Are you sick of that person who constantly harasses you on DU? Now you can do somethin... (THREAD 2)

[Skinner]

IMPORTANT: This is the second posting of this topic. The original thread received more than 500 replies and has been locked. The discussion in that thread covers many important issues related to this topic. You are encouraged to read that discussion before posting questions in this thread. Read it here. (Warning: Large File/Long Download)


As you read this thread, Elad is in the process of implementing an important upgrade to the ignore feature. It should be working properly at any moment.

We have completely overhauled and upgraded our ignore function to give you much more control your own DU experience. And this isn't one of those minor cosmetic changes. You now have the power to literally block another member from ever directly replying to any of your posts.

We understand that some of these changes will be controversial. We also understand that there may be some not-so-pleasant unintended consequences to these changes. If you have any questions or concerns, please read this entire post before responding. We also suggest you read the replies of other DUers to see if someone else has already said what you want to say. We will do our best to respond to all of your questions, but we're not going to answer the same question over and over again.


The Nuts-and-Bolts: A Detailed Explanation of the Upgraded Ignore Function

This upgrade to our ignore feature has two major components: 1) We have split the existing ignore functionality into three separate functions which can be turned on-and-off independent of one another; and 2) we added a totally new feature that gives you the power to block any member from replying to your posts or replying in threads you start. Here's how it works...

For each person on your ignore list, there will be four options which can be turned on-and-off independent of one another:

1. Block Private Messages (Works the same as old ignore feature)
2. Ignore Threads (Works the same as old ignore feature)
3. Ignore Replies (Works the same as old ignore feature)
4. Block Replies To Me (Totally new feature)

As you see, the functions numbered 1, 2, and 3 are all the functionality of the existing ignore feature. But instead of having to choose all-or-nothing, you can pick-and-choose the functions you wish to use for each person. So, for example, you can block someone from sending you private messages without having to completely ignore all their posts on the site. Each of these first three features works exactly as they did in the old ignore function. The only difference is that they have now been split apart so you can use them independently. You can turn the first three functions on-and-off at will, whenever you like.

The revolutionary new feature is #4: "Block Replies To Me." This feature gives you the ability to block any other DU member from either replying to your posts, or from posting in your threads. In other words: If you don't like someone, you can choose not to have to interact directly with that person, ever.

We understand that the new "Block Replies To Me" function is a big change with the potential for abuse. For this reason, we have programmed some special conditions on its use so members will think twice before using it.

The first condition is that if you add someone to your "Block Replies To Me" list, you cannot remove that person from the list for seven days. This will make it impossible for someone to engage in anti-social behavior of repeatedly turning-on-and-turning-off the block to game the system.

The second condition is that when you block someone, that other person will (most likely) know it. There is no way to keep this function anonymous. When that other person sees your posts, the reply link will change to say "cannot reply" -- and the blocked person will be given a direct link so they can return the favor and block you from replying to any of their posts.


We have transferred your ignore lists into the new system

If you already had an ignore list, we have already transferred your existing list into this new system, and turned on the three functions that correspond to the functionality of the old ignore system. In other words: For the people currently on your ignore list, you are still 1) blocking their private messages, 2) ignoring their threads, and 3) ignoring their replies. But we have *NOT* turned on the new "Block Replies To Me" function. If you want to take advantage of that function for anyone, you need to visit your ignore list and turn on that functionality yourself.


Please post bugs, glitches, and other problems in this thread so we can fix them

This is a brand new system, and as such there are likely to be some glitches. If you encounter a problem, please post it in this thread so we can fix it as soon as possible.


A LIST OF LIKELY QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE NEW SYSTEM


The "Block Replies To Me" function seems like a pretty radical change. Why are you doing this?

If there are some underlying themes to this change, they are these: 1) We want individual members to have control over their own DU experience. 2) We want the jerks and bullies to know that they are disliked by others, and to face consequences for their behavior. And 3) if we are really lucky, there might eventually be less need for top-down moderation because the members themselves are setting limits on the troublemakers.

The bottom line is this: We believe that *you* should have the power to control your own experience on Democratic Underground. You are the best qualified person to decide who is causing problems for you, and to decide whether you need to make them stop.

The moderators spend too much of their time intervening in what are essentially personal conflicts between individuals -- many of whom do not even want moderators to intervene. If there seems to be a personal problem between two members, but those two members refuse to take advantage of the block function, then *why* should the moderators be involved at all? The problem is between the two of them. Neither one wants to "fix" the problem by blocking the other. Why should it be the moderators' job to "fix" a problem that neither participant wants to fix? As long as they aren't bothering other people, then maybe it isn't the moderators' problem.

If this system works pretty well (a big if), and if members like it (another big if), then maybe in the future we can move more in the direction of letting all of you -- the members -- collectively set the limits of what is considered acceptable civility here on Democratic Underground, and have the moderators back off a little bit. Let's face it: getting your post removed by the mods, and a vague threat of possible future banning are not a particularly good deterrent for many people here. But maybe if a troublemaker sees his ability to respond slowly chipped away by the cumulative blocking action of dozens -- or hundreds -- of other DUers then he might be persuaded to change his behavior. Or not. But if he won't, at least he will find his ability to make trouble to be somewhat diminished.

Maybe in the long run, we won't have to ban as many people from this website. It is very frustrating for moderators, administrators, and members to see a genuine progressive get banned from Democratic Underground because they can't stop making snide comments to another genuine progressive with whom they have some sort of personal conflict. I can think of a bunch of people -- now banned -- who might have benefited greatly from a system like this.


So, does this mean you are reinstating all my friends that were banned because of personal problems?

No.

But I'm not going to completely rule out the possibility of it happening some point way in the future.


What if I block someone, but they try to work around the system by starting new threads or replying to other people when they can't reply to me?

It is our hope that the vast majority of people will understand the value of this system, and will simply avoid engaging in this behavior. But there is no doubt that some people will try their best to work around the system. If this becomes a problem, then we will certainly take steps to deal with it. But for the time being we want to take a wait-and-see approach to find out how the system is used. That means that we might all have to tolerate this type of behavior for a while until we get some idea of how pervasive it is and figure out how to deal with it.


Are there any special penalties for members who are blocked by lots of people?

Currently there are no special penalties for members who are blocked by lots of people, other than the obvious penalty that you can't respond to their posts. But keep in mind that the more people you annoy, the more limited your DU experience will be. If you are a relatively non-offensive member, then you probably won't be blocked by very many people and you will be free to experience DU as you currently do. But if you are someone who delights in ticking people off, you might find that over time your DU experience gradually becomes more and more limited as more people block you.

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

The moderators will have access to information about who is ignoring/blocking whom, so it may better inform their decisions.


Can members ignore moderators and administrators?

Yes. Obviously this is a big change, so we feel it is important that moderators and administrators are required to live under (more-or-less) the same constraints as members do. We are doing this for two reasons: First, we want to know firsthand what it is like to have to live with these features, to better gauge whether they are working as we would like; and Second, we consider it a goodwill gesture -- our way of saying that we are not afraid of these functions, and we think they will be a positive change for Democratic Underground.

Exceptions: 1) Pinned threads by moderators and administrators cannot be ignored. 2) Moderators and administrators can override a block on private messages if they need to contact a member on official business. Currently there are no other exceptions for moderators and administrators, but we reserve the right to create more if we deem it necessary at a later date.


What if a jerk uses this function to block a nice person? Or what if someone uses it to block out people who disagree?

Unfortunately, this is going to happen from time-to-time. But we believe that the vast majority of DUers are good people who will use this function wisely. And keep in mind that there is a built-in disincentive for someone to overuse the function: Those people who use it for evil rather than good will likely see their own ability to participate diminished as they get blocked in response by all the people they have blocked. They will be able to post in fewer and fewer threads.

If this function is used widely, I think it is inevitable that we all will be blocked by a few people. That's just proof that those people can't handle polite disagreement. :) It's the troublemakers that will find themselves blocked by lots and lots of people.


What if I block someone, and that person blocks me back?

So what? You didn't want to interact with that person anyway.


Does the "Block Replies To Me" function block members from voting in polls or recommending threads?

No. Even if you are blocking someone, that person can still vote in polls you post, and they can still recommend threads you post.


Biden/Clark/Clinton/Edwards/Gore/Kerry/Kucinich/Obama/Richardson/Vilsack-haters keep disrupting my positive threads about Biden/Clark/Clinton/Edwards/Gore/Kerry/Kucinich/Obama/Richardson/Vilsack. Can't you please make them stop???!?!!!111

Unfortunately, we can't make them stop. But now *you* have the ability to make them stop. Just add them to your "Block Replies To Me" list and they won't be able to mess up your threads.

If you refuse to fix the problem yourself, then we sure as heck aren't going to waste our time and effort fixing your problem for you. We would rather bang our collective moderator head against the wall. Repeatedly.


It sounds like you won't have much sympathy for whining during the presidential primary season this year.

No, not really. Politics is an ugly business. If you expect all hugs-and-kisses on a public Internet discussion forum during a presidential primary, then the real problem is *your* expectations, not *our* moderating.


On principle, I am fundamentally opposed to blocking or ignoring other DU members.

That's fine. But please keep in mind that if you are unwilling to do what is necessary to fix the problems you encounter on DU, then the moderators aren't going to be particularly enthusiastic about intervening to fix them for you.


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

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

[Rex]

1. 'What if I block someone, and that person blocks me back?'

:rofl: Headon! Apply directly to the forehead!

[William769]

2. Personally I think it's a good idea.

I have already used the feature for one. Had thought about going to the Admins but then thought better of it. This solved my problem. Thanks.

[fooj]

3. Dissent is patriotic.

Have we become THEM? Hmmmmmm...

So much for all of the work we did to FINALLY have our voices heard. The Dems FINALLY gain the majority and Democratic Underground takes a walk on the "Right" side. Just my two cents...that is, as long as I'm not blocked from this thread.

[Skinner]

4. No, you're not blocked from this thread either. (nt)

[Bucky]

5. It's your board and I'll accept your rules. But censorship is still icky.

I'm already thinking of ways to work around this. I know your hearts are in the right place, but something about this just seems wrong to me. I don't know what headaches yall are going thru at DU headquarters in dealing with the li'l pissants who inspired this experiment in mutually assured censorship. From my limited perspective this is one of the best mannered political boards on the internet and you're pretty much feeding talking points to your critics with this. As a committed DUer, your critics are my critics too.

[Skinner]

9. My critics elsewhere don't particularly care what we do.

They'll criticize DU no matter what. If I made my decisions in an effort to appease those critics, this website would suck.

[omega minimo]

17. The real "censors" are the bullies who hijack/disrupt threads & "constantly harrass"

Esp. as certain topics or individuals are their targets. Less hijacking, more discussion.

This is a good tool to have to for the few extreme cases.

[lindisfarne]

53. If that's all they're doing, if they're contributing nothing of value to DU, then BAN them.

But if someone simply doesn't like an opposing point of view, they should NOT be able to BAN replies from those people. If you don't like public debate, leave this public forum.

[omega minimo]

61. That's a thought

"If that's all they're doing, if they're contributing nothing of value to DU, then BAN them."

Who knows why some serial disruptors are still here.


"But if someone simply doesn't like an opposing point of view, they should NOT be able to BAN replies from those people."

Yeah, that's not what this option is intended for.

[uppityperson]

90. Indeed, make sure you continue to use alert too.

my concern is that people will just ban others from their threads, and not hit alert on trolls too. Search and alert.

[LeftyMom]

378. Agreed, this is bad in that it's substituting for moderation.

I like giving people more control of their experience, but chasing the trolls away is part of running a forum.

[Quantess]

99. But more likely they ARE contributing, most of the time,

but are occassionally super-annoying to one or two DUers.
Hey, nobody's perfect all the time.

[omega minimo]

100. "More likely" the bullies who hijack/disrupt threads & "constantly harrass" "are contributing"?

"most of the time" :crazy:

[Quantess]

101. I stand by my original statement.

I'm saying, that's why it's good that these people can be blocked from a thread, and not banned.

[omega minimo]

105. Why do you assume

"more likely they ARE contributing, most of the time"

or that

"but are occassionally super-annoying to one or two DUers."

"One or two"?

[MistressOverdone]

6. Wow

This is my first day. Kind of scary! But it seems like a good procedure to me.

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. Welcome to DU.

:hi:

[Systematic Chaos]

11. It is there for a good reason, really.

As tolerant and respectful as 90% or more of the DU community is, there are still people who might be liberal to moderate on paper but still need some massive attitude adjustment. It's just a fact of life.

I can honestly say that I have never put anyone on ignore no matter how abrasive they have come across, and I don't think I ever will. But if someone here legitimately does strike the wrong nerve or hurt your feelings with something they say, it's great to have the option to block them rather than having your time spent here be less than enjoyable.

Unless you're actually a lurking freeper, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Welcome to DU and enjoy your time learning and socializing here! :)

[CTyankee]

75. But can't someone who opposes your point of view offer you a new

way of looking at something? I'm not talking about the waste of time that is the hurling of insults, which I often see here on DU. But sometimes a rebuttal to something you say is true, even tho it may sound hurtful to you. Might you not learn something from the exchange and wouldn't that be worth your transient hurt feelings?

[wryter2000]

16. Welcome to DU

:hi:

And don't worry. As long as you avoid that troll, wryter2000, you'll do fine. :evilgrin:

[MistressOverdone]

23. LOL

Well, I've read enough of DU to know it can get ugly with very personal hits rather than political or world view discussions. It is rather comforting to think one can avoid that.

[madrchsod]

27. we are nice people....well some of us are!

there`s always the lounge to go to when things get crazy in the other forums..welcome to the fun house

[MistressOverdone]

28. Thank you for the welcome

I've read enough to know that the vast majority of folks here are, as my mother would say, "lovely."

[LeftyMom]

377. .

:shrug:

[ScreamingMeemie]

7. So, those of us with unanswered suggestions/questions on the other

thread are SOL.

Sometimes one can be made to feel invisible after awhile, without need for an ignore button.

[Skinner]

14. I read everybody's post in that thread.

I apologize that I did not answer everyone who posted there. I did read all of the posts, but I do not think it is feasible for me to answer every single person.

Here's the answer to your question: If necessary, we can use this for forced ignores. But my feeling is that they might not actually be necessary now that the members have the ability to solve their problems on their own.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

10. I don't trust my sock-puppet to not abuse this function.

What if my sock-puppet insults me and then blocks me before I can insult him back? What, then? I am not a coward and would never block him or put him on ignore no matter what an obnoxious asshole he is.

[Bucky]

12. What an irrelevant load of shit. Consider yourself *blocked*, mister!

:hide:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

15. Bucky is not my sock-puppet.

I think.

[omega minimo]

13. So... your sock-puppet is into self-abuse?

:yoiks: :blush:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

18. There are certain things I prefer to keep myself in the dark about.

The point is, I am brave because I would never stop someone from abusing ME by putting them on ignore or blocking them. By proving that I am better than him by not blocking him no matter how much he obnoxifies me, I prove myself to be heroic, and I don't want to keep that information private.

[omega minimo]

20. If Only There Were A Pre-Emptive Non-Retaliatory Not-Block Option BEFORE He Ever Blocks You

"There are certain things I prefer to keep myself in the dark about." :rofl:

[salin]

32. I don't worry about your sock puppet, but Oscar... *he* I worry about

:D

[A-Schwarzenegger]

39. He laughs at blocks. He shrugs and goes around.

In fact, the more you block him, the more he gets through.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

182. rofl

:rofl:

[ThomCat]

19. There will be some one-sided threads.

For example, posts on Israel/Palestinians in which everyone who might post a contrary opinion are prohibited from posting on a thread.

Or posts on women's issues or issues of Discrimination and Prejudice where groups of people will be unable to post.

People who regularly post on certain high pressure issues are going to find out that only "our group" or only "their group" can post because people are already split on the issue.

The arguing may not be fun, but having threads censured in advance by which side you're on has a big chance of getting ugly. Especially if the excluded people start a rival thread.

[omega minimo]

21. Those who want to discuss "women's issues" respectfully will finally be allowed to do so

:thumbsup:

[ThomCat]

24. Maybe,

but I think it's more likely that we'll see threads where all the "rabid feminists" are preemtively blocked from a thread. As someone who usually posts as and with the feminists that's not something I'd look forward to.

It's not likely to be the random disrespectful people who will be kept out. It's likely to be the identifiable groups who stand up for an issue.

[Skinner]

25. I can tell you that so far this is not the case.

I know we've only had this function for one day. But at this point it does not appear that it is being used to block people based on ideology. Most block lists are extremely short: one or two people, max. You can't block out an entire point of view with a block list of two people.

I have no doubt that some people will try to do it eventually. But I don't think it is possible to do without greatly limiting your own ability to participate. The reciprocal blocks from the people you blocked will severely limit your own ability to share your point of view in other threads.

[foo_bar]

74. I beg to differ

But at this point it does not appear that it is being used to block people based on ideology.

Witness the stunted growth of the Bev thread, or the guy/gal keeping a TIA enemies list, or VelmaD as pernicious stalker by vox populi. I think this has been tried before, in the distant universe of 'Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games', where customer complaints led to overcompensation:

"Being safe from evil is, in my mind, an uneven tradeoff for the fact that you don't get to be heroes anymore, in that you can just opt out of fighting evil. It may be nobody wants to be heroes except when it doesn't count, when it isn't challenging, that people would rather fight "pretend evil" than the real thing, but I don't personally believe that. I still think people are better than that."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online_issues_faced

It reminds me of a cardinal DU rule:

Have a thick skin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

All told, I expect to see more shrub-like threads than tree-shaped ones (except in the Lounge, which is office politics). You're in the media business, and folks trust your site to produce high-quality train wrecks. People whose egos or agendas can't withstand dissent already have the DU Groups (or "Trammel" in MMORPG-speak); I think you shouldn't recapitulate the example of your erstwhile competitors who chose lack of debate as a web anti-spectacle.

[foo_bar]

163. meanwhile, back at project bubble boy

Perennial nice guy "Bill Bored" writes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464445#464594

It's hard to fathom, like waking up to find your favorite radio station switched to Country-Western Top 5 Heavy Rotation (and I like Country, not 'Western' so much). Not three months ago, you wrote:

This is why science is so much better than politics.

Isn't the whole point of "research" to figure out the truth? In the search for truth, isn't it important to start with facts that are factual? There is no need to insult people who offer corrections to factual errors. They have done a favor to those who support election reform. If too many sloppy mistakes like this are made, then the entire body of work by election reformers is cast into doubt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2702501#2702676

I have no doubt that some people will try to do it eventually. But I don't think it is possible to do without greatly limiting your own ability to participate. The reciprocal blocks from the people you blocked will severely limit your own ability to share your point of view in other threads.

If you were blockable, the aforementioned poster would have blocked you from replying, since facts are considered "stalking" (I replied to ~2 of his/her posts ~2 years ago, dunno what BB did, but you'd definitely be on the shit list). In truth I don't see this feature altering the herd dynamic tremendously, as running into the stampede has always been a low reward venture, but if anything use of this function is a form of harassment in itself, one which empowers the very "jerks and bullies" referenced in your OP. (edited for bonus hyperlink)

[OnTheOtherHand]

177. interesting example

That post (to which Bill Bored refers) overstates the undervote rate in NC-08 by a factor of four. Of course I can't point that out on the thread. I'm not allowed to correct that factual error in situ, by the choice of the person who made it. Nor can you, nor can he, nor can who knows how many other people. This will save me a lot of time, but it seems like a disturbing precedent.

[omega minimo]

26. And will those self-selected groups show their true colors to the point that finally Mods will be

able to acknowledge the inappropriateness of misognystic behavior and attitudes on a "liberal/progressive" discussion board?

[VelmaD]

38. you just put words to my concern with this

I can think of a couple people off the top of my head who will likely block me just so they don't have to listen to me when I call them on their sexist bullshit.

But I made a promise to Skinner in the first thread on this change...when I find someone has done it I'm DAMN SURE gonna let the admins know about it.

[ChiciB1]

22. I Don't Think I've Ever Been Blocked... But I Have Seen Some Really

nasty dog fights here. I think I like the rule myself. I remember one thread I posted once and wish I had NEVER even bothered. My reason for the thread got completely out of hand and misconstrued over and over. I'm no wimp, but it got petty and childish so I just got fed up and left everyone else there to duke it out.

Then there were several others who started new threads that were mocking my initial thread. I must admit it did shock me though because my intention was not to offend, just remarking on a particular subject.

[ariellyn]

29. Sounds like "Survivor" with people getting voted auf....

Or is that Project Runway? :silly:

Anyhewwww.

This will be interesting.

[Lerkfish]

30. oddly enough, this encouraged me to REMOVE people from my ignore list

cause it made me see how silly I was. I hadn't even looked at my ignore list in a long time, and was amazed at how long it was....and then I felt ashamed, and then I gave everyone amnesty.

