Block lists are now public

[EarlG]

As promised, we have just updated the software so that you can see who is blocked from participating in any given thread.

Admin will continue to review the function and will make another announcement about its future on Feb 1.

Until then, here are a few things you should bear in mind:

1. If you are blocked from posting in a thread and would like to offer your opinion on the issue under discussion, you are permitted to start a new thread (except in LBN where stricter rules apply). You may mention that you are starting the thread because you are blocked from responding to another thread - however, the new thread MUST focus on the issue under discussion. Threads which are started in order to complain about somebody else's use of the block function will be deleted or locked.

2. It is unfortunate that a few people have chosen to paint anyone who is using the block function as "cowardly" or "childish." The moderators have been instructed to remove any further posts of this nature as we consider it to be a general personal attack. You are not permitted to throw the word "cowards" at members using other DU functions such as "Alert," and this remains true for the "Block Replies To Me" function.

3. We have seen a few complaints from people who have been blocked "unfairly." Sorry, but if somebody blocks you, there is a simple explanation: they don't want to interact with you. It's not a difficult concept to get to grips with. They may not like your posts, or your politics, or something that you posted on DU three years ago. It could be a simple misunderstanding. It's possible that it is absolutely no fault of your own. But it doesn't matter. You may not understand why they don't want to interact with you, but if they blocked you then they obviously have their reasons.

4. If you wish to continue to comment on the new function, you may do so in this thread. However, please do not start threads or polls elsewhere on the board to discuss the function. Those threads will be deleted or locked.

[BuyingThyme]

1. Haven't found one yet, but when I do...

[xultar]

55. I love the block function. I LOVE IT. I have no problem admitting and using it.

There are people who make it their life's mission to shit on people and their oppinions cuz the want to make themselves appear superior.

If that is your mission I won't put up with your bullshit.

[BuyingThyme]

234. You seem to be describing yourself.

[xultar]

244. YOU ROCK!

[Jersey Devil]

121. Not on my block!

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Radio_Lady]

165. LOL. I don't even remember the various arguments which I participated in

months and years ago.

Anyway, I forgive you if you'll forgive me.

In peace, (Even to the one woman who suggested my closing with IN PEACE was BS... it isn't... been using it on the radio since 1971)

Radio Lady in Oregon

[kerry-is-my-prez]

340. Love that bunny/pancake jpg!

You are too clever!

[Radio_Lady]

166. Me either... can you search for them? Just supposin'...

[northzax]

300. I too, love the block function

anyone who can't handle debate and the poking of holes in their arguements, I am happy to have block me. if your response to criticism of a position is "nyah nyah nyah, you can't play anymore" then thanks for saving me the time and energy of trying to talk to you at all. Hey, removing yourself from opposing viewpoints works to only insulate yourself, what do you call someone who only talks to people who agree with him? President Bush.

[myrna minx]

2. Thanks for the update. n/t

[mainegreen]

3. Number 1 might makes things messy around here. I agree with the need for it though.

But krikey, come election time, I hope you guys consider lifting the no reply blocking for a while in GD and GD-P otherwise things might get even more ridiculous around here!

[WI_DEM]

6. in the heat of the primaries nobody will be able to reply to anything!

[Renew Deal]

33. Why wait?

If it's not worth it, dump it now.

[sniffa]

4. then where's yours, hmmm?

[patricia92243]

5. deleted

[Midlodemocrat]

7. Hey, EarlG. Elad has you on nuclear ignore.

:rofl:

Test related, for sure, but funny nonetheless.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6097098

[crispini]

81. Now THAT's comedy!

:rofl:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Thank you

I've seen the block function in action only once, and that was at a thread where a poster had decided to try and get everyone off topic and hijack the thread, and, if memory serves, was arguing with another and trying to get a lot of others involved. The OP person blocked to nip the hijack in the bud so that the regular discussion could go on, and told the other posters what he/she was doing and why.

I felt that this was the reason that the block function was devised, and hope that it is used in this fashion and not for anything petty.

[GOTV]

9. I suspect that when people refer to a blocking as "unfair"...

They're referring to the fact that the blocker prevents them from interacting with others.

I find it hard to believe that there are significant numbers of DUers that feel they are *owed* the attention of others. If blocking truly prevented the blocked poster from interacting with the blocker - and no more, claims of being blocked "unfairly" would be rare.

What feels unfair is a poster carrying out a discussion with several people in a thread and having the OP decide for all thread participants that that poster will no longer be heard from on that thread.

I guess the easing up of the rule about posting follow on threads helps this to some extent though.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. It Doesn't Help Enough

I am becoming more & more disgusted by this whole affair. There is nothing short of dropping this ridiculous idea that would be enough for me.
The Professor

[The Backlash Cometh]

164. You know, I'm really pissed off too.

'Cuz I just saw someone's block list and all my favorite DUers are on it. What am I doing wrong that I'm not on it?

[Susang]

341. I agree

I think the idea is ludicrous and contrary to what I thought DU is supposed to be.

Hi Prof! :hi:

[LostinVA]

42. I agree about the "unfair" label

[rockymountaindem]

65. That's a big part of the problem

If A starts a thread, B posts in it and gets in a discussion with C, but A doesn't like C, A can shut off the discussion between B and C by blocking C. It's tyrranical. Secondly, I fear spamming. Someone could just block all the posters who are on one side of the issue, and then continually post threads where those people cannot respond. I think this is a misguided idea. I know there are people who we might not want to interact with, but it's the same in regular society. I don't see us all running out to get restraining orders against everybody who isn't necessarily our best buddy.

[Marie26]

170. Have my first block

Makes me feel all flattered that someone paid attention to me. :) Anyway, I've only replied to this person once, but in that thread, I called out a really racist OP that they had posted. So now I've been blocked, and maybe other people who call out racism will be blocked from this person's threads as well. Wouldn't this feature allow someone who truly is racist, sexist, etc. to post bigoted things on DU w/o fear of contradiction? It could be used that way, which bothers me.

[LostinVA]

276. Know what, Marie?

You're exactly right. the FIRST DAY this feature was announced I stated this is what would happen. It's happened to me, too, but about gay issues. Actually, one poster who's been here about a week has preemptively blocked many, many vocal gay issue posters. Preemptively? Because they've never even been in an thread with most of the blockees. Nice, huh?

[Cameron27]

284. Why the hell would

someone like that even WANT to post on a progressive board? One good thing about these blocks is that certain people are being exposed in ways that they certainly couldn't have imagined.

I've noticed one block against me, but it's someone who's opinion I really don't value. I know that I was pretty testy with him in one thread, (not my shining moment, for sure) so it's either that, or the fact that I find another's statistical anaysis more convincing.

Whatever, I'd like to see the blocking feature dumped.

[Kerrytravelers]

318. I'm on that same list.

And I'm quite proud. If a racist doesn't like me, I've done something right! :bounce: :bounce:

[quinnox]

10. sounds good

I have become ambivalent about the block function. But if I should use it I wouldn't care if it was known publicly.

[seabeyond]

11. rule 3. the administration more than once has suggested it is due to stalker

disruptive or harrasment and maybe we ought to self reflect. i can certainly understand and accept there are posters that simply may not like me because of any numbers of reasons and that doesnt bother me at all. same as it wont with many many posters

but i think we need to get off the assumption that if a list is ever presented on front page of blockees, that they are either stalkers harrassers or disruptors. that can be laid to rest. because... a poster can be blocked for any number of reasons, including NOTHING to do with the poster that was blocked.

[EarlG]

13. I understand that.

Assuming this function goes forward, I think it is highly unlikely that we will ever make public a list of the "most blocked" on DU.

[seabeyond]

19. thank you earlg. and this new feature is kinda fun, and interesting. n/t

[HamdenRice]

32. Oh Pleeeezzze, pleeezzze, let's have a Greatest-Not list!!

Of posters blocked by the most people!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

255. my favorite people are on the most block lists

I am on a few, but not nearly as many as some
of my favorite "posters".

I disagree that all people blocked are folks
who harass someone.

Some people are being blocked for challenging OPs or messages for inaccuracies.

Anyway, its certainly interesting to see.

The threads with lots of blocks seem to sink like stones.

[mmonk]

227. !

:rofl:
That's good I guess. Sorry but the thought makes me chuckle.

[bananas]

14. I have a suggestion: display the block lists as links

Instead of just a text list of blocked names,
have each name be a hyperlink to that persons block list.

[yowzayowzayowza]

15. I hate the block function.

Can we discuss other methods of accomplishing the same thing in another thread?

[yowzayowzayowza]

139. ...and when viewing history...

how will I no who wuz blocked at the time?

[HamdenRice]

16. A Big Thanks! This is a great public information function as well

because persistent bad actors will show up on many lists!

[catnhatnh]

17. I did a small test.

I opened about a page and a half of original posts from the latest page (35-45 posts) and can report as follows-2 posters actually have a "block list".Each list contains the name of just one other DUer. And no, they are NOT blocking each orher.
In short I found no one trying to smash dissent or abusing the feature...more like people who attend family functions who recognize there will be one other person they absolutely cannot interact with and who therefore decide to avoid contact with. In short,they love the party but are determined to avoid conflicts.I suspect this may work out well,Thanks....

[cwydro]

48. Believe me, you need to look around more, lol,

there is one poster with a list in the teens (didn't count, so not sure how many exactly).

[crispini]

82. 140

Hahahahahahaha!

[cwydro]

88. No way!

Dag, I haven't found that one yet...

[Marie26]

104. LOL

Is that a record?

[crispini]

106. Most I've seen so far!

[uppityperson]

223. you counted?

I stopped at 100 and estimated after that. Glad to see that I'm not alone.

[Dorian Gray]

195. And I just saw another's

whose list looked like there were at LEAST fifty names on it. At least.

Already.

How the heck does that happen?

[Ouabache]

215. my guess is long-time trolls will have big block lists of the

people who have called them out??

[Dorian Gray]

298. That's probably a good guess....

Or, at least, people who are really sensitive.

[endarkenment]

105. Try again.

There are OPs with massive block lists. Rather discouraging for a public message board.

[GOTV]

114. Except it's like the offended member barring the offender from the family reunion...

... regardless of how the rest of the family feels about the person.

[LostinVA]

134. Excellent way to put it -- I agree

[woo me with science]

221. excellent analogy. nt

[mtnester]

18. I will again state

That allowing a single person to control my DU experience just does not sit well with me. I understand the concept behind it, but not all good ideas turn out to be actually that. In theory and in reality are two different things, and if you throw in the human element, all bets are off.

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.

No offense meant, just voicing my own important (to myself anyway) opinion.

[HamdenRice]

38. Doesn't it work both ways?

If someone is harassing you constantly, isn't that a form of "controlling your DU experience"?

In real life, you don't have to include an obnoxious person in your conversation, and this function makes DU more like "real life."

[mtnester]

53. Yes, and Ignore worked fine for that

it did not lock that person completely out of other/sub conversations that occurred within a thread I may have started.

