We've decided to remove the block function

[EarlG]

In the six years we've been running DU we've had some good ideas, and some bad ideas. It seems that the new block function turned out to be one of the bad ideas. As you know, we originally intended to run the trial of the block function until at least February 1, but given the response we've decided that we might as well put it out of its misery now.

To be clear, we still think that the block replies function is a good idea in principle, but it became apparent that most of you are very comfortable with the current setup and the function was too much of a change for most people's taste. We think that this system could still work on a brand new message board where the rules and expectations have not yet been set in stone, but that's obviously not the case at DU.

Let me recap briefly what we were trying to achieve with the new function. Running a message board the size of DU is not like running a smaller message board. The bigger a message board gets, the more difficult it is to moderate in a "top-down" fashion, and when the board reaches the size that DU has it is natural to look for certain ways in which the members can take more control of their own experience and solve their own problems without the intervention of a third party (the moderators).

The block function was not something that the Admins just suddenly thought of three weeks ago - we discussed it for months before we decided to test it. We understood that the block function would cause a fundamental change in the way that DU works - essentially we took a system which had operated for six years under the principle that a message board thread belongs to everyone (with moderator oversight, of course), and changed it so that the person who starts the thread has some control over it.

We thoroughly considered this change. We anticipated all the ways it would be used and abused; we knew what your biggest concerns would be; we also anticipated that it would be a shock to a lot of you. But we didn't anticipate that so many people would be unwilling to give it a chance. The irony is that the system worked pretty much exactly the way we thought it would - the vast majority of members didn't use it at all, and the majority of the ones who did blocked only a few people. Yes, there were a few people who abused the system - as we expected some would - but they did so by isolating themselves in the process. (Read http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=14094&mesg_id=25981">points 2 through 5 in this post by a DUer who understood what we were attempting to do.)

Unfortunately we do not believe that we will be able to overcome the perception that the worst-case scenario of massive abuse would come to pass. In retrospect, we should have realized that this would be a problem. When we proposed a member-moderation/rating system some time ago, the membership made it clear that they prefer the top-down moderation system we currently have in place to a peer-review system in which they are "judged" by one another, primarily because of the perception that their peers would abuse the system.

Having said that, it is encouraging that so many of you trust us to run DU under the current top-down system. This does give us some hope going into the upcoming presidential primaries, because the current system is going to be in place for the forseeable future.

Those of you who were here for the primaries in 2004 will remember that it was a difficult time for almost everyone, not least for the moderators who were constantly bombarded with accusations of bias and favoritism. Some of you guessed correctly that among other things, our thoughts were turning to the upcoming primary season when we developed the block function. The block function was not primarily intended to be a solution to the "primaries problem" but we thought it might be of use.

We're sorry if you felt that the system was a good idea and were making use if it, but some good has come out of this episode: while the block function has been met with much disapproval, it has at least given us some useful information on how to approach the primaries. Also, we are keeping the other improved ignore functions, including the ability to block private messages without having to completely ignore someone.

So, finally, thank you for your patience while we gave this function a trial run - we understand that it was not particularly pleasant for many of you, and we apologize for any inconvenience caused.

The DU Administrators

[Catherine Vincent]

1. Fitz!

:)

[xultar]

2. That was quick. In the Isaiah Washington threads I couldn't put up with people...

who thought it was OK to call someone a f*gg*t. Those people I put on ignore and block happily so.

I'm sorry the feature didn't work. I cleared my Ignore list when the new feature came on line. It was pretty funny but I found that the same 4 people I already had on ignore for over a year ended up on the blocked list. How funny is that?

Oh well.

[catzies]

267. Most on MY ingore list usually end up tombstoned. n/t

[question everything]

376. You really do need to accept the fact that this is a political

forum with a wide range of ideas.

If you need to block or ignore or do something else, then perhaps you need to belong to a different forum full of dittoheads.

When you disagree with someone you can either not read their posts, debate with them or move on. Go watch a a movie or something.

[lukasahero]

381. Sorry but I totally disagree on this one

If someone on this board really did use the "f" word, they should have been banned and not simply ignored. Regardless of one's personal beliefs, they should know there are lines that should not be crossed and this would definitely be one of them.

[Megahurtz]

449. Banning someone just because use the "f word"????

ROFL be serious! :rofl:

I'm sorry but that's really funny! Maybe you're on the wrong site!:7

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

450. You Realize You Completely Misinterpreted WHICH 'F' Word, Right?

If you didn't, here's your chance to edit.

[lukasahero]

455. DU is becoming a strange place indeed when OMC

is defending a post by LaH. LOL.

Yes, the "f" word in question is the slur against gays, not the other one which I use with a fair amount of frequency myself.

And if the poster didn't misinterpret which word I referenced, then I really don't care if they think I'm an idiot or not. Again, there are lines you do not cross and that would be one of them. I would like to believe people here understand that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. Thank You For Your Hard Work With It And It's A Shame Some Didn't Give It More Of A Chance.

Personally, I thought it would've been an extremely valuable tool and I think some just had really bad knee-jerk reactions to the change. I agree with its premise and don't think for a second we were bound to see the destruction of DU that some predicted.

Oh well. But thanks for your efforts. I'm sure a lot of work went into it.

[liberalhistorian]

175. Maybe some just had really bad knee-jerk reactions

to it because some posters (certainly not the vast majority, but just enough) used it as a popularity contest and it was too much like junior high school and who the hell needs that at our (supposedly) grown-up age? If people can't handle a little disagreement and discussion that doesn't completely agree with what they think, then they shouldn't be on message boards in the first place. And if you don't want to read a particular poster, it's simple, just don't read them. It really is that simple.

[question everything]

377. Bravo! Well said!

I think that if we had a poll, most DUers would have been against it. This was the initial reaction on my poll before it was quickly locked.

[Skinner]

422. Actually, that's not correct.

I saw one poll on this -- I assume it was yours. Before it was locked, it was tied 1/3 in favor, 1/3 opposed, and 1/3 don't care. In fact, support was leading opposition by one vote.

[question everything]

429. Different one which, apparently was posted after the reverse decision

and lasted only six minutes and 17 votes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x27046

76% - will never use the function

12% - blocked a few

As I posted below, when DUers like kpete and the Magistrate are blocked, you know that the system was being misused.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

431. As I Stated Below, Any Poll Open For Only 6 Minutes Is Worthless For Use Towards Anything.

The poll that Skinner is referencing was open for 5 hours, though those hours were early morning ones. The link is below, though it isn't exactly a valid sampling of how this community might truly feel towards it either.

But I do want to add that out of thousands of posters here, the fact that Kpete and The Magistrate were each blocked probably by only one poster, does not in any way prove abuse of the system. Just about everything in life will have its exceptions, and those incidents would fall under that premise: Exceptions.

Overall, I thought there could've been a ton of value to the block feature and think a lot of the games would've diminished greatly over time. I think DU would've been better having it than not having it, but that is definitely an opinion that would vary from person to person. I just wish it would've been given more of a chance prior to such strong and firm animosity towards it, but what can ya do.

At the least, it actually caused me to bury hatchets with some that we may not have been inspired to otherwise. I think it was a good tool and I can't help feeling sorry for the Admins for all the abuse they must've taken. Shit, we only saw what was posted in these types of threads. Could you imagine what kind of abuse they must've been taking via PM's? LOL

Here's the link, by the way:

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

[question everything]

438. Thanks. I wonder whether that poll was filled by West Coasters

LOL

It came by after my bedtime and was gone when I was still asleep. And on Sunday morning, no less.

I think that we have here a broad two kind of DUers;

The first, for whom this really is the family, the community, the place to hang out to form cyber friendship. Where everything is very personal and every attack, or a pseudo attack needs to be handled. Members of this group welcomed the block and the ignore fuctions.

Then there is another group that comes to DU to be informed and to participate in the debate more on a cerebral level. When disagree with someone, we post our opinion, perhaps go back and forth several times, and then just move on. We do not have to have the last word and we do not look at every agreement, or at every non-PC post as a frontal attack that needs to be responded until no one is left standing. Most of us do not use the ignore - I never have - and did not welcome the block function. I suspect that many of this group just shrugged, did not even think it was worthy of a response.

And it is up to the owners of this site to determine how much outlet this should provide for emotional needs of members. I am not a psychologist, not a social worker, and do not have any knowledge of behavior. However I have no doubt that for many this, and other blogs, can provide an outlet away from the drudgery of every day life, of lousy jobs - or no jobs - of cranky-co workers, spouses, and children, of meddlesome neighbors....

The solutions, obviously, is some kind of a compromise, of navigating the ups and downs of human behavior. Hey, I was active on other message boards - a lot smaller - that concentrated on a local issue and I remember even there how raw some of the emotions were.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

440. I Can Easily See Why Some Were So For It And Some So Against It.

Personally, my only gripe is that I felt some didn't give it enough of a chance. But if I may be honest, I find the past accusations of anyone using it being "cowards" and the current accusations of anyone being against it being "whiners" to be completely inappropriate and childish.

People had their passionate reasons for being on each side and neither side deserves attack for feeling the ways they did. But like I said, I just think some of the doomsday scenarios were a bit extreme and would've proven to be unwarranted over time. But in the end, though I did like it, whether we have the tool or we don't I still know DU would've been the greatest political site on the web. I think that to be the case whether the block tool stayed or not.

[LostinVA]

415. Bravo

[omega minimo]

448. If it was "really that simple" the Admins wouldn't have come up with the Block in the first place

[blonndee]

4. Admins, thanks for the try!

It was a nice idea and had some good points. Your efforts are appreciated. But overall I am mostly glad to see it go.

[The Straight Story]

5. So I can't block ya now?? :) (nt)

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Thanks for trying...

and thanks for being responsive. Good job.

[Roon]

7. Good!! That block function was just....weird

It creeped me out.

[phylny]

8. Dang, the only good thing about it was being able to block the posts

of one unnamed forum moderator.

Sigh.

[Poll_Blind]

121. I'll bet 3/4 of those who read your message know who you're referring to. I do. n/t

PB

[SharonAnn]

9. I appreciated what you provided, though I didn't choose to use it.

Thanks for all you do for us, to keep discussion alive and on-track.

You've made a real difference in getting informatio out and providing a space where we've been able to connect, through some very trying times in this country.

[LynzM]

20. I second all of this.

Took the words right out of my mouth. :hi:

[MissB]

46. Third!

Cheers, Elad. :toast:

[peace13]

10. Kudos for trying new things.

I am glad that you are changing it back. Peace on earth. Km

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. As An Additional Post, I Had Been Hoping You Would Post A Poll Prior To Its Removal.

The ones opposed to it were naturally the most vocal, but I was really curious to see how the community as a whole would've regarded it.

[xultar]

15. Exactly...The most vocal against often ended up being the ones who like to shit on people for fun.

[Poll_Blind]

94. Yep, and I've about had it with that here. Notice no star by my name?

  I have been using DU for years now but I let it lapse this time, hoping for something...to improve. The signal to noise ratio here has gotten worse and worse and I really, sincerely hoped that this could turn it around. But, I think it's uncontroversial to say that those who did not use the functionality complained enough that it was taken away from those who do. That's very unfortunate.

  I certainly won't break DU if I don't donate- I donated minimal amounts as it was. Still, I enjoyed being part of this particular community and have so for years. However, there are some individuals whose behavior can really affect my stay here and this blocking function appeared to change their behavior somewhat. I noticed a few very irritating posters who seemed to stop posting entirely once it was implemented.

  Oh well...

PB

[Skittles]

154. are you aware there is an IGNORE feature?

I suggest you use it

[Poll_Blind]

157. It goes a bit beyond that but I appreciate the reminder. If the rules...

...allowed me even to discuss it openly, I would. Instead I'll send you a PM, I guess.

PB

[Cobalt Violet]

191. After this, I'm concidering that.

The problem is that the groups I belong to are the only areas on this board that I enjoy anymore. I may just take a break from DU all together even though I just got back from a break. I really don't recognize the place lately.

[Poll_Blind]

194. This just seemed like an incredibly good way to put OUT fires before...

...they started. A really good way. If you haven't seen it yet, this message in the thread sums up the situation with unique succinctness, and too many are a victim of the situation he describes.

PB

[ReadTomPaine]

199. Thank you for the link to my post - I would love a substantive admin reply to the question as well.

[wildhorses]

421. doesn't the ignore feature solve the problem?

:shrug:

[ReadTomPaine]

432. No it has not solved that type of problem thus far and that is precisely the point.

This was explained at length elsewhere in this thread by proponents of the former system as well as in post #156 below.

I'd be appreciative of a substantive Admin reply to this issue.

[nicknameless]

96. You noticed that too? (n/t)

[Marie26]

390. Polls were locked

It would've been nice to see what the popular consensus was.

[nicknameless]

405. I agree. What was the *general* opinion on DU? Not the *whiners'* opinion.

It's discouraging when whiners are allowed to win.
For what it's worth, bullies are most always the biggest whiners.

From bullyonline.org:

"... Targets of bullying will withstand daily abuse for months, often years, but the first time a bully gets a taste of their own medicine they immediately run whingeing to authority demanding protection. That's weakness."

("Whinge" means the same thing as "Whine". (UK))



I thought the whole point of the blocking feature was to help eliminate jerks, disruption and bullying.
Instead, the admins gave in to the perpetrators.

:shrug:

[Marie26]

414. It's a matter of perspective

Who's the "whiner" & who's the "bully"? I don't think that people who didn't like the feature were all "bullies" & whiners. Why is it necessary to engage in name-calling at all? Can't people just disagree on a subject w/o flinging broad-brush accusations at anyone who has a different opinion? I didn't like the feature cause IMHO it gave some abusive posters even more control, but it was a nice try to improve the atmosphere. However, this whole experiment reminds me a little bit of junior high.

[LostinVA]

416. Thank you, Marie26

I am really tired of the "whiners Meme," because that's exactly what it is. I'd say most of us who didn't like the feature are neither bullies, whiners, trolls, etc. We had very good, rational reasons and fears for disliking the features... and, unfortunately, some of these fears became reality.

Name calling isn't necessary.

[nicknameless]

451. I didn’t see the feature being “abused” --

I only saw people, who were using the feature, being abused.
But I only visit a few forums.