I feel better.

[Skittles]

42. see Lerkfish I do that

I put people on Ignore to let off steam, then feel silly and unblock, half the time because I know it was ME who was the problem......this new BLOCK REPLIES feature is bad, bad, bad and will lead to very hard feelings

[CTyankee]

77. Me, I don't even know how to put someone on Ignore. I just turn off the

computer and go to the library to check out a book, or something. I tell you, it's the best therapy ever, and you get to see interesting people you didn't see while you were on DU. Today I saw Alma at Las Haciendas in the 'hood.

[leftstreet]

31. WOOHOO!! FINALLY!

Kudos to Skinner and Elad

The potential for debate and discussion on the DU - free of the annoying, petulant, redundant drivel that eventually renders a few hot topic threads completely useless, unreadable, and mind-numbing???

Excellent idea!

:woohoo:

I feel my braincell count growing as I type.

:thumbsup:

[SanCristobal]

33. This is a worse idea then Bush's Iraq plan.

The idea of an internet forum is to promote discussion, not eliminate it. I see plenty of controversial ideas posted here that might go against the grain of a thread. I've posted many myself. I fear that this new tool will seriously decrease the ability of this site to host vigorous debates on policy. This is very sad, as I find DU to be the most intellectually stimulating site I post on.

My biggest fear is that people won't use this feature for it's stated purpose of ending trolling, and rather will use it to avoid the stimulating and demanding discussion that makes DU such a great site.

Personally, I would never use this feature. If someone wants to argue with me I am more then glad to do so, so long as they make rational posts. If someone only posts one line insults, I'll ignore them. In an extreme case I would ask a mod to remove their posts. I would never want to take their ability to speak away from them, even if they only post insults and spam. I like to give people the chance to come back and prove they can actually contribute to the discussion.

[HamdenRice]

34. Is this functional yet? Also a comment on "Greatest page"

I think this will be a tremendous improvement.

Funny thing is, that one of the prior changes made me much more passive. When the Greatest system started, I became a much more passive DUer, basically scrolling down and reading the greatest threads and not much else.

I think being able to limit irrelevant, name-calling, distracting, hijacking posters will probably make me a more active poster again.

But so far, it doesn't seem to actually have been put into effect.

[Skinner]

35. The problem is that we are at Level 2 because of Bush's speech.

So ignoring is turned off.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=announcement&id=1

It'll be back on shortly.

[Nederland]

36. This is the ability to control OTHER people's DU experience

You say that you want "individual members to have control over their own DU experience." When you consider the fact that the "DU experience" consists of what you see and read on your computer, the old ignore functionality already gave you complete control over that experience. If you didn't like a person's posts or a particular thread, just click ignore and you would no longer see those threads or those posts. That's virtually complete control over your "DU experience", is it not?

This, on the other hand, is the ability to control other people's DU experience.

A person who uses this new feature is not merely saying "I don't want to read this person's opinions", they are saying "I don't to want to read this person's responses to my opinions and I don't want anybody else to read them either." As a result, you are giving people the power to not only limit their own experience, but limit other people's as well.

Why is this necessary? I simply don't get the value add here.

I am glad that you said upfront that you plan to implement this and then see how it goes. My gut tells me its a bad idea, but I too will wait and see how it goes...

[astral]

40. I completely agree with Nederland

This wasn't really sinking in til I read that, and it's absolutely true. When two people are butting heads, or when one person despises another's comments directed at them in a somewhat personal manner, it does not mean either of the two people have the right to block the other from participating with the other members --- after all, if vast numbers of people agree and don't want to see someone's posts, they can ALL block that person from showing up on their DU Experience.

Interesting stuff.

But it looks like we're going to put the thing to test anyways, so let's see what happens. . . . I don't really want to know about it if people hate me and block me, actually, the times people have seemed to be really put out with me I hadn't even known I'd stepped on their toes til they said so.

But, okay, I'll just learn to grow a thicker skin here!

[Skittles]

41. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE

the BLOCK REPLIES feature is cowardice of the worst kind - it is a very, very bad idea - if someone is being constantly harasser that harasser should be BANNED; otherwise, the IGNORE feature was fine

[sendero]

44. Same here...

... this feature frankly sucks.

There is a certain rah-rah cheerleader crowd that would like me to stop issuing my opinion. If they use this feature to block me, I'll simply start NEW THREADS and block them.

This is the dumbest idea ever devised. If you can't use your words to convince, support your position, just ban. Yeah, that's real productive.

That's the problem with technology, too many people get hung up with what COULD be done and lose sight of what SHOULD be done.

[Skittles]

45. you got it

I do not want to see threads where the poster CHERRY-PICKS the f***ing replies - GAWD, those are the same cowardly assholes who kept themselves in snobby cliques in high school - I was a GI brat who moved constantly and I saw the same f***ing cowardly garbage in every school I attended - I do NOT want to see that class shit here in the DU

[cwydro]

46. Yeah, that was my thought

That a group could band together to block a person or persons just because they can...I guess we'll see.

[sweetheart]

149. "i guess we'll see"

You summed it up. I don't use ignore so i don't care about such features believing
them silly in public discussion. As i don't really have a personal association with
other writers here, besides admiration for them, i'll see how this all pans out... if
someone blocks me from replying where i really feel the opinion i was going to express
was unique and worth expressing... i'll start another thread.... i'll wager this
feature ends up creating multi-threads so that blocked people can also discuss.

[Skinner]

47. I'm not going to be around much for the next few days...

...but I want to answer this question one more time before I leave. Because it's already been asked and answered approximately fifty times, and it is likely to be asked another fifty times.

We have considered this thing from every angle, and we truly believe that there are real, built-in disincentives for large numbers of people to act in this way. No doubt, some people *will* try to block out all disagreement. But this website is huge, and they will fail. They can block out some disagreement, but the more people they block, the more times they will get blocked in response. Eventually, they will find that their *own* ability to participate has been severely limited as a consequence of their own actions. Hundreds of threads will be blocked to their participation, and their own threads will drop like stones because nobody can post in them.

We sincerely believe (admittedly we could be wrong) that the vast majority of DUers will use this feature in a very limited fashion to block out people based on behavior not opinion. For people who are capable of defending their point of view without being rude, this function will -- we believe -- limit your participation very little.

Please take the time to read our extensive question-and-answer session in the first thread. We have responded to this question repeatedly, and we believe our point of view is sound.

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

If we are wrong, and it sucks, then we can get rid of it.

[Nederland]

48. We have a disconnect here

I understand that you believe that this feature will not be used in the manner people are afraid it will be. I also understand the incentives involved and even agree with you that people who abuse this feature will end up being unable to post and see their own threads drops like stones. I want to be careful to say all this because I really want you to realize that I have read the other thread rather exhaustively and I have heard this very same response from you numerous times. Once again, I agree with you. People that abuse this feature will see their own DU experience changed in ways that they probably did not intend. However, there clearly is a disconnect here when you say you want to answer "this question" one more time.

I never asked what you thought would happen to people that abuse this feature. I didn't ask that question because, as you mentioned, you've already answered it many times already. No, the question I asked was this:

1) Do we not already have control over our DU experience?

Just to make sure I understand everything, let's compare the use of the old ignore functionality to the new block functionality and make sure I'm not confused about anything. As an example, let's say I despise WillPitt and don't ever want to read anything he writes ever again. If I add him to my ignore list, whenever he posts the thread list will contain an entry that says 'Ignored' and all his actual posts don't show up. On the other hand, if I add him to my block list he can't even post in one of my threads or respond to one of my threads.

So what is the difference? In both cases I don't have to look at what Will has written. In both cases I have control over my experience and can pick and chose who I want to read and who I don't want to read. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that blocking a person results in a slightly cleaner looking thread list because I won't have all those 'Ignored' lines in it.

Is that really all people are looking to gain, a cleaner looking thread?

I'll look for more when you get back.

[EarlG]

49. Yes, technically you do already have control over your own experience

But I think there's more to it than that, which Skinner summed up in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3076551&mesg_id=3081607

[Pithlet]

57. I know I already gave my two cents, but

this answer still doesn't address the fact that's being brought up here, which is that you guys haven't given us more control over our own DU experience - as it is viewed by ourselves - beyond what the original ignore gave us. We already couldn't see the posts and threads of the person on ignore, so there is no net gain. All it does now is give regular members the power to directly affect how *another* person participates on DU. We still have the same power to make someone disappear, but now we also have the power to make that person disappear for everyone else in certain circumstances. Effectively, since this was implemented, all of us have less control over our experiences than we had before, because now not only can admins and mods make posts invisible, but other members can as well. Yes, I have more power to affect the experiences of another DUer, but they also have the power to do it to me. They can use a mod-like power against me based solely on what they and they alone determined and wanted for themselves. And I look just the same to them as if they had merely put me on ignore. I can still post elsewhere, so the problem I may be creating doesn't go away, really.

Before, when I lost the ability to post, or had a post removed, it was done so by a group consensus of people volunteering specifically to judge these things. It was never capricious or on a whim. Now, it's possible for a regular member to directly use a power against me that prevents me from posting in certain circumstances. No consensus was reached in that decision. You have taken a specific power previously belonging only to mods, and have given it to regular members. I know I told Skinner that no harm will come from trying this, and I still believe that, but this is indeed a huge change, and it goes beyond individual abilities to control their own experience on DU. If it works to make DU a better place, then that's good, but it still fundamentally changes how DU is run. I'm still not sure such a drastic change is worth any possible benefits, and I'll never like the fact that regular members can control how I post, and I fervently hope that people rarely ever make use of this. I think DU would probably be better off without it.

[Nederland]

58. Fair Enough

I think I understand. The problem is that even with the current ignore feature, you still know that someone has replied to you. Fair enough, but why not just rectify that problem? Instead of preventing blocked individuals from posting, fix the problem on the display side. Why not simply completely hide any sub thread started by a blocked individual? No 'Ignore' lines in the thread list, no alternating lines of other people responding to the blocked individual's posts, nothing at all. There would be no visual clue whatsoever to alert you to the fact that a blocked person had posted on the thread you are viewing.

As a web developer, I recognize that it's a hell of a lot easier to simply stop a blocked person from posting than having to serve up a different looking thread tree depending on who is requesting it. I also recognize that it isn't merely an issue of development time, but additional processing power from servers that are, at times, already overtaxed. However, if it could be made to work it would result in threads that "look" the way you want them to without actually preventing people from posting whatever they want.

Just a thought...

[GOTV]

109. If one can't stand a poster, and also can't stand ignoring the poster, maybe one is just a baby...

... I read the explanation. So we created this for someone who can't stand that others can still read what they consider the harassment? For people that can't stand ignoring and can't stand NOT ignoring?

You say that, just because someone cannot read the harassment doesn't mean the harassment is not going on?

I disagree entirely. If you follow me around the street wherever I go, calling me names, I'm being harassed. If the cops tell you you can't come within 5000ft of me, it doesn't matter is you're still calling me names, from 5000ft away. I can't hear it, the harassment has stopped.

[jgraz]

220. So this is for people who don't have control over their impulses...

I'm perfectly fine ignoring disruptors. I simply don't reply to them. If they truly bug me, I let them know. It seems that this new feature is designed for people who cannot control the urge to read yet are too cowardly to actually respond.

[omega minimo]

60. It's a Disruptor Buster-- prevents "constant harrassers" from hijacking and disrupting

:thumbsup:

[GOTV]

112. I was blocked, I didn't block in response, so don't be so sure you understand poster behavior...

I think this feature is a little cowardly and probably wouldn't use it. I certainly wouldn't block someone just because they blocked me.

I think most users here are fairly adult. So a childish blocker would not become isolated because I think the more frequent adult posters would not block in response. The childish poster would simply start creating threads where the adults they disagreed with could not respond.

Maybe I'm weird, but there's one data point for you.

[Marie26]

180. IMHO, there really needs

to be an exception for Latest Breaking News threads. Otherwise, it will severely inhibit people's ability to comment & inform other DU members about news events. People in the 9/11, etc. forums might put half the participants on Block because they don't like their position on one issue. Then, if they ever post a LBN thread on an unrelated big news event (Bush resigns!), many DU'ers won't even be able to participate. I really like DU as a place to learn, but if half the posters are blocked from commenting on an important news story, it becomes much less valuable.

[lindisfarne]

51. Completely agree. See also msg #50 where I argue that initiators of threads

should not be able to block certain people from replying - that allows to great a control over how the debate goes on a thread topic. I'm less troubled by being able to block certain people from responding to a specific person's comment in a thread.

[lindisfarne]

52. This is only going to lead to a whole lot of new threads replying to other threads ... n/t

People will just get around the block on replying to certain people by initiating new threads which discuss the same issue in reply to the other thread.

I don't see how the moderators can stop this from happening - obviously, if one thread won't allow a certain point of view, another thread should.

[omega minimo]

66. If it is used as a last resort and prevents disruption/hijackings, it means discussion CAN go on.

[lindisfarne]

79. Some people on DU define disruption/hijacking as "disagreement". It *will* be used by some

as a first resort. As I've argued, people who initiate threads certainly should not be able to block who replies.

"Ignore" should prevent anyone from reading the posts of those they disagree with and the BENEFIT is that it *doesn't* prevent OTHERS from reading what those folks have to say!

[omega minimo]

81. ok

but do you really want to talk to those people?


"It *will* be used by some as a first resort."

[lindisfarne]

85. The issue is whether anyone (esp. those who start a thread) should be able to restrict discussion

by restricting who can participate. Life is about sometimes interacting with people you may not fully agree with.

I don't want people to be able to restrict discussion on DU; if we're using Bush tactics on DU, it's going to be an incentive for me (and others who don't believe in censorship to silence another viewpoint) to leave.

[omega minimo]

86. "Restrict discussion"? "Censorship"? "You can't tell me what to do, WHHHAAAAAAA"? See #17

Skinner presented this as an option for when DUer's are "sick of that person constantly harrassing" them. That would include those who hijack threads and obsessively attack certain individuals or issues. Apparently, the Admins saw a need for it and also trust DUers to use it carefully.

lindisfarne (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-11-07 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #71
80. Those are the people who disagree with CENSORSHIP. No one has the right to stop someone else from commenting (you certainly have the right to IGNORE that person), and an unbiased person (moderator) can make the decision to ban people who make no constructive contribution to DU.

It doesn't always work that way. Taking the decision out of the Mod's hands seems the point. Those who find the perpetual mindfuckers "entertaining" can keep playing with them-- others don't have to anymore. The disruptors don't have the "right" to shut down discussion, either.

As for leaving, a lot of good people have left DU-- people who made a lot of "constructive contribution to DU"-- because of too many threads hijacked by belligerent jerks.

This could encourage some people to not act like ignorant assholes, hmmmmmmmmmm?

[lindisfarne]

88. No, if common courtesy doesn't keep people from acting like ignorant assholes, this won't either.n/t

[omega minimo]

68. It is designed to block abuse and harrassment, NOT opinion. What's wrong with that?

"Why is this necessary? I simply don't get the value add here."


It is necessary because there are a few here who do "constantly harrass" others. For the other 99,960 DUers, this has the potential to IMPROVE communinication.

[Pithlet]

69. Except that's not all it will block.

In fact, I think it will probably be used as a tool to harrass. But, most of all, I don't think people who aren't mods or admins should be able to control how anyone else posts. I don't like it that right now there are threads where people are blocked from posting. I have no idea who those blocked people are or why they were blocked. I have no interest in using this feature, but it's already affecting how I view DU. I really hope this is a dismal failure and they can it soon. I've seen people who admit that they're already using it, and most of them are users that I definitely don't trust to use merely as a last resort because they're being victimized and harrassed, which is often just in the eye of the beholder anyway. Their threads are useless to me now, personally.

I'm trying to give it more time, but I'm having a hard time with this. I hate it.

[omega minimo]

73. Think postive

Why is there so much suspicion about this? The few who will abuse the feature weren't here to discuss openly anyway, apparently.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3086082&mesg_id=3098990

[Nederland]

76. But it does block opinion

I have no problem with features that hide abuse and harassment.

I do have a problem with features that prevent a person from posting.

It's that simple. DU could obtain the same ends by creating a feature that hides sub threads written by people a person doesn't wish to interact with. This doesn't have to involve censorship. It doesn't have to involve giving every random joe in DU the ability to limit the posting ability of any person they wish to. It can be done by limiting the reading of posts, rather than limiting the writing of posts.

[omega minimo]

78. It will prevent hijacking.

[AtomicKitten]

89. hijacking of what?

threads of total acquiescence and agreement?
homage threads?

I thought that's what the specialized forums were for.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

93. You're right

Posters will, and are already blocking other posters because they hold a different viewpoint.

[piedmont]

115. Would you please define "hijacking?" nt

[omega minimo]

116. --of threads

:hi:

[piedmont]

117. Yes, I mean give us your defintion of thread hijacking.

:toast:

[omega minimo]

119. Here ya go. Good luck to all.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3086082&mesg_id=3096856

[jgraz]

224. Actions speak far louder than words in this case

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3134331&mesg_id=3134331

Funny how all those who disagree with the OP suddenly stop responding.

[Pithlet]

249. And the ugly, spinoff flamebait threads that result.

This is a bad business, all around.

[jgraz]

256. Yep...this is generating far more bad feelings than it's preventing

My prediction is that the mods will find their workload increasing as the blocks lead to more and more angry posts.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

370. i suspect you are right.

not all change results in progress.

[enigmatic]

259. I saw that

I guess we're seeing it in action..

[AtomicKitten]

354. magic?

[Djinn]

157. how

if someone runs around replying to every single thread I start and their response is not productive - how is that "harrasing" me? How on earth does it effect my life in ANY way, shape or form?

if I think they have nothing relevant to say I can simply choose to skim over those posts and not read them, if others feel that way they can to.

anyone who categorises stupid nuisance posts as harrasment has led a particularly charmed life IMHO

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

318. It already is blocking opinion and TRUTH

we have a post in Election reform where the OP poster
has blocked anyone who has facts that show his OP
is incorrect.

Futher, this person goes to other people's threads,
disagrees with them, and BLOCKS them from rebutting him
on their own threads.

And this person has sent out incorrect info
in a story that chips away at the creditability
of those who actually use facts and correct
information.

[Ioo]

84. 100% Agreed.

[GOTV]

108. Exactly! Thank you. We already had the ability to control our experience...

... Now we can control the experience of others.

And shouldn't people know if they're viewing a thread banned users? I mean where the OP has people banned?

We should be able to tell that we're getting a censored view of the DU experience.

I don't really want others determining for me who's disruptive. I can put the people I find disruptive on ignore myself (though I've never felt the need to do so)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

316. It allows for "information management" in Orwellian style

With this Block function, I guess we will have to start a "snopes" forum to
rebut all of the Autoblocker threads, so that folks going to
DU will have a centralized location to fact check articles.

Since there will be more INCORRECT articles posted that wil
NOT be rebutted.

we already have a case of this in the Election Reform forum,
where someone posted an article that is factually and seriously
incorrect. The poster of the OP has blocked anyone who
questioned him or who corrected him.


Sadly, people will forward this article (with its screwed up information)
all over the place, and likely won't see the rebuttals and the corrections
or the true facts - at least not before they have spread mis-information.

[madeline_con]

37. What person?

[iverglas]

233. okay, *somebody* should have laughed

First 20 of 67,000 people looking for that special person, or offering to help you find him/her. I always figure somebody should have found that elusive individual by now.

[Mythsaje]

43. I know I try very hard to discuss the issues

and keep my emotions from becoming part of the argument. But there are times when it becomes almost impossible, and another poster not only gets on your nerves, but seems to enjoy it immensely. The quality of the debate goes out the window and you find yourself attacking him or her rather than addressing the issue.

That's not why I'm here. And I can't figure out how some people think giving posters the option to block deliberately disruptive individuals (or, at least, people who can't seem to separate their personal issues with the poster from the subject at hand) is tantamount to some sort of censorship.

If someone annoys you enough that you're willing to run to the mods to complain, something I've never done, btw, why not just save a lot of people trouble by eliminating the whole issue yourself? That's how see it.

'Course, I have an inbuilt resistance to the idea of running to authority figures anyway. In real life I tend to ignore and/or avoid the people who rub me the wrong way. That has almost always worked for me.

I think it's a good idea, Skinner.

[lindisfarne]

50. I don't think ANYONE should have the ability to start a thread and then block certain people from

responding. That is ridiculous. If you're going to participate in a (more-or-less) public forum, then you should be willing to accept the negative as well as positive comments. At the very least, putting someone on IGNORE allows you to not read their comments; that is as far as this should go.

Posters who consistently abuse others, without contributing anything positive, should be banned from DU.