[woo me with science]

120. You can already choose not to interact with someone.

It's called not opening their posts or writing back. In a real-life group conversation, you will look pretty silly if you try to prevent someone not only from talking to you, but from talking to everyone else in the conversation, too.

[mtnester]

122. Agreed whole heartedly

[HamdenRice]

136. You must not spend time in the contentious forums

There are people who spend all their time doing nothing but hijacking threads with meaningless jibberish.

Ignoring them doesn't prevent them from thread hijacking. That's why I think this feature is great and the public disclosure of who is engaging in troll like behavior is a good thing.

[woo me with science]

151. Why do you even read their posts?

And if you can't stop yourself, you have the ignore feature. Seriously, you have the control here already.

(edited for missing word in title)

[HamdenRice]

180. They are capable of shutting down discussion

It actually happens in other forums. Just you can't necessarily ignore a heckler in the back of a theater, you can't ignore someone who hijacks a thread, changes the subject to some irrelevant matter and shuts down discussion.

This feature is one of the best innovations on DU since the creation of the Greatest Page.

[Marie26]

183. Doesn't a block also

shut down discussion? If all the MIHOPs block all the people who oppose that theory, discussion has effectively ended. The same goes for any controversial topic.

[woo me with science]

198. yup nt

[HamdenRice]

199. Should a group of astronomers have to listen to astrologists?

Conversations are consensual. We chose our interlocuters in real life. In the forum you are referring to, there is a group of people who simply disrupt discussion by throwing around insults, rather than "opposing that theory." Indeed, a quick search by screen name shows that there are people who have never, ever made a single interesting post worth reading in any forum anywhere.

If a group of astronomers have a conference, they have no obligation to listen to astrologists chime in.

The same is true of political discussion. This enables people to self-segregate their discussion and is a good thing. It's better to simply keep those people out of certain discussions. They are free to start their own threads.

[woo me with science]

219. Should "intelligent designers" have to listen to evolutionists?

Should anti global-warming folks have to listen to those who believe global warming is a real threat, and want to give evidence of that?

Yes, people should have the option to challenge one another's viewpoints. That is what makes this such a rich community. If you truly believe that the only people who will be silenced by this new block feature are the ones with woo woo, wacko ideas, you are very naive.

If someone's challenge is silly, you have the option to ignore. You have always had the option to ignore.

You should not have the option to block someone else from communicating with everyone else who is talking, too, just because YOU think what they are saying is nonsense.

[havocmom]

268. I want a "Please join this discussion list" option

so I can invite antfarm to join any thread I start. Sanity, thoughtfulness and fairness. Thank you for framing the logical results of this ridiculous Block thing. It is censorship when Ignore would do the trick of preventing dealing with someone who personally irritates.

Personally, I am wondering if Skinner and the Admins are just getting tired of all of us and want us to get mad enough to go away. Sadly, some of the best minds around here might just do that when they get excluded from being constructive participants in many discussions.

The control freaks and those who only want an echo chamber can end up destroying a site which has been a great service to the nation by affording a place for discussion

The Block feature seems a bit too much like bush's "who cares what you think" attitude. Am thinking it might be in my best interest to go through, check block lists and put people on ignore if they have blocked DUers I have respect for. If some do not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with voices beyond those in their own heads, chances are what they might have to say is of little value.

Ignore works fine. The rest of you can read posters I choose not to. I am the boss of me, not the boss of everyone.

[Kingshakabobo]

293. The person you are discussing this with ...........

.......just blocked me for my comment in post #255. Now you know what you are dealing with.

This is a perfect example of abuse of this system. He has all the non-mihop people in the 9/11 forum on block now. When I say ALL I mean the bulk of the main "dissenters."

[Pithlet]

233. No, they shouldn't have to.

That's what the old ignore was for.

[Kingshakabobo]

249. You seem to be under the impression that the 9/11 forum.......

.......is the conspiracy theorists own private chat-room. What YOU describe is a "group", not a forum. As you may or may not know, Skinner has FLATLY rejected any 9/11 group where conspiracy theories go un-challenged.


and I quote Mr. Skinner himself:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1485174#1485711

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-22-06 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. No, we're not going to permit a 9/11 group.
I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of creating a protected space where supporters of 9/11 conspiracy theories are officially protected from having their speculation tested by open debate.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1213089#1213308


<user name deleted by kinghsakabobo..see link> (875 posts) Wed May-17-06 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
25. So what happens when much of what some call
"conspiracy theories" are proven to be fact? Will it be hidden in the 9/11 forum still?


Just asking.

Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Wed May-17-06 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. When that happens...
...I will personally hand you a check for a million dollars.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

edit to fix links

[Kingshakabobo]

291. LOL. The person you are discussing this with.......

.......just blocked me for my comment in post #255. Now you know what you are dealing with.

This is a perfect example of abuse of this system. He has all the non-mihop people in the 9/11 forum on block now. When I say ALL I mean the bulk of the main "dissenters."

[Marie26]

320. It really is

I took a trip to the dungeon to see how this was playing out, & wasn't terribly surprised at what I saw. The best is that the poster above posted a thread challenging people who don't believe MIHOP to explain all the MIHOP "evidence", while also blocking the posters who don't believe in MIHOP! It's totally self-referential. This feature allows people to re-enforce their delusions w/o letting the facts get in the way. It allows people to keep their pre-existing notions w/o being forced to consider another viewpoint. It's Bushco's operating system brought to DU, & I really hate it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=129034&mesg_id=129034

[greyl]

338. In fairness, that particular thread was started before the block feature existed.

However, the spirit of your argument is accurate and true.

[greyl]

331. "Shutting down discussion" equals "presenting a superior argument". nt

[Pithlet]

235. Nonsense.

The only reason they're capable of shutting down the discussion is if they're allowed to. No reason the discussion can't continue, and the people attempting to "shut down the discourse" can't just be ignored, especially with the old ignore system. If participants in the discussion take the bait and the thread gets locked, both sides are to blame.

[mtnester]

282. No, I do not go to the I/P forum, however

I think GD can be as contentious as any other forum...look what happened on a topic about CHICKEN. But does that still warrant a single person dictating my DU experience? No one is probably going to convince me otherwise on this.

Thread hijacking is correctable through deletion of sub threads, which happens now.

[LostinVA]

137. Yup

[High Plains]

238. Yes, but I doubt any DUer has a hundred people stalking them

I know of at least two with more than a hundred names on their lists. It strikes me as fundamentally anti-democratic. But that's just me.

[GOTV]

113. It's because the implementation does not match the stated goal

Almost everyone, I think, would support the ability to make a poster disappear for the offended poster.

The feature should leave the thread unaffected for the rest of us though. This would be similar to how ignore works right? We all see the thread with only OUR ignored users ignored.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

20. Regarding #3...

what if a poster is bragging about blocking all members of a certain group over on that conservative site we can't mention? This has already happened.

Isn't this simply flat out admitting to being a troll?

[LostinVA]

23. I would like an answer to this, too

Mods have been informed of this, too.

[EarlG]

26. You mean...

If they're bragging on the other site about using the block function? We can only moderate what goes on at DU. Also consider the possibility that the person may not be who they say they are.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

28. I'll PM you more details in a minute.

[izzybeans]

21. Oops. I missed number four. I have a thread bopping around GD you need to lock.

The thread is here. I alerted on it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=14352&mesg_id=14352

[izzybeans]

35. I suppose I'll cut and paste the info. into this thread in case you find it useful.

sorry for skimming past the rules.

[porphyrian]

22. I'll kick that. - n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

24. I'm glad to have the choice to use of this function. Thank you.

[cynatnite]

25. There is a shame factor...

Blocking is stifling discussion, IMO, but to have it publicly available might actually reduce the numbers of those abusing the feature in order to control a discussion.

[LostinVA]

30. Oh, I don't agree with you there

Too many gleeful posts.

[cynatnite]

39. Okay, that's it...you're on super duper mega death ray to the max nuclear block

:rofl:

Maybe there's a bit of both. :shrug:

[LostinVA]

40. Yay!!!

Hehehehehhe

[cynatnite]

46. Seriously, though...

I do understand your concern and after reading through many of the posts I now realize there could be big problems as a result. *crosses fingers* Hoping for the best and maybe there won't be a need for this in the future.

[LostinVA]

49. Yup, we shall see!

[LoZoccolo]

78. Actually, I am proud of my massive block list!

There is this game called Jenga, where you try to make a big tower of blocks. So another nickname for me could be "Jenga" except it sounds like a girl's name.

[crispini]

85. LoZo, you are such a PITA.

Way to go! :loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:

[LostinVA]

138. Okay, you made me laugh

Jengaoccolo.

[seabeyond]

161. ya ya ya there will be the few. you know every family has that

crazy uncle we chuckle and shake our head at...... sittin at the thanksgiving table, lol

[seabeyond]

158. i agree a person may think twice, if people are allowed to see it in use n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. Wow

This is like getting to look in someone's underwear drawer.

[jpgray]

29. Someone with very scary pelvic proportions.

[fishwax]

31. Since there are stricter rules in LBN, can there be an exception in LBN as well

so that nobody is prohibited from discussing breaking news topics?

I know it isn't a big problem--yet--looking at the threads on the first page of LBN, it appears that only three are currently started by a poster with others on block. Even so, it means the posters on block can't discuss those topics at all in that forum, and those of us who might like to read what the blocked posters have to say about the topic will not get the chance.

Thanks for adding the block lists and for the explanation.

[JuniperLea]

34. I still think a better way to handle this is to put something in "My DU"

That gives you a list of people who have blocked you and you alone. When you try to respond to a thread you have been blocked from, a simple message to check your list would suffice nicely.

I really, truly hate hate hate the idea of these lists being made public. I think it will cause more problems than it solves. I fully expect massive block wars and clicks forming because of this.

[EarlG]

43. "I fully expect

massive block wars and clicks forming because of this."

Trust me, we're keeping a close eye on this. Hopefully the public block lists will demonstrate that it is certainly not happening at the moment.

[JuniperLea]

59. Haha! Tea bag...

I may have just peed a little:)

Still, I wish you would consider my idea about keeping the lists private and putting them in as a function of "My DU".

This just smacks of public flogging...

[Divine Discontent]

260. this block thing is a great idea earlg

and it should stay, but LBN discussions should be fair game and the best mods should monitor idiot comments or heated discussions there... great idea though, although I have no idea yet how to tell if people are on a blocked list, but I'll check it out soon...

peace!

[endarkenment]

147. Well I disagree.

I think we have a right to know that a contentious partisan original post came complete with a list of dozens of (or even 140 as is claimed above) people who are banned from responding. I think that additional information would clear up why exactly this contentious partisan thread was responded to only by supportive messages.

[JuniperLea]

150. You can support public floggings if you like

I've never had a taste for them myself. This is the kind of thing that gives me sympathy for the Devil. Like Saddam's hanging...

[endarkenment]

342. Public flogging? hanging?

What?