One is rife with disrupters. For that forum, in particular, the blocking feature served the purpose the admins had created it for.

“... it gave some abusive posters even more control”

I didn’t see that happening. I heard only heard it theorized as a possible problem.
If someone is being abusive, there is always the “alert” button.

[Cobalt Violet]

190. So true.

[question everything]

378. An attempt to polling

before it was locked, 76% chose

"Have not and will not block anyone"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x27046

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

382. With All Due Respect, A Poll Open For All Of 6 Minutes Is Utterly Worthless.

Frankly, I'm surprised you even attempted to reference its 76% with any validity whatsoever.

Regardless, I see the Admin's reply to this concept that a poll wouldn't have really mattered because the outrage was enough that it just made sense to do away with.

But still, it would've been interesting to see a community wide final assessment, but it's really no biggie.

[tyedyeto]

401. The admons had already pulled the blocking feature

So what difference does that poll matter?

[Rex]

12. Hey, it was done with good intentions.

Thanks for always trying to make DU a better place! :hi:

[Adelante]

13. Here I was getting ready for my first block

Thanks for saving me from myself :)

[LostinVA]

14. Thank you for the nice explanation, and for listening to us

Much unlike the Bush Administration!

[rodeodance]

315. I second that E-motion.

[Book Lover]

16. What a shame

It made us all moderators of our own threads; something I considered a good thing. A shame a few ruined it for all.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. I think that was the problem...

many people don't believe that a thread-starter "owns" that thread, and rightly so.

[Rosemary2205]

77. This is a valid point

While I saw a post get saved by the OP by blocking out a flame thrower and getting the post back on track - rather than it getting locked -- I can definately see where the whole mental concept of a thread being "owned" by the OP rather than the entire community is an adjustment for many DUers.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

184. especially if that main thread has gross inaccuracies

we had a thread like that, and 24 people were blocked
by the OP poster.

Plus, the blocker of 24 people would post on threads
started by people HE blocked.

Drive by, post on the thread, and block the starter of the thread
from replying.

24 people.

I am sure that 24 people were stalking this person.

Unfortunately, since the inaccurate thread blocked
people with correct information, some people spread the
OP around, gross inaccuracies and all.

[Cobalt Violet]

49. The Whiny Babies got their way.

They always do.

[MonkeyFunk]

54. LOL....

I love irony.

[Cobalt Violet]

60. There is no irony. Just loud mouth whiners afraid they might...

Get Block. Oh no not blocked. That's scary. They might not get to ram their opinion up everyones ass.

[cynatnite]

68. So you don't think those opposed had valid concerns about it? n/t

[spoony]

81. An amazingly shallow analysis

I'd hardly call some of the thoughtful objections to the block feature mostly "concerned they couldn't shove their opinion up everyone's ass."

Additionally, the ignore feature is still there. If you don't like an opinion, you don't have to see it, but you no longer get to say no one else gets to see it either.

[Cobalt Violet]

102. They were whining on another thread, calling another DUer "DimWit".

Just because he has them blocked. It was some people who happened to be on someones list.

[Renew Deal]

120. A large part of the problem is that other people's opinions would be lost.

It wasn't about me. I am here to hear what people have to say. I don't want some petulant, insolent, thoughtless person censoring people.

[Cobalt Violet]

134. I can understand that about opinions.

A few people go beyond opinion and into personal attacks and it just feels like high school all over again. It's having a detrimental effect on me and bring up emotions that I had nicely buried deep down for decades in my psyche. I was just enjoying my reprieve from the torment. I knew all along it had to be just a dream. Your not a whining baby I didn't mean you. I suppose I could go back to the thread and see who had what to say but it doesn't matter. Nothing will matter. :pals:

[Renew Deal]

140. Alert, Alert, Alert

use it. If someone is doing that, alert it and make it go away. It doesn't always, but at least something was done. I have alerted lots of crap that wasn't directed at me. It usually gets deleted.

Personal attacks are rare here compared to other boards because the mods do a good job.

[Cobalt Violet]

167. The mods are great.

I do use alert from time to time and they respond. But I feel more like a whining baby when I do that, or that I'm bothering someone. I have an image in my mind that the mods are taking bubble baths or reading good books and get annoyed when we alert them. I don't know where that comes from. I know that's irrational. I've always been that way.

[tyedyeto]

228. And if alert doesn't work, the original ignore can work wonders. n/t

[GOTV]

366. Your "personal attack" might be what I consider an "insightful reply"...

... in any case I think I should be able to make that decision for myself. I don't want you blocking posts for me based on what you consider offensive.

[havocmom]

433. Well said! I saw too many 'announcements' that a poster was blocking another

for the simple reason that the blocking person was on the losing end of a very sound argument. It was like watching a two year old throw a tantrum.

Putting virtual duck tape over someone else's mouth does not make for a very effective debate. Nor does is seem in the least bit democratic. The nation is not well served by only allowing certain opinions to be openly discussed. That seems evident if one looks a bit further than the pages of DU.

Many thanks to Skinner and the Admins (my favorite band ;) ) for deep-sixing this very reactionary tool.

[question everything]

380. This is only a message board

you don't know most of the people who "personally attack you."

You don't like their posts, leave the computer, go watch a movie, read a book.

This is only a message board!

I think that this is the problem. People internalize too much their and others' opinions.

We are here to exchange ideas, to post stories, to alert to upcoming events.

If some people take this on a personal level then they need to get out more, to find flesh and blood communities.

[Balbus]

92. Scared of opinions that don't match your own?

Don't read them. Easy enough.

[Cobalt Violet]

97. No I just don't like being bullied or the grammar/spelling police.

It has nothing to do with opinion.


Boy someone is in a curt mood tonight. :hi:

[cynatnite]

101. I didn't know DU had grammar/spelling police?

Who are they? I've got a few misspelled words for them. :)

[Renew Deal]

129. Their

al ober. Luuk in the Loung.

[Balbus]

122. Click this...

Every spelling/grammar policeman has one next to their name and you'll never have to worry about them again.

[Renew Deal]

128. Why do you even care?

That happens on every board on the internet, though I have to say that DUers speak good english :). Don't worry about it. And alert any posts that are nasty.

[uppityperson]

289. Speak English well.

:evilgrin:



sorry. I hate people who chime in to undermine what someone writes because it is misspelled or non-perfect grammar is used. I try to either ignore or maybe will start :eyes:ing back.

[Renew Deal]

118. And sheltered minds

that couldn't bare to hear a different point of view.

[patrice]

127. I've been around here 5 years and I've never seen that. My fault

probably, maybe I should go to more different forums.

I'd like to see how that happens; can you give me an example link please?

[Dorian Gray]

236. That's unfair....

I was never blocked. I don't intend to ever block anybody, and I don't know anybody who would block me. But, not everyone thought that this was a good idea. There are good reasons for it, and there were good reasons to scrap it. It was up to the admins to determine which weighed more. Many of us opposed to the idea never once started a flame war or bullied about it. We stated our opinion and moved on. I don't think that everyone who wanted the block function was a "loud moth whiner" or a crybaby, afraid of dissention. I believe that the majority of the population would use things fairly, but the few on the site who were not going to could make the whole system unfair for everybody.

Just my opinion on this matter... nothing more. :)

[Cobalt Violet]

250. "Many of us opposed to the idea never once started a flame war or bullied about it."

Because the mods wouldn't allow threads about it. They were locked right away.


True, not everyone thought is was a good idea but many of us did.

[Dorian Gray]

360. I didn't start flamewars about it

because I don't start flamewars. Or generally topics, either. I just don't think it's fair for you to categorize everyone who thought it wasn't the best idea as a bully. I'm not a bully, and I just wanted to respond to what I thought was an unfair characterization.

[LostinVA]

417. Good post -- thanks!

[Stephanie]

254. It was also an open invitation to freepers -

who could come on here, post BS, and then block anyone who corrected their innacuracies. That was the fatal flaw, IMO.

[CTyankee]

331. I'm in your camp on this one. I truly understand why some people

are outraged at the way they feel they have been trashed. But here's the thing: we can't have everything "fixed" for us in life. And life is unfair.

When I feel that I have been unfairly trashed, here is what I say to myself, "They were not placed on this earth to live up to my expectations."

Think about it.

[fishwax]

261. those concerned about the feature were hardly limited to troublemakers afraid of being blocked

I think different people had different reasons for opposing it, including legitimate questions and concerns.

[rockymountaindem]

62. Ha!

Your post made me smile. You're so right :)

[Cobalt Violet]

63. It didn't make me smile.

Enjoy your self at my expense :toast:

[patrice]

126. ? It seems to me that blocking was for the whiny babies.

[Cobalt Violet]

138. Well it seemed quit different to me.

Is your view the only valid one?

[patrice]

174. I did say, "It seems to me . . . ."

You're right; it isn't the only one and that is what I was pointing out about your opinion.

[Skittles]

159. the Whiny Babies got their way when they were able to censor

if you don't like someone USE THE IGNORE FUNCTION, don't feel like you need to CENSOR them from your threads

[Cobalt Violet]

172. I see the whiny babies as being a different set of people.

I hope that's okay. I hope I don't have to think what the group thinks.

[liberalhistorian]

179. Seems to me that the whiny babies were the

ones who used the feature a lot, those who didn't want to be bothered with any opinion different from their own.

[CTyankee]

192. Not whiney babies.

Look, some of us just felt that we didn't need protection against insults on DU. In my case, I just ignored people who were unpleasant or downright repugnant. I have a life. I am an adult. I don't need a nanny to enable blocking of my views or anybody else's. I can handle my anger, my unhappiness and my outrage at yet another insult to humanity by the Bush Administration.

What part of this don't you get?

[Cobalt Violet]

212. I get none of it, It's not my reality. It's yours.

And I'm sincere when I say that. I get that you feel like that but that's not what things are like for me and ne'er will be.

[enigmatic]

17. Thank You

I know you got hit from both sides about this and I think you made the right choice.

I may have quarrels w/ DU from time to time but this is stil the best political discussion board on the net:)

[quinnox]

18. Interesting

At first I thought it would be bad idea but then it didn't seem to turn out that way. I'm kinda surprised it didn't get more of a chance but definitely an interesting experiment for DU.

[Jim Sagle]

19. I think the worst thing about the feature was how an OP could start a thread and block other DUers

from the thread ENTIRELY. Aside from that I had no problem with the feature.

[Stephanie]

256. Hi Jim!

:hi: We're still here! OMG how long has this been going on?

xx
S

[Jim Sagle]

270. Probably ever since the block feature was introduced.

It was just a trio of Palestine First loonies anyhow.

[Sugar Smack]

349. THERE you are! We've missed you!

Please come back with your photo threads, OK? You are so brilliant!

:bounce:

[dweller]

277. the worst thing?

it was the only thing it provided.

dp

[Jim Sagle]

285. No, the other feature was blocking response to an individual post.

That, I had no problem with.

[dweller]

288. explain the difference to me

for i don't see it.

for example: i start a post and blocked you. You can't respond to the post. Nor could you respond to any others i have started.

I think this covers both items we have mentioned.

am i beating a dead horse? The function is now defunct. Long live freedom of speech.
dp

[Jim Sagle]

297. If you started a THREAD and blocked me, I could not respond to ANYONE'S post in that thread.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

388. and if you blocked me, you could post on my Ops and block me again

that was my bone to pick with this.

but it dissolved away when folks blocking dissenters
could not hide their enemies list, some with 25 -100 people!

A person blocked me

I couldn't post on his thread

I started a new thread

He posted on it

I couldn't rebut his post that was on my OP thread.

He was blocking 25 people.

His thread had inaccurate info that was being sent all over the internet.

[LiberalFighter]

21. I didn't think enough time was given to try it out.

It would seem that it was a good idea.

[Radio_Lady]

I just found out about it yesterday, and it's gone today.

Pretty difficult to make any decisions based on that.

[Poll_Blind]

131. I suspect those who were bocked often threatened to exercie their...

...pecuniary options, hence the quick turn around. Otherwise, I can't really glean from the message why a good feature, a useful feature, would be dropped before things "settled out" and people became familiar with it.

PB

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

187. blocking disc after told that blockers' lists would be shown

perhaps those blocking 25-100 people didn't like
that they couldn't secretly do it anymore.

now that was fun, clicking on OPs, and finding that
the poster had disallowed so many people from posting.

[Warren Stupidity]

246. Indeed, I learned a lot about some of our posters here.

Although I understood and shared some of the arguments against block lists, I thought the new 'public display of the OP's block list' addressed the concerns I had by offsetting the ability to block all contrary opinions with the public knowledge that one had done so.

[LostinVA]

201. This had nothing to do with money

[MadHound]

Thanks for taking this function down

And thanks for the great job you folks do. I realize that it is an immense task, but you folks do a great job.

[natrat]

thanks--I'll try not to offend anyone

[eleny]

22. It's nice that you consider things and can change your minds

That's one of the things that makes DU a good place and will help make it stronger and stronger as time goes by.

Thanks for being such good administrators!

[VOX]

23. It was a good effort, but thanks for being so flexible in such a rigid world. n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

32. Concur

Thanks for having the common sense to recoginize that it was counter productive

[JuniperLea]

25. It's good to try new things!

I still think it's a good idea! I just thought the public pronouncement by way of a list of blockees was in poor taste. I had a good time looking at them, no question!! It was hilarious to see some of the dumbasses who have some of our best people on block! But that is the train wreck gawker in me.

Ignore works just fine:)

[Rosemary2205]

26. That's a real shame.

I liked it. I never blocked anyone and doubt I would. I got blocked by someone and thought it was a useful tool to know which posters I just shouldn't even bother with.

[Cobalt Violet]

53. I agree. Thanks to all the Whiners. I hope DU sends em Diapers instead of bumperstickers.

[MonkeyFunk]

67. so...

people who didn't like the feature are whiney babies, but people who don't like the removal of the feature are.... um.... what, exactly?

There's room for difference of agreement on this without implying the others are being whiney little shits.

[Moochy]

202. A fight!

Cowards fought the Whiners and the Whiners won. :evilgrin:

[Cobalt Violet]

214. Whiners always win. Nobody can stand to hear a whiner very long.

They're very good manipulators.

[fishwax]

280. which ones are the whiners?

the many who had and raised legitimate complaints about the system? Or the ones who abused the system? Or the ones who hated the system and said so repeatedly?