Someone in the first thread made a comment about DU doing just as Bush has -- silencing the opposition. That comment summarizes why we all should object to the ability of a person who starts a thread to block certain people from replying. I'm less opposed to allowing someone to block individuals from replying to your comments within a thread, but the initiator of a thread should be prepared for all comments, good and bad.

[Mythsaje]

59. Some people can't avoid dragging personal conflicts

into the debate. It's not specifically against the rules, unless it goes to far, but it IS rude. Unless you have a habit of blocking people all the time, I doubt it's going to have that much of an impact.

[question everything]

54. I see a problem in one particular forum

yes, the infamous I/P.

At some point you indicated that if one is blocked from responding to a thread, one can always start a new one to post one's response.

However on the I/P forum you can start threads only with news and commentary from other sources. Thus, if someone post a story from, say, an Iranian newspaper that the Jews are getting ready to get blood of Christian kids for Passover - yes, this story still has "legs", as judged by a recent PBS documentary - and reasonable DUers are blocked from responding, what, then? Are you really willing to leave such a post unchallenged on the pages of DU?

In general, I have never "ignored" anyone and I don't know that I am on anyone's ignore list. I guess I can find out.

I have not realized that there is such animosity on these pages. Most people don't even know the ones with whom they go back and forth. Perhaps I don't read enough threads here :grr: When I see that a certain thread deteriorates to a back and forth between two people, I just stop reading.

I, too, have exchanged words back and forth on occasions, but once I have said what I wanted to say, I don't go back. I don't need to have the last word to promote my self esteem. I do have life outside DU. Perhaps this is the problem.

As others, I believe in open debate among thinking adults, however I realize that with 100,000 members, and with the anonymity of the Internet providing shields for outrageous comments that would not be uttered in person - one hopes - that extreme measures are sometimes needed.

As a friend of mine, who teaches business once commented: the reason why we have so many regulations is because companies do not do the right thing.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

319. look at Election Reform - its screwed up

and thats often facts that we are talking.

Some people wont' allow facts to enter, they prefer
to spread sensationalism, even if it is completely
inaccurate and misleading.

[lindisfarne]

55. I'd like it to be made public whether the OP of a thread has blocked anyone from replying

to that thread. If yes, I will boycott the thread.

I would think a simple symbol (such as a red circle with a diagonal line through it) could indicate this; clicking on it could reveal who has been blocked from replying.

Of course, the better approach is to NOT allow the originator of a thread to block anyone -- in other words, an individuals "block these people from replying to my posts" would not be applied when you start a thread.

[GOTV]

111. Even better, I'd like to block any thread that has been censored that way...

... why waste time seeing threads where there is no longer a full honest discussion?

[Tyler Durden]

56. I thought we already had control on who posts here.

It's called "MODERATORS" and "ADMINISTRATORS."

I cannot disagree more. In fact, this has been typed entirely with my left hand as my right is in a cast to my armpit; that's how strong I feel about this.

I don't view this as a "DU Experience." This is a POLITICAL FORUM that has kept me sane over the last 6 years. That's one reason that through fat and lean this forum has been on auto-donate and has been the one sacred cow in my bank account.

SURE there are insensitive and boorish people on the board...SO WHAT? We area supposed to all be grownups here, especially the people who actually can behave that way.

You are presenting radical surgery for a problem that doesn't really exist: in the only profound words I ever heard come out of the mouth of Dennis Miller: "Life is a full contact sport; wear a cup."

And by the way, I ALWAYS thought an "IGNORE" function on a moderated open board was a bad idea. I have NEVER put another DU'er on ignore. I stopped sticking my fingers in my ears when I was 6.

[question everything]

63. Excellent post. Hope your arm heals soon (nt)

[Ioo]

62. I think Number 4 is going to be the Death of DU...

So what you have done is stop everyone from allowing the exchange of Ideas and differences.

So let’s say I start a post about my Pro-Club Baby Seals Stance.

Ioo “Everyone should go and club a baby seal”

Now I can block people who are cry baby pro-baby seal cowards from being able to post an opisit view point. So before I could block the user, so I do not have to see the post, but for others they will not get to see the free exchange of idea’s and discourse they will only see that DU is very pro club baby seals. Because I have the power to make sure that the seal lovers can’t post…

I think this is a VERY VERY bad idea guys.

It is okay to allow me to block from viewing someone posts, but to stop others but blocking the ability for them to post on things I started, BAD!

[Skittles]

72. you got it

there are people who drive me insane but I would never block OTHERS from seeing their replies because I am NOT A COWARD

[VelmaD]

64. it has been less than 24 hours and I have been blocked 3 times...

already that I know of. By people who just can't seem to stand being called on their use of and defense of sexist language. It this really what you envisioned? What you wanted?

[Skittles]

132. SEE THAT VELMA - COWARDS, THEY ARE COWARDS

You are not a harasser or a stalker, just someone with an honest opinion that ALL OF US ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO READ because some people are just g.d. cowards. I am DISGUSTED.

[jgraz]

285. Velma is a great example

I disagree with her and sometimes find her positions annoying (no offense, Velma dear), but she and I have been able to have reasonable discussions that other people have enjoyed reading.

That is, until the mods locked our thread because it was "continuing the argument" from another thread started by a cowardly banner.

[VelmaD]

291. you and I proved last night...

why this is a bad thing. We were fighting in one thread...yet you posted another thread that I found freakin' hilarious and I was able to post and tell you so. Made it possible for us to share a moment of agreement and realize that neither of us is really the enemy. OMC and I will now likely never get to have that moment. His loss.

And I find you just as annoying as you find me...but we'll keep on disagreeing because it's FUN. :P

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

294. I'll Tell Ya What,

If you can commit to consciously avoiding throwing personal smears at me such as labels of being a sexist, which I simply am not, and doing your best to keep our discussions contextually civil rather than emotionally personal, than I will have no problem with unblocking you as soon as I am able (3 PM today). I do not mind disagreement, even when passionate and often. I just don't like when it gets personal and loses all hint of context or productivity, but instead just serves a purpose to demean the poster themselves.

I have no problem with discussing things with you in the future if we both can put in effort to keep it from crossing the line to personal attack and trying to see more where the other is coming from. I am going to immediately take the block off of you for PM's (can't unblock totally till later this afternoon) and would be more than willing to bury whatever hatchet is between us via PM, if you are willing. We can take it from there.

[jgraz]

295. Yep, that happens a lot

I've had far worse arguments with posters before that have left a sad trail of "deleted messages" throughout GD. Then, a week later we'll find ourselves agreeing on something or just joking about the same thing before we figure out that we're talking to the "asshole" from the previous posts. It is interesting how often these "nasty" exchanges just burn themselves out, resulting in decent people who simply agree to disagree (or continue debating each other in a more adult fashion).

All this new feature does is make it far more likely that temporary flare-ups will turn into permanent, hateful grudges.

[VelmaD]

297. that last line couldn't be truer

For all the time that we have disagreed, and quite loudly, I have NEVER had really negative feelings about OMC until this feature was put into place. It obviously didn't stop us from disagreeing and even from carrying on the argument with each other, we just had to get more creative to do it. It just made it much much harder for us to have the argument, get done with it, and move on.

I don't think the admins understood the potential for bad feelings engendered by this feature.

[VelmaD]

296. a reply to OMC

You did it yet again in your reply to me. You're willing to talk if I "do your best to keep our discussions contextually civil rather than emotionally personal." Because I disagree with you...I'm not civil and I'm emotional. *sigh*

I have no problem discussing any topic with you in future. We can pm if you'd like to try to hash some of this out in private rather than on the board. But if you expect some massive change in the way I present my arguments without a concommitant massive change in your own...well, things aren't going to be any different. For a very long time you had the ignore feature that you could have used on me but you chose not to...you chose to continue arguing with me. I assumed you enjoyed vigorous, spirited, no-holds-barred debate and am somewhat disappointed to find out I was wrong.

I might try to pm you later today...I don't know. I'm honestly not sure what I think about you right this second and I need to think about it. This gives me hope though, "if we both can put in effort to keep it from crossing the line to personal attack" that your at least acknowledging that you cross the line as well...then I'll probably be a bleeding heart and try to bury the hatchet. :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

298. Velma, I Think You Were More Right Here.

I did just quickly review some of our history and though I think we are both stubborn as mules when it comes to our arguments, you have for the most part been a worthy adversary. There were a few people that I blocked right off the bat with this feature, that I had just from the top of my head memory knew would be more productive for us all if we didn't converse. Even you a few months ago stated "The more I think about it the more I think you and I just shouldn't speak to one another at all.". But I think my memory may have been somewhat flawed in your behavior towards me. You have sometimes rigorously gone at it with me, and from time to time may in my opinion have gotten too personal, but after reviewing some of our threads you overall have been civil and have just held strong convictions and held your ground. I do think there is a need for that and may have been premature in my blocking you based on the 3 or 4 out of memory I thought I should do immediately. I admit that may have been unfair and thankfully could set things right in a few hours.

Lord knows we have our issues we wholeheartedly don't agree with, but I'm sure there are plenty in which we do. Maybe we should strive to reach out to each other more on the things we do agree on, rather than those we don't.

In any case, my bad. You may be right here and didn't ultimately deserve the block. Upon refreshing my memory I have no problem saying so, so as of 3:08 this afternoon consider yourself free to throw whatever ya want at me LOL

Peace,

OMC

[VelmaD]

300. a reply to what OMC posted that is going to scare people

I just saw OMC's reply to me and we are now officially cool. Which should scare everyone...because at 3:09 you are all going to have to put up with us when we're actually speaking to each other again. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! :evilgrin:

Seriously though, OMC and I have talked and we are cool with each other and we're going to try to set a good example of how to disagree...and even disagree loudly and passionately and intensely...but have fun doing it and not make it personal.

Remember people, this is supposed to be fun. There's no fun in talking into an echo chamber. There's no fun in everyone agreeing on everything. The fun is in putting yourself and your opinions and ideas out there and trying to defend them against people who disagree with you and having to either refute what they say or, all the little gods forbid, actually change your worldview to encompass new information.

And I will say this publicly, I enjoy arguing with OMC. He is a worthy adversary when we disagree and a most excellent ally on the thousand topics where we are in agreement. And that's what we all need to remember, even the one person on DU you may actually loathe...you probably agree with them on 99% of all possible topics. So use that block feature sparingly, otherwise you might never find that moment when you realize the person you've been fighting with is actually your ally.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

303. The Deed Is Done LOL

There are times I really wish that DU had a 'bury the hatchet' smilie.

My apologies for any past transgression and I look forward to our future debates when we disagree and comradery when we don't.

And you are right: No matter how bad things can get between posters here, undoubtedly they'd still agree on 99% of the issues that matter. We have to remember sometimes that in the end we are all one big family, and though it is the disagreements we may remember most, it is our common ground and cause of why we are all here to begin with.

Cheers!

:toast:

[enigmatic]

322. This is a great post

I hope the ones that are doing the rah-rah on the SuperDuper Block read this.

[Cameron27]

371. Wonderful post...

there IS fun in a spirited and challenging debate & who knows when we may bump into someone who absolutely destroys all of our fascinating arguments, and manages to change our opinions.

Unless someone is stalking, this blocking seems so childish.

[EFerrari]

159. I don't think this is a good idea. It teaches that you can disappear

conflict instead of dealing with it and it excludes people from discussion.

This is going to change the tenor of DU in an unpleasant way, imo.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

317. It makes DU more like Fox News

By allowing long threads of one sided information.

People can either trust that the info is right,
or go searching all over the place to other threads to
find out if the info is wrong.

Either way, DU becomes more unreliable.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

65. Well, that's one problem solved.

I no longer have to deal with this strange "Skinner" character who keeps posting threads that stay at the top of the threadlist for some reason.

[JohnWxy]

67. WONDERFUL!! I've been wishing for this tool for too long.

Most people on this site are interested in having a meaningful dialogue but there are a few creeps who are really just here to 'act up', do there dance, be the center of attention. They are impervious to critism of their behavior as any reaction received is, to them, an affirmation. Any reaction from the object of their unwanted attention gives them a lift. So even very aggressive attempts to stop their personal attacks do not phase them. It's all good to them. They just keep on coming back for more. And, in the process they turn off others who might otherwise be inclined to join into a meaningful discussion of issues.

This is tool that's long over-due - if you ask me (which I guess you did!).

When will it be available? I am ready to use it right now!

[omega minimo]

70. Well put. Thank you.

:hi:

[Ioo]

83. Yah that would be great if it was used that way...

But many on this site, and you see it all the time are like this. "I could never vote for X because they support Y!!!" And they forget that they are correct on A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X and Z

MANY here are ALL or NOTHING!

[Dinger]

140. JohnWxy, I Agree With You 100%!

Especially your point about disruptors. I LOVE the new ignore feature. It will make the discussion here flow better, instead of being interrupted by these people who have their own agenda. Thanks admins!!

[hunter]

304. I still think we should get rid of the Air Force.

The Army and Navy can do that job just fine.

[davidwparker]

71. Excellent. Now, watch who complains about it. Those are the people

who routinely harass other people and can't now. It's not a question about a disagreement on a point, it's about allowing someone to decide for themselves when they've had enough of someone who generally uses profanity and is otherwise belligerent.

I suggested this at DailyKos when they were asking how to improve their site. I'm glad you guys got it implemented. :yourock:

[lindisfarne]

80. Those are the people who disagree with CENSORSHIP. No one has the right to stop

someone else from commenting (you certainly have the right to IGNORE that person), and an unbiased person (moderator) can make the decision to ban people who make no constructive contribution to DU.

[davidwparker]

123. It's not a censorship thing. If a person is being HARASSED by someone

else and gets tired of it, can block the one doing the harassing from interacting with the being harassed.

In what way does that censor someone? That does not prevent the harasser from logging on to the site. Or, starting a thread to discuss some topic. It simply means that someone has decided that they do not want to interact with someone else.

A feature like this in no way curtails your freedom of speech. It's not censorship.

[Skittles]

133. OK LISTEN UP DAVID

I'll use Velma as an example - she feared some DUers would block her not because she harasses or stalks but because she offers opinions on subjects that OTHERS DISAGREE WITH. Rather than use the IGNORE function, those people now has the power to BLOCK HER FROM REPLYING TO THEIR THREADS, or to REPLY ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS REPLIED TO THEIR THREADS. That is denying YOU AND I AND EVERY OTHER DUer the opportunity to read Velma's opinions on that thread/subject. Let's say YOU offer an opinion in that thread - the original poster can ban Velma from REPLYING TO YOU. Do you not see how that is CENSORSHIP ???

[davidwparker]

138. "Do you not see how that is CENSORSHIP"

That would be bad implementation of a good idea. See longer comment that I just left for you.

[Skittles]

143. thanks David

by the way, I really like your writing style! :thumbsup: I had guessed perhaps you were an engineer. :)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

94. Nice generalisation there

Everyone who disagrees with me on this is an harasser. :eyes:

[davidwparker]

124. Not at all. You disagree with me on the new feature. I don't consider

you a harasser. We just have a difference of opinion.

Harassing is someone who, uses a blogs search feature to find post by a member. And then, uses expletives and insults to every post they find.

For example, I disagree with the official 9/11 story as told by the government. On a different site, there is a poster who insults anyone who has an opinion other than the official story. I don't mean someone who argues the points on merits. I mean someone who just insults YOU for having that opinion.

When posts leave the merits of a person's arguments and gets into the realm of insulting someone for having an opinion routinely, then exercising the option to block further contact with someone is in order.

If someone continually gets blocked, maybe the individual will rethink how he or she relates to other people.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

125. That's all well and good

but people are misusing it already, to block those of a different opinion and to conduct hit and run blocking.

It would be nice that people only used this feature as a last case scenario (where harassment is truly occurring) but some aren't, and are using it to avoid accountability and rebuttals to their opinions.

[Apollo11]

95. You're kidding - right?

Excellent. Now, watch who complains about the PATRIOT Act and having all their communications intercepted by Government Agencies. Those are the people who routinely support Al Quaida.

Me - I come to DU to exchange opinions and read different points of view.

If someone disagrees with me, even if they strongly disagree - I will read their posts.

I never realized that other members have completely different expectations.

Apparently - for some people - it's all about having a "nice experience".

Can you imagine how that would work in the Primaries - when they are having televised debates? One candidate makes a statement and then decides that another candidate is not allowed to respond?

In cases where posts contain profanities and personal attacks, then there are procedures for reporting these posts to the moderators, who can decide on whether or not certain people should be banned from posting on all DU Forums. I trust the DU moderators to enforce the rules in a fair and balanced way. And if I was not happy with how the moderators are doing their job, then I could go and post on another Forum.

[omega minimo]

107. That's not what this is for.

"If someone disagrees with me, even if they strongly disagree - I will read their posts."

"I never realized that other members have completely different expectations."

Who said they DO? The people worrying ahead of time about possible misuse. :eyes:


"In cases where posts contain profanities and personal attacks, then there are procedures for reporting these posts to the moderators, who can decide on whether or not certain people should be banned from posting on all DU Forums."

If that were working effectively, the Admin would not have offered a last-resort option, would they?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3086082&mesg_id=3098990

[davidwparker]

126. There's a difference between having a difference of opinion and harassing.

It's not about blocking people who disagree with you. I'd never do that. We disagree about this point and I'm not blocking you.

In my experience, there have been only two people that I would have blocked and these two people aren't on this site. The circumstances were when it left debating the merits of the argument and went to the personal.

You say there are ways to "report it" to the moderators. That's an option for you if YOU choose to use that. I prefer the new method in that I can tell someone by blocking them that their behavior is so unacceptable that I want nothing more to do with you. For myself, I don't want to run to the moderators going "Mommy, Daddy, cluelessinohio is bothering me."

And, it's not about a "nice experience." It's about treating others with respect.

[Skittles]

104. come on now

are you one of the, "If you're not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to worry about?" crowd???

[davidwparker]

127. No. I'm in the "if you can't treat others with respect, then I don't want

anything to do with you" crowd.

[Skittles]

129. with all due respect you are quite wrong

you do not understand how many petty people are on this board

[davidwparker]

134. I've posted links to Nader and have posted some things from the

Bible. Believe me, I understand the types of comments that some on this site can make. Nothing on DU has raised itself to blocking some DUer from commenting on my posts. It's still a GREAT feature to have if needed.

Cheers.

[Skittles]

136. well, suppose I block you, then run a thread bashing Nader and the Bible

and you could not reply - THAT IS CENSORSHIP. Not only could you not reply to ME, you could not reply TO ANYONE IN THAT THREAD WHO REPLIED TO ME. I would never deny you, Mr. Parker, the opportunity to offer an opinion in my threads. If I thought you were unreasonable or a pest I'd put you on IGNORE, I would not deny ALL DUers the opportunity to READ YOUR REPLY!!! This feature essentially DRAGS US INTO OTHERS' CONFLICTS.

[davidwparker]

137. "and you could not reply - THAT IS CENSORSHIP" - Actually, I wouldn't

call it censorship, because it is not. Censorship is when I'm prohibited from stating something, not prohibited from stating something to you. An example with that would be starting a diary on DailyKos dealing with 9/11 "conspiracy" theories. Because Kos doesn't agree with this, your diary would be axed. That's censorship. Others counter with it's Kos's site and you can go somewhere else, which is true, but that's still censorship.

"Not only could you not reply to ME, you could not reply TO ANYONE IN THAT THREAD WHO REPLIED TO ME" - Provide the text to where that recursive check is made. That is overkill if correct. I develop software in my profession and wouldn't have implemented that. If A blocks B, but in some thread C responds to B, A responding to C should be allowed.

on edit: Just reread the original description and I do not read where that recursive action is implied. So, do provide the text if you found otherwise. Using my example and what I just reread, A could respond to C.

[Skittles]

141. david, I don't need any text

I found out by EXPERIENCE.....a DUer started a thread asking people for tributes to other DUers - I tried to reply to post a tribute about oneighty, who I considered my on-line dad (he passed away recently) - I could NOT post in that thread, NOR could I reply to ANYONE ELSE WHO HAD POSTED IN THAT THREAD (to, say, agree with what another poster had read). And to top it off, I have NO IDEA why that poster blocked me because I do not ever remember even interacting with her. Do you see how it works now? OTHER DUers are denied seeing MY REPLIES because of some ridiculous beef the original poster has with me, one of which I AM NOT EVEN AWARE OF.

[davidwparker]

151. Report it to Skinner as a bug. From the write-up about how this suppose

to work, that should not occur. Software upgrades can have bugs, please provide the thread and the person to whom you were prohibited from replying to. Skinner can check into it.

Off to enjoy a 75-degree day here on the east coast of VA.

[tyedyeto]

153. It is not a bug

per skinner above:

The revolutionary new feature is #4: "Block Replies To Me." This feature gives you the ability to block any other DU member from either replying to your posts, or from posting in your threads. In other words: If you don't like someone, you can choose not to have to interact directly with that person, ever.

