ODing on DU's Distraction du Jour-- How Do You Like Your Block Function Now?

[omega minimo]

We can still use Ignore or Hide Thread for the junk that crowds out the relevant . Yet there's a number of threads acknowledging the continuous presence of resident trolls. That new(ly abandoned) Block feature was intended for the extreme cases.

On a day of action following a week full of historic events, this might be a good time to have a tool that helped weed out disruptors, conveniently and thoroughly.



And on the subject that we're not talking about because it's a trivial distraction from -- ya know -- stuff, if people don't know that multimillionaires are the ones running for office, maybe there needs to be some threads on that.

:thumbsup:

[Warpy]

1. I hide 'em as soon as I spot 'em

but they're multiplying beyond my ability to eliminate them entirely.

It's gotten OLD, people!

[omega minimo]

3. yup

:hi:

[LoZoccolo]

2. Now can people see why I would gleefully block people?

There really are people who are out to waste your time and mine.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Also, there really was never a consensus about blocking.

People bitched, but who's to say those weren't the same people who make a career out of being abrasive and obnoxious all the time here on a multitude of other topics, and thus had a vested interest in stopping the block? And who's to say the nature of such whiners didn't magnify their perception?

[omega minimo]

8. the whole mess showed me that "customizing" one's view of the site is not a bad thing

it was simplified with the new feature. now it's piecemeal.

:toast:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. I Will Always Carry With Me A Newfound Respect For You After Seeing How You Used The Block Feature.

You cracked me up so much with that and respected the hell out of you for the way you were so up front about it.

And your premise was strong too! (voting 3rd party blah blah blah)

[LoZoccolo]

9. Ha ha thanks! n/t

[Stephanie]

5. The disruptors used the tool to weed US out.

Giving them free reign. I'm glad it's gone.

[omega minimo]

11. if only there intensified behavior was enough to make them rilly obvious

Rilly.

:thumbsup:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. We Have Those Tools. They Are Called The Mods And Can Be Accessed Via An Alert Button.

They do a damn good job of tossin them trolls out too, when made aware of them.

As far as the Edward's house threads go, the ignore thread feature would probably be helpful there (though you might then have to block your 3 threads on the subject). It definitely has been a distraction on an important day, but thankfully some of us are doing the right thing and trying to make sure we kick the war threads back up, since they are what truly matters today.

But when it comes to disruptors or trolls, just click on the alert link. Though I'm sure you know that, the mods are really good at determining whether someone is a disruptor/troll, or just being alerted on because they have a different opinion etc. So if you see something questionable, just click that link. That's what the mods are here for. :)

[EllenZ]

19. A balance needs to be struck

between just tossing out everyone who does not toe whatever form of the party line the mod is in favor of and those who just disagree with the current line of thought. Do you want this forum to become like FR who just banns anyone who says anything negative about Israel (or Bush or any of a dozen other topics)?

I am well off, this irritates a number of people here as they feel you have to be poor to be a good Democrat. Hate to say this to them, but most their favorite Dems in Washington are all millionaires. And several of them have houses more expensive than Edwards house. I personally think that it is great that someone as successful as Edwards is willing to put up with all the crap involved to run for president. Someone with his managerial skills could do a lot better (financially) in the private sector, just look at what CEO salaries are these days compared to what the president makes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. I Agree.

[question everything]

10. You obviously missed the point of blocking

Yes, you could block people whose opposing opinions interfere with your self esteem. You could do this on threads that you started. However nothing would have prevented the blocked DUers from starting their own threads - which is exactly what has been happening with all the threads about Edwards' house.

(At least, I think that this is what you are talking about..)

[omega minimo]

15. au contraire

If you think "you could block people whose opposing opinions interfere with your self esteem" then it is you QE, who missed the point. :patriot:

[blonndee]

12. I've ignored at least 30 threads

but I really wish the MODS would act on the obvious trolls, at least. Don't get me wrong, I love the mods, but seems like moderation has been REALLY lax this last go-round of mod appointments.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. I Was Starting To Wonder If A Lot Of Them Are Just In DC Today LOL

I will say that I expected this Edward's house issue to have a bit more locked threads or combined threads or somethin, but other than that I don't think I've really seen the moderation get more lax than usual, but lord knows maybe I'm just not paying attention enough LOL.

