the higher in all people, all things. it is not hard for me to find the grace in all situations. it is not hard to see and learn the lesson presented to me, allowing me to thank the experience i am having. even in this moment. there have been many posts of yours i am right there supporting. and then there are some i do not. that is ok with me. i can do that without bringing to.... you are good or bad. it is not one or the other. you are.... that is enough for me. i appreciate the beauty. i accept and respect the imperfect. but then i do that with myself. if i can give to me, i can give to all.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

314. Well Said SB, I Agree.

I see it quite often where passionate debate is classified as bullying or some other attacking connotation (sexism, freeper etc) and often times the labeling is completely inaccurate. And I'm not talking about in response to me, I'm talking about it in general. I see posters become the victims of such labeling all the time.

I agree with you when you said "when i do get into a discussion with another i am not intimidated, i am not threatened or bothered and dont feel the need to claim i am being bullied". I think that mindset, coupled with sincere intent to debate the context rather than the person, is most definitely helpful.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

307. Nice Try.

I know you enjoy getting your personal shots in at me, but I still couldn't help shake my head in amazement as to how you can approve of her personal unprovoked attack and manage to cast one of your own, all while claiming me the bully.

Fact is, I did nothing whatsoever to that poster and don't know her from a whole in the wall. Her response was completely inappropriate and undeserved. I don't care how much she isn't a fan of mine, I still was open to civil discussion and open to resolving the matter and find it completely inexcusable and unjustifiable to respond to ANY DU'er that way for ANY reason. You call me the bully yet I have never nor would ever talk to someone here in such personally attacking ways.

Furthermore, I issued the open challenge to back up the assertion that I'm an "alpha-male bully" yet the challenge went unanswered. I went on to explain that standing on principle, challenging false declaration, defending innocents, being bluntly honest, supporting the Democratic mission, defending against personal attack, calling out intolerance and hatred, correcting inaccurate premise, providing a counter-balance to absurd theory, requesting replies to context rather than personal abuse, using strong logic with sound reasoning to make a point and defend its premise, even if at times with a tone of arrogance, cockiness, too many adjectives, long windedness or sarcasm, is not being a bully. Choosing to ignore contextual argument and substance altogether while replying with nonsensical personal attack and character assassination in a repeated manner is in my opinion being a bully. I'm overwhelmingly a participant in the former and often a victim of the latter, much as can be seen in the exchange in this thread. So I'll issue the challenge to you as well, since you found it necessary to reply with no other intent other than to personally smear my character: Prove me wrong. I have over 10,000 posts, so feel free to show me how many of them don't fall into the categories I listed above and instead were the product of an "alpha male bully". Cause I'm not. I just care passionately about honesty, integrity, accuracy and tolerance, but have a need to defend innocents, defend against concepts of hatred, provide counter balance to premises that serve little more than to embarrass our community, inject logic and reasoning into a premise that may require it and defend against personal attacks made against me. I also do so while always keeping the context of the debate at focus and not engaging in the practices of others who abandon the debate and resort to nothing more than smears, attack and abuse. None of those things make me a bully. They might very well make me a pain in the ass sometimes and as stated earlier lord knows I can work on my bluntness, but at times being a pain in the ass does not a bully make.

So no, I didn't prove her point and it's somewhat humoring to me that you believe I did somehow. I also had every right to 'LOL', as I was responding to another poster and agreed that the feigned outrage was not only humorous, but had completely caught me off guard. Even right now, I still find the trail there a bit humorous since it was so dramatic and out of the blue.

So feel free to continue trying to attack me and personally smear me if you so choose. The fact is, there are many, many posters here who appreciate what I do and even moreso than that I believe in my integrity, honesty and purpose, even though I recognize that I have much room for improvement in how I come across (but so do most of us). I don't require nor expect every poster here to like every other poster. But I do expect them to not blatantly attempt to destroy another or be downright nasty and hateful towards another, as there is no honor whatsoever in such tactics and as liberals we should always condemn such intent.

Peace,

OMC

[bloom]

313. Sorry - but you're not worth the time

for me to go looking up examples.