That means she was not able to post in that thread if the OP blocked her and that is why this new feature is wrong.

[Skittles]

155. thanks tyedyeto

it IS wrong - not only could I not post a tribute to oneighty in that thread, I could not respond to someone else who had posted in that thread - and I have NO IDEA WHY I was blocked - sure, I can be obnoxious, but I am no harasser or stalker - absolutely NOT. There is simply no reason why the IGNORE function would not suffice for me. The feature will lead to misleading threads - for example, someone could offer an opionion, and it could seem like DU is in general agreement on the issue BECAUSE THE POSTER HAS BANNED ALL PEOPLE WHO IN THE PAST HAVE OFFERED OPINIONS THE POSTER DID NOT LIKE.

[davidwparker]

166. thanks for the clarification. I may not have added the "from posting

in your threads" aspect if I were updating the software, but ....

It does give people incentive to argue the merits of a point without getting being abusive.

[tyedyeto]

167. Where do those incentives come from?

If one is blocked from posting, there are no incentives. One cannot argue anything if they are blocked therefore no merits can be discussed.

In my 2+ years here, I've ignored 3 or 4 posters, who have since been banned. If I used the 'block' feature, my DU experience would not have gained anything.

I doubt if I will ever use this new feature. Simply putting someone on 'ignore' without blocking their posts is fine witrh me.

[Skittles]

169. david, people who are not abusive are getting blocked

someone could block you simply because they don't LIKE your views on Nader

[enigmatic]

139. I agree w/ this

There are people on this board I can't stand and go out of my way to not interact with, but to deny anybody else to interact w/ them on a disagreement I have with them on a thread I'm in is shutting down the dialouge; in my mind, there's no other to spin this.

The one-issue axe grinders will love this because they can have their own side of the issue heard and no one else's if they choose to, and there's no shortage of people here who will use it to do exactly that.

[Skittles]

142. you get it, enigmatic

there are plently of people who rub me the wrong way - I put them on ignore and inevitably relent on even that - the idea of making it so they could NOT REPLY - EVER- to any of my threads is just OUTRAGEOUS and DOWNRIGHT COWARDLY.

[lindisfarne]

82. I've been surprised at times on DU at the closed-minded, undemocratic attitude

some members have displayed: one might disagree with another, but censorship is not the answer.

But when the moderators/administrators also display this position, it makes me start to wonder whether I want to be a member of this community.

[AtomicKitten]

98. It is disconcerting

and I agree and share your dismay. Well, this may cause me finally to have a go at a pile of yet unread books and, in that sense, maybe it's a good thing after all.

[Skittles]

135. it has shaken me, AK

they did say they were testing it so I hope they come to their senses - I know for sure I will be less likely to DONATE to a forum where I know any poster can cherry-pick responses

[iverglas]

87. "control my own DU experience" indeed; bullshit

I have no interest whatsoever in controlling SOMEONE ELSE's "DU experience", which is what this policy/function in fact allows me to do.

And I have even less interest in having someone else control MY "DU experience", which is what this policy/function in fact allows anyone who feels like it to do.

I do not put anyone on "ignore". If I don't want to read what someone has written, I don't read it. I can think of few things more childish than putting someone on "ignore".

My experience with being put on "ignore" myself comes from one particular poster in a forum here that I frequent. That poster claims not to read my posts -- but has long made a habit of commenting on my posts by responding to posts written by others in reply to mine, the responses being generally of the juvenile nudge-nudge wink-wink variety. If I alert, they are deleted, since such posts are plainly contrary to the rules for the "ignore" function -- but they continue nonetheless, up to this week.

"Jerks and bullies", you say? Precisely the terms I would use to describe people who behave as the individual in question has, and not just in dealings with myself.

Because I could not care less whether the individual in question reads my posts or not, but I often have things to say about things that individual has said, I have continued to reply to posts by the individual when there is something that needs saying. No one's posts become immune to criticism simply because s/he does not want to read the criticism.

This individual has now blocked me from replying to posts made by the individual, and of course also to other posts in threads started by the individual.

My "DU experience" has now become one of being gagged.

I have never alleged censorship / free speech violation when the issue is rules imposed by the owners of DU. This is their site, they can do what they like with it. Crying censorship is nonsense. If enough people didn't like the rules or the manner in which they are enforced, the site owners would have to rethink their approach in order to protect their income, just like any business facing a boycott.

But this is different. This new policy allows another individual to prevent me from expressing an opinion or presenting facts or argument about issues and events on which I wish to be heard, when I would be breaking no DU rule in so doing.

There is nothing democratic about this. Nothing. Democratic discourse requires that all voices be heard. Within the framework of this site, it requires that all voices of those who support its principles be heard.

If I block all of my traditional adversaries from replying to my posts, and update the list as new ones appear, then eventually no voice will be heard to contradict anything I say -- to post facts to refute my argument, or to post argument to sway opinions away from mine.

"Those people who use it for evil rather than good will likely see their own ability to participate diminished as they get blocked in response by all the people they have blocked. They will be able to post in fewer and fewer threads." -- Who cares? We'll just start our own, and talk to ourselves.

What utter sandbox silliness this is.

If someone "harasses" someone else at DU, the site owners should do their job and put a stop to it. If someone can't abide by the rules, that's his/her problem ... and if the "snide comments" do not sink to rule-breaking, can whoever is distressed by them not just get the hell over it, without the entire world being re-ordered to suit them?

Fuckin eh ... if you can't stand the heat, move to Yellowknife ... before the icecap melts completely.

[Skittles]

91. THANK YOU

I believe the admins did this with best intentions but they have no idea how petty and trivial some people can be......yesterday I wanted to post in a thread a tribute to my beloved oneighty, who passed away last year, but I was not allowed and for the life of me I have NO IDEA what that DUer has against me and why the IGNORE function simply was not enough - so not only could I not reply, I could not reply to ANOTHER POSTER within the thread to MENTIONED ME

[AtomicKitten]

97. It is selective censorship

meant to be and is being used to weed out those that disagree by those that consider dissent pesky and an affront to their delicate sensibilities. I guess those types whined so much to admin that this is the BIG FIX meant to coddle and placate and dumb down the discussion so there is peace in the kingdom. I suspect resorting to pharmaceuticals would give the same result and would probably be a more natural experience. Pass the Xanax.

[Skittles]

103. what's bad is you do not KNOW who a person is censoring

suppose someone runs a thread, HEY ALL VETERANS GIVE A SHOUTOUT HERE! How fair would it be if THEY BLOCKED ANY VETERANS? I'm not sure this thing was throught through at ALL.

[iverglas]

110. exactly

Someone just PMed me: "I won't post in those OPs either, if it is restricted to only a 'handful' of sycophants." Well, how would s/he know which threads those are?

There are the DU groups for people who want to talk only with like-minded people -- a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do in some situations.

I have been blocked by someone who has long just put everyone who disagreed with that person on "ignore". I have no reason to think that this person will not use the reply-block feature for the same reason. I am now excluded from about 15% of the threads on the first page in one forum here. No one else who posts in the forum would have any idea that this had happened.

Fortunately, the few comments there so far have generally been to the effect that people who use the feature are cowardly and deserving of public shame. So ... what is the rule on identifying people by whom one has been blocked??

"I'm replying to your post because the person who replied to you, to whom I really wish to reply, has blocked me from doing so" - ?

[Skittles]

130. I am thankful someone gets it, iverglas

see, in theory I don't CARE what beef SOMEONE ELSE has with you, if it's legit or not - HOW DARE THEY PRESUME TO BLOCK YOUR REPLIES SO THAT I - HELL, NO ONE, CAN SEE THEM? THAT IS NOT RIGHT.

[omega minimo]

113. "I'm not sure this thing was throught through at ALL."

Unless they thought people would act like adults. :eyes: All this suspicion is amazing. There's 100,000 DUers now. Do people really think most of those are gonna use this for ill purposes?

[piedmont]

114. It doesn't need to be most. This can really mess up the smaller forums. nt

[iverglas]

118. nyah nyah

hahahahahahha!

Your turn.

Oops! No turn for you!

[Irreverend IX]

265. If this thing becomes widespread...

The issue forums are going to look a little different in the months to come.

September 11

Discussion topics:

Bush did 9/11!
Shut up you tinfoil idiots!
Bush did 9/11!
Shut up you tinfoil idiots!
Bush did 9/11!
Shut up you tinfoil idiots!
Bush did 9/11!
Shut up you tinfoil idiots!
Bush did 9/11!
Shut up you tinfoil idiots!


Guns

Discussion topics:

Guns are great!
Ban all guns!
Guns are great!
Ban all guns!
Guns are great!
Ban all guns!
Guns are great!
Ban all guns!
Guns are great!
Ban all guns!


Israel/Palestine

Discussion topics:

Death to Israel!
Bulldoze Every Arab for Great Justice!
Death to Israel!
Bulldoze Every Arab for Great Justice!
Death to Israel!
Bulldoze Every Arab for Great Justice!
Death to Israel!
Bulldoze Every Arab for Great Justice!
Death to Israel!
Bulldoze Every Arab for Great Justice!

[flowomo]

146. don't block me for saying this:

But there are nowhere near 100,000 DUers. That number is total registrations since 2001 -- including all the hit-and-runs, freeper drop-ins, banned, died, multiple registrations and just plain left. I have no idea how many "active" there are at any time, but my guess is around 5,000 with more lurkers. No post, no matter how interesting or community-wide in attraction, draws more than, say, 1,200 replies so far as I can tell.

[ProfessorGAC]

191. Outstandingly Stated!!!

Absolutely, positively, no doubt about it, spot on! Great post!
The Professor

[woo me with science]

379. Thank you! I agree on every point.

It is part of LIFE to have your ideas challenged, and it is a great learning experience, too. And, frankly, some of the drivel that gets posted DESERVES a sharp reply. I suspect that the ones who really want this function are also the ones who blithely start posts with titles like, "Should we OUTLAW Christianity/smoking/homeschooling/non-organic foods?" They are the sort who cannot tolerate disagreement, and I suspect they are often very young people who have not yet really studied our system of government and the freedoms it ensures. The replies may get irritable at times, but hopefully in the process the young naive ones LEARN something about communication and why other people hold ideas different from their own.

Some people can't bear to have their ideas challenged. But it is good for people to have to defend what they spout. This ignore features lets people act like infants and perpetuates infantile views of how communication should happen. I hope the administrators reconsider.

[TahitiNut]

380. Well said. It's WHO-centered and not WHAT-centered.

This is what is fundamentally flawed about it, imho. Indeed, it's the "who-centrism" that leads to the most brain-damaged interactions on DU, imho. The notion that the messenger must be attacked, examined, and tested rather than the message itself clearly shows bias and, in many cases, very self-centered political postures - the very thing DU attacks the right for showing.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

92. You need to take note of what is happening in the September 11 forum

where the worst case scenario is occurring. Many MIHOPers are excluding non-MIHOPers from their threads, and are insinuating all sorts of crap about non-MIHOPers (dancing on the verge of the messageboard rules) without fear of rebuttal from non-MIHOPers.

Also there is the folly of a thread in said forum asking about people's viewpoints of the new ignore system, yet the OP banned a significant number of posters for no good reason (IMO) thereby defeating the purpose of the thread.

Then there have been examples of 'hit and run', a snarky reply to a thread, then the poster replying blocks the original poster from replying back. It is quite pathetic the way some people are abusing this system.

[AtomicKitten]

96. and the games begin ....

it's also happening with the candidate cheerleading squads
oy vey

[Skittles]

106. there you go

now I know that if I venture into that forum, or ANY forum, I can read a post knowing full well the poster may have cherry-picked the replies. F*** THAT - that is pure censorship.

[MonkeyFunk]

120. that's a good point

I hadn't thought of. A lot of the specialty forums will become very one-sided.

[newsdude]

121. This is really a bad way to deal with disputes ....

I don't want to hear from someone I know is going to disagree with me????

Weak.

It makes DU look intellectually weak.

[Skittles]

131. yes

now that I know a poster can cherry-pick their replies, any thread is up for suspicion

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

145. Not Really The Case With Most, Hopefully.

I have 5 or 6 on my list, and I don't expect it to get much bigger. But not one of them are blocked for disagreeing. They are all blocked because when they respond they can only ever do so with personal attack and abuse, with no regard for replying to the context of the post itself. In that case, there is no disagreement to block, only personal attack and abuse. Those that reply with only attack and abuse cause long subthreads that contaminate threads and ruin discussions for others. Keeping that cycle from occurring to begin with will hopefully lead to more discussion of the actual context, and more information will therefore be gleamed. Even if people heatedly disagree on a topic I hope they wouldn't block each other and could have the thick skin necessary to handle the debate. I know I would never block anyone for such reasons, as it is pretty weak to do so. Some will undoubtedly block for such petty and weak reasons, and I've already had myself blocked by one in fact for doing nothing more then responding in a civil manner. But hopefully those that do that are few in number, and this change will mainly just keep at bay those that seek to abuse and attack rather then discuss context.

So I say give it a chance, and let's hope that this makes our site intellectually stronger, by disposing of weak attack while fostering an awareness to be more civil. I guess we'll see what happens, but I'm optimistic this will ultimately lead to much stronger and on point discussion.

Peace,

OMC

[Moochy]

165. No certainly not.. the post before me is Intellectually Strong

Strong Like Bull!

[leftstreet]

122. Actually, that forum is proving Skinner, et al were right

Members are already starting to clean the forum up, on their own, and improving the chances that more people will participate.

Sounds good to me.

[jgraz]

219. Yes, much in the way Pravda used to be cleaned up

I've already disconnected from that forum. The chances of honest debate have now been reduced to zero.

Seriously, who is it really hurting if a couple of members shout (well, really, just TYPE) at each other? Isn't that better than having posters SILENTLY prevented from replying? How the hell is a new member supposed to see the true state of opinion on this board?

[jgraz]

218. If a feature can be abused, it will be

And OH BOY can this feature be abused.

[Kolesar]

102. How would this have managed the fight in Ohio over Brown vs. Hackett?

(A matter that I have not expressed my ultimate thoughts about.)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

128. Has anybody blocked anybody on this thread?

Are there any threads where nobody can block anybody?

[U4ikLefty]

150. I'll give you a hint

look at my sig.

[Balbus]

152. That is fantastic use of a signature!

Kudos to you :thumbsup:

[U4ikLefty]

154. You would think so but "newyawker99" pretty much threatened my DU-life

for posting my outrage at being censored in my signature, so I had to modify it (let's see if it "meets the censor's scrutiny"). This is ingoring the fact that I was here BEFORE OMC & actually took to the streets in 2002 (before the war started...I've got pics). I was going to donate my $20.00 after my 1000-th post (as is my pratice at my favorite sites) but NOW I'm glad I didn't.

I guess I know my place...thanks for making my choice NOT TO DONATE FOREVER easy for me!!!

[bicentennial_baby]

160. Oh please....

Really.... :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

161. Hmmmmm. No Idea What You're Talking About.

Also can't see anything in your sig line.

Furthermore, though I have no details to or context to the backstory of above, I don't see how your being here before me or you taking to the streets in 2002 could be relevant to, let's say, anything at all.

I also don't know about your tiff's with the mods, but posting outrage about them is sure to get locked and it would be fairly reasonable to think they may not be fond of such behavior.

As far as refusing to donate to this site merely for some petty gripe, that is your right, of course. But it does come off to be somewhat childish in tone, declaring "NOT DONATE FOREVER!" because of a one time spat with a mod. This is a great and valuable community that you frequent often, which would lead me to believe that you find much value here. It is that value that you find, not the value that you don't, that should be the motivating factor for whether or not to donate. The choice is up to you, as stated, but it might be a firm directive that at some time in the future you'll hopefully re-evaluate.

And as a last note, the reason I blocked you is for the same reason I have blocked the few others. A search of your interactions with me would show a persistent history of attacking me, provoking me, mocking me, or being verbally abusive/belligerent towards me, while having very little if any discussion of context or tone of civility. In my opinion, that sort of consistent behavior when replying is the exact reason envisioned as to why someone would be blocked.

In any case, take care and peace.

[Moochy]

164. I think this feature was created for OMC

Well I Guess DU Is Better Off For Having His Ignorant and Inflammatory Posts appear unadorned with statements pointing out the Obvious.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

173. It Was Created To Assist Anybody Who Has Had To Suffer Vicious Attack Or Lack Of Contextual Debate.

It may have its limitations or flaws, but I'm convinced the positives outweigh the negatives and that the Admins came up with a brilliant new way of helping conversations stay on topic with a more frequent tone of civility. The attacks and viciousness can get out of hand sometimes. Hopefully this will assist in more engaging in contextual discussion as opposed to just out and out personal smears and childish name calling. I'm confident it will, and I've seen some of its benefits already.

But no, this wasn't created for me. It was created for all of us, as all of us at some time or another have probably had posters reply to us with consistent intent of animosity rather than sincere attempt at discussion. And such attitudes are not productive nor beneficial to anybody. Lord knows I have room to improve myself, and this was a wake up call to a lot of members, I'm sure, to attempt to be a bit more thoughtful in reply.

All in all, though there may be some annoyances with it such as getting blocked not for abuse but simply for cowardice in legitimate debate, overall I think the benefits of such a tool far outweigh the negatives.

Peace,

OMC

[Pithlet]

185. Or

It could be for people like this. I've left out all identifiers, but this is a quote from a post I just read:

"Thank you

This thread has me seriously thinking about using that new ignore function. Amazing!"

This particular thread isn't even all that flamey, it's just a pretty controversial issue. The poster wants to use the new ignore feature and potentially dictate where I and others can post simply because we disagree with him/her. I actually do happen to disagree with this poster on the issue being discussed. Do I now want to participate in that thread and make it known where I fall on this issue so this poster can jerk his/her knee and put me on it, too? People are talking about how using it is cowardly, but I'll admit I indeed left the thread. I guess I'm the coward.

Anyway, just another example of how this new feature is wrecking it for me, personally. Feh.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

187. Yes, Undoubtedly Some Will Use It To Simply Stifle Discussion Of Controversial Issues.

Some will also use it in a spiteful fashion or to just squash out opinion of those who dissent too intelligently to be effectively debated. I'm sure there will even be some who engage in 'clique blocking', by PM'ing everyone within a clique and all agreeing to block certain posters etc...

I'm sure the Admins know such childishness behavior is bound to occur with such a feature, but that the benefits towards those who can now spare themselves from real and persistent harassment and abuse far outweigh those risks. I agree with them.

Not only have I already seen some of the benefits from weeding out those who can only reply with personal animosity, but even from a personal sense it is helping me to not waste my time in long non-contextual and unproductive subthreads that I otherwise may have been too impulsive to avoid (tragic personal flaw of mine). I have a blunt, somewhat defensive and strongly logical style (and sure, sometimes I can be a wiseass) that some don't care for. I can understand that. But that doesn't excuse replies of personal attack or animosity while ignoring the context of the discussion completely. I am now able to protect myself from the clique attacks and thereby avoid taking part in and assisting some of those irritating to other members/mods unproductive subthreads that I've been caught in. Lord knows, I'm partially to blame as well. But that's why I think this can be incredibly useful. Not only does it thwart those who can only attack mercilessly, but it also can help us to check ourselves as well.

But having that said, it is all but certain that many of us will have moments of frustration with this feature. But I'm still convinced that the positives of such a system far outweigh the negatives, and that for each thread it may stifle, it helped 10 others stay on topic.

My advice to everyone would be to not have a knee-jerk type reaction to it (though that's understandable), but instead to give it a fair shake and see if ultimately it didn't help DU be a stronger community, rather than a weaker one. I understand a lot of people's concerns, but I also think many of them will find relief in the future when they see that it wasn't abused nearly as much as they thought it might.

Peace,

OMC

[Pithlet]

190. It's not that I don't see the benefits.

Or that I don't understand the reasons such extreme measures are even being attempted. I know I said I love DU, but it's not that I'm completely blind to its faults. It's a message board and has many of the same problems all the others have. The thing is, I don't think there's really anything that can be done to completely eradicate those problems short of measures that harm the board. Sort of like torching a whole room to kill the cockroach. It's dead, but now all your stuff is damaged.

I simply don't understand why the regular ignore feature wasn't enough, and that has yet to be explained to me really by anyone. If there was a poster on the board that annoyed, like the cockroach in the room, you could make it go away and never see it again, and no one else would be the wiser. The board goes on as it always has. This new ignore messes with the integrity of the board. Not only do you get to spray the cocroach, but you get to nick everyone else in the process, too. Because not everyone may have seen the poster you just unilaterally decided to spray as a problem. If they participate in your threads, you've made the decision for them that the poster cannot only not reply to you, but can't reply to them as well.

I'm sorry, but I think the regular, old fashioned ignore should be more than enough, and I don't see why the board has to bend over backwards and alter the entire way things are done for the people it isn't enough for. If putting a member on ignore isn't enough to fix ones DU experience, then message boards might be a bad idea for that person in the first place.