You've talked an awful lot about "whiners" on this thread, but frankly I see both whiners and legitimate points on both sides. I think it's unfair to cast all those who opposed the feature as whiners.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

294. maybe there were new "whiners" -didn't want their block lists shown

seems like the block function lost some of its shazzizle when
blockers no longer could conceal their ginormous list of people
they shut off.

I loved that - show us who you are blocking - and the lists
are 25 - 100 people!

hahahhahahhahhaha

it went away FAST after that.

Some folks liked blocking until that.

[Cobalt Violet]

358. Your right. Not ALL the oppostion are whiners.

Just the ones that were in the other thread calling those that used it cowards and insisting that everyone who uses the option just wants to stifle debate and block oppostion. That's not true. Some of are ARE being stalked and harrassed.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

389. I hope that you will keep track of the problem and report it

if someone(s) giving you a hard time,

keep copies of the posts
report to mod
email skinner (his email is available somewhere
on DU).

pm your friends to back you up.

[Rex]

27. Might want to make this a sticky post.

nt

[Boojatta]

28. Aha! So now you are BLOCKING access to the block function!!!

(Just kidding.)

[WI_DEM]

29. lets hope that the debate can be conducted by adults and not children

who insult one another making such a tool unnecessary in the future.

[oasis]

30. No harm, no foul. Thanks for attempting an improvement to our community.

[Robbien]

31. I loved the idea and mourn its passing.

I was looking forward to using it during those times people flood DU with threads about the current hot topic of the day.

Tailoring DU to my needs without changing it for others. That is how I saw it.

Please try it again sometime.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

95. You can hide individual threads and ignore posters.

You can hide and unhide and ignore and unignore at any point. Blocking means they can't reply to you or anyone in your thread for at least a week. It's hardly meant to be used against posters because you don't like the topic du jour.

[Skittles]

171. it DID change it for others

if you blocked someone and I posted in your thread, you had to the power to prevent the blocked person from RESPONDING TO ME in your thread. THAT DID "CHANGE IT FOR OTHERS".

[LostinVA]

203. Just hide threads or ignore posters

You don't have to NB people for that.

[Nutmegger]

33. I think it was a good idea

Of course, people have to abuse it.

[porphyrian]

34. Now, people will complain that you're getting rid of it.

:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

143. I'm putting you on ignore for saying that.

lol

[porphyrian]

165. Heh, heh. - n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

35. It's all because of this isn't it? Retribution...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=6097098&mesg_id=6097098

:rofl: :applause: :rofl:

[EarlG]

38. Lol

Yeah, that guy. Why I oughta...

[BlackVelvet04]

It looks like you still have the ignore

threads feature which is really the only one I wanted. Thanks.

[stevietheman]

36. How about we go to a peer post ratings system?

Similar to Slashdot, this kind of ratings system would allow people to rate whole topics, or individual posts, as +1 or -1, and these ratings would accumulate for every topic and post. Users could then set up ratings thresholds in their Preferences so that low-rated topics or posts wouldn't be visible when reading. If you want to keep out the trolls, this process could work wonders.

Also, note that this system could also be used to set thresholds for users, so if a user has low accumulated topic/post ratings, their posts would get seen a lot less.

That's it, in a nutshell.

[EarlG]

43. If you thought block function got a chilly reception

you should have seen what happened last time we suggested a member rating system. People definitely seem to be comfortable with the way the current system works. (Most of the time.)

[stevietheman]

51. It's not "member rating"... it's post rating...

yes, post ratings would accumulate, positively or negatively, for each member, but it's not a direct rating of a member.

[LostinVA]

61. But, it would be member rating, because you rate their posts

[KoKo]

82. DU already has the "Recommend" Function. Why would we need anything

else? PLUS..we have the "Post Count Function" that tells folks how many "Views" they get even if few reply. How much better can it get than that? I've been on DU long enough that I remember that if one only got 2-5 or ZERO Replies that you felt like a "Loser" that no one cared about your post. Today it's common to see a low post get over 500 replies meaning many folks read but just didn't have time to comment or they agreed and didn't need to say more.

Same for "Recommend." It's common to see high count for "Recommend" but with few replies and almost a THOUSAND VIEWS.

It's kind of GOOD the way it is now compared to the OLD DAYS when we thought we BOMBED in a post that only got 2-5 Replies and we might just have given up in depression.

:shrug:

[Renew Deal]

130. And recommends are not obnoxious.

99% of posts are under 100 recs.

[KoKo]

205. No...recommends are a GOOD THING...but shouldn't be "overused" either.

Because "Groupies" can Recommend but the "View Count" does verify if it's worth a look. IMHO..

[Xithras]

52. I was quite enthusiastic :)

Most people fear a community rating system because they're imagining gangs of cliques rating down anyone who disagrees with them. Anyone who has used Slashdot knows that the system works well and that abuses are minimal. The metamoderation feature (where people can rate the appropriateness of a rating) also helps a lot by weeding out bad moderators.

I posted my suggestion downthread before seeing this one, but I do want to say again that I feel a community moderation model could work well here. I especially like the fact that nothing actually gets deleted in that system...everything is visible, and readers just get to decide what their minimum viewing score will be. I browse Slashdot at zero
:)

[Renew Deal]

132. You can't say one good thing about Microsoft on that site.

Without being called a n00b or a M$ employee.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Have you thought about experimenting with it?

I mean, that's basically what this was. An experiment. I thought it was fairly interesting.

[NMDemDist2]

59. maybe just gear up with more mods as we get closer for GD & GD POL

maybe?

I know the mods get run ragged under some conditions, but maybe the two terms before the primaries you should bring in a few extra "old hands" for the two big forums?

:shrug: just a suggestion......

[Renew Deal]

111. You guys do a good job.

:yourock:

[Blue_Tires]

310. fwiw

i remember when skinner proposed it, and i think i was the only one out of 90,000 that was in favor of it

[ScreamingMeemie]

69. We have that already...It's called # of replies...

And a lot of people get bothered by it as it is. :hi:

[Renew Deal]

116. That went down in flames

like 2 years ago. It's not a good idea for a political board because everyone will scream censorship.

[msmcghee]

153. Then you would see even worse abuse.

People would get all their friends to blackball somebody they disliked. It would be about as fair as any online poll - which is almost useless for its intended purpose.

I am thankful that this terrible idea was dropped. The purpose of a forum IMO is to allow the full spectrum of opinions to thrash it out under rules that apply equally to every member.

When one member gets to unilaterally prevent all other members from seeing someone's opinion in a thread - they are censoring opinions. That does not seem to be consistent with the ideals that most liberals I know value.

I think participating in DU is a good lesson in living in a free society. The price we pay for being able to express ourselves freely - is that we sometimes have to listen to others who say things that we don't like. We need to have thicker skins. We also need to examine our beliefs more carefully.

Thanks admins for being open to new ideas and for making the right call in this case IMO. I know that moderation must be a difficult problem for you to manage.

I haven't given it much thought but have you considered a "time out" type penalty for posters who violate the posting rules? You could delete their post the first time and then not allow them to post again for some period of time. Since it's just a computer algorithm you could have the time-out adjustable according to their recent deletion history. i.e. if they immediately screw up right after getting out of the penalty box then the next period is twice as long - or something like that.

People who consistently and repeatedly screwed up might find they'd eventually have to wait several days or even weeks to get back into the swing of things - it would give them more time to think about their posting style.

I suspect that a system like this would be seen more as a learning tool rather than a punishment tool. I think it could alter some posters' habits for the better - while allowing the greatest number to remain part of the DU family. I know of good liberals who have been TS'd from here and some of them are quite bitter about that. Like many families we sometimes have bitter disagreements between us - but I think it's pretty severe to kick someone out because they got involved in an angry exchange. It would be good IMO if that were not necessary at all and possibly an adjustable time-out system might by a good alternative.

[TorchTheWitch]

239. I recall the time out penalty you describe was tried before

Or something similar was. That was around primary season time the last go 'round. I can't remember exactly how it worked, but it was something like if you had a post deleted for a rule violation you got a warning notice, and if you did it again (or x number of times) you got either banned or suspended (can't remember which, but at some point of repetative violations said violator got the boot). I thought it worked really well to bring down the level of personal attacks and other offenses and got rid of those people for good that just refused to follow the rules. I don't know what happened to that idea or why it got scrapped (and I don't even know how long it lasted or when it did get scapped), but I thought it was a good idea and it seemed to work well. And it also finally got rid of a few real nuts that desperately needed to be kicked to the curb. I'd really like to see that system put back into play.

I don't know what it is but it just seems to me that very obvious habitual rule violators/disruptors just don't seem to be disciplined as much as they used to be anymore. Maybe that's due to people not alerting enough or a moderator problem, I don't know. It just seems to me that there's a hell of a lot more blatant and habitual rule breaking going on here these days that doesn't seem to be getting addressed anymore (or taking far too long to finally be addressed).

[truedelphi]

311. Sorry I got a headache reading your description - so I guess that means

you'd be given a -1 by me.

But seriously - what do you mean.

If I post a discussion topic, and you don't like it - is your rating a public rating? or done privately so that it helps you know what you think about me?

Would every original Post be rated by every viewer - or jsut by every one who posted a reply?

[Spazito]

37. Thank you! The very fact that you (the Admins) considered

all aspects and responses to this issue while making your final decision is a prime example of why I DO trust you in the current "top-down" system.

[mondo joe]

39. Thanks for being responsive and for trying new things. NT

[Donald Ian Rankin]

40. I think this is the right decision.

It was an interesting idea, but the response was so heavily negative that I think going back to the older approach is the right thing to do.

[seabeyond]

41. i luv you guys. lol lol i was just to the point of conditioning acceptance

of the idea. lol lol. embracing....

now i dont have to

good for yawl

[Lost-in-FL]

42. What a bummer... Thanks for trying tho!!!

I have to confess I didn't care much for the feature in the beginning but I ended up using it for the first time this week. My first ignore ever.

Thank you for trying making things better for all of us. :hi:

[wakeme2008]

44. Thanks for having the programmers around to try things

So many just take the basic forum software and add nothing. I liked the block function and thought it was a good idea but I can understand the feelings of some.

Thanks.... :toast:

[riderinthestorm]

45. Thanks for being so flexible!

You all are the best. I'll admit, I'm glad to see it gone - I was a bit uncomfortable that last night's SOTU "Official" thread was started by a poster with a block list. That means posters are locked out of the discussion of a big event which just seemed wrong. Examples like this, and in LBN where a blocked poster couldn't start another thread as another example, were problematic for me in general (not personally since I never used the function).

[Cobalt Violet]

47. That SUCKS.

The whiny babies always get their way. If they didn't want to use it no one was making them.

[cynatnite]

71. Quit being a whiny baby n/t

[Robb]

78. Oh no you DIDN'T!

:rofl:

[rockymountaindem]

84. Check your PM inbox. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

91. that's the crux of it

you WERE forcing someone to use it. If you blocked somebody, you were preventing THEM from posting on threads you started.

You can always use Ignore if you don't want to see them, but many feel that you don't have the right to prevent them from speaking.

[mondo joe]

196. You got it precisely wrong. The BLOCK feature meant some posters could control

what others could do.

You can easily ignore any poster right now, without interfering in their participation.

[Cobalt Violet]

240. I've long been out of Junior High School....

But some posters will never leave. EVER

[mondo joe]

273. And how does this address your failure to simply use the IGNORE feature?

[Cobalt Violet]

286. You tease people for their Grammar . And you want me to address my failure?

I put you on my block list because I don't need your harassment. You'd tease me for my stuttering if you heard me on the talk.



And btw: Football still sucks.

[mondo joe]

287. I don't know anything about football.

But if you feel harassed why don't you use the ignore feature?

It's not a trick question.

[Cobalt Violet]

291. I don't like it. I never did.

I still don't.

[mondo joe]

295. I see. But you did like preventing people from responding.

Okay.


:eyes:

[Cobalt Violet]

298. I don't consider ridicule responding.

It's more of an anti-response.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

296. if someone teases you for your grammer

and you tell them one time that you don't like that,
they should stop.

If they don't, then I hope you won't pay them any
mind. If they keep doing it, its only to be a PITA.

Everyone else can see when someone like that is being an ass,
and will have no respect for that person, guaranteed.

Most of us don't get it right.

[Cobalt Violet]

303. I've just been corrected at the bottom of this thread.

But It's not quite ridicule yet.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

373. well you aren't alone, I screw up my grammer all the time

and in fact, one guy rode my ass for mispelling grammer.

I don't give a crap, because new words are made up in
the english language every day.

Its the content.

Its whether the information is accurate, or fair, or if
it helps make things better.

[Madspirit]

430. You're whining

You seem to be the only one whining and throughout this ENTIRE thread. I am an adult. If I don't like what someone says, I ignore them.
Madspirit

[Xithras]

48. Have you ever considered Slashdot style metamoderation?

If top down moderation is becoming a chore, you might want to look into a more Web 2.0 centric community moderation model. While I'm not a fan of the exact methodology employed by Slashdot, the basic concept that users get to rate others posts, and that readers get to determine their own reading thresholds, is a sound one. You can't rate a post in a thread you're participating in, and moderators are anonymous and ever changing.

Might be worth thinking about.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

65. That was proposed once some time back and voted down

We here at DU remind me of my dear old grandfather, we don't like things to change.

[mtnester]

50. Simply...thankyou

very much

[IndyOp]

55. Is it okay if I start a poll about the block function? Will it have any impact

if a lot of DUers say they want the block function restored? I was anxious about it at first because I thought everyone would block me and I would feel lonely and rejected. I haven't found anyone that blocked me and I observed that most people had only a few others on their block list - and figured it was just that some personalities clash and that is no big deal. Also - I thought the tone of the posts was improving! I weary of reading ad hominem attacks of various politicians in thread after thread.

Will my poll get locked if I post one?

[EarlG]

108. Probably best not to

Clearly the whole thing has gotten on a lot of people's nerves and I think it might be best to just drop it.

[IndyOp]

113. It isn't just a very vocal minority who are taking away something the majority

wants? I teach and often get incorrect impressions about student opinion on an issue because there are always a small set of students who will be very, very vocal.