That is the sort of thing that I've noticed some bullies like to do. Catalog every sort of thing that they use against a person. Some people probably keep excel sheets so that they have the information on hand when they want to use it against someone.

It's enough for me to know that I'm not the only one who has a similar view of you as bully - that several of us have developed that view independently - and not as a group.


bye. :hi:

[cboy4]

92. Wow, I wonder if they start talking about this "controversy" on

?!?!?!

[Blaukraut]

96. I can't wait!

Brilliant idea!

[wryter2000]

107. Now _that's_ going to be interesting

I don't plan to use the new blocking feature, but I'll sure be looking to see who's blocking whom. :evilgrin:

[HamdenRice]

111. Everyone I've blocked SO, SO RICHLY deserved it that ...

like Diana Ross, "I want the world to know, I got to let it show"!

There is also a public information function here: we will be able to see which unpopular kids have been blocked over and over -- well not unpopular kids, more like trolls.

[Phillycat]

113. HA! Exactly!

I want the world to know, got to let it show! :D

[LittleClarkie]

114. There's a "I blocked you - neener, neener" aspect that's somewhat troublesome

Some are mature about the new modification, some are not.

[GOTV]

115. It's an improvement on a feature with is still inherently flawed....

The feature allowed others to invisibly censor threads for all of us and not just for themselves.

With this change the censorship is no longer invisible, which is good.

Still, I've never wanted to block anyone and now others are blocking people for me, which is not good.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. I know that as far as I am concerned

go ahead block me, I won't block you...if I really don't want to hear from you I'll just add you the VERY SHORT ignore list, three names, two of whom have been tombstoned.

In my view this is infantile and will only add to infantile behavior, as we have already seen.

[Pithlet]

122. You're probably right.

I do think that this new part of the feature will probably just add more problems on top of the problems it's already creating, but if they're going to keep this new ignore feature, I do think it's useful to know when a person starts a thread that they're keeping some people from posting to it. I don't want to read censored threads, and I think a lot of people feel that way. It would probably be better to just dump the new ignore altogether, IMO.

I still don't understand why the regular ignore wasn't enough for many people. You don't see their posts anymore. What should you care what they're posting? If you've got friends PMing you telling you what they're saying about you, or whatever else it was that prompted you to ignore them, tell your friend that you don't care anymore because you have them on ignore. If you keep logging off to see what they're saying, stop doing that. If you don't have the self control to do either of those things, then maybe a break from DU is in order. If you come back and the situation is still that out of control, talk to the admins.

[GOTV]

127. Amen...

... I agree with you. Why did the admins do so much work for what I still think must be a small minority of users - those for which ignore was not enough?

[enigmatic]

150. A big part is control freaks

Which are never in short supply here. And that's why the block feature is doomed to fail, and will be speeded up to fail w/ showing all those who have blocked others here.

The whole Stalking and Threadjacking thing is completely subjective anyway; I've seen different people describe it in relation to their own selves and a few of them have definitions that exist only in their own minds, especially after reading thir posts over time.

Ignore, alert, and tombstone were just fine the previous 6 years; it didn't need to be changed.

[Pithlet]

157. Control, and the urge to get back at someone.

If all a person really wants to do is not have to deal with another poster anymore, all they have to do is ignore. The desire to actually block and prevent them from posting is punishing that poster, whether it's the intent or not. If you aren't interested in punishing or aggressively handling another DUer, then why not just ignore?

[seabeyond]

185. because you know as i am hearing if a person is blocked they have to be

unpopular, troll, what else has been said, that they will have a list of the most blocked people. sometimes my favorite people are the not so popular ones. may be a sense of humor i just laugh and laugh at that others dont appreciate. or say a way they make a living that many frown on, ergo block and show contempt. thinking of one dear poster right now.... not that he isnt pretty respectable even in argument.

geez.... havent even looked at it from this angle. and if i were to see his name on the list i would be mad. defend him kinda mad

[sufrommich]

165. Wholeheartedly agree!

Words like"stalking" and "harassing"are strong words in the real world and deserve to be saved for serious real life offenses.It's a damn forum,for god sake.Those who feel personally threatened or harassed by anonymous posters on a political forum need to push themselves away from the computer every once a awhile.It's not real life and not worth losing sleep over.