[greyl]

193. If you were to replace your ignores with blocks, wouldn't that be better?

(for you?)
The advantage is that you would be able to see and alert on disruptive behavior, but your blockee wouldn't be able to directly disrupt you. An ignored disruptor doesn't necessarily know they are being ignored, but being blocked is clear.

So far, I've only blocked 3 people in return for blocking me, but I'm considering adding a few more people who can't seem to partake in a logical, progressive discussion without getting personal.

Why yearn for the day they finally get banned when we can initiate a personal ban at will? ;)

[Pithlet]

194. Better for me? Only if I'm the type of person who thinks what I want

also benefits everyone else. There are people who I think are the biggest pains in the asses on DU and personally feel DU would be better without, that a lot of other DUers just love. I can, and do, block them for myself so I don't have to see them, which makes DU better for me. But, I'm not going to presume that others need to be blocked from those people as well, and in fact probably would rather not be blocked from them. Just because I think DU is better off without them doesn't in fact mean that DU would indeed be better off without them. It goes both ways. There are DUers I've loved that were very unpopular for many people. I don't want them blocked from my DU because there are other DUers who can't handle them personally.

ETA that I do get the appeal. There are posters who are simply annoying, and I know how tempting it is to make them go away for everyone as direct punishment for their annoying existence. I just read some posts for one of the few I might actually consider it for if I weren't so opposed. But, when it comes down to it, though, I don't think they're worth all the worthy posters who'll get caught in the mess.

[greyl]

195. If you had a choice between:

1. Somebody on your ignore list being free to continue posting the same shit in your threads that prompted you to ignore them in the first place &
2. Blocking them ,

you'd pick #1?
Not me. ;) If other DUers love them, they're free to make out with them in their own threads.

It's true that what you bring up is a drawback, but if the block is used responsibly by most DUers (as I think it will be), that drawback should be minimized. If people who aren't using the block responsibly get blocked in return, that should help even further.

[Pithlet]

196. Yes, I'd pick number 1

Because I can no longer see what they're posting. If anything they're posting is breaking the rules, then the mods can come to the consensus to remove them, as they always have. But, if they aren't breaking the rules, then it is no longer my problem. I can't see them anyway, so why should I care? No, if I'm honest with myself, I know that the only reason I'm using number 2 at that point is to punish that other DUer, basically.

I've already seen this used irresponsibly by other DUers. I've already had my DU experience negatively affected by it. I usually try to be civil and respectful in how I participate here, even if I lose my cool once in awhile. And for all I know, as capriciously as I've seen this new tool used, someone could have me blocked right now, and I'll find out when I try to respond in a thread they started. If and when that happens, that will really suck. And I know that's already happened to some here, DUers that I like and respect. I have no interest in any threads that are excluding them, and excluding them for no other reason than the blockee just doesn't like them or agree with their opinions.

[GOTV]

222. No it's not better.

You've been blocked by 3 people and you've blocked them back. I have nothing against you but now those other 3 people (whose identities I don't know) have made sure that I will never see your posts in their threads.

Likewise I'll never see their posts in your threads.

The 4 of you are convinced that is an improvement. Since I know none of you I am not convinced.

And I certainly don't think it's an improvement that control of my experience, that my ability to make that decision for myself on DU, has been taken from me and given to the 4 of you.

[greyl]

314. Thoughtful post, but I'd only agree if DU had 20 members.

In my case, 1 out of the 3 that I returned a block to has been tombstoned, and I think it's highly likely that you haven't seen an OP by either of the other 2, or a thread created by me that they would have responded to anyhow.

Iow, in practice, my blocking situation (probably)hasn't affected you at all.
By the same token, I'm not aware of what goes on in every forum on DU, so mileage will likely vary. ;)

Btw, I'm not convinced it's an improvement, but I want to give it a fair shake; I think that means seeing how it goes for several more days. There are some good ideas for tweaks in this thread, too.

[GOTV]

333. I may not ever be negatively affected by this....

... I'll admit. I don't know how widespread this will be. But the potential is certainly there.

While I can't point to an instance where I've personally suffered I still think it's a poor principle embodied in this tool: That people can invisibly censor threads on their whim without regard to the rules of DU.

[Moochy]

200. Ive dumped my entire ignore list

Case in point the poster you replied to does not allow me to reply to him, yet he has the courage to reply to me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

203. Not All Things Are Equal.

With all due respect, a basic historical search will show a pattern of your behavior towards me, which could provide some explanation into my action. I have not initiated attacks back, however, regardless of the viciousness thrown at me, which may explain why you haven't blocked me. Though some have gotten their schoolyard kicks out of ganging up on me or casting personal attacks towards me, I generally will almost always respond back factually and in as civil manner as possible, though granted at times with some sarcasm. Just because one poster has felt attacked, stalked, harassed and abused by another, and has proceeded to block them for it, doesn't mean the other is going to feel the same way back or that the initial poster would be guilty of the same.

[Pithlet]

207. I have to be honest. I don't know why anyone would reply

to someone they have on any kind of ignore. There's obviously bad blood between you, though I have no idea of the history. Regardless of how it came to be, it seems very unequal to be able to respond to people that cannot respond back. I know you probably don't plan on doing this yourself outside of this thread, but this is one example of why I really hate this new system.

[VelmaD]

264. the fact the he replies...

to someone he has blocked from replying to him...tells you everything you need to know about OMC.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

267. Actually, It Doesn't At All. But Thanks For The Smear.

The poster referenced me. I'd say I had legitimate right to politely explain myself, much as I do here. But I appreciate your attempt at illegitimate public attack towards me though (no I don't).

[jgraz]

278. Wow, this new feature sure is cutting down on the bad feelings around here!

...wait for it....

NOT

[iverglas]

186. and

it is being USED to suppress dissenting opinion. This is a FACT, just like the facts that I am now being prevented from posting in a forum in which I regularly post lots o' facts, by someone who has decided that the facts I post should not be seen by others, at least in the threads that person starts and in response to posts that person writes. (As I noted in another post here, the threads in question amount to about 15% of the threads on the first page of the forum listing, and in that forum I am one of very few posters, particularly regular posters, who post facts and arguments counter to what the poster in question consistently says.)

I am not the only person to whom this has been done at this site, quite obviously.

But no, this wasn't created for me. It was created for all of us, as all of us at some time or another have probably had posters reply to us with consistent intent of animosity rather than sincere attempt at discussion.

Where I post, such posters tend to be fly-by-night fakes. I play with them, and they get sent to the cornfield. The few who don't -- including the one in question above -- probably should, but that isn't my decision to make.

If I accept an invitation to your party, I don't then claim to be entitled to decide who else you should be allowed to invite. If you gave me that authority, I would reject it, even though I might offer my suggestions as to who should not be allowed through the door. If I want to control who attends a party, I'll throw my own.

People who want to control who gets to say what on an internet site might want to start their own. As long as I abide by the rules imposed by the people who have thrown this particular party, I can't for the life of me understand why any of the other guests think it appropriate for them to show me the door.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

189. I Hear Ya. In Your Specific Case That Definitely Sounds Frustrating.

But just don't forget you still have 85% of the threads to respond in. Sure, losing the 15% might suck, especially if you were blocked for what could be considered dishonorable reasons, but you can still start your own threads with the rebuttle, if the rebuttle is something that warrants its own thread (as opposed to ones done just for copycat spite purposes).

[EarlG]

197. You are hardly

"being prevented from posting in a forum" because one poster in that forum is blocking you and he starts 15% of the threads. You can still post in 85% of the threads - or start your own threads.

I'm curious about this:

If I accept an invitation to your party, I don't then claim to be entitled to decide who else you should be allowed to invite. If you gave me that authority, I would reject it, even though I might offer my suggestions as to who should not be allowed through the door. If I want to control who attends a party, I'll throw my own.

People who want to control who gets to say what on an internet site might want to start their own. As long as I abide by the rules imposed by the people who have thrown this particular party, I can't for the life of me understand why any of the other guests think it appropriate for them to show me the door.

Why do you say this when you have blocked 19 people from responding to your posts or threads? There are only eight DUers currently blocking more people than you are.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

198. !

[piedmont]

205. I'm one of those 19 and I'd like to point out that you're taking her actions out of context.

iverglas blocked us in protest, as she clearly explains in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=133619&mesg_id=133649">this thread--specifically, the sub-thread starting at post #29. If you're going to use your position to look up a poster's block-count and use it against them in debate, you could at least read through their recent posts to find the context. As I stated in that thread (after much explaining by iverglas), I'm ok with it, and I understand that her reason for using the block "feature" is to point out how absolutely ridiculous it is to run a public discussion site in which discussion can be arbitrarily stifled by posters who can't defend their opinions. And by the way, my views on the subject discussed in that forum are typically at odds with iverglas', and I still support her protest.

[greyl]

209. Now, how is a user like us supposed to know the difference between

a protest block and an any-other-reason block?

It's an odd protest that does what is being protested against, don't you think?

Let's all protest 10mpg SUVs by renting one for a week and driving it into the ground! ;)

[GOTV]

223. To show the negative effects of the tool... Think spurlock's Super Size Me...

... Why would anyone eat McDonalds food to show how bad it is....

Well, .... it's to show how bad it can be.

[greyl]

229. Let's show the negative effects of guns by shooting people.

See, it's a protest that manifests imagined negative effects rather than presenting a reasoned argument to counteract any genuine negative effects. It contaminates the process.

You must have misunderstood the SUV protest above?
"Let's all protest 10mpg SUVs by renting one for a week and driving it into the ground." ;)

[iverglas]

232. or let's read what the person you're talking about said

two hours before you posted this; it was (with some emphasis to assist you, and eliminating a stray "it" left in through sloppy editing):

Doing something that causes no real harm, for a short period, to illustrate what would happen if everyone did it all the time seems quite reasonable to me. I even imagine that Kant would agree. And I'd even say that it would apply to driving an SUV into the ground, if it was done openly and attention drawn to the doing of it and the measureable effects it has ... as I plainly intended. It's pretty hard to block replies from everyone who disagrees with one without it becoming a matter of public notice and discussion.

Pretty much answers what you've said here --

Let's show the negative effects of guns by shooting people.
You must have misunderstood the SUV protest above?
"Let's all protest 10mpg SUVs by renting one for a week and driving it into the ground."

-- before you said it, in fact, eh?

And of course, when you said --

See, it's a protest that manifests imagined negative effects rather than presenting a reasoned argument to counteract any genuine negative effects.

-- I had already posted a reasoned argument against the policy -- post 87, dated January 11 -- in this thread . So there really wasn't any "rather than" about it, was there? And if you think the negative effects are "imagined", you haven't read the responses to it (linked to in the post you originally responded to) -- or noticed that it was prompted by my being blocked from replying to posts by, and in threads started by, someone else, an effect whose negativeness you may consider to be a matter of opinion, of course, where your opinion is really of no great import.


See how much more effective it is to reply to someone's posts, pointing out the, er, inaccuracies and misunderstandings, than to prevent them from responding and thus perhaps allow such inaccuracies and misunderstandings to persist in the minds of others?

[greyl]

234. I did. It contaminates the process.

It's been made clear (in the OP, or example) that the new system was on probation as it was being tested.
The possible negative effects were already known - it was the level of them that was being measured.
Your protest doesn't add credibility to your reasoned argument.
You've done the fractional equivalent of going on a murder spree in your town to falsely inflate crime data in an attempt to prove that your predictions about a rise in murders was correct.

edit:format

[iverglas]

240. damned fine analogy you've got there

You've done the fractional equivalent of going on a murder spree in your town to falsely inflate crime data in an attempt to prove that your predictions about a rise in murders was correct.

Yup, that surely would be doing something that causes no real harm, for a short period.

Actually, the difference ("fractional", you say) strikes me as really quite qualitative, rather than quantitative. And I wasn't attempting to prove my predictions right about anything, do please try to understand. I was demonstrating the actual effect of what had actually been done to me, by doing the exact same thing to a bunch of others, temporarily, and without exploiting the potential negative effects. None of them really seems to disagree with my aforestated rational argument, or with my assessment of the actual effects of doing what was actually done.

Damn, I know my dry Cdn humour often misses its mark hereabouts, but even I, who was mightily amused by my little ploy, would find it hard to giggle while committing multiple homicides for any reason.

I do find it interesting that several people have blocked even more than my monstrous total, and apparently with no fingers crossed behind their backs.

[greyl]

242. I'm only hoping you at least get the point that it contaminates the process

of accurately looking at reality and deciding how best to approach it.

[EarlG]

210. Thank you for pointing that out

Although I still don't understand how blocking lots of people and then repeatedly telling everybody else that you're not blocking anybody makes much sense as a protest.

[iverglas]

212. thank you for your thoughtful comments

I still don't understand how blocking lots of people and then repeatedly telling everybody else that you're not blocking anybody makes much sense as a protest

I don't actually think I've done that. But oh well, I've become quite accustomed to being quoted as having said things I never said. Gee, maybe I'll just block everybody who does that from replying to my posts ...

I may have said that I don't plan to block anyone from replying to my posts. I don't. And I don't really even understand what you said there, actually. It would have made sense if you had said I don't understand how blocking lots of people and then objecting to the block feature makes much sense as a protest, perhaps. Anyway, it seems like a sentence patched together so that it would look like an expression of puzzlement about something when it's really just an effort to portray me in a bad light -- making it the equivalent of a loaded question. I don't understand how beating your own dog and then repeatedly telling everybody that you don't beat your dog makes much sense.

I described my blocks in that forum as a demo demo -- a demonstration demonstration, an illustrative protest. It really is quite localized, to the forum in question, and has had / will have no long-term adverse effects. And I don't see what you find so difficult to understand about it all. Doing something that causes no real harm, for a short period, to illustrate what would happen if everyone did it all the time it seems quite reasonable to me. I even imagine that Kant would agree. And I'd even say that it would apply to driving an SUV into the ground, if it was done openly and attention drawn to the doing of it and the measureable effects it has ... as I plainly intended. It's pretty hard to block replies from everyone who disagrees with one without it becoming a matter of public notice and discussion.

I received one PM about what I had done before explaining it -- which would be because, while blocking replies, I did not block PMs from the people in question, or put them on ignore -- quite a sharp message, whose sender withdrew it and (unnecessarily, really) apologized for it, and agreed with me. As one of the other notables in question has done here.

I believe that the administrators were already aware of the response to this feature in the forum in question before you questioned my actions here, btw.

[EarlG]

226. Okay

My poor use of the English language aside, here's what I saw: you repeatedly posted in this thread (you did not post in the previous thread - my mistake) to announce your dislike of the new system while repeatedly claiming that you would never use the system.

"I have no interest whatsoever in controlling SOMEONE ELSE's 'DU experience', which is what this policy/function in fact allows me to do."

"I do not put anyone on 'ignore'."

"I can think of few things more childish than putting someone on 'ignore'."

"If I accept an invitation to your party, I don't then claim to be entitled to decide who else you should be allowed to invite. If you gave me that authority, I would reject it, even though I might offer my suggestions as to who should not be allowed through the door."

Those are all direct quotes by you in this thread. At no point did you announce that you were in fact using the block function as a form of protest. I was not aware of the thread in the Guns forum until piedmont pointed it out. Therefore I was surprised to see the number of people you were blocking.

I now understand that you were deliberately misusing the system in order to make a point.

Here's why I'm confused about your protest: the vast, vast majority of people are not misusing the function in this way. As I pointed out, only eight other DUers are currently blocking more people than you. Obviously people can use the system maliciously if they choose to - a tiny minority are, and you're one of them, except you're puporting to do it for noble purposes.

Yes, you proved that the block function can be misused by someone who wishes to cut themselves off from all dissent, but we already knew that. As it stands most people aren't even using the function, and most of the people who are appear to be using it responsibly.

I should say for the record that we are listening to all the criticism in these threads and will determine at a later date if any changes need to be made.

[iverglas]

230. what fun

Obviously people can use the system maliciously if they choose to - a tiny minority are, and you're one of them, except you're puporting to do it for noble purposes.

Actually, I've been lying. I'm doing it for malicious purposes.

We done now?

[ProfessorGAC]

236. Just A Thought Earl

You perhaps should have piloted this program in some of the more aggressive, smaller, and single issue oriented forums to see if your rosy assessment of the likelihodd of abuse is true.

Let me say just this one thing: I think you and Skinner and Elad have been fished in by the "squeaky wheels". This new function is a solution in search of an actual problem.
The Professor

[RoyGBiv]

262. I agree ...

I think that's probably the most on-the-mark commentary of my feelings about this I have read and much better than my own rambling thoughts on the subject in the previous thread.

I have discovered in the last week I have been subconsciously avoiding contentious subjects. I also realized I'm not reading threads ... just the starter and following links.

I don't like that I'm doing that, and after I realized I was, I made a point of reading GD looking for subjects that are controversial and about which I might have something to add. And when I started composing replies, I stopped and gave up, realizing that what I was writing would or at least could land me in someone's "block" jail and cut off. Whether that actually would have happened or not is truly irrelevant. I don't go out of my way to piss people off and generally dp go to some lengths to remain diplomatic even when I think someone is being foolish, which means I shouldn't have to worry about this.

But I do, and that has made this forum less valuable to me.

I hang out now in my favorite niche forums, none of which have much at all to do with the site's purported purpose.

[iverglas]

293. Conrad Black would have loved this one!

Libel chill was his favourite tool. Now we have block chill, something that hadn't occurred to me.

When people stop expressing their opinions because they are afraid of what a private individual will do to them (libel chill: a plaintiff with deep pockets like Lord Tubby could have bankrupted anyone who wrote something negative about him, even where no libel occurred, and this had a definite effect on Canadian journalism back when he was still a Canadian corporate privateer), life is not good.

Self-censorship is fine when it means biting one's tongue so as not break a publicly recognized rule, whether it be a law or mere etiquette, but not when it means stifling one's self so as not to suffer privately-imposed consequences against which one has no recourse.

[GOTV]

277. I also agree: Solution in search of a problem

A salve for a tiny minority (it seems) for whom "ignore" was not good enough. But not a salve they rub on their own wounds, a salve they rub on the rest of us.

[Stephanie]

302. I agree and I'm going on hiatus from DU because of it.

This will be my last post at DU for a while. This rule enables disruptors, and it's left me so angry and frustrated I am taking my leave. Since the mods are keeping track of which DUers have large blocked-user lists, they might consider the motive. It seems to me some posters are using this rule as a means of camouflage.

Now, if I could just figure out how to navigate Kos! :hi:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

324. Most people? How many is enough if it protects mis info?

EarlG,

I don't know if you guys have stats on who and how many
are using this block feature, or how they are using it -


but in ER forum, there is a little Autoblock "Pit Crew"
who gutlessly starts threads - puts incorrect sensationalistic
crap in them as "news"

but who blocks anyone and everyone who asks questions or
corrects them.

These gutless wonders then go to other people's threads,
post their BS on them, and then block the post on anyone dissenting
from their post there.

Never mind that the gutless wonders blocked the OP writer elsewhere.

Gutless wonders block dissenters everywhere they go,
even on threads of people they have blocked.

Further, there is no one to protect less informed from
BS materials and mis-info that is posted by gutless wonders.

[greyl]

231. The idea was that we'd each drive one, thousands of miles each.

Wasting fuel, iow. (10mpg)

[iverglas]

211. you might want to get the facts before making insinuations

Read the forum in question and your questions will be answered.

It's called "a joke". Everybody else seems to have got it by now.

If I block everybody who disagrees with me, and everybody who disagrees with me blocks me -- as the person in question has done -- then there just won't be any disagreements, and won't life be good?

[Marie26]

271. Whew!

Isn't this sort of immature? I'm surprised an admin is looking up & publically posting how many people someone has blocked just cause they criticized a policy. It's a little Cheney-like. I feel that this policy was done mostly to make life easier for the admins, not to make life easier for people who are stalked online, and not to make DU a better, more informative place. And the repeated references to "whining" confirm that. If someone alerts on an abusive poster, it might be "whining", and it might be a real effort to alert admins to abusive posts. If someone is repeatedly (and exclusively) stalking &/or flaming people, a better solution might be to just ban that abusive poster, rather than changing the whole structure of the board.

And finally, I think they've made a fundamental misjudgement about human nature. You say that this will help weed out abusive posters - I think it will do exactly the opposite. The most abusive posters will use this feature all the time to stifle dissent & opposition. They don't care about fairness, only about having the (fleeting) power of having the last word. And they may well block people & not ignore them - giving them an endless power to torment w/o giving others any ability to reply. Some people can't deal responsibly w/any amount of power - even the petty, small power to silence others on a discussion board. IMO, abusive posters will be the most likely to use this feature. It gives them even more ability to harass/annoy others w/o opposition - and that makes it more likely that other, non-abusive posters will just leave. IMHO, this is not a good decision for this board.