It's your website and you know what kind of membership loss you can (or are willing to) withstand...

I'll let it lie.

[Cobalt Violet]

180. I think your right.

It's a loss.

[DemExpat]

318. I think that having a poll on this would have been a good idea

before ending the experiment.

DemEx

[Poll_Blind]

110. How about a bid for & against it via donations to DU? How it would work:

  For the next week, people who donate would have the option (like the post-it feature) of tossing a vote for whether to implement it or not. At the end of the week, the donations are counted and whichever group donated the most money to DU gets the decision they voted for.

  Either way, DU gets more donations than they might have had for that month. I've heard worse ideas, anyway...

PB

[IndyOp]

147. I would go for your donation challenge. I just want to know what the

majority wants at this point - after living with it over a few days.

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

338. That is a VERY undemocratic way to do it -- and unfair

I can afford a donation, but quite a few people on this board can't. So, we would have a bit of an oligarchy decision, eh?

[patrice]

56. Good! I couldn't think of one positive thing about one person being

able to prevent everyone else from interacting with someone (anyone actually = no criteria at all).

It was a self-fulfilling prophecy really: Assume whatever about people; treat them accordingly; and surprise, surprise, their behaviors generally conform to how they are being treated.

You would have ended up with a balkanized board, a violation of the very nature of the DU as I perceive it.

Let individuals take care of most situations like adults, with ignore and/or by not reading problem posters. If threads get hijacked, let the original posters adapt and learn either how to prevent that or how to defuse the hijack. Why should the rest of us pay for those how can't or won't do that?

You have restored my hope in DU.

[scarletwoman]

73. What you said!

...a violation of the very nature of the DU as I perceive it.

Beautifully said! If people can't handle open debate, why are they here?

sw

[patrice]

93. Thanks. It's what I've been coming here for for 5 years now.

I want to learn from the dialectic.

[flyarm]

105. THANK YOU I CONCUR WITH YOR ASSESSMENT!!

FREE SPEECH IS WHY I COME TO DU!!

ask Sibel Edmonds how she feels about a gag order!!

thank you DU admins..for rethinking this and listening to so many about the free flow of debate and speech.

fly

[marions ghost]

112. ditto

you said exactly what I was thinking. There are more creative ways to diffuse or prevent hijacking. It doesn't need a zap feature.

And also thanks to DU Administrators for being flexible and sensitive to the issues.

[Renew Deal]

133. And don't forget the Alert feature.

Alert anything particularly dumb.

[MH1]

141. It can take HOURS to get a reaction to an alert.

Not faulting the mods, there is probably good reason, but that's the way it is.

[tyedyeto]

233. I've alerted a few times....

mostly that posts are in the wrong forum. It's never taken hours for them to respond.

[Nothing Without Hope]

347. I agree. I don't consider myself a "whiney baby," but I feel that being able

to block dissent and clarification would be a damaging step for DU. I'm glad the admins backed away from this, though apparently very reluctantly. More censorship isn't the answer.

[question everything]

383. Please don't use this term

there is one individual here who has been calling "whiny babies" the ones that objected the block function.

I think that it takes one to know one. If s/he is whining, let her/him. But, please, do not perpetuate this perception that those of us who, like you, consider DU a place for a free exchange of ideas - are whining. We are not. The ones who cannot tolerate different opinions are the one whining.

I do not refer to the ones who want to restrict abortion "pro life" and I do not refer to the ones who promote free exchange of ideas "whiny babies."

Thanks.

[Plaid Adder]

57. Aw. Called home at such a young age.

It would have been a handy alternative for dealing with interloping Freepers. Those of us who have been around long enough can tell the difference between someone who is actually taking issue with you and someone who has come over to DU for the sole purpose of stirring up shit, and often it's clear what the poster's intent is even if s/he has managed to avoid the infractions which justify the "alert" button. The block function would have been a good way of dealing with that without bothering the moderators about it.

Still, I think you're right that most everyone is mostly happy with the way things work now. I've said it before, I'm amazed at how well this place runs, overall.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Stephanie]

265. Quite the opposite >

You are exactly right about this:

Those of us who have been around long enough can tell the difference between someone who is actually taking issue with you and someone who has come over to DU for the sole purpose of stirring up shit, and often it's clear what the poster's intent is even if s/he has managed to avoid the infractions which justify the "alert" button.

BUT, the block function enabled stealth freepers to post BS here without being called on it. All they had to do was block those who were on to them, then happily go abotu postng RW lies here night and day. That's why I found it so frustrating, and I'm so glad it's gone.

:hi:

[LostinVA]

337. And, that was already happening

There was a brand new member who had blocked all of the out gay posters and gay allies... and was bragging about it on another board.

I agree with PA: we can usually tell who's clueless and a jerk, and who's a Freeper Troll.

[patricia92243]

64. My problem was the privacy issue-all of DU seeing everyone's block list. But thanks for all the h

hard work that must have gone into it.

We are SO lucky to have DU.

[KoKo]

66. Wow! That's a quick "about face." I didn't participate in the "block"

because fortunately the Mods got rid of my stalkers even when I didn't hit alert constantly. I just set up a "File" on the stalkers figuring I would present it to the DU Admins to show a pattern so I wouldn't sound like a "crank."

I haven't followed whatever was going on with the blocking that it didn't work..because I didn't use the function and didn't get "alerts" that it was used against me...so it didn't matter enough to me to go post about it to you guys.

I do worry that DU might have a problem in the future getting Mods to police us and that the "quality of the Mods" (which so far has been pretty good) might deteriorate as the Primaries heat up.

I've never been for "Self Regulating" because DU is so large that it definitely will have "Crowds who Hang Together, Groupies" and all the stuff that goes on in a Large University (which to me ..is what DU has become).

So...how does one keep the Kewl Kids from Bullying the Nerds and WannaBe's of both.

I don't know. :eyes:

But, I'm glad you all are working on it and open to trying to "moderate" the problem in moving this site forward.

THANKS from a long time DU'er!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

70. I didn't even get a chance to take it out for a test drive and it's on recall already

Story of my life, I always wait too long. x(

[crispini]

72. Hum, well, that was damn entertaining.

I was just getting used to it! I honestly think the furor would have died down in a few more days. Of course, I have no idea about the emails and PMs that you're getting behind the scenes, so.....

[Marie26]

394. It certainly was entertaining! nt

[Febble]

74. Yay!

I can come out of self-imposed purdah!

Seriously, I'm so glad it's gone. I can understand the reasoning, and it was good to see it laid out like this, but it seemed all wrong for DU.

Thanks!

[Lex]

75. Not sure the feature got much of a chance.

The members hadn't settled down and acclimated to having the feature enough to get a true feel for how it would be used in the long run. IMHO.

You have to let the "new" wear off it a bit to get an idea of how it would be actually be utilized on the whole.

However, that being said, I'm fine with it or without it.

[LoZoccolo]

76. I for one thought that BLOCK SUCKED, and it was STIFLING DISSENT.

It lest those who were PAID OPERATIVES of the DLC ZELLOCRATS have theyre way in BULLYING those who threaten to take a stand with the election and there right at the ballot box to have a dig at those passive and complacent. I dont know why blly alpha male wanna bes, and other people who serve as the agents of the status quo, were always putting us down for speaking truth to the power. they tell you that people protested throughout history, but they dont tell you that there was no block function or that the block function was the COPS as they clubbed the protesters. Thats just want I think of the blockers: they would be the chicago riot police if we were using Democratic underground to protest the democratic party.

Free message boards NOW! Dissent NOW! Protest in the streets NOW! Everybody shout NOW!

[crispini]

86. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

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

Oh, I can't breathe........

:thumbsup:

[mzmolly]

251. OMG

:rofl:

[MazeRat7]

79. Amazing...

I'm really surprised to hear that DU'ers would rather be policed/moderated/whatever using the top-down approach vs. the peer-model. I find some serious irony in all that given our general proclivity toward distrust of any authority that takes power away from the masses, but hey - it is what it is. :shrug:

Thanks for giving it a go guys, it sounded like a good idea to me as well. Granted I personally didn't see a need but it was nice to know the feature was there if needed.

Maybe you should work on that "un-recommend" function so we can vote against threads as well as for them. ;)

Peace,

MZr7

[Poll_Blind]

80. So people who DIDN'T use the feature were able to get it removed?

  That's unfortunate. I don't really understand how those who did not like the feature, presumably those who did not use it could sway your opinion that it was worth removing the feature from those who did. Especially, from your comments and my own observations.

  Whoever did the work coding the feature, thank you. Making code changes to something with as many users as this requires planning, time to implement, and testing. I didn't see any unexpected results so whomever coded it did a good job!

  Is there any way to retain this ability on a per-user basis?

PB

[nicknameless]

83. So first you implemented it.

Then you publicized the block lists, making those who were using the block function the subject of ridicule.

And now you’re eliminating the block function.

Most people who elected to use it, were people who were already being harassed.
The way this played out will probably cause the harassment to increase.

It didn’t occur to you that serial harassers were going to be the ones with the most complaints about being blocked?

IMO, the block function should be returned -- AND the blocking lists should be kept private.

[KoKo]

88. I'm on DU all the time and I never saw an Official Block List with Names

What did I miss? Do you have a link...I'd like to see it because I've probably had problems with stalkers on that list. Just PM me if you don't want to post here.

[nicknameless]

90. That isn't how it worked.

DUers got to select who they blocked, just like the ignore function.

[KoKo]

117. Somebody said there's a LIST of Blockers/Blockee's that was Available

at least that's what I read. :shrug:

[nicknameless]

125. No. But you could read people's "blocked" list.

A link to view it appeared at the right of the "Recommend" button when they posted an OP.

How would you like to have your Ignore list publicized? It would be like that.

[KoKo]

204. I wouldn't like that...but I never saw the list...and have figured

from my "low post counts" that I'm on lots of folks "Ignore list" so I was happy not to see a "Pop Up" that I was now on BLOCKED LIST. But, I thought ELAD said the "Blocked List" was available and I didnt' see it and that's why I asked where it was.

[Febble]

158. which let them block

posters who added dissenting posts to their threads. Even if those posts were simply informative and civil.

[nicknameless]

164. You really mean *DIS-informative* don't you?

:eyes:

[Febble]

177. Well, no.

That isn't what I meant.

[question everything]

384. If the OP had a blocked list

there was a link at the bottom of the post, just like the alert, etc.

All you had to do was click on that link.

The only place where I saw it, of course, was at the I/P forum.

But, perhaps, I do not visit the other forums where people take everything personally.

I really think that the ones who really really love this function need to take time off from their computers, go out and inter mingle with real flesh and blood people.

[tyedyeto]

403. I really could care less about the I/P forum but

when LBN forum could be compromised where poster 1 blocked others (I saw that happen) but those who were blocked were denied any form of reply, that's unacceptable to me. Since I do not post in I/P, I would imagine the same type of posts would occur. Thereby, only one side of an issue would be discussed.

[Renew Deal]

144. Isn't it redundant if you are using ignore?

You can't read what they're saying anyway.

[nicknameless]

162. The issue of harassment isn't the same in all forums.

In one of the forums, you can't have a decent discussion because of disrupters. (We aren't allowed to call them trolls)
It's very discouraging, and has completely ruined the forum I'm alluding to.

As far as GD goes, IMO, blocking is probably just used for personality conflicts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

334. have you apologized to Charles Stewart yet?

How many times did you post that stuff about "MIT Professors funded by right-wing thinktanks"?

Go tell it to Christine Jennings.

"Decent discussion," my eye.

[nicknameless]

408. You want me to “apologize” to Charles Stewart for posting information

that revealed his connections to “the rabidly right wing” Hoover Institution?!

I’m not about to apologize.

And in your opinion, the revealing of that connection is *indecent*?
Careful, OTOH, your true political leanings are showing.

As far as any study Stewart may have conducted regarding the Sarasota undervote -- Feh.
That doesn’t make his reich-wing connections magically disappear.


Thanks for helping me illustrate my point.

[MissWaverly]

207. Amen to the block function

some of the best DU people have been bullied and harassed on here, I think that the block
function is a good idea.

:-)

[nicknameless]

308. Exactly.

:thumbsup:

[troubleinwinter]

225. Some of us read those lists

and KNOW that some of those lists were NOT about 'harassers', but purely blocking those with differing opinions, or who might correct bogus or incorrect information. The public lists exposed those types of blockers.

If a person's block list contained actual harassers, why would the blocker be subject to ridicule?

Perhaps some people were embarrassed when the block lists became public, but maybe that was all the better reason to have done so.

[nicknameless]

242. Huh? Blockers were ridiculed by their harassers.

[piedmont]

386. And blockers who clearly abused the functions were ridiculed by LOTS of people

not just the posters they blocked. How does one's being on another poster's blocked list make them a "harasser?"

[nicknameless]

409. It doesn't.

Troubleinwinter and I are actually referring to a specific person.
He blocked people who were harassing him, and they ridiculed him in a number of threads (in violation of DU rules) for doing it.

And that wasn't an isolated case.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=31042&mesg_id=31595

I didn't see anyone “abusing” the blocking function, but I don’t visit many forums.

[Cobalt Violet]

252. You said it so well.

And now the directions on how to look up someone's blocking list are posted in this thread.

[nicknameless]

259. The blocked lists are gone, because the feature has been removed.

[Cobalt Violet]

278. But you can still find out who was one someones block list.

This is how.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=31042&mesg_id=31977


And of course someone on that was on my blocklist is already trying to start bullshit with me.

[nicknameless]

283. I hadn't seen that.

So the harassment just increases.
Another reason to bring back the blocking function.

Very sorry that's happening to you.

[Ms. Clio]

85. thanks for listening to everyone, those who liked it, and those who don't

I really did think that somebody else had a good idea of blocking replies to the OP, but not to the thread itself? Or maybe when you put someone on ignore, they automatically can't see your posts, either, but others can? On the other hand, I really appreciated the opportunity to open my own Ignore list up their OPs, because virtually everyone here has something useful to contribute at some time, even those who have made it clear they don't think the same of me.

I think what worried me about this proposal is the idea that someone with a large block list would somehow isolate themselves, because I did not see that happening. When you have hundreds or 1000s of people posting, most people aren't going to really know or care why a few people have been banished from an entire thread, possibly just for personal problems in a completely unrelated context. And even so, my real concern was LBN. Maybe this could work if it was tried out in some of the smaller forums, first?