[jgraz]

169. well said n/t

[woo me with science]

253. Amen.

This is just infantile and ridiculous. Adults have the option of using the ignore function. Even better, they can simply IGNORE on their own without needing admin help. I know that I personally am just LOST when I get into conversations in my real life and don't have the block function. I am constantly looking around for an admin to help me get rid of people who disagree with me!

I cannot understand why this is necessary here. Talk about trying to fix a problem that doesn't need fixing. If you are going to do this, why not also add a feature that allows you to automatically replace a post you don't like with an opinion you do?

Those who write OP's could also submit a stock paragraph of support for their own ideas, that could automatically be used to replace a blocked post.

Yeah, that would work.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

258. There can't be that many people actually being stalked or harassed.

Those few people already had tools with which to manage this.

I think that this change has nothing whatsoever to do with DU member stalking/harassment. It is solely to do with the Modmins trying to find a way to control the upcoming wave of Democratic nominee shit-slinging (that has started already and will probably continue right past the time that a Democrat is inaugurated in 2009) while minimising the number of alerts to respond to. Skinner said as much, although his lede focused on "controlling one's own DU experience". I don't fault them for trying to find some way to do this. I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of all those alerts.

I have only used the Ignore feature to block two people who sent nasty PMs (and they were tombstoned at some point) and to block DU Grovelbot when I found him annoying at one point. Those Ignores have been cleared. I won't use the Block feature. There are a small number of DU posters (some very prominent and prolific) with whom I have strong disagreements, but I just ignore them. Not Ignore® the DU function, just ignore... the brain function.

** On edit (and on topic): I want to thank the Mods for being very upfront about trying this feature, being open to changing their minds and to listening to the feedback. I also expect to get some entertainment out of the disclosure of people's Block lists, but I pledge not to post about it.

[seabeyond]

264. i have been very vocal on this issue. i too thank admin for allowing

such an open discussion for us all. probably what is going to allow me to accept it in the end.

[troubleinwinter]

328. The problem with "controlling one's own DU experience"

is that it also controls OTHERS' DU experience, by preventing readers from having the opportunity to read an uncensored range of posts.

Regarding the upcoming primaries and elections heat, I dread that the Hillary supporters will block the Clark supporters who will block the Obama supporters who will block.....

Then there are the threads: "ALL WHO SUPPORT (Cindy's or Conyers' or Nancy's or Code Pink or whatever) ACTION POST HERE!" If one is blocked, must one start a competing thread titled "ALL THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN BLOCKED BUT SUPPORT (...) ACTION POST HERE!"?

It's nuts.

[flyarm]

228. it reminds me of the old aol message board days..where board monitors were

rampant * supporters that censored anything they didn't like!!...like truth!!

and pubbies put on the boards by the * cabal..to censor truth..and post propaganda with no chance to debate...they were shutting down truth with every means possible!!..and flushing out truth and replacing it with propaganda!!...

eh nadine???????? trip down memory lane?????????

hi honey!!

:hi: :hi: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

fly

[xultar]

121. NIZE!

[BlackVelvet04]

124. I have a question......

about blocking threads. There are some posters at DU that start a lot of threads I'm just not interested in. I'm not saying they are bad people or that there is anything wrong with their threads they just aren't threads that I'm interested in. Is it better to use the block threads for those members or individually ignore threads? The block threads is the only feature I would be interested in using if that is the best way to go.

And PLEASE understand I'm not saying the posters are doing anything wrong....we just have different interests and it would be easier for me to not have to always week those threads out.

[mike_c]

125. ignore threads, by all means....

Doing the other essentially censors the folks you've blocked from participating in your threads, or from replying to you in other threads. That makes their perspectives unavailable to the rest of the community, which is why I oppose this feature.

[lvx35]

319. agreed.

The thing is that if I take one side of an argment, like that there is no global warming, and block all the scientists who would refute me, then it decreases the quality of the information on DU for everybody else...My information is not challenged as it should be.

[Lex]

126. Sounds to me like you just want the Ignore Thread option

so that you don't have to see certain threads.