I'm sorry but that analogy is completely inappropriate. I am not flogging anyone publicly or privatly. What a dishonest argument.

If you choose to post an original message, that is a choice you make, not one imposed on you. If you choose to block hundreds of people from responding, once again that is a choice you make, not one that is imposed on you. Unlike the ignore feature, blocking affects the blockee directly. Unlike the ignore fearure, blocking affects other people reading DU: they are deprived of the potential responses from those blocked by the OP. Making blocking information public correctly increases the cost of blocking to the blocker. The blocker must now consider that his action of blocking, who and how many people he has chosen to block, will be public information should he choose to originate new messages here. Making blocking information public informs the reader about the potentially misleading unanimity in responses to the OP.

[Maven]

36. Doesn't this add insult to injury?

Not only will someone be blocked, they will know that everyone else knows they're blocked? I can foresee people using blocklists offensively as well as defensively, i.e., to embarrass people they don't like, as a result of this feature.

[LostinVA]

41. It's happening

[JackBeck]

45. You're right.

People have already used the block function as a punishment to anyone who interacts with certain other DU members. I don't think this was the original use of this function the admins had in mind.

[cwydro]

54. Quite a list with that other

we mentioned earlier, eh?

[JackBeck]

67. We're in great company.

They were all added yesterday out of spite.

[cwydro]

69. Wow.

I just saw another one that has like 60+ names on it! I literally lost count trying to count them all. Holy crap!:rofl:

[crispini]

84. You can copy them all and cut and paste into Excel to count them.

Not that I've done that, mind you. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: :rofl:

[cwydro]

100. I love people who are good with computers!

That's a hoot!:rofl:

[The Backlash Cometh]

160. Well, if they're into retaliating crony networks, exactly why are they opposed to

Bush's NSA programs?

[Renew Deal]

61. That's the point.

For some reason Skinner has been on this thing where he wants to publicly embarrass DUers that don't fall in line. He's been saying it for a couple of years. He wants "people to know they're not liked." DU is a business. That's not a great way to treat your customers.

[EarlG]

70. Not quite

We think that it is not a bad idea for people to take some personal responsibility for their own behavior. Many forums have rating systems, an idea that was turned down by DUers when we suggested it some time ago. One of the ideas behind this function was that it would give people some feedback on how they are viewed by others.

[Maven]

90. So instead of encouraging people to settle disputes privately,

we make their negativity public and encourage it to spread?

You assume that using block lists will encourage "personal responsibility" as though the block-ers will be fair-minded dispensers of internet justice and not people with hurt feelings, out on a vendetta. This is the major flaw in the reasoning behind this feature.

[Jamastiene]

237. Well said. n/t

[JuniperLea]

64. Block wars and public floggings

I have no issue with the block function. I think it's a good idea. What bothers me is the public flogging aspect.

[crispini]

89. Hey! Some people pay good money for that!

:spank::evilgrin::rofl:

[JuniperLea]

99. Doh! The new DU fundraiser begins!!

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHHA!

Good one!

[endarkenment]

149. block lists are offensive.

ignore is defensive.

[GOTV]

289. No, it's exactly what I would want....

... If I'm participating in a thread with several posters and suddenly the OP doesn't like what I said and blocks me, I don't want to disappear invisibly. I want the other thread participants to know why I've suddenly stopped talking to them. It would be more embarrassing the think they have the impression that I ran away, or ignored them.

This way they can check the OP's blocked list and see that I'm no longer able to respond.

If I think I was behaving responsibly, and everyone could see that, my appearance in the OP's block list would be an embarrassment to the OP perhaps, but not to me.

[Poll_Blind]

37. What about I/P forum where you can't even start a thread w/out it...

...being a new article? I know you went out of your way to specify LBN, but I just wanted to make sure.

Thanks!

PB

[izzybeans]

44. I thought I snapshot of the block lists would be an interesting foil to some of the concern

I was interested in all the discussion about the ins and outs and dos and don'ts of the block list. So I took a snapshot of one page at a moment in time in GD and counted all the block-lists, the number of OPs (each poster counted once) and the number of posters on their block list.

Rather than a DU divided I found that out of 69 posters starting a thread on page one, only five had a block list. This added up to a grand total of nine total blocked from participating in the thread. One of these posters had expressed that there was a miscommunication on his blocking and was going to remove it when the time frame expired. I have one person on my list, so I suppose you can interchange my blockee with this mistaken one and assume that very few people are getting blocked. I am in the minority.

This is only a snapshot and in no way reflects a representative sample of DU, but it was telling of a given moment on DU. I'm sure the admins could publish the true number with it all broken down. I think that would answer some of the concerns of those who feel that DU has somehow been torn apart by this minor change. I suppose the personal squabbles will remain.

Anyway Merry Fitzmas...this is still a good day.

P.S. this took about five minutes.

[EarlG]

47. I've been doing that too

This morning in GD, 75 of 80 threads on the first page were started by members with no block lists.

[izzybeans]

52. I suppose then the range would be around 3 to 8 or so at any given time

on GD page 1 (I guess). I think you might do yourself a favor and publish some version of your stats. in a sticky thread or something. On edit: It could be called the civility ratio or something, and published like a ticking clock or the "OSHA Days without a Jobsite Accident" calender on a header or something.

[jarab]

94. Today's the worst of days to statistically analyze ...

All eyes are on the OPs. Many may be trying to avoid embarrassment - or are yet unsure about how they're going to use this function.
In a few days - when this function's spotlight is removed and when a brand new Clark/whomever war commences - is when an analysis might be more valuable.
JMO. I hope it works out as intended.

...O...

[izzybeans]

101. True.

That is a good point. I was just in between tasks and killing time and thought a ground floor snapshot would be interesting.

If the average reduces then that is a good thing, but I suppose it will fluctuate with the context. Primary season is just around the corner.

I do think that creating some type of index that shows the ratio of the blocked would be interesting and useful. Perhaps it could be used in place of the blocklist. It could be a barometer for DU as a whole and not individual posters. Someone could look at the index number and say, shit things are heating up in there. I know it would prepare me for the heated exchanges that take place. I could say "the civilityometer is high today, I'll chalk this up to the wave of emotion on this subject." And then maybe post something with more substance than snarkiness. I tend to get snarky, myself.

it's good to know the weather.

[Pithlet]

92. The concentration would probably be a bit higher in the smaller, slower forums.

Especially the ones where the issues are fairly polarized. Plus, I think some blockers may be a bit shy about starting OPs right now, especially in the main threads , as the list just went public.

[Pithlet]

62. I wonder if we could see the lists on all posts and not just OPs

the number would go up. I can see some people who are blocking laying low and not starting any threads right now, because everyone knows that the minute this went public, people were going to start scoping the OPs to look at blocked lists.

For me personally, it's irrelevant. I'm against this feature in principle, so it doesn't matter to me if only on person is using it. I'm relieved that so far I haven't seen my name, yet. I bet there are some hurt feelings happening right now.

[Lerkfish]

50. thanks, it was very enlightening. the ONLY person I've blocked has blocked

me back, which I think is exactly what was envisioned.

[lies and propaganda]

51. i feel like this is going to cause some issues.

We will be basically pointing out who doesnt like who on here. It seems like it could get almost clique-ish when people start figuring out wo is cool with who.

I wont be using this fucntion, im one of those thick skinned duers so im okay.

[emulatorloo]

56. kick n/t

[piedmont]

57. Fourth rule of Block Club is... Don't talk about Block Club

Wonderful. Let's stifle discussion of discussion-stifling.

[quinnox]

66. I like it

I got tired of all those threads "So and so blocked me! I am so furious/angry/depressed/infuriated! How could they do this to me?" "They must be monsters"

[EarlG]

74. Just because we don't want a million threads on this,

it doesn't mean that you've been stifled. In fact, you just gave your opinion in this thread.

[piedmont]

86. And when this thread eventually dies, will we still be allowed to discuss the block feature?

I just don't see why it's necessary to mess with the nature of DU by shutting down threads on this topic. What other topics elicit this overt meddling by the admins?

[EFerrari]

148. How are the admins meddling with their own property?

:crazy:

[piedmont]

190. Sure it's Skinner's "property," but it's still meddling.

There's no harm in having an open discussion about this controversial feature (do I really need to argue that point?). Restricting that discussion amounts to an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. Why do it?

[woo me with science]

231. I was especially dismayed that the thread with the poll got locked.

I think a poll could be very illustrative here.





edited to write "locked" instead of "blocked" LOL

[EFerrari]

250. We are having an open discussion, aren't we?

And yes, I can see restricting the topic to official threads because it shades off into Land o Many Troubles. But, that's just my opinion.

[Irreverend IX]

58. I think it's time...

To admit that this feature was a mistake and withdraw it. I can't think of a better way to quash intelligent debates. Any post on a controversial topic will be nothing but a circlejerk for people who agree with the OP. Next time a circumcision story gets posted, the GD topics list will start looking like:

No crew cut for my little soldier!
Shear every schlong for great justice!
No crew cut for my little soldier!
Shear every schlong for great justice!
No crew cut for my little soldier!
Shear every schlong for great justice!
No crew cut for my little soldier!
Shear every schlong for great justice!

...etc.

[EarlG]

77. I can understand why people don't want this function

But I'm not sure I'm buying into this circle-jerk theory, at least not yet. So far we're not seeing that happening.

[woo me with science]

229. What you see isn't the whole story, though.

You have no way of knowing what ideas someone ISN'T posting because they don't feel like getting zapped into oblivion.

This whole thing has a chilling effect on free and open discussion.

[Kingshakabobo]

297. Take a look at post # 255 that just earned me a block.

The poster I was responding to now has just about all the non-mihopers that frequent the 911 forum on block.

Somehow, I managed to make it through 2.5 years on DU without much friction and controversy but, thanks to your new system, I am on the block list of a semi-organized group that has made their intentions known that they wish to turn the 9/11 "forum" in to an "un-challenged discussion group."



Here are some selected quotes from another thread I posted in. Items in parentheses are my comments:

I've ended up on 'block' lists of people I've never heard of or had any interaction with.



For example(link available to a mod on request ...some of these have been deleted):

This conversation took place on the first day of blocking....Note: #2 is now tombstoned.

Poster 1: "remember what we talked about in that PM?"

Poster 2: "Yes, I'm on it"

Poster 1: "excellent!"


Poster 1 and 2 went through the threads and 'blocked' several people.



Here are some quotes. Threats seemed to be the order of the day.



"Oh, and special thanks to xxx who conveniently gathered all the names together in one place."
"I'm genuinely grateful that you have saved me some work. Not all - just some."........(..This was in reference to an unrelated thread where one poster spelled out the names of Non-Mihop/Lihopers in the thread. The quoted poster stated his intent to use the feature to block all non-LIHOP/MIHOPers on "the list."



"I would really like to see this forum become the "safe haven" that you speak of." (me:safe haven from what? Debate? Discussion?)



"And BONUS make it easier for those unfamiliar with 9/11 research to ask some basic questions without getting attacked or bombarded with talking points."