I understand the need to try something different, and I'm sorry if I have sometimes been critical of the system as it is, because mostly it has worked well for me and I think, for the board in general.

[BlooInBloo]

87. But won't anybody think about the cowards!?!?

[patrice]

155. ?? The cowards are those who have to prevent others from

reading opposing opinions.

???

This whole discussion is very confusing.

I'm not afraid of being blocked. I don't go around interacting in such a manner as to risk that.

What I'm afraid of is not getting in touch with the reality of the public mind as nearly as possible. I have no use for a sanitized board.

[BlooInBloo]

166. Coward = person using the I-don't-want-dissent -in-my-thread feature.

EDIT: It was loosely-Simpson-based sarcasm. In actual fact, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the fucking cowards.

[Cobalt Violet]

223. Let us know when you graduate from Junior High School.

I wouldn't want to miss it.

[Marr]

89. Good move. And btw- anyone who loved that feature-

you might want to think about writing an online journal instead of posting on a message board. You can keep it nothing but your own words and you'll never have to cope with disagreement.

[xultar]

106. I loved the feature. It kept people who thought calling a gay man a f@ggot was ok out of my thread.

I won't put up with any racist or discriminatory bullshit.

[Marr]

I've never seen that on DU, but if someone was making such

comments, then it seems to me that responsibility for removing the poster would fall under the purview of the moderator.

What I *did* see over recent days was alot of very smarmy blockings that fell into a sort of "oh yeah? Well allow me to retort by removing you from the discussion" category.

[Rosemary2205]

137. I saw it happen both ways

I saw 3 different threads saved from being locked by the OP keeping things on track by locking out a single disruptor. However, I also saw it being used as an "oh yeah" type thing when someone could not handle even polite disagreement. Not necessarily an OP locking someone out of an entire thread, but individuals blocking other individuals within the threads.

For me, I found it a useful tool for me personally. I bend so far over backward to try not to be offensive to people that if they are so offended by what I say that they need to block me for their own peace of mind then IMHO that's important for me to know as a reference.

[Poll_Blind]

222. I agree. I thought the ability to keep a thread from being locked via...

...that function was a very useful concept. I also agree with you about the level of civility increasing. There is a maxim that goes "An armed society is a polite society". Outside of the context of the original quote, I think that the Mutual Assured Blocking actually put people in a space where they were likely to be more civil, because of the threat of consequences.

  I did not personally see it abused in a particular thread but I certainly believe your account.

PB

[Garbo 2004]

98. I think you should at least have let it run till Feb 1 as planned to provide more data as to what

the possible long term impact would be. Was the determination that most people weren't giving it a chance based on the feedback of those who spoke against it? The "squeaky wheel" measurement of approval/disapproval?

I was interested in seeing how it played out in actual practice to determine overall whether it ok or a particularly bad thing.

As noted, most posters apparently didn't use the function. The very few who had massive block lists apparently limted themselves to the extent that when one such fellow started a thread in GD it sank like a stone. Heh.

[Recursion]

99. Have you thought of a more slashdot-karma-like approach?

I'm a big fan of fine-grained user ratings.

Thanks and props to the site admins.

[rug]

100. Well, how about nude avatars, then?

[Sparkly]

103. I'm sorry it was removed.

Disagreement is one thing; people constantly derailing certain threads is another. Sometimes it feels like harrassment, and the block function really helped keep such threads on topic.

As you pointed out, "abuse" of the function only served to isolate the abuser.

Sorry it didn't work out! :hi:

[Cobalt Violet]

221. Lots of people are in denial that harrassment exists.

They are much more comfortable labling the harrassed as cowards. Just like junior high school.

[Meshuga]

104. Good news!

I was one of those who never used it and I don't think anybody blocked me but the word around the campfire is that people were "abusing" it to stop debate. In a few months this site would become a place where you can only exchange conversation with people you agree with.

Thanks for removing it!

[BeHereNow]

107. What's that you say? I have you blocked...

:rofl: BHN

[Renew Deal]

109. It was unnecessary.

I'm glad you removed the block function. It just wasn't necessary. DU is successful because of what it is. It's fast, intense, informative, and a lot of fun. The mods do a great job and are trusted to be impartial.

I understand that you believe that people here are resistant to change, and I'm sure we are. I don't feel that's why the block function went down in flames. Other changes such as GDP, My DU, Greatest Page, 5 recommends, have gone off with little resistance. The block feature just had too many problems and didn't enhance people's experience. Politically it's undemocratic.

I am aware that Skinner and the admins want to enhance the conversation as well as accentuate the best of what DU has to offer. The Greatest Page did this. The Greatest Page allowed members to highlight the best of what was floating around DU. Steps such as the block function and member/post ratings are negative functions. They don't enhance the experience, so people (correctly) resisted.

I think the best compromise, especially for the primaries is what Something Awful does. They ban people for a few hours or days for stupidity (no questions asked). They post a board of miscreants with their punishments. DU did something like this during the last primaries. SA goes further. I think it might be a good solution. http://forums.somethingawful.com/banlist.php

Good move getting rid of the block feature. Take the resistance as a compliment, because it is.

[SmokingJacket]

114. Well, that was inevitable.

An interesting experiment, but whew! I've never seen so many people go nuts at once.

[Warpy]

115. It might still be appropriate in some of the protected forums

that have had threads hijacked before the mods have checked in and deleted the offender's posts. Some of those forums know who the troublemakers are and that they've been completely rational outside that particular forum.

[omega minimo]

119. Will There Be An End To A Few Notorious Disruptors & The Lounge-to-GD "Threadkill" Hijackings?

This "Disruptor Buster" was a good solution to the "constant harasser" problem it was intended for.

2 individuals, quite well known and obvious in open discussion (no PMs needed to suss it out) were immediately Blocked by me and many others. Why are they allowed to stay at DU and antagonize and constantly harass lots of other people?

2 more had been antagonistic to me and others in the past, but this Block apparently had them smelling blood in the water and on their WORST behavior.

2+2=4.

My list grew quite large last week when the Lounge had an OP specifically calling for a trip to GD to hijack an OP of mine. The swarm of bullshit disruption went on for 2+ hours before the thread was locked. Most of those were names I've never seen.

So whether they are malevolent or petty or bored, some folks think it's entertaining to disrupt and harass.

What will change about how that is addressed?

Thank you for trying something new.

[MH1]

139. I second that motion.

I'm not sure if we are thinking of the same 2 - 4 posters, since I frequent different areas, but I can speak to a very similar experience.

There are certain posters who consistently perpetuate flamewars. I am sure it is difficult to establish rules for mods to identify these, but there ought to be a way. There are definitely patterns to these peoples' posts, and I am not sure why DU is so tolerant of that behavior. The block function was perfect for taking individual action against these abusers.

[ReadTomPaine]

156. An excellent question. How will the problem of serial disruptors be handled?

Will the moderation model be stepped up with more mods and better responsiveness toward this type of user? Since this is an acknowledged problem by both users and administrators, there needs to be a better solution than a return to the previous situation.

In the past users like MrBenchley, for instance, lasted here far beyond their vintage despite floods of complaints about their obviously antisocial, disruptive behavior. The current moderation model, for whatever reasons, doesn't seem to be able to handle this sort of problem. Block handled it nicely. As this feature is gone, there remains a need to deal with this issue in another fashion or those like him who remain will be rewarded for antisocial behavior, thread hijacking and so forth.

On many occasions I've found postings that clearly violate the explicitly spelled out rules of these discussion forums and yet nothing is done about it. There is no consistency, something David himself has told me. This is a problem, and it need to be fixed - if not this way, then in some other.

[Poll_Blind]

185. That's a $64,000 question that would be truly useful to have an...

...answer to. Because the new feature seemed to offer a way to deal with it. A real way for users to deal with it.

PB

[Duncan Grant]

206. The block was a great incentive for users to remain civil.

Unlike many, I thought civility was a wonderful goal. The censorship argument didn't get a lot of traction with me because a dissenting opinion can be included in a thread if you're civil. Opposing ideas could even be started as individual threads in response to a block. Where's the problem?

Obviously, I'm in the minority but I do hope some of the ideas you mention in your post receive a thoughtful glance from the mods and Admin. It seems to me that they care a great deal about the DU "experience" -- that's encouraging. :thumbsup:

[Poll_Blind]

210. I thought that the modification to the rules yesterday (?) to...

...allow a separate thread to be posted if the user was blocked and remained civil and on topic was an excellent way to address that loose end.

PB

[Cobalt Violet]

245. I agree with you.

This place has gotten so surreal lately.

[omega minimo]

425. What about when serial disruptors are friends with Mods?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

434. That's A Pretty Heavy Accusation To Make; That Some Mods Wouldn't Delete Posts That Were Blatatantly

against the rules, just due to personal friendship.

I personally wouldn't believe it to be true, based on what I've seen here, as this board seems to be incredibly moderated. But then there are some posters who think posts that are in strong disagreement should be deleted, but then get upset when they aren't and accuse the mods of not doing their jobs. I've seen it before and in every case I've seen the charge was unwarranted. But I would recommend that if you think the charges are warranted in this case that you take it up with the Admins rather than accusing the mods of such behaviors publicly, especially when no evidence could be provided in this thread to give credibility to your accusation.

And before you come at me with the 'Mindfuck this and Mindfuck that', please know that I would've offered this identical response no matter who the poster was, since it is in fact a pretty heavy charge.

[omega minimo]

435. Why does this concern You so much?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

436. Cause I Think The Mods Deserve Respect For Volunteering Their Time To Help Keep This Board Going And

are not deserving of being called out with accusations of disruptor favoritism that can't be substantiated or defended.

This board could degenerate quickly if it wasn't for the mods volunteering their time and effort each day and I think it is respectful to not accuse them of harsh things publicly, but to do so with the contact the admins link that DU provides.

[omega minimo]

437. It was a question, not an accusation. See #119

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

439. It Was A Question Putting Forth A Concept As If It Were Real.

Now either it was a real question of a real concern which would mean it was passive accusation, or it was a question of a 'what if' concern that would seem to have no validity being asked if there is no reason whatsoever to believe the mods have or in the future would engage in such alliance of disruptors.

Based on its context it would seem illogical to perceive it to have been the latter, based on your initial post. Instead, it seemed quite reasonable to believe your question to in fact be an accusation of the mods engaging in such behavior due to your belief that they didn't take care of certain behaviors or posts you had wanted them to in the enormously silly douchebag thread, because they were friends with those you were debating. Now if this isn't an accurate depiction of what you intended to put forth, my apologies. But if there is nothing you've previously seen that would give you concern of that accusation being legitimate, then how was it possibly a relevant question to begin with?

Personally, I don't need to know the answer. I've said my feelings and recommendations on the matter and don't see what else there is to add.

[omega minimo]

441. And it concerns You

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

442. Yes, It Did Concern Me. I Thought It Was An Unfair Accusation. But We Went Over That Already.

[omega minimo]

443. Hence the mindcrime

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

444. Okey Dokey. Nite!

[omega minimo]

446. It still concerns You

[WritingIsMyReligion]

197. Why GD trivializes the Lounge is beyond me.

What are we, second-class citizens?

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

248. Don't know about that. I was referring to a specific action that is forbidden except for the Lounge?

"...the Lounge had an OP specifically calling for a trip to GD to hijack an OP of mine. The swarm of bullshit disruption went on for 2+ hours before the thread was locked. Most of those were names I've never seen.

So whether they are malevolent or petty or bored, some folks think it's entertaining to disrupt and harass.

What will change about how that is addressed?

Thank you for trying something new."




It's also possible that if this incubates in the Lounge, it infects the rest of DU more than folks not going to the Lounge may realize.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

284. "Infects?" Perhaps a better word choice would be "affects."

:hi:

[bicentennial_baby]

372. Incubates?

What is this, invasion of the pod people? Alien?

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

330. Good point, WIMR

And, many "Loungers," such as myself, also post in the "big forums" and the topic forums on a regular basis.

[omega minimo]

363. I was referring to a specific action that is forbidden-- except for the Lounge?

"...the Lounge had an OP specifically calling for a trip to GD to hijack an OP of mine. The swarm of bullshit disruption went on for 2+ hours before the thread was locked... What will change about how that is addressed?"

The Lounge "trivializes" itself. Attacking GD makes it worse.

"Incubates" and "infects" are the perfect words.

[bicentennial_baby]

209. Seriously....

get over it....we all have :)

[Poll_Blind]

217. Actually, the new feature was dropped quickly after many people...

...refused to "get over it". I see nothing particularly harmful in voicing an opinion just as those who were opposed to the feature did.

Do you?

PB

[sniffa]

351. oh the bLock, we'LL never get over

she was referring to douchebags.

ahh, the bLock function reminds me of the primary wars. good times, good times.

[bicentennial_baby]

359. What's your dog in this fight?

You seem to have quite an interest in this issue, beyond the norm. Hmmmmm?

And what's up with you PM-ing people in this thread? What can't you say publicly? Hmmmm?

[LostinVA]

365. Hmmm.... tres good question

[sniffa]

350. jeepers crow

you reaLLy need to Let it go. it's consuming you.

here, Lemme offer you a peace offering.. how about a fresca?

[Midlodemocrat]

406. Maybe it had less to do with lounge disruption

and more to do with thread ridiculousness. Just a thought.

[LostinVA]

418. Good point

[omega minimo]

420. Pointless. And no answer to why the Lounge gets to disrupt other Forums

[Tatiana]

123. I wouldn't call it a bad idea. I'd call it an attempt to improve everyone's messageboard experience

I saw both the positives and the negatives to the block function. Personally, I was apathetic. I don't know if I was ever blocked; I certainly never blocked anyone else.

The only thing that concerned me was the fact that a really good thread could be started by someone who had, for instance, 3 or 4 posters blocked. Well, maybe one of these posters might be an idiot on certain topics, but on this particular topic, he/she is well-informed and provides great insight. Yes, the topic-starter is free from being annoyed by this poster, but in the meantime others (who don't have a problem with that particular poster) are deprived of meaningful discussion.

I saw several excellent threads over the past week or so that I bookmarked to see what "X's" comments on the topic would be, only to find out that "X" couldn't comment because he/she was blocked. That's really the only thing that made me think the block function might not be a good idea.