Usually I just don't read threads I'm not interested in, but I could put those threads on Ignore and never see them at all.

The Block User functions so that if you start a thread, you can keep certain posters from participating in your thread at all.

Just my .02.

:hi:


___________________________

[AlCzervik]

132. hide thread-best thing evah!

[WritingIsMyReligion]

134. LOL. I think I'm gonna start hanging out in GD more.

Published block lists? Hoo-boy. Meltdown ahead.

:rofl:

[in_cog_ni_to]

148. It's the "New and Improved" Hollywood Blacklist. The wonders of technology!

I am so looking forward to this.:7

[enigmatic]

152. Does anybody have a "Dalton Trumbo" username here?

He's going on it the minute I see him!:rofl:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

236. I really am. That's what's pathetic.

It's like a bad soap opera, only not bad.

:7

[AlCzervik]

149. i'm clearing my schedule for tomorrow.

:D

[seabeyond]

187. bah hahahha. k, so anything really funny start a thread. i am too lazy to be looking

at peoples list and finding the funnies. what am i saying. threads are going to be popping up all over.... yup. nothing on my list for tomorrow

[seabeyond]

186. it can be a huge ass giggle n/t

[BlueStorm]

146. I am already seeing reporsts as to how the function

is being used. I have seen threads as to how some DUers are being blocked for apparently no reason. I just got a PM from someone saying that a DUer blocked him/her without just cause.

My feeling is that the new features are already being abused and I personally don't like this new system. It just seems a bit degrading to the members here. I feel that it is censorship and that it is detrimental to this site that claims to be democratic.

But that's just my opinion. I am sure if there were enough complaints the admins would either change it or get rid of it.

Blue

[democrank]

155. I`m an old woman, not very computer-savvy and

I don`t understand any of this stuff. If I accidentally "click" onto something that I think is a waste of time, I just hit that little back button and it gives me instant relief. If I spot a post like: *SCREW YOU IF YOU DON`T SUPPORT MY CANDIDATE* I just mosey on past until I find an interesting weather report or a post about human kindness.

DU has very interesting, creative people with all sorts of ideas. I really enjoy everyone, even those I disagree with. Even if I knew how to put someone on ignore, I wouldn`t do it because I might miss something that`s either surprisingly worthwhile or something that might help me formulate a deeper understanding. But, sometimes I just whisper...."This too shall pass" and move on to a whole new page.

DU is a terrific place, warts and all.

[Morgana LaFey]

159. I hope that includes who blocked first in the case of mutual blocks

'cause the people I've blocked wouldn't have been blocked had they not blocked me first. AND the only reason I counterblocked was purely preventative: to avoid being sniped at without the ability to respond.

[seabeyond]

189. blocked is blocked is blocked. i think not but is interesting sweet little

you have been blocked so often. do tell, you a stalker too

[Morgana LaFey]

247. A stalker? Hardly.

Unless you consider a person who checks "My DU" and responds to responses stalkers. Do you consider that stalking? Apparently so. I seem to remember a back and forth you and I had -- you considereed that stalking, eh? How funny. Why would DU warn against stalking but put in a function that promoted it? Hint: that's not stalking.

No, the two people who blocked me don't like my calling them on their sexism. You know, exactly the kind of thing so many people were afraid of about this feature when it was announced (i.e., shutting out debate). You wanna put yourself on their side, go right ahead. Maybe that company suits you.

[seabeyond]

248. wow

there was a bit of teasing on this but i will show you just how good i am. i do not remember going back and forth with you because i do not hold onto it or pay attention to names. i know i have read some of your stuff and enjoyed it hence my statement sweet person like you.

if you will look around this thread a bit you will see i strongly oppose this new feature of du's.

also i thought you would get the humor seeing how i said you a stalker too... including myself in that seeing how i have been blocked myself. why was i blocked? cause i harrassed? stalked? nope... because i too go into my du and reply to the person who has replied to me. i feel it is the polite thing to do.

awfully harsh. but that is cool by me. bothers me not.