"I suspect that your run on this forum as a heckler is coming to an end, because you are probably going to be on many DUers ignore list." (several threats like this)



"because I'm pretty sure that in the near future, this forum is going to self-segregate by virtue of the new ignore function, and I doubt I'll be reading much more of what you believe."(more threats)



"When all the dust settles, I am hoping for a calmer and more informative experience in the 9/11 forum."(ah peace and tranquility on DU, At last!)



"It has the potential of completely changing the dynamic of this forum, I think, in a useful direction." (is THAT what the intent was? To completely change the dynamic of the forums?)



"what a crock" is not a rational argument welcome to my ignore list!"(seriously, that was the 'blockable' offense......from one of the more prolific blockers....actually the person who just blocked me)



"I am looking forward to using the ignore button generously."( funny how you didn't NEED it until you it enabled you to shut others down)



"For once, perhaps, discussion will be able to "build up" (build up? Oh, you mean unchallenged "discussion")

[crispini]

299. Oh, ugh.

I have to admit, I have never been in the 9/11 forum, and you're not making me any more interested in going there. Sounds like the crazy aunt in the basement, on steroids.

[ProfessorGAC]

322. Hold On There, Earl

You must be kidding. You're basing that conclusion over this limited data set and time? Well you made this decision on what was an awfully small dataset, so perhaps that's your way.

You are doing backflips to justify this decision to employ this iatotropic cure. The problem was not profound enough to apply this strong a "solution". The admins have to be able to look into a mirror and admit that you were fished in by a small, vocal minority of whiners.

There are dozens, no hundreds, of LONG time posters with stars after their names for YEARS who loathe this new idea. That, in an of itself, constitutes a FAR greater dataset than that upon which you have rejected the circle jerk theory. So, which is it? Can we draw conclusions on limited information but not on even bigger sets of it? If a little info is enough, more should be better.

Last point: With the consternation this "experiment" has caused, and the continual attempts to rationalize it, i reminded of someone else who doesn't much care what the people think. He's a pretty unpopular guy on DU. After all, this is DEMOCRATIC underground, is it not?
GAC

[crispini]

91. .... for great justice...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[trumad]

60. 5 years in and I gotta say....

that you guys (Admins) are 1 for oh---1000. 1000 meaning great ideas... 1 meaning---this is the stupidest idea ever.

[Tom Joad]

63. Thanks. I appreciate that the moderators have been instructed to remove posts

which call out members and attack them simply for the use of the block function.

It is my hope that this is vigorously enforced.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

68. I still don't really understand the purpose of the block lists.

Can you explain why this was thought to be necessary? I don't even understand the basic premise behind it.

[EFerrari]

72. Transparency? So you can see who is being excluded from a discussion?

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

79. Perhaps...

But really, is that important enough to outweigh the negative aspects of the public spectacle created?

I guess I can see your point and all, but I just don't see how having a public blacklist does anything more than piss more people off.

[EFerrari]

83. I'm not a fan of this feature, Vash. Have decided not to use it.

It's already sort of distracting.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

93. Unfortunately, I think I'm going to join you.

I rather liked the idea of blocking responses. So often, I have someone on ignore, but they still respond to my threads. Of course, their comments go without response, which seems awkward to me. I'd rather avoid that situation from the start.

However, I really don't want to be publicly displaying my list either. It's part my fault that I can't get along with them and I know it. But I also know that carrying out battles or constantly reading remarks that will make me cringe does nothing good for myself or the community.

Blah. :-(

[EFerrari]

96. It's a negotiation, for sure. But when is dealing with people not

a negotiation.

I like using "ignore" to time out when things start to get dicey. That's enough for me, anyway. On the other hand, I don't start many threads so it probably doesn't matter very much in the grander scheme of things. :)

[GOTV]

127. It indicates which threads have been censored....

... without it I don't know when I'm reading a thread whether I'm reading a thread where viewpoints may have been eliminated.

Also I might not want to bother to start participating in a thread where I disagree with the OP if the OP seems to have a twichy blocking finger.

[EFerrari]

71. Well, I tried using this function for one week and, I decided to clear out

my list before they went public because it's partly on me if I don't get along with some DUers and I can't block myself. :silly:


Besides the censorship aspect of blocking people out of a thread, I was also thinking about several discussions that started out sort of confrontational and developed into real conversations and then, friendships. :shrug:

I hope this works out the way you want it to work.

[troubleinwinter]

115. I had a real knock-down, drag out,

serious spittin' & clawin' fight with a DUer once. It took a coupla days. By the time we were done, we were pals. We are good friends a year or so later. We hadn't known one another before, but we each made a friend.

I don't have anyone on ignore or block (never have, though I came close to one ignore once). In my experience, those that I WOULD put on ignore, generally get tombstoned sooner or later anyway.

I DO wonder about the person who posts BOGUS information and has twenty-five people on 'block'. I cannot think he has 25 'stalkers' or 'harrassers'... he simply does not like his bogus shit challenged by those who prefer truth and accuracy.

[EFerrari]

132. I mostly use ignore to help me keep my big trap shut when it should be.

And, yeah, most of the time, those guys are gone soon, any way but, I like that feature because it helps cool things down when they get crazy.

There's something here about giving too much attention to negativity and about codifying what are usually fleeting contretemps. If you block me and I don't know why, I can't really go on to figure out what happened and make amends if that's appropriate, can I? But I trust the admins to work it out.

[Puglover]

73. Sorry but

lame lame lame lame. More rules for a bunch of nonsense. Someone said it best when they coined this as a bunch of technoes trying to solve a problem that the mods should be dealing with.

As I said in a previous post, in the 4 years I've been with DU for 4 years and have ALWAYS been impressed with the admins brilliant site and administration of it. I guess they can't always bat 1000.

:(

[LoZoccolo]

75. Thank you for posting #2 and #3! Hooray for blocking!

Blocking is good. And now I can see if I'm the biggest blockhead.

[High Plains]

243. No argument there.

I look for people who block the most people. Then I know who is too intolerant and narrow-minded to be worth listening to.

edit: to add a missing word

[patrice]

76. The lowest common denominator will become the operative factor.

I can see where blocking is the right thing for certain kinds of posters, but on average it probably won't be used for that, but rather for petty BS instead, making this a much smaller place than it used to be.

Why was it considered necessary? Who requested it? What for? Is it just to end the necessity of having to ban certain seriously disruptive posters?

[EarlG]

80. Have you read the original threads on this?

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

87. Yeah, but they don't address this last part about the block lists.

[patrice]

95. My experience is that someone can say untrue things about you

and block you from replying. Starting another thread doesn't work, because everyone in the lying thread will not necessarily read the alternative.

[JackBeck]

109. I have to say I've had a similar experience.

[LostinVA]

145. Yup

[ReadTomPaine]

97. Brilliant addition to a wonderful function.

I'm fully behind the block feature and this addition. Great idea, well executed. It really does improve the DU experience.

[Poll_Blind]

98. What about I/P forum where you can't even start a thread w/out it...

...being a new article? I know you went out of your way to specify LBN, but I just wanted to make sure.

Thanks!

PB

[woo me with science]

102. It is a bad solution to a problem that isn't really a problem.

This feature goes well beyond supporting people's right to choose not to engage in certain interactions. It suggests that they have a right to control others in order not be bothered by the very PRESENCE of ideas they dislike.

As participants here, we all have the option of reading or not reading posts directed to us. If someone is harassing you, you do not have to open their posts, or pay any attention to them at all. Problem solved. I think you are seeing the word "childish" not to name-call or insult, but to point out strongly that, as adults, we ALREADY have complete control over what we choose to read and respond to. This feature is not needed for someone who exercises this sort of control.

As others have already stated many times, what is offensive about this new feature is that a single person is been given the power not only to control their OWN experience at DU, but the experience of multiple others.

DU functions like big, wonderful gathering place for generally like-minded people. Imagine going to a party of Democrats where a bunch of conversations are being held. You can always choose not to listen to certain people or pay attention to what they are saying. But you do NOT have the option of saying, "I, personally, decree that this one person must leave this conversation. Not only can't they talk to me, they also can't talk to anyone else in this conversation from now on." If you DO behave like that at the party, people will look at you funny.

Most of all, I simply don't understand the need for this, when every one among us already has the power and the freedom to select which posts we open and which we do not. This new feature creeps very close to saying that we all have the right to be spared the very presence of ideas we don't like, and to inflict our preferences on others. It does not feel Democratic at all.

I hope the administration reconsiders. I think you are making a serious mistake, to the detriment of DU as a whole.

[patrice]

108. I'm pretty disappointed in DU now. This is exactly the OPPOSITE

of what I valued in the DU.

I agree with you, when I see a name in My DU that is someone trying just to fight, I don't even read their post.

"we all have the freedom to not be offended by the very presence of someone else's ideas. It does not feel Democratic to me at all." Exactly. This is what enemies of Free Speech do.

[crispini]

103. Well. That was extremely amusing.

Somehow, though, I have a feeling that all of this will blow over, especially if you quit tweaking it and leave it low for awhile and let people forget about it. Now that it's all in the open, we'll all have our little drama moment and then go on. I didn't think this was a good idea, but now I do, because now there's no point in posting about this stuff-- it just IS, and everyone can see if somebody is keeping people from talking back or not.

As my gramma always used to say, This, too, will pass.

140, though, jeez. I laughed my ass off at that one.

[EFerrari]

107. I was remembering today that when I first starting talking to one of

my favorite DUers, we went at it with a vengeance. LOL. By the end of that thread, we were both rethinking an assumption here and an assumption there. This whole blocking of things you don't like isn't conducive to moments like that. Maybe we'll all just get used to it but it sure feels like overreaction to something although I don't know what.

[crispini]

110. I think we'll get used to it.

The same thing can happen, just slower and more roundabout. OMC and I blocked each other through a misunderstanding and have chatted via an intermediary and are going to take each other off our mutual lists at the end of the week. I think people will use it in a more discriminating manner now that the contents of the list are public. Maybe. :P

[seabeyond]

155. i am ready to move on too. but sfex, i am seeing over the days, many many

are still going to go at it with vengeance and not a care in the world, because i would say that most of us can handle those discussions. what i did like seeing when the block first came out, not a lot of the threads started were started by people with blocks. and the ones i did look at their list, 3 or 4, all had only one person on.

so... i am doing like crispini now that there is a place we can check to see who is being left out of conversation, i am going to hope this all dies down and doesnt become a big deal. in a way i am seeing it as informative too.

[EFerrari]

156. That's true. We'll learn something from this.

I just hope it doesn't hurt, lol.

:)

[GOTV]

133. Sure, eventually we'll all stop talking about it - that doesn't make it a good idea though....

.... it just means we all know that the decision is the DU admin's to make.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

171. Are you kidding about the 140 ppl blocked?

It seems that a poster with that many people blocked would be like the old Maytag repairman commercials. Lonely.