[Botany]

124. Guess I can bring up Skinner's 2nd home bought w/ DU $ now

:rofl:

Thanx for all your hard work!

[MH1]

135. Sorry to hear that.

I thought it was a good idea in more than principle.

[AikidoSoul]

136. I'm sorry the block function is being canceled because over time it would

likely serve to change behavior of those who habitually make hateful, aggressive comments.

I've seen pretty ugly commentaries DU in my short time here and can see how destructive they can be.

In all groups individuals bump opinions and ideas against each other and if done constructively they change the consciousness level of individuals and groups to something deeper and more complex. Beating someone up with continual attacks done in a tone of contempt and hatred -- stops learning as everyone is forced to deal with the overwhelming frothing and the personalities that demand to be dealt with. This smothers everything. No good work can be accomplished in that setting.

The blocking function was an opportunity for DUers to eventually modify destructive behavior of those individuals over time.

My thanks to the moderators for at least giving some thought to this, although I respectfully disagree with the decision.

:-)

[hyphenate]

142. I think that a wholesale block mechanism

was a risk at the very least, considering how many older members often find themselves on the other end of a banning because they have gotten comfortable with slinging the mud at fellow older members who know that it is all in fun, but newer members aren't capable of that kind of insight. It can make the differences all that more obvious when new people join and are subjected to closer scrutiny and occasional tirades that make them uncomfortable. As a result, many get involved with groups of members who joined around the same time, and narrowed their contacts.

The one thing which concerns me is the primary season, which we've already entered this time around, as people are already picking out their candidates and often being cruel, unkind or just plain ruthless regarding the other candidates. Perhaps an early establishment of a "Primary" forum could help quell some of the negative energy that is emerging, and limit flames, bannings and derogatory remarks from the other forums.

[muriel_volestrangler]

145. And if you want to find out the last state of someone's block list, here's how:

Find the numerical ID of the user (it's in the URL of their
profile), and then add it to the end of this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=blocked&uid=

That is, until they work out how to remove people from their
block list without screwing up their ingore list - or until
elad takes away that little feature :evilgrin:

[Renew Deal]

150. You are correct

That worked for me.

[Kazak]

146. New function?

:shrug:

[3121guitarist]

148. A great decision, thank you.

I was worried people would block me just because I don't like certain elite democrats, even though I do like the more progressive members, the few they have. Just being offended at someone is not enough to justify you giving that person some draconian block. It sure aint liberal. Let the freepers have their censors and blue noses. On the left, we should be able to take the fire. Amen.

[Skittles]

149. thank you Earl - I have a SUGGESTION

I apologize for going over the top in my opposition to blocking but I was just so stunned at the inherent censorship - I know you all had good intentions but a lot of petty DUers do not. IF I MAY OFFER A SUGGESTION: I thought the block function feature MUST STAY IN PLACE FOR A WEEK would be EXCELLENT for the IGNORE FUNCTION - discourages the "peeking" that seems to cause problems and gives time for DUers to cool off

[patrice]

170. That's a **good** idea! n/t

[Skittles]

178. it IS a good idea

myself, I don't peek, but I hear it is a problem - people just cannot help themselves - well, then I can see how the IGNORE function loses its power. But take away that ability to peek - sheesh, most conflicts would resolve for sure, I think.

[Boojatta]

176. Practical problem: what if someone peeks without signing in?

IF I MAY OFFER A SUGGESTION: I thought the block function feature MUST STAY IN PLACE FOR A WEEK would be EXCELLENT for the IGNORE FUNCTION - discourages the "peeking" (...)

[Cobalt Violet]

183. I never thought to do that.

Thanks.

[Ms. Clio]

220. then if they see it, they can't respond without signing in

on several occasions, I've hit the board without signing in first, seen someone in my Ignore list (it's not like it's miles and miles long, either, and I'll bet most people posting today have never heard of most of the names in it) posting something that is important or interesting, and I've signed in and gone to my list and clicked them out of it.

So if they peek, when they come back to try to reply, all they will see is "Ignored" and they can't reply to that.

[LostinVA]

335. Exactly -- and, I've done that, too

It also freaks me out when we go DEFCON, like on Election Night -- I see all these posters I have on Ignore.

:scared:

[Deja Q]

235. Doesn't matter if 'ignore' has the 1 week period.

Months later one can un-ignore a person and see they're just as, forgive me, immature and trollish as usual in their responses, because that's all they seem to be good for.

[Skittles]

249. well DON'T UN-IGNORE

PERMANENTLY IGNORE THEM!!!

[Deja Q]

255. Then I missed the point of your original post.

Please forgive.

[Skittles]

264. perhaps IGNORE options are in order

Temporary Ignores and Permanent Ignores! :D

[LostinVA]

339. Skittles meant, if you put them on Ignore they HAVE to stay on Ignore for one week

You can't keep clicking them off so you can snipe at them, then put them back on Ignore. Thus, it would eb a good cooling off period.

I think it's a good idea.

[LostinVA]

332. I second that suggestion

There are more than a few who Ignore people, then take them off Ignore to attack, then put them back on.

I admit I have a big ignore list. However, sometimes I just put someone on there for a few days so I can cool off after a bad debate -- I know they aren't trolls, but I also know I REALLY need to cool down for a bit. This "time out" might help cut down on some sniping due to people getting a bit hot under the collar... especially during primary season, etc.

Great idea!

[Strelnikov_]

151. Sorry to hear this

Considering some of the 'personalities' on this board, it was a very good idea.

[Skittles]

168. you can IGNORE those personalities

USE THE IGNORE FUNCTION

[Strelnikov_]

189. Sounds Good, Jump Right On It n/t

[mzmolly]

152. I personally liked the idea more than I disliked it. I only had one person blocked,

and that person is continually personally abusive. I think said person is friendly with the mods on a personal level and misuses her relationship to push the so called envelope? But, I shall take heart in the fact that I still have the ignore function at my disposal?

I hope you'll consider this again to some degree, perhaps put a limit on the number of people one can block?

Thanks for giving us input and hearing the concerns of DU-ers.

[3121guitarist]

160. How do you know that woman is not a freeper in disguise.

They are all over here.

[Renew Deal]

163. And that's why the block function went away.

People going freeper hunting. Disagreement doesn't make someone a freeper.

[mzmolly]

227. I happen to know this person is just an obnoxious liberal.

We have some of them (obnoxious abusive folks) too, ya know. ;) Generally speaking, freepers in disguise have digits in their user name *ehem* :D

[patrice]

181. For many of us who are against it, it isn't about the number of

people that someone can block, but the fact that any one person (except a mod) can determine what everyone else reads in the thread for an OP.

[mzmolly]

226. I understand that position, and the various views that others have expressed.

I too am expressing my opinion. I see both positives and negatives to the feature, personally.

[Cobalt Violet]

230. That person was on several lists that I saw.

Now that we can still look up who was on who's list.

[mzmolly]

241. We can?

oops! :blush: On edit, how can we look it up?

[Cobalt Violet]

257. Yes. You can.

This has been one of the most surreal weeks I have ever had on DU and it's only Wednesday.



directions here:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=31042&mesg_id=31977

[mzmolly]

260. Wow,

interesting, thanks. :hi: I am glad to know that my blockee was "popular" in a sense. I feel a bit vindicated. ;)

[Cobalt Violet]

268. I didn't mean to pry.

But I read her post with the directions and remembered that you said you had someone on your list so I tried it to see if it worked. It did.

[mzmolly]

269. No problem,

I appreciated the info. :hi:

[mzmolly]

263. Nevermind, I got it now.

Thanks :hi:

[ContraBass Black]

275. Oddly, it didn't work for me.

[Cobalt Violet]

281. It must have you on block.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=blocked&uid=136541

:hi:

[Annces]

161. I thought it would help with certain types of threads - oh well

[Laurab]

169. Thank you!

I'm not normally resistant to change, but I just thought this was a bad idea. I think "ignore" and "alert" work fine. I felt there was a huge potential for abuse of the new function - a lot of people disagree with each other, people have their personal likes and dislikes, but I don't think they should be able to keep people they just plain don't like, from participating in a thread.

I'm glad it's gone, myself.

[Kerrytravelers]

173. I'm on the fence about this one.

I did have one person on Block. They also had me. it was probably a good idea in that we are two posters who will never, ever get along. I'm sure this poster was just as pleased to not interact with me as I am with them. Blocking one another took away all temptation to be snarky when I'm in a feisty mood.

Or, I could just grow up, huh?

However, I have never been prolific enough here to really enrage a poster enough to follow me from thread to thread, continually arguing with me. So, for those who do experience this, the loss of Block must be very aggravating.

What if someone who does have continual problem with another poster have the option of contacting the Admins with the situation. Perhaps there needs to be an "official form" that includes proof of multiple links, etc. Perhaps the mods/admins could enact a needed Block, but it wouldn't be visible to the rest of us. Yes, this does tamper with a free response, but it accomplishes what the Block feature was attempting to accomplish. I brought this idea up in an earlier thread regarding the Block feature. I don't expect a response on this, but perhaps it is something the admins need to consider.

And maybe bringing on a few more mods to help out.

Thanks for all the hard work!

[LostinVA]

341. KT -- you can do this now

Threadstalking is against DU rules. And, if you can prove a good case using links, etc., the Admins WILL TS the person, or at the very least "put them on probation." They've recently done it for me. Just PM the forum Mods will your proof.

[Kerrytravelers]

445. Oh, I didn't realize that. I've never been thread stalked.

Thanks! :hi:

[salin]

182. Interesting... I had great concerns (and saw some behaviors

confirming those concerns). However, when the 'block lists' were visible - out of curiousity I started looking for them (how many folks were using them? was it messing up conversations) - and found that most folks were not using them (at least folks who start threads - as that is where one would see block-lists), and that it messed up some conversations in a few forums (where there were already "camps") - but it wasn't as widespread as I might have expected. I learned that more folks were more 'open' than I would have thought (maybe per the linked-to-the-OP-post many are "Puritans"), and that while some were abusing it (imo - posting directly to someone that one has already blocked - such that it is *known* when posting that the person can not respond = abuse of the feature) - there was more counter-reaction to that behavior - that is, there seemed to be a negative reaction to those who used the feature in a way that fits my definition of "abuse of the feature."

I am still not a fan of the feature (and to those above who claim that folks who were vocal about not liking the feature were all abusive posters - I challenge you to find evidence over my five years of posting to show where I have been abusive - perhaps I am just an anomoly - or perhaps that is an over generalization??). However, I did learn - esp when the "reveal the block list" feature was added - that it really wasn't as bad as I had assumed - and that perhaps a little openness on my part to change, is warrented in the future.

[LostinVA]

342. I think it's an over generalization

Most people who have been vocally against the feature are not people who are known harassers. Some, but not the huge majority.

[salin]

398. I agree

last night I wanted to give voice to that point though I should have added your point (which was the motivation for my post). Yours really was the point I was trying to make, and give an example.

[Duncan Grant]

186. I'm sorry you "blinked". It was a great idea.

The block was a perfect troll-buster.

Don't believe me? Watch what happens the next time a GLBT DUer starts a thread asking everyone to stop with the "Ann the Man" comments in threads. There are some topics that cannot be discussed rationally here -- especially ones in which some DUers continually scream "PC! PC! PC!". It's a pity.

Like it or not, there's an ugly level of contempt and antagonism directed toward some of the more "militant" (inside joke) GLBT DUers.

Oh well, back to the "alert" and "ignore" buttons for me. I hope this won't discourage you from trying new things in the future. We need more visionary ideas -- not less. :thumbsup:

Best wishes,
9_S_F

[Strawman]

188. Lesson here is...

There is just no perfect technical soultion to the social problem of assholism.

And one person's (or clique's) asshole is another person's (or clique's) most kickass DUer. It's entirely subjective.

Personally, I couldn't give two shits whether this thing lived or died. The same people are going to have problems with one another for the same reasons no matter what. Hopefully, the admins and mods can be fair and objective judges of genuine harassment in the absence of this feature and TS harassers. I'm sure they can, but I'm also sure it is hard from a logistical standpoint to effectively police all this stuff and this was a well meaning, sensible and worthy effort to compensate for that. Governance sure is a pain in the ass. The admins have my sympathies.

[GOTV]

369. Wouldn't it have been perfect if....

... your block list only affected YOUR view of the thread?

You don't have to watch the trolls or the sub threads they start and the rest of us can have the view we want.

Really, I don't see how anyone could have complained about a block feature that worked like that.

[Strawman]

397. Still doesn't solve the problem of indirect ties

Person A blocks person B because they don't like one another. Person C PM's Person A and says "Hey Person A, Person B is talking shit about you because they know you can't see it."

There are just too many bridging ties in a social network as robust as DU.

[tyedyeto]

404. Doesn't that happen NOW? n/t

[GOTV]

410. That was a problem with the blocking function anyway....

... Person B was still free to trash A and C could still PM Person A.

If Person C decides to circumvent the blocks of person A, it would probably be time to block C as well.

[Buzz Clik]

193. So I now have to read all the b*llsh*t from the mods and admins I had blocked?

:evilgrin:

[WritingIsMyReligion]

195. Definitely no complaints here. Well, except for the fact that I wanted to see block lists.

(:P)

Glad to see this travesty is being euthanized before it gets too ridiculous.

[Cobalt Violet]

231. You can still see other peoples block list.

The directions are posted up the thread aways.

[Crunchy Frog]

198. I'm sorry that it didn't work out.

I never used it, but there have certainly encountered poster in the past, and anticipate encountering some in the future, for whom such a feature would frankly be a godsend.

I wish it could have been given a little more time, but I can understand the pressure that you must have been under. As far as I know, I wasn't blocked by anyone, but I can imagine the hurt feelings that many people must have had upon discovering they had been blocked, and I know that many of the blockings appeared to be entirely unprovoked. It's certainly a feature that can be exploited by the a**holes among us, and a unique way to let a poster know that you hate them. Not pleasant for those on the recieving end, I'm sure. :(

[distantearlywarning]

200. I thought it was a good idea in principle.

I also think that a vocal minority wom the day on this one. It's too bad, but you made the decision you thought was fair. At some point, maybe when the furor dies down, I'd like to see an official poll about it.