[Morgana LaFey]

249. Did I confuse you with someone else with a name

with some similarities? If so, I sincerely apologize. I thought you were being snarky.

[seabeyond]

250. wasnt being snarky

maybe you did confuse me and maybe you didnt. i have found that there are subjects i totally agree with a person and love the way they think then can go into another thread and i will passionately disagree with that same person. we might have gone round and round on something. honestly i do not remember. i dont remember names well. too many people i agree and disagree with. but i never take it personally or hold grudges so i can easily say something nice and joke with a person i have had disagreements with.

[greyl]

238. That would be very cool. nt

[dsc]

170. If you are going to have this feature at all

then allowing us to see who is blocked is the only fair way to do it. I can see a huge potential for abuse in the upcoming primary season. I know that some anti Dean posters would have blocked any and all pro Dean posters and then just posted shit about Dean with us having no ability to respond. That in and of itself is devisive but if you allow them to do this and not admit what they are doing it looks like we don't care. I could easily see this harming candidates who have only a few prolific supporters. I think you should just get rid of the feature but if you are going to keep it, then at least let people see who is being blocked.

[Uncle Joe]

184. I just had a Maureen Dowd fan block me on this thread for my post,

so I'm wondering if the other posters can't reply to my post, will they think I blocked them, just for the record, I have never blocked anyone.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x258115

[seabeyond]

191. my one experience. i was blocked so i replied on my reply. another

poster and i got into a conversation on that reply so i was able to continue a conversation. then.... the blocker accused me of subverting the block and even though a good 6 posts had nothing to do with the block.... it was all deleted. but that is probably because i initially talked about the block. even though i was respectful and the blocker was neener neener neenering me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

192. If That's The Only Post In Question And The Sole Reason, Then That's A Pathetic Use Of The Block.

Disgraceful even.

But I speak from a view of potential ignorance since I don't technically know the history between you two. But if it is what it is and that was the reason, then I think it's a disgraceful use of the feature.

[Uncle Joe]

194. There is no history between us, in which I'm aware of

This was the first time, I've replied to one of said poster's posts.

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

281. That is pathetic and weak on that poster's part.

Maureen may have written a cutesy bush bashing book or two, but she hasn't always been the best friend a Democrat could hope for.

I haven't forgot her past, some have apparently though.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

256. Transparency of block lists is pretty smart.

If you are going to post anything, especially an OP, you should be prepared for any and all responses.

However, we have had an invasion of the whoring wannabes who are too many and just subtle enough to create much more work for our already working at capacity moderators.I think this approach is well thought out. If one makes the decision to keep someone from expressing their thoughts or opinions about their views, one should make that an open book.

:toast: to the DU admins.

MKJ

[jarab]

209. I ignore others the old fashioned way ....

but some of the possible misuses concern me.

The first I foresee is clique activity. Just about every day I see a thread with five replies and thirty seven nominations! This is concerted action. "I like you, you post in 'my' forums a lot, and you're in general agreement with me."
And, conversely:
"Based on past activity, we're (my clique of seventy five) going to gang up and put you on block right now - or agree en masse to do so." All it takes is a few pms, and I would suppose some have already been "sent".
"We've finally gotten even with your bad ass!"

If opposing viewpoints in all venues are so taboo, members should have by now found their respective ways to the "groups" - which are cliques by design as I see it.

Yes, it's a fact that there are people at this site who are a**holes, and they have known enemies. Whatever happened to banishments? If a person had such bad conduct in the past as to hypothetically appear in so many members' block lists, why does that member even exist on this site? How has he endured if he's such a disagreeable prick?

What this says to me is that we're tired of banishing members; we're just going to castigate you so badly that you'll leave of your own accord - the welcome mat no longer in sight.
Find yourself another place to argue; come back here with your 30K posts every now and then to post a hit and run whereever you may.

I'm open to any changes; I'm sure this wasn't a spontaneous decision by the Administrators, the depth of necessity unknown to us. But, there are reservations, and I think some several tweakings will be needed in the first stages of implementation.
This is a major change to DU's structure, imo.

...O...