[LostinVA]

286. Nope

And it is a rather... eclectic list. No real rhyme and reason to it!

[piedmont]

111. And now the block lists have vanished...

poof!

[patrice]

116. ???

What's going on please?

[Catherine Vincent]

112. I don't care for the block feature but I love that you can see who is blocked.

:evilgrin:

[trumad]

118. God I'm an idiot...

I still haven't figured out where the list is...

[Catherine Vincent]

124. You can only view the list from a thread starter.

If it doesn't say "view block list" at the bottom of the original post, then there is no block list.

[greyl]

125. It appears to be "off" at the moment. nt

[Catherine Vincent]

131. Not for me...

[Pithlet]

135. It is for me, too.

Weird.

[pecwae]

153. On a few hours ago

It's gone for me now as well.

[trumad]

128. Oh,,gotcha

[Marie26]

117. Well, now they're not.

What's going on here?

[mtnester]

126. I saw that, wonder if we are going to Level 1 alert due to upcoming SOTU

??

[greyl]

130. It's on in some smaller forums, but not GD as far as I can tell. ? edit:

Or, maybe the "no block list" null link is gone?

[aikoaiko]

119. anyone have an example thread with blocks

I looked a little but didn't see any.

[greyl]

123. Here's one, for when it's turned back on: edit: nevermind, maybe it isn't off. nt

[Rex]

129. I think this will slide into a civil war between some groups.

IMO, from what I've seen here over the years. But what ever will be, will be.

[MadHound]

140. Chalk up another one who wishes this new feature would be withdrawn

Somehow, for a democratic discussion board, this new feature discourages both democracy and discussion. I have the feeling that this will lessen DU overall, as people withdraw into ever smaller exclusive cliques.

Hopefully the admins will realize this is a mistake and get rid of it.

[Ann Arbor Dem]

141. This rubbernecker/lurker has to say....

This has been one of the most entertaining days on DU ever. :rofl:

[AlCzervik]

143. wait until tonight when the traffic picks up.

:D

[LostinVA]

144. It's frigging insane, you KNOW it is

[Ann Arbor Dem]

209. Hell yeah!

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

213. hehehehehe

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

146. Hitler.

:hide:

:rofl:

[Critters2]

168. That was quick. Not that I didn't see it coming. nt

[Ann Arbor Dem]

208. Now you've gone and done it!

Godwin's law has been invoked. :yoiks:

[Name removed]

142. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Taxloss]

152. These lists are fascinating.

It's strangely compelling to find out which DUers other DUers don't have time for. My DU experience is greatly enhanced.

But, EarlG, where's YOUR list?

[sufrommich]

154. Has it been junked?

Or am I just too dense to find it?

[seabeyond]

157. i am not seeing it either. assuming it is being tweaked. n/t

[notadmblnd]

159. I looked at the one person on all of DU who has me on their blocked list...

and I have to say; that I'm proud to be amongst the DU'ers that this person has blocked. As god as my witness, I will wear this Scarlet Letter proudly.

Just my small attempt at humor.

[seabeyond]

162. lol lol. i dont know about te person that blocked me, or if i am on the list you saw

but.... if i hadnt been block this one time that i know about i would not be in any of these threads with a clue of what the issue was. i had no interest in the feature. not until i was blocked. and i assure you, i feel no shame even in reflection, that i was blocked.

[blonndee]

163. You are indeed in good company!

I don't know that many people here, really, but I recognized a lot of friendly names on that 100-plus long list. :hi:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

169. I believe we are on the same list. It was HUGE.

and Frankly, I feel the same way. As to that one post with 30+ blocked names, I recognized many people whose opinions I truly enjoy and look forward to. Catwoman, yours, and others. The thing is, I don't even recognize the poster who has us blocked. and that is funniest of all.

I don't intend to block anyone, anytime. If I disagree with someone, perhaps I can learn from them. Or, they may even convince me of the error of my ways. What I don't like is ignorance, especially when it involves me.

[TahitiNut]

194. It's an honor roll, ma'am ... some of my very favorite people ..

... virtually all with smarts, humor, and good reasoning skills. Diverse, too.

[uppityperson]

236. Me too, quite an interesting list.

I wonder why, but can't pm to ask.

[question everything]

167. Still problems with how blocked people can react

in the early threads, we were told that one can always start a new thread saying what one wants to say in an original thread, but was blocked.

Yet, we have the LBN and the I/P where the rules of starting a new topic are very strict: posting only news that have been published in the media.

And if a comment that would be blocked on the LBN can be used to start a new thread on GD, or GDP, one cannot do so on the I/P.

(I don't know that I am blocked anywhere, I certainly am not going to block anyone; I don't even have an "ignore" list and I have no idea whether I am on anyone's).

[JuniperLea]

172. GOOD LORD!!!

Ms. Clio
Postman
Karenina
IndianaGreen
greenman3610
regnaD kciN
CatWoman
lumpy
opihimoimoi
ikojo
ProfessorGAC
KG
donsu
Hubert Flottz
Larkspur
scarletwoman
Karmadillo
TahitiNut
Pigwidgeon
matcom
Mandate My Ass
ret5hd
snooper2
leftchick
pretzel4gore
chimpymustgo
JohnyCanuck
leftofthedial
MadHound
TheBorealAvenger
ugarte
mike_c
DoYouEverWonder
GreatCaesarsGhost
katty
Violet_Crumble
Tace
LeftHander
Juniperx
burythehatchet
newyorican
Gonnabuymeagun
tabasco
Poll_Blind
AntiFascist
jonnyblitz
Scurrilous
liberalhistorian
HereSince1628
devilgrrl
The Stranger
Spazito
rman
Dhalgren
WCGreen
notadmblnd
ShortnFiery
Ani Yun Wiya
bigtree
The_Casual_Observer
ThomWV
raysr
Sensitivity
acmejack
cal04
question everything
amBushed
whistle
umtalal
MsMagnificent
leveymg
TomInTib
Proud2BAmurkin
Hoping4Change
BreakForNews
lovuian
manic expression
TomClash
High Plains
kpete
warrens
proReality
Wiley50
ckramer
China_cat
Caoimhe
uppityperson
Donald Ian Rankin
Vinca
Warren Stupidity
magellan
Kralizec
Nothing Without Hope
Botany
Mojorabbit
no_to_war_economy
BuyingThyme
reichstag911
ellenfl
Chan790
alcibiades_mystery
bridgit
endarkenment
wakeme2008
PSPS
ksilvas
philb
TechBear_Seattle
KingFlorez
Mr_Jefferson_24
tocqueville
antifaschits
Tom Joad
tatertop
happydreams
951-Riverside
eFriendly
partylessinOhio
Bornaginhooligan
breakaleg
shergald


This is an actual block list! I kid you not!

I think someone with this level of blockedness needs to be tombstoned!


:rofl:

Hey, I didn't mention a name! ;)

[distantearlywarning]

174. Well....

One of those names I can understand. The other 106 seem a little excessive. :7

[JuniperLea]

176. Now you've gone too far!

I'm going to double-dog block your punk ass!


LOL!!!


:rofl:





Just kidding:) I have a virgin block list:) Don't make me pop THAT cherry! :rofl:

[distantearlywarning]

184. Come on, baby!

Give me a little block. You know you want to! :evilgrin:

[JuniperLea]

187. You tease!

:rofl:

[piedmont]

175. I demand to know why I'm not on that list!

some good company there.

[JuniperLea]

179. I agree!

I kept thinking, hey! I really like that person! Hey! Now that is a highly intelligent DUer right there! kpete? Are you series? That is hugh! kpete? She rules!!! Now I know that dumbass is a moran for sure!

Do something to piss that one off and join the clique! ;) We'll create a new chunk of real estate and call it "Blockville Heights"...

[Renew Deal]

202. I feel left out.

:evilgrin:

[notadmblnd]

257. Pm me if you want to know how I got on his list

nt

[ContraBass Black]

226. I feel left out.

[slackmaster]

177. That was the first one I found

121 names, and I'm not even on it!

[JuniperLea]

182. You just aren't trying hard enough...

I'm series... if kpete has made that list, that person is a 33 degree moran!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

178. kpete!? Why would anyone block them?

They are the best at posting information on DU, and they hardly ever post in a pre-existing thread.

[JuniperLea]

185. I know!

One of the most intelligent, sweetest, most knowledgeable, one of our very best contributors!

Consider the source I guess... what a moran... and I hope he recognizes his own damn list! I'm series!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

197. And how often do you see kpete posting in a thread she didn't start?

Almost never, unless it's an appreciation thread then she's just being polite and acknowledging the praise.

There's no reason to block kpete from replying because she doesn't do replies to other peoples threads. No doubt because she devotes so much time to keeping us informed. It's just seems senseless to put her on block. :shrug:

[JuniperLea]

201. Don't try to understand a moran

I'm series. It will only drive you mad.

kpete is about the sweetest around. Like I said, I consider myself to be in good company on that list! Badge of honor! I would have never even considered putting myself on any kind of list where kpete's name appears. Shocking.

[Garbo 2004]

214. kpete is a one person news service. Blocking her is like blocking LBN. Good Grief. n/t

[TahitiNut]

186. Yep. aka "DimWit" ... (I kid you not) It looks more like an honor roll to me.

:rofl: I gotta wonder why that person is even here.

[JuniperLea]

188. So THAT is who DimWit is!

:rofl:

Oh God! My sides are splitting here!

Honor roll, indeed. I'm still reeling over kpete being on that list! Honestly! The level of stupidity is mind-boggling!

Yeah, when you block the best, why are you here? Very good question! I'd ask DimWit, but I've been blocked!!!


:rofl:

[TahitiNut]

191. Stunning, isn't it? ProfessorGAC, of all people - and kpete.

It's unfreakingreal.

[JuniperLea]

196. My jaw is still hanging over kpete!

Let's wear this as a badge of honor, shall we? I'm proud to be sharing that list with you and kpete, TahitiNut!

:hug:

[Catherine Vincent]

192. LOL!

Please send me a pm and give me a hint! :P

[JuniperLea]

193. And no howardx

He will be crushed~!


:rofl:

[Ann Arbor Dem]

206. karenina?

How odd. I've never seen a post from her that could be considered block-worthy.

[in_cog_ni_to]

211. kpete? is on there!

*sigh* How sad.:(

[BurtWorm]

240. Real quality experience of DU that one must have,.

:wtf:

[BuyingThyme]

241. Wow, I'm happy to be on THAT list.

I guess Thomas Jefferson doesn't have an account.

[Warren Stupidity]

258. Wow and I like everyone on that list!

What a coinkydink!

I know that list and I stupidly counter blocked that person, but as soon as my block expires, I will undo it. I think the resolution to the blocking blowback is perfectly correct. The admins have noted the criticisms made here over the last few days, and taken an excellent action to correct the problem.

[LoZoccolo]

263. That's cool, there have been some real hammerheaded posts from members of that list.

Hey I didn't mention a name either!