My observations over the past few years on DU have led me to the conclusion that a small handful of prolific, vitriolic posters are responsible for the vast majority of flame wars here, and any system that might isolate or remove these posters from the social dynamic would probably improve the level of discourse greatly. Most posters here are fair and civil, but a few aren't, and their incivility prompts other people to be incivil also (people who wouldn't normally act like problem children if they weren't provoked). As DU grows larger, some system will probably need to be put in place to deal with this problem. Maybe this wasn't the right thing at the right time. But something will need to be done.

I have heard the complaint over and over again that this kind of dynamic is all about simple disagreement, as though most of us are too emotionally involved in our own ideas to be able to handle someone with a different opinion. That might be true of some posters, but I don't think it's true of most of us. What most of us can't handle is people attacking us personally, or being contemptous and ugly about our ideas (which can also feel like a personal attack even if nobody calls you a name). It's not about dissent - it's about HOW people express their dissent, and certain kinds of behaviors cause threads to devolve into screaming matches because people are, in reality, trying to defend themselves along with their ideas. THAT'S what needs to be addressed, not the fact that one person likes Hilary and another likes Obama. Peer pressure is a better way to deal with poor behavior than any kind of legislation from on high (like mods removing posts), which is why I liked this idea.

This is all just my personal opinion, of course...

[Neshanic]

208. This is very good news. Thanks to the Admins for dealing with what was probably

a very rough time since this was initiated, and very long hours on working through this.

My beleif in this site and what it it stands for has been reaffirmed.

Thank you.

[Pithlet]

211. Thank you.

I'm sorry I was a bit of a pain in the butt about it. I don't blame you for giving this a try, and I'm sorry this ended up being such an ordeal. I appreciate everything you guys do for DU.

[sendero]

213. Sanity reigns..

... as I had faith it would.

[mainegreen]

215. Hallelujah! nt

[RoyGBiv]

216. For the record ...

I think many of us who initially criticized the idea *understood* what you were trying to do, but didn't think it would be successful, primarily for the reasons you've here stated as the reasons for the abandonment of the experiment, or some variation thereof. As I stated, the bad behavior you were trying to control would simply manifest itself in another way, forcing you to deal with that. Predicting that manifestation with precision wasn't possible, but that hardly mattered in the long run. Certainly others who criticized the idea were doing so for other reasons, some of them selfish, and hey may or may not have understood what the point was, while still others probably had no clue and simply saw some conspiracy.

The problem with introducing ideas this radical is precisely as you state, expectations. For better or worse you've developed an environment in which a certain system is expected, and dramatic changes to that system will not go over well, no matter how good those ideas are, especially when the idea is offered as a control on bad behavior. As I said originally, I still think this idea could have some beneficial application even under the current system as a tool for moderators and admins to use in extreme circumstances. It could even be tweaked in other ways that don't mirror the initial implementation, yet progressively work toward a broader change. In short, I think part of the problem had less to do with the function than with its implementation.

[lonestarnot]

218. Woodamnwhoo!

Now I can just go back to being ignored and ignoring myself. Heh. :hug:

[july302001]

219. too bad...

Well I think it would have been a better idea to keep the block function.

Maybe instead, to keep the tone on here more open and respectful, among the whole group, a few certain words could be dis-allowed.

I know eveyone hates censorship and all, but some people read this board with children in the room and it's not so good seeing some of the %*&(*@% that I see sometimes.

I'm thinking about this especially looking to the 2008 campaign when the DEMS need all the help we can get to win the election. We gotta try and project a sorta decent image, y'know?!?

[lonestarnot]

395. hhmmmf. Fuck that.

[Olney Blue]

224. OK with me that it's gone.

[kath]

229. Seems like knee-jerk reactions and the old Fear of Change thing ruled the day

here, and that it wasn't really given enough of a chance.
Made sense to me to take some the burden off of the mods and give people the chance to control their own experience.

Agree that perhaps DUers should have been polled as to their feeling about this new function after a few more days, and BEFORE deciding to eliminate it.

[mondo joe]

238. Not fear of change - just fear of change for the worse.

You can control your own experience with the ignore function.

[Poll_Blind]

244. I think given even to the Feb. 1 date, the message that EarlG quoted...

...would have described how things would run their course fairly accurately. Here's a copy of the he provided (points 2-5).

  I don't understand the hurry to remove the functionality. Most people did not have time or inclination to utilize the feature. Some only found out about the feature recently. Very recently, as a few posts in this thread will attest. And, it appeared that very few out of the few who utilized the feature "abused" it, which invariably backfired on them anyway in the form of retributory blockings- something which was predicted from the get-go.

  It seems as though some were presumably driven to extraordinary levels of agitation at the mere existence of the feature though, because they were against it, presumably they did not consider or desire using it.

  And, of course, with the message yesterday (?) which stated that if you believed you were blocked inappropriately you could form a new thread as long as it was civil and on topic, I figured that the last kinks had been worked out.

  It seemed they really had covered all the bases before implementing this, thought everything out and how it could possibly go wrong. And yet, a rejection of the concept of the feature and beliefs that wildy abusive scenarios come to pass (and which apparently did not)...in short, misperceptions by some members of the community caused the premature removal of the feature even though the trial was brief (in my opinion), already.

  As I said, I think things would have gone pretty much exactly as the points 2-5 in the about linked-message predict. And the overall result would have been a much more pleasent user experience which, invariably, would draw more users to DU.

PB

[question everything]

232. Great!

I think that the reason why "so many people would be unwilling to give it a chance" is because most of us are here for adult debates and not for grade school "he did, he did not."

We assume that most DUers share our perception. And.. most of us DO want to hear opposing opinions from fellow DUers (not every opposing opinion is a freepie one).

An earlier post of mine was quickly locked, but I was glad to see that the 80% of the responses for my small poll selected the: "I have never used this function and do not intend to."

Last, in your most recent thread several people raised the question about LBM but more so about I/P, where only original sources can be used to start a thread, even though Skinner, at least, suggested that if one was blocked from a thread, one should be able to start his/her own thread.

Neither you nor Skinner ever bothered to address this concern.

So, thank you for returning to your Democratic roots where we rarely agree with each other but we appreciate our right to say so.

[CTyankee]

328. I totally agree. Your example of having your poll thread locked by

the admin is a perfect example of the inconsistency of the admin's logic. They SAY they wanted us to have more control. But they have the power to step in and lock threads in yet another instance. That inconsistency is glaring IMHO.

There has never been and never will be a perfect system of control over human thought. There are people on this board who think in ways that disgust me, but they don't control my life when they try to disrupt a thread. I would hope that we would just try to work with our imperfect system while valuing free expression over safety from insults and jeers.

[UTUSN]

234. Thank you, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!1 (Stop messing with PERFECTION/DU) n/t

[mvd]

237. Fine with me, but a poll on the subject would have been nice

Maybe the block would have worked better if we had a limit of something like 10 blocks at a time. That would reduce some of the abuse.

[troubleinwinter]

243. Thank you.

Now free discussion, dissent, correction and challenge won't be hidden from our eyes!

[Stephanie]

247. Thank you!

Now I can return to DU, which I greatly missed, especially last night!

[AtomicKitten]

253. I had already taken people off ignore.

Truthfully, I found people were ignoring the ignore function and just posting around it, so it was kind of pointless. And ironically it became just another source of disagreement.

[Generic Brad]

258. No more double secret probation

Hooray!
:party:

[bobbolink]

262. I'm sorry to hear that.

I guess incivility will continue to rule.

:cry:

[Beausoir]

266. From now on...I reserve the right to say "Fuck-OFF" to any thread-crappers.

I only wanted to use the block function in the Lounge, where a troika of snot-nosed children always seem to crap on every and any thread.

THEY are the reason the ADMINS tried out this function.

I am sorry to see them cave....but this is DU, afterall. We cave better than anybody else.

[Cobalt Violet]

271. I would like that right too.

"Fuck-OFF" it has a certain ring to it.

[Beausoir]

272. I'm betting the first time we try it....we'll be gone.

[Cobalt Violet]

279. I bet your right.

It's temping since I've already recieved this reply from someone who was on my block list:

" Oh look! Now that the block function is gone, I can call your

bullshit "gotcha""

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

299. It's "I bet you're right."

Sorry, just had to point that out.

[Cobalt Violet]

301. Ah.... The Grammar Police have arrived.

Appology NOT Accepted.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

302. I just couldn't resist. Normally, I don't play grammar police, but you complain about them so much.

I just couldn't help myself.

[Cobalt Violet]

Have you look at your own mistakes. Are you perfect.

I dont' need this shit. Do you think it's funny to do this to me? Did you get off yet?

[Cobalt Violet]

304. Have you look at your own mistakes. Are you perfect.

I dont' need this shit. Do you think it's funny to do this to me? Did you get off yet?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

305. No, slightly and no.

Also, questions should end with a question mark.

:hi:

[Cobalt Violet]

306. Your hurting me and I don't think this is funny at all.

Would you tease me and have a good laugh at my stutter too? Are you really that crude?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

307. Sorry, I didn't think this is something that could actually hurt someone.

And no, I wouldn't laugh at your stutter. The closest person in the world to me stutters.

[lukasahero]

346. Your subject line states in perfect clarity what most people here need to learn

"I didn't think this is something that could actually hurt someone."

Anonymity. How much harm can we do with it?

We don't know who is on the other side of our screen and far too often we behave in ways that prove we really don't care. We don't take the time to consider who the other person may be and how we could be hurting a real live human being.

I always thought progressives, liberals and Democrats cared about people - even the "invisible" (read: poor, elderly, marginalized, weak and powerless). Watching how easy it is for us to render humiliation on the "invisible" here has made me realize we really are no different after all.

I hope people read your words and give them some serious consideration.

[Poll_Blind]

309. Cobalt, check your PM box in about 5 minutes or less.

Fucking second time I've had to do this in two months with different people in GD threads. Things will make a bit more sense. Just check in 5 min or less, please.

PB

[mondo joe]

353. It's so weird that after you expressed your wish that a child would grow up to murder

its parents that you're so sensitive.

What a combination.

[Cobalt Violet]

356. Keep badgering me you XXXX.

Apparently that's all you know how to do.

Wouldn't wanna be ya.

[LoZoccolo]

274. Oasis was more popular than the Beatles in the 90s. n/t

[WritingIsMyReligion]

322. No, sorry, it isn't the Lounge's fault.

GD is no more and no less civil than the Lounge. Take care of yourself and stop worrying about "the Lounge." We're not a cabal out to get you "serious" DUers in GD.

[LostinVA]

344. And, many of us "Loungers" post ALOT in the big and topic forums

The Lounge is someplace to go to chill out.

I post less than I used to because of personal reasons, but I still post quite a bit in the non-Lounge forums.

[dweller]

276. ... thank you...

*disclaimer



now i can go back to putting my virtual fingers in my virtual ears, and using the ignore feature, instead of allowing one to put a gag on someone who might have an opinion different from their own. I'm a Democrat, and i support your right to your opinion whether i like it or not.


disclaimer: unless you are the *moron. . . shut up already.

dp

[Hosnon]

282. Whosaywhuh? I never noticed its presence but...

I will be happy to bid adieu to all of the chatter about it (positive and negative).

However, it is encouraging to know that the administration here listens to the masses.

[BlueIris]

290. Huh. I was sure it was here to stay.

Some psychic I am. And I was just kinda getting to like it.

[Swamp Rat]

292. Good! Now we can all see each other again.

:hi:

[Redneck Socialist]

293. Me thinks they did protest too much

I was surprised by the uproar it caused and it's a little sad really that so many had so little faith in their fellow DU'ers to use the feature to improve their own DU experience.

[uppityperson]

300. Thank you for trying something and for stopping it.

The only things it did for me was make me think as to whether or not I wanted to use it (no) and wonder about people who had those big lists.

[Awsi Dooger]

312. Great decision

The block function was the only unforced error I've seen in four and a half years at DU. It all but ruined the Election Reform forum and surely would have done the same to major forums once the primary season neared.

I had basically abandoned DU as a result, and the brief visits were relegated to the Sports forum and Lounge, places where blocking would be virtually nonexistent.

[Liberal In Texas]

313. Nice experiment. However, doomed to failure.

I did not, or would not, use the function.

Good idea in concept. Bad in in execution.

More fine-tuning might do it. Good luck...L

[GOTV]

370. I think it would have been a hit if it only affected the views of the blocker...

... then it wouldn't have been anyone else's business. The problem was that it affected what other people could read.

[Kickin_Donkey]

314. Good riddance ...

DU is all about debate and the free flow of ideas. The block function was the antithesis of that.

The silent majority won out -- all those who didn't use the block function because they didn't support it.

[Violet_Crumble]

316. Just because people didn't use it didn't mean they supported it...

What it could have just as easily meant was that they were using it the way in which it was intended and were lucky enough not to have to deal regularly with another DUer who's abusive to them. All this feel-good stuff about 'debate and the free flow of ideas' is basically crap. If people want a place where there's a free flow of ideas, they need to go and find a place where there's no rules. DU has rules, some 'free flow of ideas' get deleted, and my bet is that some of those who yelled the loudest in every thread about the blocking system have no problem with trying to stifle the free flow of ideas when they hit the alert button on posts they think are breaking the rules...

Of course there were a few DUers who abused it. The two I spotted was my inclusion in a block list that weighed in at 121 DUers, and someone who'd blocked me posting a reply to me in a thread I'd started. But the way some folk were carrying on you'd have thought every DUer who blocked someone else was abusing the system....

[Kickin_Donkey]

317. Quit whining. The block feature is history.

You lost. Now get over it.

[Violet_Crumble]

320. So much for yr claim of wanting a free flow of ideas...

I'm not whining, btw, so build a bridge and get over the fact that someone disagrees with yr post. I was under the assumption that you were mature enough to tolerate someone pointing out that some of what you said in yr post was wrong. This wasn't about winning or losing, and obviously you must have missed my post in the long-arse blocking thread where I mentioned some problems I saw with the system...

[Cobalt Violet]

325. Another amazing post that DU would be at a huge loss without.

Grow up. Not every one is on your page.

[GOTV]

371. I was an outspoken critic - I've never alerted - and I've never been alerted (that I know of)...

... so don't be too sure about winning your bet.