[uppityperson]

229. I would like to know if I get blocked, by whom and why.

I know that having to pm someone why you are blocking them can bring about some bad feelings, but it could also help those blocked understand why. I have been blocked by someone that is quite confusing to me, but can't pm and ask since I'm blocked. I tried out the blocking and realized that I should have let the blockee know why when I did so. If I chose to use it again, I will inform the person.

[oasis]

231. If a poster wishes to start a "bash candidate x" thread he can eliminate all that

may oppose him in advance. He is then free to take unlimited pot-shots at "candidate x" with impunity.

[karynnj]

260. Maybe an effective way to deal with that is

for all of us who are see a clearly abusive bahing thread of this nature is to defend as well as we can.

What I mean is that I am a Kerry fan - but for most of the other candidates I know a reasonable amount - though far less than many (or all) of their supporters. So, if I see a Clark slam, I should and have respond and defend. I won't be able to do the job that the usual Clark people do with ease - but it's better than nothing.

I hope there will be few doing - as it is pretty useless - another alternative is if the op has put 50 people on block - that may be a signal that this is an attempt to silence dissent.

[oasis]

285. I'll allow no free abuse of any Dem candidate. Major mud is slung during

the late hours while the advocates sleep.

Thanks in advance for doing your part to keep things honest around here.:hi:

[emulatorloo]

233. kick n/t

[BlooInBloo]

235. Oh no! The poor wittle cowards have to publically disclose? LOLOLOL!

Awesome - I will hereby refuse to write to a thread that has anyone blocked. Fucking cowards.

Thanks for giving us the choice whether or not to support them.

[Pierre.Suave]

237. Why not just put

the block list on the front page?

that way we can all see who is being blocked, and by whom, or, put it in out options panel, a section to see who is blocking us, and make the blocker type a reason for their block that can be seen by the blocked person.

[salin]

254. Watching how the feature has been used - I think that this is a good idea.

The one thing not addressed, that I have seen unfold a number of times, is that the blocker - will then respond directly to a blocked poster, knowing that the blocked poster can not respond. At times it appears to be taunting. In some cases, then if the blockee - responding to a post of the blocker when the blocker was responding to the blockee - tries to get the conversation nuked, because the blockee was 'working around the system'. Of course the blockee wouldn't have done this if the blocker hadn't directly responded to the blockee. Confusing, eh? If this is kept in place, I do hope that there is an "anti taunting" rule - that is: if you block someone, do NOT respond directly to that person as it would work as taunting given that the person has been forced to not be able to respond.

All this said from observation. Thus far I am not aware of being on anyone's block list. I haven't had a mod warning since... ever. My point is that I don't tend to be 'controversial' and haven't really been at it regularly with many DUers and have generally been pretty good about keeping within civility bounds. However for five years I have also been an observer of dynamics - and I am rather concerned with some of the side dynamics that have been developing via this feature.

But am still willing to watch, wait and see.

[seabeyond]

255. just to be clear.... i have nevah... had a mod warning,

twinklin... lol lol.

not saying none of my posts have been deleted. i knew when i posted that they were subject for delete too. but a warning from a mod, oooosh... nevah

[salin]

263. You know

that I was a bit surprised by your 'block' - but it was just one of many that I read about (on the boards - i don't do much PM conversation on DU - like my conversing out in the open) - that caught my attention - esp, if I recall correctly, that in your case as well as others there was some of what I will now call "blocker taunting" - where the blocker continues to respond to the blockee knowing that you can't respond. For that behavior I appreciate the 'view blockees' feature - though it sounds like it only shows up in OPs - not in the in thread interchange - where the abuse of the feature to which I refer, I have seen occur.

[seabeyond]

293. putting names up of blocked people on front page as harrassers, stalkers

and disruptors so they can reflect on their behavior is another function of this exercise. i do take pride in my respect of fellowman even in disagreement and to be outed in such a manner that in all likeliness is not true doesnt set well with me. so if this plan does go into effect i am going to want the right to defend names on that front page, if we are going to hold "us" up as the bad kids on the playground.

[jgraz]

273. I have -- well-earned, too

They were pretty nice about it, given the content of my posts (a couple posters seriously ticked me off). All in all, I think DU is a pretty tolerant place. That's why this new draconion feature seems so out of place.