[GOTV]

279. "other, non-abusive posters will just leave"

(Sorry, system glitch made me think this reply wasn't already posted)

[GOTV]

280. "other, non-abusive posters will just leave"

Having been blocked at least once, unfairly in my view, in mid discussion, I feel a disincentive to get involved in further discussions, although I have. I hold some contrary views and it might not be worth putting a lot of effort into explaining the other side of an argument when I don't know whether I'll be invisibly silenced or not. It seems to make my previous effort to explain the other side a waste of time.

Maybe it's "block shock" and will wear off but, on the other hand, why start a discussion you may not be able to finish? I suppose I could limit my participation to threads where I seems to agree with the OP. But then again, I tend not to read threads that are already in agreement with me. What's the point?

[Marie26]

376. It's profoundly undemocratic

You're right, it will stop people from posting in controversial threads. Plus, it's frustrating for people who take the time to write a post, only to find themselves blocked from the thread. And if the various cliques eventually succeed in walling off their threads from opposition, all we'll end up with is threads w/posters parroting the same exact position. How boring, how undemocratic. What's the point of a discussion board, then? There's nothing left to discuss. This feature stifles real learning, and promotes total GROUPTHINK. Just like Bush, we'll have the power to wall ourselves off from anyone who might challenge our cherished positions & delusions. And we can feel safe from actually learning anything, or having to change our beliefs.

I was trying to pinpoint why this function annoys me so much, & I think it has to do w/the concept of a "marketplace of ideas." Under this view, free expression ultimately leads to better ideas, because people have the ability to critique, improve, and offer different perspectives on a concept. Through debate & discussion, people can fully understand the pros and cons of any idea. This allows good ideas to thrive and spread to different people, while bad ideas are dismissed. We NEED free expression in any forum to get good ideas - otherwise, bad ideas are protected from any critique, and good ideas are ignored or blocked. And that is a recipe for failure - just look at how well it worked for the Bush Administration.

[Zenlitened]

369. "I'm surprised an admin is looking up & publically posting how many people someone has blocked... "

...I'm surprised an admin is looking up & publically posting how many people someone has blocked just cause they criticized a policy. ...

Agreed.

:wow:

[Psephos]

320. Hard to believe you are using admin powers to disclose private info in this debate

Almost as hard to believe as the idea that a single DUer with a hot temper and low impulse-control can prevent me from posting in a thread and interacting with all the other people there that have no problem with me.

You and Skinner are blind not to see the toxicity of this. The new policy is embarrassing. They've already started in over in freeperville about it. Har har har. Can you hear it?

Iverglas can be alternately exasperating and insightful. I would *never* want her blocked from a thread. Now you're saying some other lout can prevent ME from hearing what SHE has to say? Someone I've never responded to has the ability to block Iverglas from me? R U EFFIN' NUTS?

The best you can guys can say is "don't worry, the system will be self-correcting over time." You sound *exactly* like conservative politicians who say the same thing about socioeconomic imbalances. Yeah, let's all wait for the goodness to trickle down...some day.

Is there anything that's more fundamental to the liberal mindset than the notion of tolerance of other viewpoints and exposure to ideas so we can choose the best from among them?

The D in DU now stands for Democratic the way it stands for Democratic in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

[iverglas]

340. I was a little gobsmacked at that myself; perhaps EarlG will now

(a) disclose all blocks imposed by all posters who have used the function
(information that I think should be available to all posters anyway)

and/or

(b) remove the personal information from his post
(although this would kind of render his posts pointless)

Odd indeed that an admin would use this info to attempt to discredit a poster.

And you know, one can be exasperating *and* insightful all at the same time! Exasperating being in the eye of the beholder and all ... at least, in the eye of those who are permitted to behold ...


edit: Oh, I know. You meant to say *exasperated*! That, yes; frequently. ;)

[Psephos]

350. Iverglas, you're exactly what makes DU strong

I don't always agree with you...thank God. Otherwise, if we all thought the same way, how could I hope to be changed by someone else's views?

But you always post with passion, and I can always tell the gears in your head have been whirring before your fingers started typing. THAT's the kind of interaction that I sought when I first came to DU.

Whether or not we find ourselves on the same side of the argument in some future thread (heh heh, prolly not), know that I respect the vitality you bring to DU, and so do a lot of others. That's why I'm *so* incensed at this new obliteration function. It galls me that someone else I don't know or reply to has the ability to prevent me from hearing what you (or anyone else) has to say.

"Exasperating being in the eye of the beholder and all ... at least, in the eye of those who are permitted to behold ..."

Couldn't have said it better myself. Take care...and don't let this silliness cut into your posting! ;)

[iverglas]

352. taking care and cutting into posting

You'll be adoring me in my absence shortly -- I'm off to have my other bionic eye lens installed on Monday morning, as you may have read elsewhere. Yes, that's really me in the pic elsewhere in this thread, old and grey and weatherbeaten ...



But no, no, I am far too young and cute to have cataracts; mere teenagers are known to get them, and, in a twist on that people who live together start to look alike thing, the one-year-younger co-vivant got his at just exactly the same time. Too cute for me; next it will be matching T-shirts.

So I wonder how come I didn't block you?

Speaking of which, the world will be thrilled and relieved to hear that the 19 victims of my evil impulse have been freed from their chains. I, however, remain blocked from replying to that other person. And do you know, thinking about it now, it seems I may even have forgotten to block that person myself when I embarked on my shocking spree.

And just so's everybody can be properly envious, I would point out that the only expense to me of my surgery (other than through my ghastly Canadian taxes) will be the rather exhorbitant cost of three eye-drop prescriptions (I think it was about $60 last time for antibiotics and steroidal and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories), since I don't have private supplementary insurance, and the $100 or so I will spend promenading around by taxi to and from the hospital and then next day to the eye doc's office, since, while the co-vivant can see perfectly well now, he never in all his adult decades saw fit to get a driver's licence. Useless appendage.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

206. Can we retroactively block people?

I dont care for the way my sub-thread is going.

[iverglas]

213. heh heh

I read your question in the list of posts and cast my glance over the list of posters, and first thought that it had been written by Wrinkle_In_Time (one of my favourite books).

To answer your initial question, one person in this thread is blocked by me, as that poster has already explained, and that is the explanation for my rather cryptic post 118 (together with the reference to my mistyped dinner menu in the forum in question, where I had listed one of the ingredients as "child" instead of "chili").

[VelmaD]

263. I cannot reply to OPERATIONMINDCRIME above...

and I really want to because as far as I'm concerned he is one of the prime examples of people blocking for no good reason. He blocked me because I call him on his sexist bullshit. He blathers on in his post above about people politely disagreeing and not engaging in personal insults or whatever...but it's crap. I never insulted him. I just didn't let him get away with shit. And now he's got it fixed where he never has to put up with an uppity woman ever again. Not ever on a thread started by the site admin.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

268. Velma, It Is This Exact Tone In This Post And Above As To Why.

First of all, I'm not sexist by any stretch of the imagination. Your continued labeling me as such definitely shows reason for blocking, and also directly contradicts your own statement above of not casting insults towards me. This is your second insulting post towards me in this thread alone, and I haven't even discussed anything with you.

In fact, I consider this a prime example of why someone should be blocked. My interactions with you in the past have not been productive and civil discussions, but ones in which I have had my points completely twisted and skewed while having my personal character attacked inaccurately and illegitimately much as like you have in your two posts above. I'll make it clear to anyone that I would never block for mere disagreement, even if passionate disagreement. But if a poster is going to attack and abuse me personally in an unwarranted fashion, while attempting to destroy my character and intent by casting disgusting labels at me and refusing to discuss context openly, then they may find themselves on my block list.

I think it is quite unfair to declare that I block for no good reason, as I'm wholeheartedly against that concept as it would do nothing more than stifle legitimate discussion. I consider that statement to be yet one more attack and twisting of my character, and further justification of my decision to block you. Attacking someone, smearing someone, attempting to destroy someone's character, and twisting one's intent completely are all pretty solid reasons to find oneself blocked, to be honest with ya.

Peace,

OMC

[tyedyeto]

269. First of all, I don't care why you have someone blocked

But this is a prime example of misuse of this feature. The poster blocks someone, then replies to that blocked person knowing fully well they can never respond to that reply. This is one of reasons I dislike this new feature.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

270. I Disagree.

The feature allows someone to block someone back as well, if they do not want replies back from that person. It is every user's choice as to whether or not a poster's behavior warrants such action. In this case, I responded back because I was called out and attacked, and I felt such a post required a reply. If someone calls you out and attacks you is it inappropriate to defend against it? I don't think it is, and think as long as replies are done in a civil manner within the rules of discussion, that it is perfectly acceptable. I find the new capability useful as it helps to keep at bay those that choose to respond with personal attack and abuse rather then intent at civil discussion. Undoubtedly some will use it dishonorably to stifle civil discussion of disagreement, and that could be frustrating, but that doesn't erase the benefits of protecting oneself from those that attack repeatedly.

I think right now in the initial stages of this change we will see some issues that are bothersome, but they should hopefully decline by quite a bit as we get used to the new concept.

The system isn't perfect, but I'm hoping it will at least help.

Regards,

OMC

[spacelady]

362. I think you block and mock people for no good reason, but

just because you can, and you are delighting in your newfound power.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

364. Not By Any Stretch Of The Imagination.

There is no fun whatsoever in having to make the decision to block somebody. It is discouraging, though expected, to find some block others for reasons such as spite, clique blocking, or merely to keep others from posting alternative opinion. To each their own for why they block somebody; and if they find it to be the best thing for themselves then so be it; but I find those reasons to be weak ones.

The reasons I choose to block; however, and the same reasons I consider to be the right reasons to block somebody, are when it is evident a poster cannot engage in civil debate, even if that debate gets heated or passionate. I am not one to shy away from nor mind heated or passionate debate. But some cannot handle nor partake in such debate, and will instead only respond with non-contextual personal attack only intended to smear, demean, destroy or abuse. Such attacks, that do nothing to carry forward a conversation and do not in any way address context or logic of the topic of debate itself, are exactly the type that I believe the admins had in mind when they came up with this feature.

Like I said, passionate debate is ok. Being stubborn or strongly putting forth a position is ok. Being persistent and responding with rebuttal to the context is ok. But ignoring the context altogether or the points raised by the other poster altogether, and responding instead only with some personal degrading attack, is not only completely inappropriate and weak, but also a completely reasonable reason to find oneself blocked.

That is the ONLY reason I have used when blocking somebody other than blocking in reciprocation, with exception to one poster of which I thought our history was different than it had been. That has since been corrected. But anyone else on my list is there solely for the reason of their being incapable of keeping discussion or debate civil, and instead only showing that they are capable of issuing schoolyard taunting or vicious attack completely outside the context of the discussion itself. And like I said, that's the EXACT reason as to why someone should be blocked. I said in a thread last night, if you walk through my open door to discussion, but show each time you walk through that door that you are going to come in and take a shit in my living room and then run out, then expect me to close my door until you can prove that you can control your bodily functions and enter through the door respectfully.

So no, I don't block for no good reason. In fact, I block for only the right reasons. And no, there is no delight in having to accept that somebody is simply going to continue to refuse to engage in civil discussion but instead will only continue to act like a bully.

[spacelady]

365. May I ask then, if you think it is reasonable to block an OP's posts,

yet continue to post in that OP's thread without them having the ability to reply back to your posts? Is that not a form of hijack and/or unfair discourse?
On edit:
Also, if I may politely suggest, it would behoove you to make "concise" a part of your vocabulary as well as your writing style, but only if I may be so bold.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

366. Absolutely.

If the OP chose to engage in repeated personal attack rather than debating context for no other reason then the fact someone disagreed politely, then someone could absolutely be justified in blocking them in their own OP. But don't blame that on the person who did the blocking, it is squarely on the shoulders of the person who was being abusive to begin with. The unfair discourse would be abandoning legitimate debate to begin with by engaging in childish attack to begin with. Such personal attacks make GD a nightmare for so many. I'm sure that's very much a factor in why the Admins thought this up to begin with.

As I explained prior, it's pretty easy and clear cut: Don't be repeatedly personally abusive and attacking while ignoring contextual argument altogether, and you'll have no risk whatsoever of being blocked by me.

As far as your request for conciseness, no you may not be so bold to request that of me. In fact, I found it fairly amusing that you even thought for a smidgen of a second that when I post I would care for a second if the length of them were bothersome to you. If I may politely suggest: If you don't like them, by all means don't read them.

[spacelady]

367. Okey Dokey.

[VelmaD]

289. and again...I have to reply to you because...

OMC can't suck it up and take any criticism. He accuses me of insulting him...I find it absolutely incredible that calling him a sexist qualifies as a block-worthy insult. Yet I haven't blocked him and the number of times he has accused me of lacking logic or being too emotional or any of the other old sexist canards, just for calling him on his use of or defense of sexist language, is innumerable. I defy anyone to go back into the archives and read any of our exchanges. It will become clear fairly quickly to a truly objective observer which one of us has the thin-skin, which one is truly being intentionally offensive, which one is incapable of polite and reasoned discourse. Don't let his posts in this particular thread fool you...if you disagree with him, if you have the unmitigated gall to point out when he's wrong, or goddess forbid defend yourself and your position with passion and clear-thinking that he can't refute...he will respond with snide one-liners and then call you names, though he'll do it in a way that just stays inside the rules, and now block you so that it looks like he won.

And OMC, you know good and damn well that I refuse to block on principal. For you to continue to respond to me knowing good and damn well that I cannot respond to you DOES say something about you whether you like that fact or not.

[Marie26]

272. Just checking to see

if I'm blocked.

ETA: Woo-hoo!

[Moochy]

282. But you will get a Last Word Post from OMC

wait for it in 3 . ... 2 ..... 1......

[gulliver]

144. I don't like this one.

The journal idea was a good one, but this new "ignore" feature really is a form of censorship. From the sound of it, it seems like a key issue here is moderator effort. Is it easy for moderators to quickly call up all posts of person A on threads of person B? If so, it should be easy to arbitrate and adjudicate harassment claims. If the problem is not enough moderators, perhaps you could institute a draft.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

147. I understand what you are trying to achieve.

Your goals are noble. Your right to make these changes is absolute. Your willingness to adjust them based on the outcome is laudable. Your initial approach is ham-handed, IMO.

I personally think that this mechanism is overkill: a "nuclear option" if you will. Other popular discussion forums have implemented more nuanced control mechanisms to achieve these goals whereby members of good standing are able to affect the rating or visibility of posts through voting or allocating a limited inventory of points for/against a post. See DailyKOS, SlashDot, and especially DIGG for examples.

Their mechanisms allow the community to influence what is seen or at least what is tagged as worthwhile. The mechanisms you have just implemented on DU give ultimate power to the OP and penultimate power to their supporters (Moderators & Admins notwithstanding). People with contrary opinions (or facts) can be easily identified and silenced. As others have warned, such behaviour will amplify the echo chamber effect and will result in this...



... except that you are giving the Janet Parshalls on DU many more fingers and a long reach to everyones' ears.

[Senator]

148. Hmm... this new surge to get DUers to stand up so that Mods can stand down...

...has a whiff of ... well, bushiness to it.

But I see no reason to impeach it without a fair hearing/testing.

--

[Djinn]

156. Not here often enough these days

to really care either way but got to say I think it's pathetic that some people are unable to ignore a poster using their own mind.

You have always had the choice to ignore certain replies - just do that IGNORE them, you don't actually need a techie solution for that.

If the thought of certain people's views upsets you so much then simply do not read their posts, or go live in a echo chamber - that way you'll never be assaulted with views and opinions that might damage you :eyes:

[Moochy]

158. Put me down as "hates it"

I guess if it gets less crowded around here, the site *will* get easier to moderate!

[Balbus]

162. I hate this rule and I wish it would be abandoned. But...

it the powers that be determined that it's necessary, I can suggest a few tweaks to make sure it is used sparingly and only in extreme circumstances.

I would propose three things: First, if for example, I were to block Skinner, then an automatic block would be placed on me from replying to Skinner's posts. I block him, he's automatically blocked from me. There's already examples on the board where one poster will block another poster but that initial poster is all over the board replying to the poster's posts he blocked without fear of rebuttal. Cowardly, to say the least.

Secondly, after I initiate a block on Skinner, an automated PM is sent to Skinner telling him of the block and that he has, what I call, "the right of last reply." Which means, that because I initiated the block, Skinner still has one reply he can use against me before the block takes effect. That reply can be on any post on any thread. But only one and then the full block takes effect. It's pretty comfy to use that block button knowing that you get the last word in. Again, cowardly, but I believe this tweak would take some of the comfort out of it.

And finally, after the seven days have elapsed and I wish to finally take Skinner of my block list, it has to be mutual. I go "unclick" Skinner, and then another automated PM is sent to him to indicate my desire to have him removed from my block list. Skinner then has the chance to either (a) just reply and the blocks are then lifted, or (b) not reply and the block stays in place, for both parties, until he does reply.

Again, I can't stress the fact that I abhor this rule, but I believe with the above changes, it would then be a lot closer to the desired effect that was imagined.

[tyedyeto]

168. Skinner.....some GOOD ideas here

Read this previous post by balbus

[jgraz]

216. Good ideas, yes. But adding more features to a bad feature is not the answer

This thing has already shown its real use: allowing the thin-skinned cranks and bullies to spout their nonsense without fear of contradiction. Responsible adults who can actually take criticism will NEVER use it.

I, for one, do NOT want posters deciding what I can write and (more importantly) who else I can read. Especially since this new feature gives readers NO way to tell the difference between a blocked response and tacit agreement.

Examples of true harassment should proplerly be dealt with by the mods. Examples of simple disagreement should just be dealt with (as in "deal with it").

[BlueIris]

170. I confess. I love this feature. Because I *was* sick of the harassment.

You know who you are.

[blm]

171. Here's a dilemma for those of us who have a principled stand against blocking...

Those who have made personal missions of following our threads and posts in an effort to attack us and our posting but have also chosen to block our replies, why should they be allowed on threads of those posters they have blocked, not for any reason of stalking, but merely as a further annoyance?

It is already happening.

The easy answer is to block them back, but there are many of us uncomfortable with ignore and blocking as a matter of principle. But why should the site give those who actually DID the stalking another tool to annoy others? If they are using the block factor while posting false accusations in threads of posters they have targeted, what recourse does the target have?

[EarlG]

175. Your question goes right to the very heart of this function

You now have the power to take matters into your own hands. Why should it be our problem if you are too "principled" to use the function we have provided?

Here's my question - it's a general question, not aimed specifically at you:

Why do so many people think that it is "cowardly" to take a public stand against people who piss them off, yet it is "principled" to petition the mods in private for the deletion of posts and threads and the banning of posters?

Actually, I think I know the answer to the question, and it has to do with conditioning.

If you've been on DU for any length of time, you know how much stock we put in civility and following the rules. From the first day you set foot on this site, you're told NOT to take matters into your own hands - don't personally attack people, don't start flamewars, don't start threads to call out other members - and if you have a problem, take it to the moderators.

This new system completely contradicts that conditioning, and I think that's why so many people feel shocked at its introduction. For the first time we have given members the power to actually take action against people they disapprove of, right there on the message board. We're saying it's okay to aim your disapproval directly at the person causing you a problem, without going through the moderators.

Understandably, this seems to be causing a problem for many people who have become comfortable living under the current moderator-as-nanny system. It's a big change.

We still want to wait and see how it goes. As of today the system has been in place for a week and the predictions of DU's demise certainly seem exaggerated at this point. But the admins have plenty to talk about.

[blm]

176. True - the civility was important to many of us. And that does add to the

shock of a function like this, though it's legitimate use is easy to understand and accept.

[OnTheOtherHand]

178. I'm not sure I grasp the question

How is blocking someone from responding to my posts "tak(ing) a public stand"? As presently implemented, it isn't even visible. (As far as I know, an actual "public stand against people who piss (me) off" is still against the rules, regardless of my reasons for being pissed off.)

Intuitively, this policy (whatever else we say about it) leads to fewer public stands, not more. Am I missing something?

[EarlG]

179. You're right

Poor choice of words on my part. I suppose a better phrase would be "take direct action."

Under this new system, Member A has to "pull the trigger" as it were on Member B, and Member B will know that when they try to reply. This is somewhat more public than the previous system in which Member A would petition the mods or admins to take action on their behalf (which we may or may not be able to do, depending on the circumstances). Under the new system it should be pretty clear what's going on, at least to Members A and B.

Also note that there's the possibility that we will make the block lists public, as mentioned in the original announcement.

[Pithlet]

183. The people blocked, or doing the blocking, or both?

I don't care to know who is being blocked, personally. I'd like to know who is doing the blocking. That way when they start a thread I'll know there's no point in wasting my time in that thread, particularly if I don't share that person's viewpoint. It will be a shame if they were true victims of some cyberstalking, but since I don't get involved in the drama I probably won't know about it. I certainly don't want to waste my time and post something that some DUers I personally have no problem with won't be able to reply to.