[Cobalt Violet]

324. Silent majority? Are you tripping?

It's the Loud Mouth Minority. Get it right. I see how your post is so precious to the flow of ideas. The DU would be at such a tragic loss with out them. I wonder how this place ever even existed before you came along.

[Puglover]

452. Not for nothing.

You have made (by my count) 45 posts in this one thread essentially saying the same thing. "The whiney babies got their way."

Definitions of whiney on the Web:

fretful: habitually complaining; "a whining child"

Seriously, you don't see the irony here?

[northofdenali]

319. EarlG, you guys work hard for us, and no idea is completely wrong.

No inconvenience to me at all, as I didn't use the function (of course, I've never even used Ignore), but your kind thoughts are appreciated nonetheless.

Admins, :yourock: - you've kept this board going and growing for years, and I find NO fault in that at all!!

[JNelson6563]

321. So what is the plan for primary season?

I've seen certain zealots here already proclaiming they are planning to be in attack mode on candidates not there own, is there a plan to keep this bad behavior in check?

Aside from the primary season concerns I have a question: Will there be anything done to discourage people from using GD as their personal lounge?

Julie

[Cooley Hurd]

323. I was a mod during the 2K4 primaries - It was utter hell...

...and still stands, to this day, as one of the most difficult periods of time on DU (a close second was the Truthout/Leopold controversy). I certainly can understand your desire to avoid a similar experience for the 2K8 primaries, but I have to agree with the majority that the block feature tended to be more divisive than helpful.

I think your decision on this is wise. Thanks, EarlG!:thumbsup:

[salin]

326. all mods (and the admin) who served during that time - deserve

a medal!

[Cooley Hurd]

327. Fortunately, I was an LBN mod, so it wasn't that bad in there...

...because of the rigid rules. But I REALLY felt bad for the GD mods.:(

[LostinVA]

345. You said it

[ScreamingMeemie]

375. The thing that cracked me up the most (as a GD and GD Primary mod)

was how many "you're biased against Dean" accusations I got...while working on his campaign. Crazy.

There were less mods then too. Phew! But I really enjoyed it...in a twisted sort of way.

[salin]

399. *chuckle*

not surprised - boy were the forums charged and many members of the "camps" hyper-sensitive and in ready-battle mode.

It must have been ... interesting (?)... to mod at that time.

Still say that you all deserve a medal for serving during that time. Or at least :toast:

[omega minimo]

387. It was mental blocks that were divisive, not the Block feature.

[BlueIris]

329. Bring it baaaack! I've totally changed my mind about this.

Think how much more spare time the mods and admins will have if you do so! Think about how many assholes, bullies and abusers may decide they just can't get at their targets here anymore and might decide to take their putrid, filthy energies away from this site at last! Did I mention...more spare time for mods and administrators, especially you know, those with growing families (hi, Baby Skinner!!!).

I miss it. It was so useful for me there for those 24 hours I could appreciate it.

[seabeyond]

336. lol lol i personally was having fun with the block lists. once that

feature was put on, i saw the block issue totally different

[ProfessorGAC]

333. Bravo!

Sometimes the best thing to do is actually CUT & RUN! Overcontrol is often worse than out of control. Thanks for listening to the membership.
The Professor

[woo me with science]

340. You made the right decision. I have to say that I dislike the insinuation

that those of us who opposed the feature were somehow just particularly sensitive people resistant to change. It seems to me the very flip side of the references to "childishness" that you went so far as to censor on the other thread.

My opposition to the feature was very strong and based in my belief that DU should be a place of free and open discussion, and nobody should have the right to prevent OTHER people from discussing an idea just because they don't like it.

You introduced a measure by which an OP could not only control his or her experience on DU, but also could choose to be a tyrant and prevent others from talking to each otehr in the discussion at all. It was a HORRIBLE idea.

You made the only possible good decision in the final analysis. I think you could have written a fantastic OP here about returning free and open discussion to the community. It disappoints me that you seem to perceive this excellent decision as a capitulation, when in truth you are preserving the freedom of expression and opportunity for challenge of ideas that make DU a place worth having.

[LynneSin]

343. I for one, am glad that this feature is going away

All I found it to be was possibly a tool used to hurt people. I don't know who has me on block and I'd rather be blissfully unaware. My ignore list is totally empty - I hid threads, not people.

I think it would be best for worst case scenario of two people who can't get along and are bringing that anger to the board (and we know plenty of examples) just to set up mandatory blocks or tombstone them if they can't 'all get along'

[LostinVA]

348. Good post, sis

[Sparkly]

352. What are "mandatory blocks?" nt

[LynneSin]

354. When two people here at DU can't get along...

...and it gets to the point that it's going above and beyond the basic stuff. Say we had a fight and I decided to post nasty things about you, then I start searching for all of your posts just to post nasty things about you in your posts and even then I start sending you PMs constantly over what a horrible person you are. You could send your case to the admins and they might take further action as to block me from finding or posting in your threads. And if that didn't stop it it could go so far as to tombstoming me.

If it's just 'I don't like you and you don't like me' and we just avoid each other and our posts then nothing would be done.

BTW - I like you, wouldn't ignore you and wouldn't stalk you either (nor anyone else for that matter). I have found people annoying and I'll just hide their threads - I'm sure the same has been done to me!

[Sparkly]

355. Oh!!

Wow, when I've had arguments with people I often can't remember who they were later!

Can a person be blocked from posting in threads about a topic, if they're continually disruptive and derail threads on said topic? I think I recall that happening to someone once... Can we make a case for that to admins?

:hi:

[question everything]

428. Well said. Some lists of blocked people were published

on the original thread.

When DUers like kpete and the Magistrate are blocked, you know that this is being abused.

[ContraBass Black]

447. If you did that, shouldn't you just be warned and then banned outright?

[NorthernSpy]

357. a thousand thanks for ditching the block feature!

Worst feature ever -- tho I know you guys meant well.

[hunter]

361. This Puritan is upset. You took away my high horse!

:silly:

I really did want to see how this played out, but I think that revealing people's block lists made the function too poisonous.

Personally, I don't think the blocking function would have significantly changed the level of disinformation posted here. There's a lot of crap floating around here, and the TRUTH (whatever that is...) has never been able to clean up after even a small fraction of it.

This place is very dependent upon peoples' own critical thinking skills -- their ability to recognize and ignore or refute the crap themselves, in their own heads. There simply isn't enough time for anyone to refute in writing all the crap they see posted here. You have to pick and choose, but if someone blocks you from that choice, it really isn't a big deal because you can beat their disinformation in other ways -- ways that are probably more effective overall than responding to a single rotten post by a single rotten poster.

[sweetheart]

362. a more useful thing

would be if you could fix all the links that get broken when a thread is moved to a different forum.
When someone uses 'my posts' to get to a post on a moved thread, it dumps in to error, and they have
to find the original thread to go to the moved location.

[Hubert Flottz]

364. ROTFLMAO!

Couldn't take the heat?

[welshTerrier2]

367. thanks, Admins!

you've gotten every call right so far. i knew this one was just a matter of time.

as an aside, regarding the rule about not "bashing" our candidate once they become the nominee, i've been reflecting on DU's strong anti-Hillary sentiment and what it really means to be an "underground" ... we will see some strange days on DU if Hillary gets the nomination. while it's true many will align behind any nominee with a D, the presumed mission of DU, it MAY be the case that many others will not ... she is very polarizing and merely becoming the nominee does not always change how people feel about your issues or your politics ... no point here, really ... just an observation ...

thanks for yanking the block function; DU will be better without it. peer moderation may still be worth pursuing in some other flavor but the "integrity of the public square" must be maintained under all circumstances. those who start threads should never "own" them; the threads are public ...

[GOTV]

368. There was no reason to give it a chance when your objection...

... wasn't based on the perceived damage it might do to DU.

I objected to the feature even though I thought DU would be little changed by it.

I think one person should not be able to decide for another which posts they can see as long as everyone is abiding by the DU rules.

Many of the objections were along that line.

It wouldn't matter if no one ever used the feature. It would matter if everyone who wanted to use the feature cleared it with me first to make sure I was OK with every instance. It wouldn't matter if I were the only person that could block other users.

So, giving the block feature a chance would not change the fact that it allowed one poster to make decisions about whose posts I could read.

Yes, we would have gotten use to it.
Yes, we would have stopped complaining about it.
Yes, there would still have been dissent, variety of opinions and arguments on DU.

It doesn't make it right that I can't decide for myself who's worth reading.

I'm glad it's gone but thank you for your efforts to improve DU just the same.

[Cobalt Violet]

396. "It would matter if everyone who wanted to use the feature cleared it with me first"

Priceless.......

[GOTV]

411. That "would" should have been "wouldn't". Typo. But I think it was clear to most.

[Cobalt Violet]

412. Sorry, thought you meant to write that.

It's not hard for me to believe that some people would want it that way. I'm not saying you.

[GOTV]

413. No prob Cobalt, havd a great day! :)

[Wizard777]

374. YEA! No more Free Speech Zones at DU.

I didn't like it when Cheney did it.

[piedmont]

379. I'm glad that's gone, and...

no, I am not a "serial abuser" or "stalker" or any of the other names that proponents of the feature have slung at opponents. I also am not averse to change. I just think I should be able to see ALL opinions that are civilly expressed in accordance with the DU rules, not just those by posters that aren't on someone's blocked list.

[Kolesar]

385. So, what idea would have solved the Brown vs. Hackett fight in the Ohio forum?

A fight that was not handled equitably by any measure.

[Skinner]

423. Oh, fercryinoutloud.

Hackett-Brown was a year ago. Spare us the mods-are-biased bullcrap.

[Bucky]

424. Already missing that block feature?

Among my kudos to yall should be a thanks for all the tolerance the admins show for a fairly undeserving vocal minority and an appreciation of how flexible you are about trying something, and then being willing to punt it if it's a bad fix. This is classic, FDR liberalism--try lots of different things to see what will work and don't be afraid to take risks or fix flaws.

[omega minimo]

426. and thanks for future solutions to problems the Block was intended to solve!

:thumbsup:

[Kolesar]

427. Outside agitators turned that forum into a donnybrook

I hit the alert key on wretched, ad hominem posts against me and they were never deleted or the outsiders banned. I even posted DU rules and I was only mocked. The only reason the notorious among them quit his blog and quit here was that someone dug up some dirt from his sex scandal.

[Marie26]

391. Good

There really are some people at DU who are abusive or exist only to start flame wars. And it does detract from the site. However, IMO this was not the right solution to the problem. That same (minority) of posters were able to abuse the feature to stifle opposition, & the block lists seemed to inspire even more flame wars. Maybe the problem could be better dealt with by just banning posters who consistently "stalk" others? Or a mutual ignore?

There were a lot of valid reasons to both support & oppose this policy, and I appreciate the effort to improve the board. But I don't like the implication that people who didn't like the feature were 1.) bullies, 2.) shrinking violets who can't handle any change, or 3.) doubters who just "didn't have the stomach" to allow the administration to follow through w/a good policy. That's not why most people disagreed w/the decision, and it isn't why I disagreed w/it. At any rate, at least the feature created a discussion about how to create a better environment for posters. Who knows? Maybe this experiment will cause people to self-examine & stop some of the behaviors that inspired it.

[LostinVA]

419. Agreed n/t

[Jamastiene]

392. Damn! And I still didn't find my name on anyone's block list yet.

Tried as I might, I couldn't find my name on any homophobic or mysogynistic people's block list. That sucks. I hated the new feature, but figured I would use it to my advantage to find my name on anyone's block list and add them likewise to further enhance their DU experience and my own. In all honesty, I thought the new block feature was to phase out us GLBT people and women who don't like anti-women slurs and at first, I hated it for that reason. But then I rethought the situation and saw it as an opportunity to permanently block a few people, the very few here that I don't like out of my existance forever and ever more. Now, I will be forced to see all those ignores on any post I make, whether it be controversial because I'm telling the truth or just joking. Oh well, I respect the decision of the moderators. In short, I think y'all really made the decision to do away with the block feature because you missed the gay element of DU alerting the homophobic tripe we find on a daily basis for y'all to moderate. Missed us, didn't ya? :P :evilgrin:

[BuyingThyme]

393. Revenge time.

[Ms. Toad]

400. Thank you!

Although I don't always agree with everything you all do, this is the first change I found really offensive. I am very glad it is gone. (For the record, I do not believe I was on anyone's block list - and I am not aware that I am on anyone's ignore list.)

In reading through the discussion above, it appears that quite a few folks did not realize that they already had the capability to Ignore folks (and mistakenly believed that the new (now gone) Block function only made comments invisible rather than preventing blocked individuals from being posting).

Even though it shouldn't be necessary, perhaps pinning a reminder description of the Ignore features so that folks who were not previously aware of the feature become more familiar with it. It might accomplish much of what you were trying to accomplish with the block feature.

[treestar]

402. Aw, thanks

Ignore is good enough for me, and I don't even use that!

[Bucky]

407. While I opposed the feature, I said I'd defer to your judgment on the matter. I hope...

that those who liked this feature will also defer to your wisdom. You tried something new and no one was harmed and you learned some stuff. Thanks to all three of the admins and to all of the dozens of moderators over the years for all the hard work you've put in.

You've built a strong web community here. Posters here care about each other. And now that you're coming off of my "block" list, you can tell me just how much you care about me.

[MistressOverdone]

453. Oh man

I was really using it. I had figured out, even this early, the folks I really didn't want to hear from and I felt much safer using DU, which is a wild and wooley place because of the sheer size. Now I have to go back to withholding my real feelings about some things for fear of getting smashed with personal insults. Because so often that is what it decays to. You don't agree with something someone says so you get into a hate fest with your cadre or clicque or whatever and say vicious things until you get removed, and then one of you sends the whole screen shot to the victim so he/she doesn't miss any of the amazingly witty insults you've come up with.

It truly sux and reminds me of high school.

[salin]

454. yikes - if that happened to you

I would alert the mods/admin per the sending the thread to you via pm - I would think that would be viewed as harassment. While I haven't had to do it - I believe that there is a way to alert on pms.

[Skinner]

456. Locking.

I think we have probably discussed this enough. Since the function has been removed, all this arguing is moot.

Let's move on.