Trust me, the people who are whining the most about this are the people who already know how obnoxious they are because no one likes being around them in real life, and now that reality is creeping in here.

[Violet_Crumble]

271. Boy, that block list is longer than the Chinese Wall!

Any takers on how long it'll take to hit 500 DUers? I'll put my money on mid-next month :)

[Ms. Clio]

287. I'm #1!!!!

I could not be more proud.

[slackmaster]

173. SUGGESTION: Display blocked list in alphabetical order

Great feature otherwise.

[slackmaster]

181. I blocked a tombstoned user who doesn't appear in the member list

I had to go back to a thread before he was booted to find one of his posts.

It felt good. Now I need to start a thread to see if he shows up in the block list. :D

[Dorian Gray]

189. Question

I actually have two questions....

1) Can mods (or admins) block? I suspect that they can not, but I was curious about that.

and

2) Will there be any ramifications for someone who overuses the block feature? Seriously.... I suspect that there are people who will use it completely unfairly and heavy handedly. I know that it shouldn't matter to me, as I'm somebody who most likely will never use the feature myself, but I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that voices might be blocked from fairly debating certain topics.

The more I think about this feature (both the original block feature, and now the updated listing of who is blocked feature), I truly feel uncomfortable with it.

My 2 cents, in the proper forum, I hope. :)

[The Stranger]

200. There is a thread by a poster now on the board with at least 50+ posters blocked.

Democratic Underground has been transformed into his own personal blog, and no one else can even comment.

[crispini]

205. See how many people are posting in his thread, though?

It hasn't exactly taken off like a house afire.

[ProfessorGAC]

290. How Convenient!

Isn't that ridiculous? FIFTY blocked posters?
The Professor

[MonkeyFunk]

203. Fun feature!

thanks!

A sort of "reverse lookup" would be nice, too. Click on a user and find out who's got him/her blocked.

[crispini]

207. Ho ho ho!

:think: That would be mindblowing for some.....

[Catherine Vincent]

212. I'd like that too.

:)

[ContraBass Black]

225. I'd like to see who's blocking me.

[woo me with science]

204. You know what this new feature reminds me of? That Twilight Zone episode...

where that little boy in a small town had supernatural powers, and everyone in the town had to agree with him and praise everything he said, or they risked being zapped into oblivion?

This is my emotional response to this new feature. Note that I am not calling any actual DU-er childish. I am merely reporting what the new feature reminds me of.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

272. Where Billy Mummy sends people off to the cornfield

Maybe instead of calling it the blocked list, it could be called the "cornfield".

If this feature took off in a bad way, it would become the equivalent of the cafeteria in junior high with certain people only sitting with certain other people : the cheerleader table, the jock table, the drama table, the fetal pig club table.

[Kerrytravelers]

344. The Simpson's did that in a Treehouse of terror halloween episode once!

Bart was the kid with magical powers. It was great!

[Garbo 2004]

210. At the very least, it's an interesting experiment to see what people can/will do when they have a

little bit of power impacting others.

The block function goes well beyond ignore and prevents blocked posters from responding and also participating in a thread started by the blocker. There are claims that some posters are using the block function primarily to prohibit relevant alternative views/information from being presented in a thread. (I say "claims" only because I myself haven't really paid attention or checked out a certain forum/group where that is said to be going on.)

It would be interesting to see though if some of the posters alleged to be using the block function to censor dissent and contrary views are also among those those who have in the past raised hell about "censorship" and stifling of their views when they've been subject to mods/admin's actions and/or the rules of the board.

Since the block function allows blockers to not only somewhat control/determine their DU experience but also mine and others when we read threads from which people have been blocked, I do think disclosure of at least an OP's block list as we now have should be part of the deal. Perhaps every poster's block list should be available in a thread also to see who can't respond?

I can see a case where an OP may feel and may indeed be "objectively" justified in blocking someone who's really disrupting/hijacking a thread to the detriment of the discussion. On the other hand in another case, one person's "disruptor" may be another person's "truth teller."

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

:popcorn:

[Marie26]

247. It is an interesting

sociological experiment. What will people do w/the power to silence dissent? :popcorn: In this virtual DU-land, I think we can get a real sense of how people can use and abuse power.

[Lex]

216. Where'd it go?

What happened?

:shrug:

[piedmont]

217. Apparently it now only shows up if there is a block list

earlier, it said "no block list" if there wasn't a list. Now it doesn't say anything is there's no list.

[Lex]

218. Ahhhh.

Thank you, piedmont.

The whole thing is quite the saga.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

220. Question...

could you add to this feature the date of when said person was added to the list?

[piedmont]

222. ooh, good one. It would provide some context as to why one appears on the list.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

224. I was thinking more...

along the lines of whether or not the seven days are up. There are goofballs in the lounge blocking people just for the sake of shits and giggles.

[piedmont]

230. ah, The Lounge. That's a weird place.

[Deja Q]

248. I'm not blocking anybody...

And obviously others aren't.

I think people go into GD, get flamed beyond reality, and block away...

Well, to an extent. As there are means there are always people who will misuse them.

[KitchenWitch]

228. Can this thread be pinned?

Thanks!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

232. Say, what happens if I block myself, esp. after saying something stupid?

does that mean I can't respond to myself?

[BuyingThyme]

242. Malkovich, Malkovich

[swimboy]

339. !

:thumbsup:

[Deja Q]

239. Aren't personal attacks a reason for using the block feature?

I dunno; I know I'd rather not have to use it, but since their inception, my impression is it's only increased personal attacks. And I'd only use it to block the worst of those who like to engage in petty personal attacks at almost every opportunity (and even then I still haven't because the I disagree with the concept)... and if I did I know they'd find more ways to make personal attacks and still get away with it.

If I have to use it, I must. But I am compelled to contest point #2. People who personally attack others or incite disruptive behavior wouldn't stop if they were blocked and personal attacks seem to be allowed here, and plenty of other people have said or suggested the same thing.

I don't often speak up, but this blocking thing is truly a bad idea and has only seemed to have caused more harm than good. :( Which is ironic, the rules state personal attacks aren't allowed yet the blocking feature was designed to stop personal attacks? As other have said, by blocking a person personal attacks have not stopped the trollers.

Just my two cents. Or 0.0154 Euros...

[conscious evolution]

245. I'm a Moran! I'm series!1!1!

How does one check to see who has been blocked?

[AlCzervik]

246. on the op next to alert or close to that it says "view blocked" or something

like that, it seems if the op has no one on there block list then there will be no link.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

253. You Will Only See The Link For The Blocked List If The OP Has Members Blocked.

If they don't, you won't see any link at all.

And I'm also quite pleased to say that the overwhelming number of GD threads I've seen do not in fact have a blocked list, so it might take ya a bit to find one. :)

[conscious evolution]

275. It did take a while

But I finally found one with blocks.
It is good to see so few blocks.

[bridgit]

251. good! we complain so much about republicans not taking responsibility...

let us bear whatever brunt for our own snarkiness; hidden ignore and/or block lists reminds me too much of the faceless, anonymous 'citizens' in a lab experiment most likely to electrocute people when they know, or suspect their identity will not be revealed...some may even block me for having posted that, and to them i say,
"Go ahead; make my day."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

252. Hey Earl, Quick Question/Suggestion For Ya!

With the SOTU rapidly approaching, this thought just occurred to me. Now that we have the block feature, do you think it would be a good policy to implement amongst the admins/mods that whenever there is something of community wide interest, that the "Official (fill in the blank) Thread" be made up front by a mod or admin, so that everyone can reply?

Just a quick thought, because on nights like this and in threads like that almost everyone is on the same page and itchin to post their thoughts, and it would probably suck if an 'Official' thread got started by someone with a block list and others weren't able to reply, thereby causing the potential for multiple 'Official' threads.

I see the one tonight will not be a problem (based on the one started so far), but this is more of a generalized question going forward for other times these threads will be necessary and some may find themselves unable to participate.

Just figured I'd put it out there. :)

[BuyingThyme]

254. Didn't we use to have special forums for such events?

I seem to remember the GD switching over for those purposes.

[troubleinwinter]

261. Hey Earl, Suggestion For Ya!

Dump the nuclear block. Admit that it was a mistaken policy. Restore freedom of speech.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

262. Personally, I Think It's Going To Work Out Just Fine.

I think a lot of the dramatic outcry we're seeing is more knee-jerk reaction than anything else. I think in short time people will realize that DU is every bit as full of diverse topic and debate as it ever was and their minds will be eased.

In fact, it has already been 2 weeks and looking around not only are there very few threads with block lists, but there is already shown to be as much diversity of opinion and debate on such a wide range of topics as there has ever been.

[troubleinwinter]

264. Yes, I know you think it is fine.

I do not.

I saw an OP of BOGUS information that was nearly copied by an activist to her group, until she LUCKILY came across the opposing thread correcting the BS. The OP posting BOGUS crap has 24 people blocked so that his threads of BULLSHIT appear unchallenged.

Face it, people reading a thread are no more going to take the time to constantly check block lists than they check out peoples' profiles in every thread they read.

Yeah, I know you think the block is groovy, but I do not. At least we are talking, not blocking. Others....

[troubleinwinter]

265. Really, OMC

If you had seen the bogus info that was posted, and how far it has been spread because of the lack of challenge/correction due to the blocking, you'd be mighty concerned about the issue, too.

This isn't just junior high school stuff and hurt feelings. This is causing BOGUS crap to appear to be real. It hurts us.

YOU like challenging what you see as inaccurate. SOME stuff posted here truly matters. We must not let bogus misinformation/disinformation/lies to go unchallenged.

But we are now.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

266. I Agree To A Point, Theoretically. But Your Talking About One Thread Out Of Hundreds.

I also think you are underestimating DU'ers ability to realize these types of threads on their own, or also the ability for others to post threads countering the false premises, if they were blocked from doing so in the initial.

But I always find it good practice to not judge by exception. Though I think you bring up a valid concern, I also think that it is a concern only in a minuscule number of threads overall and not representative of how this block feature will impact DU. I know we may not see eye to eye on that, but I think this is a concept of which it is ok to disagree on.

I think it will have its moments of abuse, but I am confident overall that it will all work out ok. I guess we just have to keep an open mind and see if things get better or worse over the next few weeks.

[troubleinwinter]

269. Yes, we don't see eye to eye on this.

I have managed to live without it for 2-1/2 years. I don't need or want it. I have cited a very bad situation and we've only had it for a short bit. The tools that we have had in place seemed to have worked (with appropriate use of 'ignore' and 'alert').

Silencing appropriate discourse rubs me in a real bad way.

So we'll disagree on this (til I can bring ya 'round to my side).

And a good old fashioned OOGA BOOGA SMOOGA WOOGA to ya!

[omega minimo]

343. He just likes challenging

"YOU like challenging what you see as inaccurate."