[frogcycle]

14. Use the "alerts"

and establish some threshold of disruptiveness and then bounce them.

I don't mean to be like freep and block all dissent - just have some sort of tolerance limit.

[mondo joe]

16. Block is just a passive aggressive way to control others. Instead, control yourself.

Just use IGNORE.

You can eliminate all those threads now with Ignore. Block would not have prevented ANY of them from being started.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. This Is The 3rd Thread Today By The OP On This Subject, And The Majority Of

the OP's posts today have been discussing the topic. So I'm not really sure the poster wants to ignore it to begin with.

[omega minimo]

18. Since you were adamantly against the Block when it was on & adamantly for the Block when it was off

you're in no position to monitor or judge anyone else here.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. Here's A Challenge For Ya Omega: Show DU You Aren't Making Things Up And Provide ANY Evidence To

the completely ignorant notion that I was ever against the block feature.

I wasn't, ya know, so to say I was shows that you are obviously not above issuing blatant false premise.

But DU as a whole knows to regard the accusations with a grain of salt anyway, thankfully. But regardless, I'd still LOVE to see you respond to this post with ANYTHING that would provide credibility or substance to your ridiculous claim that I was "adamantly against the block when it was on". If you're going to cast attacks around then you best be prepared to back them up.

Can you Omega? Can you back up this ridiculous claim? Were you just putting it forward while actually having the nerve to be comfortable enough with the claim that you wouldn't be called out on it? Go for it. Let's see you back it up Omega. Either back it up or eat your own words.

Cause I got news for ya: I was NEVER opposed to the block feature. Not for a damn second.

I'll tell ya what is true though. What is true is that you've spent much of your day posting threads complaining about the Edward's threads getting attention, yet that's ALL you've spent your time talking about all day. In any thread you actually posted words in, it was about the Edwards situation. Any threads not about it you did nothing more than post a dot as a kick, but no discussion. All of your discussions today have been in context to the Edwards situation, yet you keep claiming we shouldn't be discussing it. In fact, this is your 3rd thread now on it. Do you not see the problem with logic here? I do. I think others probably do as well. But I digress.

I'd rather get back to the focus of this post. Go ahead now and prove your attacking claim. You won't be able to, so I'd advise you to not even bother wasting your time, but instead go back and edit your post in which the completely false claim was made to begin with. But if you aren't going to do so, then the challenge is on for you to provide ANYTHING that shows it to be legitimate. Good luck.

[omega minimo]

22. Ah yes, you love to challenge.

You promised not to bother me and I swore not to provide you with any more vocabulary words so...................

as for fixating on what I post, like I tole ya, you need a new obsession.


"Cause I got news for ya: I was NEVER opposed to the block feature. Not for a damn second."

:rofl: :rofl: There's your proof, MC, that's hilarious.


I ignored your presence on this thread until your second personal attack on me.
This bullshit is what the block was for.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Don't Deflect Omega. You Issued A Blatantly False Attack. I Challenge You To Back It Up. You Can't.

I see you are trying to talk your way out of it and redirect the conversation, but I'm not going to let your attack stand without direct challenge. So stay on focus omega. You issued a direct and blunt statement that I was "adamantly against the block when it was on". I have informed you that you are completely in error and issuing blatantly false premise. I am challenging you to either admit your error and actually show the slightest bit of integrity by removing the utter inaccuracy from your above post, or actually providing ANYTHING that would lend credibility to it. Since I know for FACT that you can't do the latter, since I was never against the block at any point in time, then you are constrained to the former. Are you decent enough to show integrity by removing the blatant inaccuracy? Or will you do nothing more than shy away from the challenge by attempting to deflect with further attack?

The choice is up to you, omega, but it isn't honorable nor respectable to post blatant lies about somebody. In fact, it's a pretty shitty thing to do.

As far as my comments in this thread are concerned, I absolutely CAN back them and provide proof if necessary. I wasn't offering attack, I was offering mere observational fact. Nothing made up about it and its verifiable. Are your statements verifiable omega? Well, I've put the challenge forth, so let's see if they are. :hi:

[omega minimo]

24. folks, let's not get suckered by every distraction that comes down the slimy pike

[Fenris]

25. Locking.

Direct your question to the admin.

[e-mail]