[troubleinwinter]

272. You are one of my bestest, favorite posters, BUTT

if you EVER try to make me read stuff like:

"the blocker - will then respond directly to a blocked poster, knowing that the blocked poster can not respond....then if the blockee - responding to a post of the blocker when the blocker was responding to the blockee.... the blockee was 'working around the system'...the blockee wouldn't have done this if the blocker hadn't directly responded to the blockee."

Then I will be forced to move on to the next thread! I SWEAR! I WILL!

[salin]

289. Heh - I knew it was confusing when I wrote it...

sorry 'bout that.

[Renew Deal]

274. Here's another 165 posts on the matter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3180599&mesg_id=3180599

[LostInAnomie]

276. I still would like a "Right of Last Word" for the blockee.

I get tired of hit-and-run posters.

I think it would be great if the blockee would get the right to the last word in a way that is clearly identifiable for what it is to the rest of the forum. It would go a long way to discourage the H&R posters because it would make it clear that they are cowards.

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

277. What if my only past behavior issue is pointing out someone's

bs level?

What if their arguement is weak? I'm a bad guy for pointing that out?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

278. still allowing blockers to post on block-ee's threads and block comments

Skinner, how is it fair to allow someone to block a person,
then the blocker posts on a thread originated by the blocked person and
this blocker prevents the OP writer from replying, on the OP writer's own thread?

This seems to be an abuse of the system if ever there was one.

I appreciate that new change but hope you will consider adding some
sort of parity to the situation.

Some of us are blocked from rebutting misinformation, and then that
same misinformation is similarly posted on our OPs, and we are blocked
from responding.

Don't understand that.

It seems to give the blocker protection to harass people being blocked.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

294. Just For Sake Of Accuracy, It Isn't The Admins Allowing That. It's The Poster Themselves.

It is each poster's choice as to whether to block back or not, so it would also be their choice to allow the poster to continue to reply even though they have blocked the original poster.

This is one point that has perplexed me a little, because the poster who was blocked and upset at the other poster still being able to reply, acts upset that the blocker is able to continue to do that but proclaims "I will not block them back on principle. I don't block people" etc. Yet they don't hesitate in the same breath to demand that the Admins or mods include a feature to force the other person to not be able to reply. What's the difference? How can one act like they are standing on principle by not blocking back in reciprocation, yet find it acceptable to ask the Admins to do it for them? It's the same outcome isn't it?

Way I see it, since the poster still wouldn't be able to reply back, then it is in fact a reciprocal block no matter who engaged it; the originally blocked poster or the admins. So if a poster is going to complain that they are blocked but the blocker can still respond, why wouldn't they just block them back? Either they don't want them to be able to reply or they do. If they choose not to block in reciprocation, I don't really think they have a principled leg to stand on in demanding that the Admins force them to not be able to do such. Like I said, the premise is a bit perplexing to me.

So when it really comes down to it, the only one allowing a blocker to continue replying to a blocked person's posts is the poster who was blocked themselves. They already have the power to stop the practice, they are just choosing to not use it.

[Renew Deal]

284. DU's Blocking Bonanza

The new blocking feature is about as exciting as the launch of the "new" Coke. I understand that the admins (for some reason) want to publicly ridicule DUers that don't fall in line. Well, I have a solution that is being used by a forum approximately the same size as DU. Our friends over at Something Awful have something called a "Lepers Colony." It's a public board where the names of the miscreants, their offenses, and their punishments are posted publicly. The banning come down at the moderators discretion. No questions asked. I think this is the best compromise. It allows for the public ridicule the admins want while truly punishing violators, and there's no question of tampering.

Here's a link: http://forums.somethingawful.com/banlist.php

[dweller]

286. oh yeah, this new feature is working F A B U L O U S L Y

to think i read all the way through this thread . . .

why don't you all just throw up walls around your selves?


sigh
dp

[Kickin_Donkey]

291. This has all become so convoluted and complicated ...

and DU is the lesser for it. Something very vital here is lost with this blocking business.

Out with it.