[crispini]

301. Are you talking about a thread in a subforum?

You know, I suspect that people's experience of this block feature is going to be dramatically different if they mostly hang out in GD versus a topic-specific subforum. I can't really speak to the experience of the subforums, because I mostly hang out in the big ones, and I suspect that's why I don't have a problem with the feature at the moment. You raise a really good point, though, and I hope that TPTB recognize this -- it's a very different "thing" when you have two groups on the different sides of an issue, sort of cheek-to-check in one "clubhouse" focusing on that issue.

[troubleinwinter]

328. Yes, you understand correctly.

A subforum (including a number of knowlegeable and experienced activists) regarding an important issue.

[troubleinwinter]

333. Crispini, you make an excellent point.

The 'blocks' must have a stronger, more profound impact in the 'subforums' devoted to particular important issues.

[LostinVA]

277. I definitely second that -- keep the rest of it

But the Nuclear Block is working out how I knew it would.

[Skittles]

256. they are what they are

PERIOD - no one was ever forced to interract with anyone - the IGNORE function worked FINE. And any STALKER should be BANNED. I intensely dislike this blocking feature as I see it being used in the most petty fashion but thank you, I do appreciate at least for now having the block lists made public - I want to know who is cherry-picking their responses.

[LostinVA]

278. Agree with everything ypu said

[struggle4progress]

259. Thanx: this transparency may alleviate many of my concerns about NucularBlox

[tuvor]

267. Dumb question. Or, maybe not: What's the point of this feature?

What is the advantage of making these lists public?

[GOTV]

295. So you can know, in advance, that a thread has been censored before participating n/t

[corporatemedia]

270. Is it OK to call someone who abuses the block feature a BLOCKHEAD??? eom

[Cobalt Violet]

273. Are you the going be the judge? n/t

[nicknameless]

274. Some of the serial harassers are offended by the blocking feature.

That was unpredictable?

[LostinVA]

279. I see it more as some of the serial harassers abusing the block feature

More than the other way around.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

288. and some of the serial mis-informers are using this feature

I believe that this "feature" is being used in different ways by
different people.

The block feature is being used to protect mis-information
from being corrected, in some instances.

I have seen a person write and post an OP
that is factually incorrect.

The OP writer blocked 24 people so that they could not
post the correct information.

This meant that trusting folks believed the Op and began
circulating it around the internet, some even said they
would take it to their local officials. (embarrassing).

One of the blocked people posted a new op to provide
the correct information and the blocker came to this new
OP and posted his crap, while blocking 24 people from replying to him.

Crazy, huh?

Whats the likelihood that 24-25 people are harassing this one guy?

So, this feature has one very detrimental result, mis information
cannot be corrected where it begins, and can only be corrected
haphazardly.

Is it better to have to hope to catch these things and start
separate threads each time?

[Phillycat]

296. Heh.

Totally.

[JNelson6563]

280. I'm noticing a correlation

Some of the biggest assholes have the biggest block lists. Ironic.

:toast:

Julie

[Vinca]

281. This whole "blocking" thing is puzzling.

I don't think I'd ever use it. It seems unfair to block someone you don't want to hear from . . . kind of like the current occupant of the White House. If someone is exceptionally rude and nasty, the moderators step in. I don't get it.

[slackmaster]

302. I see it as a way of giving some moderation power to individuals

It should take some of that load off of the moderators.

I have only rarely used the Ignore feature. But there are a few DUers who have irritated me sufficiently with pointless, harassing responses, that I can see blocking them.

[NMDemDist2]

283. just a thought here, what if the OPs with block lists show up a different color

or have an icon next to them in the View list?

that way folks can decide whether they want to participate in a "Non Free Speech Zone" with a glance


just a thought and I have no idea if Elad can do it even, but I think it's a feature I'd use.

[Ms. Clio]

285. I think the Block feature is a very bad idea, especially for LBN

FWIW, I just want to register my objections to this new Block feature – it seems baffling and ill-considered and the reasoning behind it appears to rely on a number of assumptions about human behavior and message board dynamics that strike me as specious and quite likely to be proven wrong in the long term. It is especially wrong for LBN, and that really concerns me, since that forum is one of my major starting points for daily news.

I don't understand why ignore or perhaps mutual ignores are not sufficient to deal with any problems some perceive themselves to have with what is, after all, just a message board. I have used ignore quite successfully; perhaps because once I decide for myself that a person is a troll or an asshole, I feel absolutely no compulsion to see who "Ignored" is when he or she shows up in a thread or read a single solitary further word. Before my Ignore list was cleaned out, at least half were already tombstoned. I never lobbied to have any of them 'stoned; I probably never even alerted on most of them. But I didn't want to read their stupid shit, blow a gasket, and post something that would get me 'stoned instead. It has worked for me -- I've never had a single moderator warning in all the time I've been here. So yeah, I will ignore people, but that doesn't stop them from posting, or stop anyone else from hearing their inane or hateful babble. I have always left that decision to the PTB here, even when I don’t agree with them on occasion.

I think that because I came here from Usenet newsgroups, where there was a strong culture against starting lots of new threads, I have just never been one for starting threads of my own. And since I mostly come here to read the news and others' informative posts, rather than pontificate publicly at length or idly discuss every single thing that crosses my mind, I find myself mostly reacting to what is already here instead of starting my own threads. Perhaps because my previous forum experiences did not include the type of visual representation one sees of a thread here, I guess I am still baffled by the notion that anyone “owns” a thread or needs to exercise so much control over other peoples' responses to what may be an important story or topic completely unrelated to your petty little personal issues.

I’ve only seen myself on one block list so far (surely there must be more!), and was honored to be in such fine company. I was far more disgusted when I opened another block list that was just a couple of names, but one of them was someone whose contributions to a thread I always read, although I don’t know the person at all. I appreciate being able to see the block lists, however, because I will probably just hide most of the threads with block lists, and focus on the high-quality, non-blocked discussions, instead.

[distantearlywarning]

292. My prediction:

I think that a couple of things will eventually happen here.

1) First, a lot of the people who are up in arms about this feature are probably resistant to change in general - I've seen that in almost every group I've ever participated in. There's just a certain percentage of group members who will resist any kind of change, good or bad, and voice dire warnings about what will happen, and perceive their dire warnings coming true even when they aren't really (because they cherry pick the things they look at, which creates a biased view of reality in their own minds). However, eventually the change will start to seem like something familiar psychologically, and they will chill out about whatever it was. Later they will defend the now-changed practice as vehemently as they did the old one if somebody tries to make a different change. More dire prophecies about how DU will be changed irrevocably will be spoken. And still, life will go on with or without the "hate and fear change" people, and everything will be ok.

2) Second, a group norm will eventually be developed whereby it's socially acceptable to have up to 3-4 people on one's ignore list - having that many and no more will give the impression that the DUer in question is a reasonable person who is open to debate but is tired of having to put up with a few jerks who always disrupt his conversations (which may actually be true for many posters). Some DUers will build self-esteem by adopting a more puritan attitude of not having anyone on their block list, allowing them to feel smug about being a more nice/open-minded/fearless/whatever person than anyone else. (Yes, I'll probably get flamed by some "puritans" for that last statement - oh well. Some people can't handle truth.)

3) Third, some angry posters (the "I'll show them!" people) will ignore said above norm and use this feature block on absolutely everyone they don't agree with or who might have ever once said something they found offensive in any way, no matter how minor. This is the playground equivalent of refusing to let anyone play with you in the hope that they might notice you refusing to let them play with you and feel bad. Unfortunately for them, the end result will inevitably be that only the really thin-skinned DUers notice or care about their "great revenge", and they will end up standing alone in their corner of the playground throwing the ball by themselves. This will be no great loss for any of the other kids, who will still be playing ball with one another. Eventually the "I'll show them" people will either figure out that they are just shunning themselves and revise their poor attitude, or they will leave because talking to oneself isn't really fun. Either way DU improves.

4) Fourth, certain other posters (the "I think dissent = getting out the flamethrower at every possible opportunity" people) will end up on a lot of 3-4 person lists. This will effectively shut them out of a lot of different conversations. Since they get entertainment from ticking people off, DU will cease to be interesting and they will move on to other, unmoderated boards where they can flame unsuspecting victims to their heart's delight. They may also end up totally humiliated if the mods ever decide to post a list of the "most blocked". Again, no great loss for DU.

5) Due to the loss of 3 and 4, and judicious application of #2, DU will eventually become a more civil environment. Debate will still happen, some people will block others for revenge, but in general, the overall adult level of discourse will probably rise. The thin-skinned people will be happy that the flamers are gone. The "puritans" will feel even better about themselves for rising above/being enlightened after a lot of posters put 3-4 people on their block lists. The "hate and fear change" people will prophecy gloom and doom for a while until they get comfortable with the new stuff. And eventually this will just seem like the normal way things were always done around here.

[Pithlet]

303. Speaking for myself, that's not true at all.

I don't think it's true for a lot of the people I've seen arguing against this, either. This is a major change to how DU is run. There plenty of legitimate reasons to be against this. I've been a member of DU almost since the beginning, and there have been many changes. This is the first one I've ever been seriously opposed to. I don't just think it's a bad idea. I th ink it's wrong. I don't like it that other DUers can just block me and make areas of DU off limits. If someone starts an official thread to discuss a major event, like the SOTU last night, and they have me blocked, I can't participate. That's not right.

I can understand using the feature to block annoying or harassing posters, but I think many are just using it as bubble wrap protecting them from other viewpoints, and being able to see the lists of some confirms this for me. There are some names that pop up over and over and they're usually the ones that just don't play well with others. I also see a lot of names that make me wonder why the person blocked them. If this weren't such a big change, I'd agree with you. Most changes in the past haven't been such a fundamental change to how DU is run the way this one is. This is handing over power that was previously reserved for mods and admins.

[Skinner]

306. For the record, it is too early to say whether her prediction is "not true at all."

You may not like this function, as you have made clear. And yes, you do have legitimate reasons for being against it.

But the prediction by distantearlywarning could well turn out to be absolutely correct. I think anyone who takes a moment to think through this carefully would conclude that her prediction is, at very least, a plausible one. My own opinion is that her prediction is a much more likely outcome than the dire predictions that this will be the End Of Disagreement As We Know It on Democratic Underground.

Unfortunately, we may not get the opportunity to find out, because it seems that too many people are unwilling to even give the idea an honest try.

[Pithlet]

315. "Not true" wasn't referring to her prediction.

It was referring to her statement that people are against it merely because they don't like change. I'm not the kind of person that automatically bristles at change. It's not true for me, and I don't see how anyone can assume that it's true for most of the people who hate this idea, especially since there are legitimate arguments against it, whether a person likes the idea or not.

I'm not against it because of any fears of what it may or may not do for DU's overall quality. I'm against it in principle. I don't think it's right that people can be shut out of areas of DU without consensus from mods and admins, even if there may be some benefits. It's very existence is also a non-benefit, particularly for the people being shut out. The argument against that has been it's only one thread and the blocked person can always start their own. But some DUers are more prolific than others, and are read more than others. Starting another thread isn't a guarantee that people will read it or see it, particularly in the bigger, faster forums. It's shutting them out of the discussion. They may or may not have deserved it, but it's still a subtraction from the freedom and openness of discussion.