[OnTheOtherHand]

188. OK, fair enough, but...

In the old system, if a moderator intervened, it was clear that a moderator had made the judgment to intervene. People could speculate and whimper about the evilDUers who might be behind it, but the mods made the calls. (I would always have been happy to provide a public rationale for my alerts, but it's against the rules to say that one is alerting.) Before, mods made the determinations based on rules; now, increasingly, individual DUers will make determinations based on... whatever. I don't think that is more "public" or more "clear," just different. Like most changes, it will have good and bad effects.

If the rule remains, I do think that every OP should provide a block list. It will give people a somewhat clearer sense of the post's social context. I don't think it is a good idea to permit invisible restrictions upon discussion on a discussion list.

(EDIT TO ADD) I think GOTV clarified a point that I didn't: whether one thinks users should have the power to block other users from posting has nothing to do with one's views of 'moderators as nannies,' at least not inherently. The new feature allows users to block forms of behavior -- bad, good, and equivocal -- that don't violate DU rules.

[AtomicKitten]

356. Then again are the delusions of being "stalked" or "harassed"

when, in fact, some DU'ers simply don't like anyone challenging their posts. That is exacerbated by having a posse that utilizes tag-team assaults to tamp down the challenge. I think that puts way too much power into the hands of the posse and creates a conundrum. Posting the posse's block against one person is a misrepresentation of the situation.

I also don't think announcing one is blocked on the boards is appropriate. It perpetuates bad feelings that the ignore function is allegedly attempting to stop. The logical next step would be a reciprocal block, so I'm rather suspicious of those claiming moral superiority in declaring they won't use it at the same time belly-aching all over the boards about being blocked.

[Pithlet]

181. I still hate it, and I don't think it's cowardly at all.

That was never my reason for hating it. But, you did address the argument and my reasons for hating it, which is giving mod powers to regular users, and turning this into a member moderated board, at least partially. It dismayes me to read that that is indeed your intent. It's your guys' board, and if that's what you want to do, then what can any of us say, really, except voice our objection. I honestly don't think my objection has anything to do with being overly negative. This board is the only one I've ever been a member of for any real length of time, and I've been here over 5 years. I've been on various forms of message boards since before the internet. DU has been the best internet community I've ever belonged to. A big part of it is the way it has been moderated, a system I fully believe in. It's the best one on the internet, and one I was happy and felt privileged to be a part of, whether or not we were really all just a bunch of glorified nannies. I still hold out some hope you guys will decide to scrap this, because I think you might be underestimating the negative effects it's having.

[GOTV]

184. I think you've misunderstood the objections...

... I don't like the new tool and it has nothing to do with some mod-as-nanny system. I've never reported a poster and I've never blocked or ignored a poster. The only reason I can see to deal with the mods is if I have a problem with something that's already been posted such as, as a hypothetical, my home phone number. And your new tool does nothing to help in that situation anyway.

I've stated my objections several times before, as have others, but this post sounds like they've not really been understood. Perhaps none of us are clear enough.

I don't PREFER moderators to solve my problems. I can ignore on my own. I already had that ability thanks to you guys.

What I don't like is that others can control whose posts *I* can see and I also don't like that it is not visible when they've exercised that control.

It has *nothing* to do with preferring to whine to an administrator about another poster - as I've never done that.

I think many of the people who posted an opposition to this new tool have done so along these lines and not the lines that you suggest. Can you acknowledge that that this new tool let's poster A prevent me from seeing the posts of poster B who I have no problem with and I will never know that poster B has been blocked. In fact this new tool can prevent poster B from replying to me, and I'll never know it.

Also, for the record, I don't think this tool will cause the demise of DU. I think it's a bad tool but that DU will survive. I suspect most of the people that posted "that's the end of DU" were being hyperbolic.

Summary: Not all who think poorly of this tool need nannies and we are not all predicting the demise of DU.

[foo_bar]

201. is the problem with Bush that we're conditioned to expect the rule of law?

Forgive the analogy, but the problem isn't that people expect the rules to be enforced somewhat evenly; the rule of law is now Gunfight at the Not-OK Corral (IMO the nearest conditioning metaphor is the time B.F. Skinner replaced the monkey-nannies with nippled sacks of cloth, per #184.)

From the first day you set foot on this site, you're told NOT to take matters into your own hands - don't personally attack people, don't start flamewars, don't start threads to call out other members - and if you have a problem, take it to the moderators.

And that leads to issues of scale, understandably. Historically that means you need more bureaucracy and oversight, not to balkanize into medieval fiefdoms where the law of the land is the local lord/baron/archduke's whim. I get that we're merely specimens in this social experiment, but "the customer is always right" is wrong when your customer's chasing off other customers (the libertarian-Birch notion of liberty). If polsci professors can't post to polsci threads without administrative approval by the People's Republic of Autorank, what use is a discussion forum?

[jgraz]

301. So the system only works if we all engage in schoolyard tit-for-tat retaliation.

Lovely idea there.

And BTW, no one here is asking the moderators to be nannies. We're asking the moderators to be, well, moderators. You make the rules, so what's the problem with enforcing them? Handing enforcement weapons to people who don't necessarily abide by your principles has already caused more problems than it's solved.

[spacelady]

363. Your quote

"For the first time we have given members the power to actually take action against people they disapprove of, right there on the message board"

Why has a member's disapproval of someone suddenly mean they can control that person's postings? There is a wide range of "disapproval" criteria here. This sort of personal policing smacks of personal quirks and/or pack behavior, the antithesis of progressive discourse. I personally think it stinks.

[bryant69]

172. What I like about this system is how it will encourage people to have the right opinions

I think in the long run there will be a real benefit because people who have the wrong opinions will get weeded out and put in their place. I heartily support that - we don't need to share this space with people who do not think correctly!

Bryant

[ProfessorGAC]

192. Yep. I Will Endeavor Only To Think Correct Thoughts!

Hey, Bryant. I think some might miss the sardonic edge. Good post, just the same.
The Professor

[iverglas]

215. to the cornfield with 'em!

Of course, there is a correctness standard at DU, and as I said in other posts here:

I have never alleged censorship / free speech violation when the issue is rules imposed by the owners of DU. This is their site, they can do what they like with it.

Where I post, such posters (obvious thinkers of un-d/Democratic, illiberal, non-progressive thoughts) tend to be fly-by-night fakes. I play with them, and they get sent to the cornfield.

If I block everybody who disagrees with me, and everybody who disagrees with me blocks me -- as the person in question has done -- then there just won't be any disagreements, and won't life be good?

It's being sent to the cornfield by people who are no more progressive than myself, and to date less so, when I have not complained that life is not good, that irks.



I'm sure you know where that cornfield is, but ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_a_Good_Life_(The_Twilight_Zone)

Six-year-old Anthony Fremont looks like any other little boy, but looks are deceiving. He is a monster, a mutant with godlike mental powers. Early on, he isolated the small hamlet of Peaksville, Ohio. In fact, the handful of inhabitants do not even know if he destroyed the rest of the world or if it still exists. Anthony has also eliminated electricity, automobiles, and television signals. He controls the weather and what supplies can be found in the grocery store. Anthony creates and destroys as he pleases, and controls when the residents can watch the TV and what they can watch on it.

The adults tiptoe nervously around him, constantly telling him how everything he does is "good", since displeasing him can get them wished away "to the cornfield", where they are presumably met by a less-than-happy ending. Finally, at Dan Hollis' birthday party, Dan, slightly drunk, can no longer stand the strain and confronts the boy, calling him a monster and a murderer; while Anthony's anger grows, Dan begs the other adults to kill Anthony from behind---"Somebody end this, now!"---but everyone else is too afraid to act. Before he is killed, he is shown, indirectly by his shadow, transformed into a Jack-in-the-box. His widow breaks down, but no matter what happens, the people of Peaksville make sure to think only good thoughts and repeat "That's a real good thing that Anthony did!" and "It's a good life."

http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue2_1/03Schroeder.html

There is an unfortunate tendency to assume that civil discourse has occurred whenever two or more people are nice to each other, say something, and don’t get into an argument. That is misleading on all three counts.

Civil discourse is city speech, implying, as Richard Luecke (1968; 1996) has suggested many times, that it is not only how we speak in cities but also how cities speak.

City speech is not simply or uniformly nice; on the contrary, it is often confrontational and rough. A place in which speech was simply and uniformly nice would be homogeneous and have nothing but smooth edges. I am aware that this may well be what Aristotle (1990) had in mind when he described the city in terms of friendship and excluded those who were not “beautiful” (not to mention those who did not speak Greek) from full participation. But, as Martha Nussbaum (1986) has pointed out, Aristotle truncated his own city at this point and (unfortunately) did not allow himself to be carried away by his method. That method is certainly capable of carrying us to a city with a more inclusive aesthetic. Beauty is defined not by excluding those who do not fit within existing boundaries but by crossing boundaries to acknowledge the fittingness of diversity encountered in the city. Crossing boundaries involves confrontation and is rarely smooth. But that it is part of city speech means that civil discourse has not occurred if boundaries have not been crossed.

Nor is city speech simply a matter of saying something. If it does not also ensure space and time in which to say nothing, the listening essential to discourse becomes impossible. In terms of boundary crossing, this means that civil discourse has not occurred if boundaries that define spaces of sound and spaces of silence have not been recognized and honored. Both sound and silence are crucial if the city is not simply to degenerate into a place of violence.

Finally, and most emphatically, city speech does not avoid argument. In fact, the rhythm of crossing, recognizing, and honoring boundaries is descriptive of the discipline of argument. (Remember the formulation at the beginning of this essay: liberal arts are concerned with discovery, appreciation, orientation, and application—redefined here in terms of crossing, recognizing, and honoring boundaries.) Where there is no argument, there is no civil discourse, and there is no city. Such a place is likely to be defined in one of three ways: either it is surrounded by an essentially impermeable boundary that excludes difference; or it is marked by violent struggle for control of turf; or (most likely) it is a mixture of both, with enforced homogeneity near the center of power and violent struggle for control of turf on the fringes.

The "mixture of both" is what life mainly is, and what a place like DU can hardly avoid being.

[ProfessorGAC]

217. I Think We Agree In Principle

I just hope that this decision to be "correct" doesn't include a Borg mentality or litmus test for "liberalness". I've got nearly 20k posts and i've had genuine conflict only a dozen or two times. And, it never actually got personal. So, i guess i'm just uncomfortable with this new system because it seems like a solution in search of an actual problem.
The Professor

[iverglas]

227. we do

I just accept that the site has rules. I don't always agree with what they are or how they are applied, by any means, but I can always go find another sandbox.

I actually have been stalked on line -- by someone who accused me publicly in a forum (not here! and one that was unpoliced by the corporation that operated it) of hacking her computer and threatening to shoot her children. !! Any of the 19 people I have blocked in my little joke protest this week (in the Guns forum) can attest to the ridiculousness of that one. ;)

But that kind of allegation, made in public and potentially read by dangerous people -- this was at an abortion debate board, and she was a leading light of the on-line anti-choice brigade -- wasn't something to be taken lightly; recall the Nuremberg Files website targeting abortion clinic staff. It was truly threatening. When, not long after, she posted a description of her recent vacation -- to my side of the border, and in fact to an event within six blocks of my home, me being pretty sure I'd let slip what city I lived in -- I felt some genuine fear. She then followed me around from site to site for months, not posting in the same threatening vein, but always attempting to incite hatred or contempt. It wasn't until I managed to convince her, through clues only she understood, that I really had determined her real-life identity (I had), and that I would expose it publicly (assuming I would not have to, as I don't believe I could have done that), that she finally agreed to my terms: that I would not visit forums where she was and she would do the same and stop all references to me.

That's one reason why I find this talk of "stalking" here at DU stupid, and in fact offensive. Being replied to by someone whose goal is portray one as an idiot or a liar really is not the same thing as being followed around by someone whose words put one in reasonable fear for one's safety.

Anyone who wants to try to use my own words to portray me as an idiot or liar, or even as undemocratic / illiberal / non-progressive and thus not invited to this party, is welcome to do it. And anyone who is genuinely stalked will find me at the head of the line demanding that action be taken to stop it and deal with it.

I don't hold to the "grow a thicker skin" credo when it comes to the bashing/stereotyping of people based on personal/group characteristics (like ethnicity, sex, religion). But when it comes to criticism/exposé of facts, arguments and opinions, then I'll sign on. If the criticism/attempted exposé is dishonest, that can be made apparent by responding to it.

It is sad to encounter dishonest criticism / false exposé in a place like this, but demagoguery really can't be outlawed; however, it too can be criticized and exposed, and in fact it is excellent practice, in this demagogue-replete world of ours, to do that. On the other hand, it can also be worthwhile sometimes to pay no attention to it. Both were possible as things stood. Preventing the other voice from being heard in a place where it is appropriate for it to be heard is what leads to an essentially impermeable boundary that excludes difference, or violent struggle for control of turf.

[Violet_Crumble]

358. If you find this talk of "stalking" here at DU stupid...

..then why do you turn around and claim some over-excitable whiner on the abortion board we were both posting at was stalking you? Sorry, but I've seen some behaviour at DU that qualifies every bit as much as stalking as yr example from the abortion boards. My opinion is that you weren't stalked - the person in question never tried to take their problems with you to an offline real-life level, and to be honest I only remember her making one comment about her holiday and it wasn't addressed to you. Someone who hates me and who's long been banned from DU recently described their holiday to Sydney on another board, which is only 200kms from where I live. Does that make them a stalker or put me in fear? No. I'm not of the belief that when someone who detests me on the internet holidays in close proximity to where I live it must mean that they're 'stalking' me and that their motivation for holidaying in my neck of the woods is *me*...

I did PM you last night to tell you that despite yr attempts to portray the blocking feature as being abused on a large scale, I'm someone who has been subject to long-term abuse by a very small number of DUers in one of the forums here and that's why me blocking those few people is not cowardly or deserving of public shaming or any of the nonsense I read in an earlier post. I'm sick and tired of returning to my posts to find that it's one of them with a post that's nothing but abuse, and I'm sick of having to alert on them, only to see the post deleted but the same people return again and again to continue the same thing. They're pissed off coz they're blocked by me? I couldn't give a rat's arse. I'm not surprised that they'd be pissed off seeing as how I put a stop to their abuse aimed at me. They're free to go and try that stuff with someone else. If they're lucky they'll find some martyr who thinks that them refusing to block anyone who's being abusive makes them a better person than everyone else. And when it happens I won't have a shred of sympathy for the martyr seeing as how they have the means at their disposal to put a stop to the abuse...

on edit: that's not saying I don't have some concerns about the functionality of the blocking system. I blocked a few people to stop them replying to me with their regular abuse (the first addition to my list was someone who blocked me first within hours of this new system starting and is now whining on another board about people blocking one of her abusive friends). I don't care much for the way it also blocks them from replying to anyone else in a thread I start, because I don't think I should have the ability to stop anyone from replying to anyone else but me...

[iverglas]

359. my dear Violet

que pasa?

You may not remember it, but I described it clearly in the post you have answered: the person in question accused me in a public forum of hacking her computer and threatening to shoot her children. Now, you might be comfortable having that information on-line where the anti-choice brigade in the US is likely to read it, but, coupled with the fact that the person in question knew what city I lived in and made a point of reporting that she had been here ... well, it sure made me pretty nervous. Very nervous, actually; it fact, it scared me quite seriously. I didn't know her, and I sure as hell didn't know all the other people who might be reading and might be in touch with her. Adding in the fact that she did follow me from place to place on the internet, attempting foolishly to conceal her identity while heaping abuse on me, again in places visible to and probably frequented by people who are really not to be trusted to play nice in the real world, and disappearing only when my promise to expose her was taken seriously ... well, I'd call that stalking. A threat really can be made otherwise than by saying "I'm gonna git you", and even if she didn't intend to incite anyone to harm me when she made that stupid and vicious and baseless -- false -- accusation, it was foreseeable that this could have been the consequence.

I did PM you last night ...

Yes, and I got it at a time when I assumed you were snoozing, given your topsy turvy location, so I put it off until after work hours, as I prefer to do that for things I have to put thought into. In the 3 hours since I finished my days' work, I've been occupied responding to a complicated genealogical inquiry from a stranger, which I just finished, and which is just an indication of my priorities, I guess. I did take a peek at your forum, where I never ever go otherwise, in preparation, but didn't do a thorough perusal.

... to tell you that despite yr attempts to portray the blocking feature as being abused on a large scale, I'm someone who has been subject to long-term abuse by a very small number of DUers in one of the forums here and that's why me blocking those few people is not cowardly or deserving of public shaming or any of the nonsense I read in an earlier post.

The person who has blocked me from replying in the forum where I post almost exclusively has never been subjected to abuse from me; that person has simply made a habit of waving bye-bye to pretty much anyone who challenges what the person says and putting such people on ignore, and is now exploiting the new feature in an attempt to prevent ANYONE from seeing what I might have to say about what that person says. It's a revolting, shameful act of bullying, and that's ALL it is. I am of course in no way prevented from saying whatever I have to say about that person's posts by posting somewhere else in threads where they appear -- all I have to do is post underneath and head mine something like "and this is what I've got to say about what 'X' just said" -- but I am prevented from posting in threads that the person starts, which account, as I said, for about 15% of recent threads. Since I am the only regular poster there who consistently supports a particular position and posts cogent argument and detailed facts in support of it, that person has effectively gagged his opposition, not just me, in those threads. This is revolting and shameful, and there is simply no other way of describing it. I wouldn't call that person a coward; I'd call that person a jerk and a bully, the words used by someone else here to describe such people. No one else in that forum has blocked me, and several have said they would never consider it both on principle and because it would be silly to give themselves no one to argue with. The person who has blocked me is extremely obviously not interested in exploring ideas, and simply enjoys being a bot for a pet cause, with a potentially large audience.

What I'm failing to grasp is why you need to prevent anyone from replying to your posts. If they're as abusive as you say, why does anything have to be done with them? Other than have them deleted, if appropriate. Perhaps what is needed is better moderating, so that such posts are deleted without others having to waste their time alerting on them. In that case, we have the admin abdicating its responsibilities and transferring a power to users without imposing any sanction for improper use of that power. Therein lies the problem. Of course the admin does not want to open up that hornet's nest -- having to respond to complaints about being blocked, from people alleging that the blocking is improper.

But really, what does it matter what bullshit other people post in response to your posts? Yes, I imagine there should be better and better-enforced rules to deal with the bullshit, but the bullshit in question just seems like an annoyance and an unpleasantness, which can be dealt with by not dealing with it, I'd imagine. It's not like one can really expect everyone here not to spout crap that's been refuted seven thousand million times already, for instance, or keep on trying to portray one as a fool or a liar despite how wrong they've been proved themselves; I encounter it daily. It's what quite a number of media outlets are devoted to doing. Ultimately, if one doesn't like how a place is administered, one can leave.

I do understand that conditions vary from forum to forum. But surely you understand, from reading here, how dissent -- and perhaps truth -- is being stifled in some forums here now.

And btw, I'm pretty sure I made no attempt "to portray the blocking feature as being abused on a large scale".

... because I don't think I should have the ability to stop anyone from replying to anyone else but me...

There ya go. THAT was my point. The thing is that without that element, the blocking feature is just a dumb pothole; there are infinite ways around it, and all of them (like what I described above, and what we did elsewhere to get around my fit of blocking -- replies dotted around the thread) would be tiresome, but effective. So the blocking feature would really have no effect. Just as I imagine it won't now, except for gagging someone who can't post in a thread started by a blocker.

Do you really think that the people bothering you are going to stop just because they can't do it in direct reply to your own post??

I think you didn't answer my belated email from about 10 months ago ... how time flies ...

Gotta go home and cook up another fabulous dish and watch Heartbeat.

[Violet_Crumble]

360. Uh, that's still not stalking...

the person in question accused me in a public forum of hacking her computer and threatening to shoot her children. Now, you might be comfortable having that information on-line where the anti-choice brigade in the US is likely to read it, but, coupled with the fact that the person in question knew what city I lived in and made a point of reporting that she had been here ... well, it sure made me pretty nervous. Very nervous, actually; it fact, it scared me quite seriously.

A moron who publicly accused others, including me, of things we hadn't done and wouldn't dream of doing isn't online stalking. If it scared you, why did you continue to reply to her posts in that and other forums? If someone was stalking me I sure wouldn't try to engage them on any discussion of a political issue. What happened to you was unpleasant, but it wasn't stalking....

But really, what does it matter what bullshit other people post in response to your posts?