[BlueIris]

308. You're obviously not mean-spirited enough to post in the new DU.

Dude--get with the mean. Mean is in. Then it will all make much more sense to you.

Now that I have fully embraced The Mean, I am much happier here now.

[SmokingJacket]

298. I predict....

the block function will have been an interesting experiment, but will be tossed on the scrapheap of DU history...

[ProfessorGAC]

304. I Hope You're Correct

You and me, smokingjacket. If it's on the scrap heap, we'll light the match.
The Professor

[mtnester]

316. I have to say, after thinking on this and observing since the original post about blocking

I have decided I do not like the feature.

Allowing a single person to control my DU experience just does not sit well with me. Review of a group of people (like the Mods) prior to decisions being made seems more consistent with the Democratic process, which I believe is the very premise of this board.

Ignore seemed to be a fine feature if an individual simply did not want to hear from me or read anything I wrote. I admit I used it on one person for about 2 months until my temper cooled down, then took them off that list the minute I figured out I was cool and calm about it.

I understand that everyone wanted this to work a different way, but, the study of human nature we all have experienced indicated, if it was going to be abused, that would be the first way it was used. Murphy's Law always works out that way.

This is my opinion only, and I am grateful that I am allowed to share that on this post, without being censured by a single individual. I suppose that is my whole entire point to my complete dislike of this feature. It has a smell to it.

[ProfessorGAC]

317. Good Comment

It's already diluting the aggressive give and take in GD. Now, the thin-skinned among us can just post a circle jerk thread and not worry that someone might vehemently disagree. It's childish to use this function. And, i have to undo one myself. I put someone on because for reasons that i don't understand, i'm blocked from replying. I figured i might as well "retaliate" since it seemed stupid to read threads by someone who doesn't want to talk to me. But, i can remember screennames and can ignore threads by that writer anyway. I don't need this function.
The Professor

On Edit: BTW, i like your screenname. Simple & clever.

[mtnester]

318. Thank you

and I hope you understand the screen name :) I am thinking of making it my vanity plate (yeah, I know)

[sniffa]

320. i can't beLieve catpower has me on ignore

now aLL the worLd is going to see. :cry:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

321. Catpower has me on ignore, too.

[bicentennial_baby]

323. Me too!

funny, that

[sniffa]

324. whatever happened to that DUer?

weren't they banned?

[LostinVA]

326. Hmmmm.... yes, they were

But yet, they are still here.

[sniffa]

327. this is aLL so confusing

was she the crazy Loon who was on the piss or something? :shrug:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

333. Yes.

[JVS]

331. As it should be. It's nearly impossible to respond to someone with the word "cat" in their...

handle without making a "Cats suck" type of comment

[LostinVA]

325. And also me

[AlCzervik]

329. T minus 60 minutes.

[Haole Girl]

334. This is just weird....I don't remember feeling like this...

...since 5th grade....forget Jr. High. :eyes:

I guess now would be a good time to apologize for any embarrassment I might cause the remaining 2 people I have on ignore. I never dreamed it would be exposed for all DU to see. Oh brother. :eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

335. Ignore is different than block.

You can go into your ignore list and unblock them, but still leave them on regular ignore

I know that I've been blocked by at least three people, one of which is a troll from that site, which we are not allowed to mention.

[Haole Girl]

336. Dummy me...I did the nuclear option...just messing around..

...with it...and now I can't un-do it until Jan. 26th.

Oh well. Guess I should have read the fine print!!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

337. Eh, don't worry about it. I blocked some people when it was brand new, because I could.

I've unblocked them now.

Now I just have a threadstalker, Floogeldy, and sniffa on my block list. I blocked sniffa for fun, as he is my bud.

[Haole Girl]

338. Is Floogeldy still around?

:shrug:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

339. He hasn't been TS'd, but he hasn't been posting.

It's a pre-emptive measure.

[Haole Girl]

340. Ha-ha!

:D

I do fear, as much as one of his comments hurt me, that he may have been right on about it.

I'll tell him, maybe in a pm, before either of us gets ts'd.

On edit: meaning either him or I.

[EarlG]

341. Locking

A new announcement has been posted. See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x14094