I always liked that aspect of DU, the freedom of discussion. The fact that people have this power in their hands means it's no longer so. I don't have to wait to see, it's the way it is right now. Someone was blocked out of the SOTU official threads last night. It was only one DUer, and they may or may not have wanted to participate anyway. It might not be a big deal to some people, but it is a big deal to me. I won't like this feature as long as it is a part of DU. It doesn't mean I hate DU now. But I think a bit of DU was lost the minute this feature went into effect, whether there's any benefit to it or not.

[Skinner]

319. To be fair: She did not say that all opponents were motivated by a dislike of change.

She said that "a lot" were "probably" resistant to change. My experience running this message board indicates that her claim is absolutely correct. Heck, some people screamed bloody murder when we got rid of our old crappy icons and replaced them with better-looking ones.

The bottom line is that your reasons for opposing this feature are irrelevant to whether her prediction could turn out to be correct. I happen to think she has probably nailed it, and time (if given the chance) would show that she was correct.

But as I said above, we may not get the chance to find out.

[Ms. Clio]

323. Please find any previous post from me in which I "resisted" a change

I don't believe it exists, because I usually don't have an opinion. I don't have an opinion about a lot of things, I don't Lounge Drama or PM with anyone (you also know that to be true).

I just don't understand what you think should happen with the feature, and how we should try it out. Mr. 150+ blocks posts a thread about a breaking news story. All 150 people add him to their block lists. But they still can't comment on that important story.

Please help me understand what I am missing, since I do feel as if you are talking about my post without responding to it directly.

[Skinner]

325. I am not talking about you. (nt)

[Ms. Clio]

327. could you respond to the question, anyway?

I just don't understand this -- I can see why it may be useful for the small forums, which are so polarized, but why the big forums?

[Pithlet]

324. I'm aware they're irrelevant. I wasn't arguing that her prediction was wrong.

I was outlining my objection not to try to prove that the prediction was wrong, but as an example of how the overall objection is a legitimate gripe. Sure, any time you make changes to the board, there will be people who gripe, because there are people who are resistant to any little change. Hell, there are people who just like to gripe. Bringing up that fact just seemed to me like an attempt to dismiss the concerns. I was arguing that I don't think that is the large part of why so many people are opposed to this. Sorry my post is so disjointed. My keyboard is crapping out on me.

[Pithlet]

329. I do want to support change that makes things better for DU

especially if they make the job easier for mods and admins, speaking as a sometimes mod who's been there. The only reason I'm against this particular one is I personally think it goes too far. I realize you guys did not intend to stifle discussion, and I hope in my strident arguments that I didn't come across as though I did. If it happens to help mods and admins, then that in itself isn't a bad thing.

[Ms. Clio]

316. It just seems that we have spent years being told "no personal attacks"

and that's what a block list looks and feels like to me.

It's just my opinion, not a prediction.

[mvd]

308. Hi, Pithlet!

I thought the new function was fine until it was decided to announce who was on block lists. People have been using it reflexively (as with the 2 that I've seen who are blocking me,) and when that is done, it really defeats the premise of an open message board. You have to have thick skin on discussion boards, but still, I think regular ignore suffices.

[Pithlet]

317. Hi, mvd!

:hi: I'm definitely a fan of the regular ignore :)

[Ms. Clio]

311. yes, I don't think I have ever before commented unfavorably on a change

And I have been here since the very beginning, too -- someone once posted that if you mouse over your profile, the number you see indicates how long you've been here -- I think mine indicates that I was member #1024, although I might very well be mistaken and no doubt an admin or anyone else can correct my misinformation (no blockies!)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

307. WORTH THE READ, agree or not. Thanks.

[Deja Q]

330. Generalize all you want.

Especially for point #1, you're wrong.

And many of those who have said there would be problems have been proven right.

Which is ironic...

[distantearlywarning]

337. Seeing problems...

See, "proof" is a funny thing. The human mind is built to notice what it already believes to be true. People who didn't like the old way are motivated right now to notice and remember all of the positive outcomes of the new system (myself included), while people who don't like the new way are motivated to notice and remember all of the negative outcomes about the new system. Yes, you've probably noticed some negative outcomes, and can probably list them all for us if we asked you. Other people have undoubtably noticed some positive ones. Unfortunately, neither one of these observations really amounts to a hill of beans in terms of reality, because we're all biased thinkers. It's nothing but anecdotal evidence, gathered by people who have an emotional share in the outcome. If you want real "proof", you'd have to run some statistics. At most, right now all you can discuss is your own opinion about the matter, which I have done, and others have done. Later on, after this has been in place a while, perhaps the mods can take a survey and ask people whether their experience on DU has been enhanced by this new system or not, or perhaps they could keep track of flame war frequency in various places, or the amount of posts that had to be removed, or something similar that would indicate whether this new system actually decreases incivility or not. Until then, none of us should be throwing around phrases like "proven right".

Also, it's not adequate to address an argument by saying, "As for such-and-such, you're wrong". Ok, great. Tell me HOW I'm wrong or WHY I'm wrong. Offer some evidence supporting your viewpoint or disproving mine. Explain. Debate. Don't just offer negative blanket statements with no discourse. (Sorry, but it's a huge pet peeve of mine when people do that here!)

[seabeyond]

294. i looked and didnt see the answer. what happened to the block lists.

has there been an explanation on why they were taken off and when they will come back? maybe i missed the information. appreciate it

[TornadoTN]

304. Maybe there was a lot of blocking going on?

Last night during the state of the union? :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[Skinner]

309. They haven't been taken off.

You don't see them because there aren't that many of them.

Click on a whole bunch of theads. Eventually you'll find one.

[seabeyond]

312. thank you skinner. started a thread and got the answer. they are hard to find

you are right

and congrats on the baby... nothing better

[Donald Ian Rankin]

305. Is there a way to discover which posters are blocking me?

I recently discovered by accident that one had. Is there an easy way to get a complete list of all the ones who are?

[seabeyond]

310. i am curious too n/t

[A-Schwarzenegger]

313. And another thing, are JFK assassination threads now blocked by sending them to the 9/11 dungeon?

Saw a couple Octafish JFK posts exiled there the last couple days.
New policy? Is that just for Octafish, or just JFK, or ... ?
Whichever, it seems worth a public comment. To me, the JFK
assassination is where all this really got going in all
its naked horror, and I cant believe discussion of it will no
longer be allowed in GD. Please tell me I'm wrong.

[omega minimo]

345. thanks for asking that. noticed it too.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

314. Examining the lengths of people's block lists is interesting.

Basically, there seem to be three categories:

Most people haven't blocked anyone.
There are very few people who've blocked just one person.
Some people have blocked 3-6, or more rarely just 2, people.
I've found one example each of 9, 12, 13, 20, 68 and 121 blocks.

Some people don't use it, some use it sparingly and some go critical. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground.

The ones who go critical with the block function tend to be people with post rates of 4000-a-year or more - clearly people who take DU very seriously. That's not universal, though.

It's also interesting to note that the average length of block list in some of the Topic forums (Israel/Palestine, 9/11, Women's Rights are the ones I've noticed) is considerably higher than that in GD and GDP.

[natrat]

321. this site i think is becoming bullshit

someone somewhere is probably paying someone

[Deja Q]

332. I'm starting to agree.

I will agree that there is a huge double standard pertaining to what construes a "personal attack", and how this block feature was purportedly designed to take care of that problem.

No, it hasn't, and the rules already forbid personal attacks. yet plenty have been personally attacked. Some by repeat offenders, who really have issues of their own they ought to deal with first rather than being little snits. Yet they keep continuing to act like throwaway degenerates and nothing is done. How is blocking them going to help? Another DUer pointed out they started blocking and (s)he started hearing even more muck behind her/his back. That is outrageous, nevermind proving the block feature is useless. (I should have bookmarked that thread to re-use as proof, but it's out there. All I recall is, I empathized for their situation. )

So when misuse of the new feature is said as "we consider it to be a general personal attack", nobody around here is going to give it any credibility. Because many who personally attack seem to keep doing so and they know they can get away with it. Especially when all they want to do is troll to rile up other people. Even Jr High kids are more mature.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

335. Your Comment Has No Basis In Reality. What Does Have Basis In Reality; However, Is That

DU is every bit as full of valuable information, topical debate, differing opinion and extremely diverse thread topics as it ever had been before. 99.99% of all threads and all comments can be replied to and discussed by any given poster at any given time.

To declare this site is becoming bullshit and that someone's been paid off, is not only patently false but also easily debunked by just browsing one page in GD alone and finding how much diversity of opinion and legitimate debate is going on.

I'll just never be able to relate to these melodramatic type declarations.

[Marr]

326. If you can't handle other peoples' opinions, go write a web journal.

I don't see the point of allowing people to block other posters from what's meant to be a public discussion. Moderators are supposed to fill the role described for the block feature- not posters.

Really, the abuse that I've already seen of this block feature has been simply embarrassing. The blockers often seem like little tyants; small people enjoying their small bit of power far too much. The smarmy ways I've seen others blocked for simply disagreeing would make the trogs from Free Republic proud. While I haven't been blocked myself, I can understand how frustrating it might be to a well-intentioned person only wishing to share their opinion- as people do on message boards.

[0rganism]

334. Practical questions about LBN

LBN, as you say, has stricter rules -- only one thread per news item, typically. Obviously, one question that arises is whether the block function should apply at all in LBN due to this restriction.

If it does apply, another question arises with respect to the thread merging functionality in LBN, which I think is an awesome addition, and one for which I advocated for years prior to its inception when competing threads would simply be locked out. Suppose two people start threads on the same article in LBN, and both are on one-another's block lists. When the conversation threads merge, what happens? It would seem like at least one person would lose access to a thread they started, and another thread might inherit an inaccessible subthread.

[Spazito]

336. After seeing the new function in action, I don't feel it is a positive

addition to DU. While I understand and sympathize with the intent behind it, I believe it will not cure the problem it purports to address and, instead, not only allows the user to better control their "environment", it allows them to control the environment of other users because of the OP block aspect.

If the blocking function were to exclude the OP block aspect and only affected direct posts to the user who has a block list I would have no problem with the function.

The way the function currently works seems to encourage a 'tit for tat' blocking mentality because there is no other recourse to deal with the user initiating the block other than to either A) don't block them and risk a hit and run post with no ability to respond or B) block them ergo the 'tit for tat' response.

Two questions I have are:

1. Is the advanced search by author no longer available? I ask because I was searching for a thread posted which had wonderful data in it and I, unfortunately didn't bookmark it at the time, was not able to access the archives using the "author" option.

2. After the end of the trial period, will you (the admins) be polling DU members as to whether the majority support or object to the addition of this function?

Lastly, my criticism is toward the function and in NO way a criticism of the administration of DU.

[Elad]

346. I'm locking this thread

We will be making an announcement about the block feature later this afternoon.