Well, you just used the Melanie example to explain why it did matter to you what bullshit was posted in response to yr posts. When other people get abused to you it's just 'bullshit' but when it was done to you you expect everyone here who wasn't around when it happened to believe you were being stalked. That's bullshit. I explained in the post you replied to that the three people I've blocked for that reason don't even attempt to discuss the topic and prefer to get abusive. They've been doing it for a long time, have continually made things very personal, and you know what? I don't want anyone who has a reply to me that addresses what I said in my post to be put off by seeing that someone's replied to me already with a bunch of abusive shit. There's already a noticeable difference in the forum I post in coz there's not the usual long run of deleted posts to have to wade through to get to something that's worth reading....

Do you really think that the people bothering you are going to stop just because they can't do it in direct reply to your own post??

Yes, because I know for a fact that when I block someone, they're not going to be allowed to pop up elsewhere in a thread with a post abusing me....

[iverglas]

361. just a note ...

Er, it wasn't Melanie. It was fem4___ in her various incarnations -- Judy the atheist anti-choicer, now a fundie, the one who had the abortion she didn't want, the one over whose whining we first met - ? She accused me in public of threatening to kill her children, and she followed me from place to place for months. She'd harassed other people by following them around, but I have never heard of her accusing someone else of threatening to kill her children, and I wasn't really comfortable having a bigtime anti-choicer doing that in public and then make a point of knowing my location, to put it extremely mildly. If you don't recall the brouhaha at that US women's magazine abortion board, there's at least one other person at DU (who was once also the subject of Judy's attentions) who does, 'cause she was the one who first set about finding out who she was.

I understand how being followed around a forum and having vile and stupid things said to one is unpleasant, and I do understand that some of what you're talking about is truly vile. I think that DU admin should suck it up and deal with the people who do this. I understand the relief at having what appears to be a way of dealing with it one's self when that doesn't happen. I also know that the feature is being used for much less honourable purposes.

If you are confident that posts abusing you elsewhere in a thread where you post won't be permitted, then it would seem that it's working appropriately. I guess those posts will be deleted if there's a complaint, but that doesn't seem to be any different from the situation without the blocking feature.

[jgraz]

221. Skinner take note: You finally got me and Bryant69 to agree on something

This new feature needs to be scrapped.

[BlooInBloo]

174. Best. Rule. EVER....

If you're one of the DU Cowards, that is.

For the rest of us? Not so much.

[Moochy]

202. Oppositewise and contrariwise

vis a vis the rest of us. :) Worst Rule Ever.

[ButterflyBlood]

199. This is the tinfoilers' favorite tool.

It enables them to keep spewing nonsense with virtually no rebuttal and further discredit DU.

Right now DU's system and rules already benefits tinfoilers but making it difficult to hold them accountable. Threads are automatically locked and un-bumpable after a certain period, and it's against the rules to make a new thread calling someone out on a previous one. While I understand the reasons for these rules, it means that the "Draft in '05" crowd more-or-less escaped their inaccurate predictions unscathed, and the same is largely true for the folks who were screaming that it didn't matter what the polls said before the election because it was going to be stolen no matter what.

Good recent example: After the rocket attack on the Athens embassy, many here were automatically convinced right off the bat that it had to be a false flag operation that would be blamed on Iran. After being blamed on domestic Greek groups and that it's now a largely forgotten news story, these tinfoilers have been essentially discredited, but everyone has forgotten it, and no doubt the same nonsense will come up when a similar story comes.

Admittedly allowing people to call other DUers out on inaccurate predictions or claims would cause some serious troubles, but now at least tinfoilers can be rebuked on their own threads showing that not all DUers buy into the crap. Now, they can just turn their threads into echo chambers.

[greyl]

208. I think tinfoilers are more likely to use block, too.

So far, the only posters that have blocked me(3 that I know of) are squarely in that category.
A common trait of theirs is that they don't grasp the difference between a personal attack and a solid rebuttal to their arguments, even though many minutes have been spent trying to explain it to them.

A solution? Block them in return, and create our own debunking thread.

[jgraz]

214. Yep, right on the money

It's the cranks and the bullies who are most likely to use this feature. People who are here to have a lively, reasoned debate are most likely to find the use of this feature repellent.

[enigmatic]

260. the one-issue axe-grinders, too

Both are using it right now, and it's pretty obvious..

[Writer]

204. My response, or actually someone else's:

"When people undertake to reason, all is lost."

- Voltaire.

[GOTV]

225. Maybe the tool doesn't go far enough? Gimme a button that closes their account!

That's ridiculous you say? If I don't like someone why should I have to see their threads at all? Why should I see posts of people replying to threads started by posters I banned? Why should I have to see the posts of others who express the same opinions as the posters I can't stand?

What if I can't stand to think that maybe one of my posts is a database record in a table right next to a record holding an unrelated post by some ignorant poster I've blocked and there it sits getting stupid juice all over it?

Why should you not provide me with the tools to really clean up the DU gene pool?

So get to implementing that right away will ya?

Just tell me when the new tool is available before you tell anyone else ok?

[greyl]

235. Or how about one that allowed you to vote for closing their account?

Know what I mean? Like a "block" function for example? ;)

[ProfessorGAC]

237. Good One, Grey

I think this function is a textbook example of overcontrol.
The Professor

[greyl]

241. What do you mean by "overcontrol"? nt

[ProfessorGAC]

245. It's Probably What You Expect

Overcontrol is a condition when an attempt is made to control a process or system when the appropriate thing is to do nothing. (Think Greenspan doing too much to the interest rates, or "overcontrolling" the economic system.)

In almost all cases of overcontrol, whether it's turning away from a skid on ice, or overtrimming a small plane, or running a nuclear reactor, the result of doing something when it wasn't necessary is worse than if nothing was done at all.

This is a well-resaerched and experimentally proven concept in the analysis and modeling of complex systems.

Sorry, i thought it was clear enough. I was wrong.
The Professor

[greyl]

246. Sounds like iverglas's protest. ;)

Thanks for the explanation, I didn't want to go on the assumption that I knew how you meant it.

[iverglas]

247. gee, ya think?

If I may refer you to the thread discussing it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=133619&mesg_id=133652

"This is why that rule change was stupid"

Now, what do you suppose my point was?

I went on to say:

I tried to post in a thread in this forum yesterday and had my first encounter with the new rule. I could not post in the thread -- not even in reply to someone other than the originator of the thread.

... This is purely pre-emptive strike for demonstration purposes, during what seemed to be a bit of a lull in the proceedings here anyhow. It lasts one week, which will give me some time to finish painting my dining room.

Since I do plan to cancel all of the reply blocks at the end of the week, anyone who believes in democratic discourse might not want to reciprocate at this time.

Since the posters in question and I virtually never engage in verbal intercourse anywhere other than that forum, y'all really just don't need to worry your little noggins about it, y'know?

[greyl]

248. What I think is that you misunderstood the 2 posts previous to yours.

ProfessorGAC was saying the new DU function was an example of overcontrol, and I'm saying your protest fits his description of overcontrol.

[ProfessorGAC]

250. Just For The Record

I was talking about the new rule, with regard to overcontrol. I wasn't referring to you at all. Since you're not in control of this ship, you can't overcontrol it. Only Skinner and pals can do that, and they've done it.
The Professor

[iverglas]

251. aha

So while I wasn't disagreeing that I was an example --

2. a person, thing or piece of conduct, regarded in terms of its fitness to be imitated or likelihood of being imitated
(per Oxford Concise)

-- I wasn't, and I see your point!

The solution in search of a problem ...

[greyl]

252. Yes, also for the record,

I was suggesting that iverglas's protest sounded like your description here:

"Overcontrol is a condition when an attempt is made to control a process or system when the appropriate thing is to do nothing."

"In almost all cases of overcontrol, whether it's turning away from a skid on ice, or overtrimming a small plane, or running a nuclear reactor, the result of doing something when it wasn't necessary is worse than if nothing was done at all."

As iverglas is in control of their block list, I think it qualifies.


edit: also also, for the record, I'm done with this tangent about the protest.

[ProfessorGAC]

253. iverglas Does Not Have The Controls

Therefore, cannot be what i was describing. The phenomenon of overcontrol can only take place at the hands with people who have the controls of the system at their disposal. Don't try to drag me into your little argument.
The Professor

[greyl]

254. Of their block list, yes they certainly do.

ProfessorGAC: "The phenomenon of overcontrol can only take place at the hands with people who have the controls of the system at their disposal."

(I assume you replied before I added the edit that I was done with the tangent about the protest.)

:thumbsup:

[ProfessorGAC]

255. Fair Enough

I honestly don't remember if i saw that before or just now. But, you're point is well taken.
The Professor

[GOTV]

243. No just close the account - and delete any posts they've already made...

... that's the only way to really protect my experience on DU.

Your experience should be limited to what is optimal for me don't you think?

[greyl]

244. That option isn't up for debate.

(I realize you're only being sarcastic)

[jgraz]

228. MODS: Are you able to see who was blocked and when?

In other words, is there any way for you to compile data on how many people are being blocked in response to posts that you would consider alertable? Now that the feature's live, it would be interesting to see the proportion of blocks for harassment vs mere disagreement.

My guess is that most of the blocks are coming from people who have a historical problem handling debate and criticism.

[greyl]

238. There's more than one angle from which to look at the data, eh? ;) nt

[ProfessorGAC]

239. A Superb Suggestion

Since i think this new function is a classic example of overcontrol, and that it's an example of a solution in search of a problem, i think you have hit on the perfect solution. If there is a measurement that can establish the efficacy, or lack thereof, that could be the killer requirement. If the numbers say it stays, it stays. If the numbers say it's being abused, buh-bye.

Good idea.
The Professor

[enigmatic]

258. I'd love to see this

I agree w/ you; I say make all the people the person who starts any OP be visable to all, that way I can avoid those threads..

[jgraz]

274. Nice idea, but at this point the feature doesn't need a "surge"

I think it's time the mods came up with an exit strategy for this particular turd.

[enigmatic]

306. I agree

But if it's going to stay, I want to know who's doing the blocking.

I hope it doesn't because if the past few days have shown anything, it's been a complete disaster.

[jgraz]

308. "complete disaster" just about sums it up

And the mods thought they'd be greeted as liberators...

[Paladin]

257. I'm Sorry, But This New Policy Just Doesn't Sound Right

With all due respect to the DU administrators and their undoubtedly good intentions, I think this new blocking policy will result in some truly unfortunate consequences. For every DU participant who uses the new blocking function for correct and laudable purposes (identifying and weeding out assorted churls, trolls, and troublemakers), there will be another DU participant who will use the new function for the wrong purposes (stifling legitimate dissenting opinions, settling old grudges). Since when is someone's "DU experience" supposed to be sacrosanct, to the point of complete agreeability and the avoidance of pointed disagreement?

Again, I have no doubt that the administrators' motives were well-intentioned, but as a long-time DU member, I'll gladly settle for a more disruptive "DU experience," rather than suffer the sort of electronic vigilantism that this scheme seems destined to become. I will continue to rely on the moderators to take care of the occasional problems that crop up.....

[Make7]

261. Shouldn't the 'Cannot Reply' lists of banned members be deactivated.... (n/t )

[Kingshakabobo]

266. Are you thinking of our friend, the Holocaust denier?

That would make a lot of sense.

[jgraz]

273. OK, now this has gone beyond the ridiculous

Step 1: block someone from replying to any thread you start
Step 2: Start a thread in GD on a particularly controversial subject
Step 3: Alert the the mods to any new thread that "continues the argument"

Congratulations!! You have not only kept that person from posting on your threads, you have effectively STOPPED THEM FROM COMMENTING ON YOUR PET SUBJECT FOREVER. Woohoo! You now own that particular subject for all eternity. Just keep one of your threads alive and alert any others. No opposing views can be posted without your express approval.

Gee, guys, this new feature of yours sure is swell!

[jgraz]

281. I forgot step 4: bring in your idiot friends to attack the poster once they can't reply

for example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3134331&mesg_id=3144551

Seriously, mods, just rename the button "I'm a coward" and be done with it.

[Moochy]

283. Yes keep the feature

but rename the button!

I love it. :)

[jgraz]

287. Also

display a little :scared: icon right next to their name.

[GOTV]

275. Why not private threads for the sensitive DUers?

Allow people to designate a thread as invite only. Then I don't have to see the threads I cannot participate in and they can have the controlled experience that they need.

I might even use that feature if I want to hash out an issue in depth with a few other DUers that I think would have valuable input?

[jgraz]

276. We already have "private" forums, what else do you need?

Many DU groups do not allow opposing viewpoints to be posted. Do we really need to also allow people to post their pet subjects in GD without opposition? DU worked just fine without this feature, and it's getting more broken by the day as people realize the power that the mods have handed them.

It's kind of like a sheriff saying, "Gee there sure are a lot of fistifights around here. I'll just give everyone a gun and they can be their own sheriff. I'm sure people will respect the power I've given them and not abuse it."

[GOTV]

284. *I* don't need anything else - just suggesting alternatives for this bad feature.

The improvement is that I don't have to see threads and start to read them only to find I can't participate anyway.

[jgraz]

286. Careful, now...you don't want me to ban you!

Obviously I was not referring to you, I was referring to "you". You know, the other you that isn't you. You know? :P

[GOTV]

290. Yes, that "you" that always follows me around and confuses itself with me. I get it! :) n/t

[jgraz]

292. We need a button to ban "you"!!!111

"You" are always causing problems!

[GreenArrow]

327. the best alternative is flushing it down the crapper

:hurts:

[GOTV]

288. Another alternative implementation....

... when a person blocks you, the block does not become effective until the number of blocks you've received crosses some threshold. Either a constant number, a percentage of the active community, a percentage of the number of posts in a thread or something like that. Once you hit that threshold you are no longer allowed to reply to the posts of those that blocked you.

Maybe the blocks should expire over time as well. Maybe every 100th post, if you've not been blocked since the last 100th post, you're block count decreases by one.

If you're truly abusive, there should be more than one person that notices. Even if you're a stalker, that should be plain to others that you're harassing a certain member and not really adding to the topic at hand.

That still doesn't address the problem of invisibility, that I don't know that I'm entering a thread that has been censored, but does lower the chances that blocks will be applied on a whim.

[jgraz]

299. I really like the previous implementation

you know, the one where we didn't have the feature. I thought that worked just fine.

[hunter]

305. The Blocking feature is just a way of pasting a big "I" on your forehead...

"I" for ignorant.

Fuck it all, I hang out here on DU for so many years hoping someone will call me on my bullshit and you ASSHOLES never do!

It just pisses me off.

:argh: YOU ALL SUCK!

(That's sarcasm for the humor impaired here.)

Whew, now that I got that out of my system, I think the blocking function is radioactive. As I said in one of the more toxic forums here, I think it will eat a little bit into the discussion here on DU, but it will consume entirely posters who use it too often. I know a few of them already busy themselves composing secret enemy lists.

The people to look out for are not the ones who get blocked, but the ones who block... Without opposition they will become mere sockpuppets of their own ideologies, and it will become blatantly obvious what they are about as they slowly fence themselves into stagnant ponds of meaningless pontification.

If this was your intention in implementing this, Skinner, et al, I salute your devious machinations! :patriot:

[foo_bar]

307. "I used to be proud of the open discussion on DU."

Re: "But at this point it does not appear that it is being used to block people based on ideology."

But before using it I wondered, why didn't they do a recount in NC 8? (auto's post I believe clearly implied that a recount was not done, since he said "If the paper trail receipts are available and examined, they represent a smoking gun that validates the Florida case".) So I did some googling and found out that a recount was done (a 3% sample, that is). So then I wondered, well, why didn't it show a big discrepancy from the machine vote, given the unbelievably high undervote rate. So I tried to reply to auto's thread, asking if he could explain it, and if he was aware that a recount had been done.

But I couldn't reply, because I was blocked. Why did he block me? I can only assume that it was because a few weeks ago I asked him for clarification on another thread, regarding apparently false information. And now I see that he blocked you too. I think that this is a gross abuse of the blocking function, the only purpose of which is to cut off legitimate debate.

-Time For Change
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464643#464812

DISAGREERS are those who might post legitimate challenge, correction or discussion. NOPE, can't have that! Must have only agreers in one's thread. No challenges of facts or ideas. No questioning. The chimp has taught us how to surround oneself by those who are precluded from dissent or questioning.

I used to be proud of the open discussion on DU.
(...)
Oh Boy! You are a member of our club, too!!!

Punch and cookies tomorrow, remember! (see post #37)

-troubleinwinter
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464643#464813

Hey this new blocking eature is working out well
to prevent direct rebuttal of misleading information!!!!
(...)
Collins was told data wrong before posting the story so he knew he would be misleading people and chose to do it anyway.

-WillYourVoteBCounted (OP)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464643#464773

I think the block feature is nuts. Ignore was stupid enough, but at least it only protected willful IGNOR-AMUSES from the risk of learning something.

But the block feature means that not only are the ignoramuses left in ignorance, but everyone else is too.

So in effect, it means DU is no longer a discussion board. It's lost its peer-review process. And what is worse, is that what looks a post that is open to critical review ain't necessarily so.

So anyone who has me on ignore can take it off now, because I shan't be posting (except of course they won't see this post....) If anyone wants me, feel free to PM - I get PM alerts by email.

- Febble
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464880#464985

Febble's a psychologist, so "nuts" isn't a term used lightly. I tend to agree in the sense of doing the same thing and expecting different results, such as these warm 'n fuzzy "stay the course" announcements, or leaking of information pertaining to one of the policy's critics. Great April Fool's joke guys, I bet no one was expecting it in January.

[hunter]

310. I'm not sure what you mean...

Blocking someone is one hell of a way to signal your own ideology...

I don't think Febble has thought this through. Or maybe he has. Blocking people is a way of excluding yourself from the review process, and that hurts you, not the level of discourse here on DU.

If you don't want to be peer reviewed, that's your privilege, but it reflects badly on the quality of your own contributions.

[foo_bar]

315. Skinner offered a similar interpretation, but I have difficulty believing it

Unfortunately, this is going to happen from time-to-time. But we believe that the vast majority of DUers are good people who will use this function wisely. And keep in mind that there is a built-in disincentive for someone to overuse the function: Those people who use it for evil rather than good will likely see their own ability to participate diminished as they get blocked in response by all the people they have blocked. They will be able to post in fewer and fewer threads.

The actuality is threads like this one eliminating reality-based responses, but still appearing to be that-which-is-DU, while the parallel discussion happens out of sight of the author's delicate beliefs, and thus the audience as well. So the urban legend is heard 'round the world while the truth is still planning a retraction on page D12.

The internet might not "interpret censorship as a defect", but I don't see the demand for another DIY press release site, even if it occasionally permits dissenting opinions in a parallel universe (so long as they aren't "continuations of flamewars"). That isn't a discussion forum, by my understanding of what a discussion forum includes (and I've run BBS's over 300 baud modems, published websites, retired semi-wealthily (corrected adverb) from this knowledge in the dotcom 90s), so one might expect a certain loss of clientèle over a "feature" that precludes discussion on what were heretofore referred to as "discussion threads".

[hunter]

321. I'm not going to block anyone.

I don't think it will be a matter of people blocking the blockers, as you quote Skinner, but of blockers destroying their own credibility.

People will understand occasional blocks that act as a "time out" in heated arguments. They will also not judge blocks against people generally perceived as stalkers. They will very much appreciate blocks that are the result of emotional entanglements outside of DU. (Breakups especially can be ugly when they are taken into these forums, each party against the other.... Boy, William Pitt's mom was PISSED OFF with me, I tell you, when I stepped into one of those...)

But blocking done to advance some agenda by protecting it against reasonable criticism will be judged very harshly and will seriously erode the credibility of the blocker.

Often the most significant truth you take out of some forums is that some of the posters are not truthful.

Personally I don't play poker, so hiding my cards is not a useful function, and blocking others from my posts would serve no useful purpose.

I do play chess, a game in which all the pieces are set out openly on the board for anyone to see.

So here's the crass chess player's way I see this new policy: Skinner is cracking down on all the people who were masturbating here in public -- not by enabling us to block them -- but by seducing the masturbators with blocking tools.

evil, evil, grin :evilgrin:

[foo_bar]

323. it begins to sound like a conspiracy theory

how this experiment in applied solipsism was really intended for the blockee's good, considering the title of this thread. Then you drop this bombshell about Will Pitt and/or his mom, so I don't know what's true anymore. Perhaps we need a surreal list.

[hunter]

332. DU is often a surreal place.

:hi:

[GOTV]

336. You can only make those judgements if you know the blocks we applied...

...which you don't. A thread where the OP has blocked people looks like any other thread and so I can make no assumptions the OP's character or motives.

[GOTV]

335. It hurts others too...

... because we don't know when the OP has people on block and thus has cut a thread off from being "peer reviewed"

I also would probably like to avoid threads where the OP has a block list. Why trust that the OP won't block me as well and thus waste my time participating in his thread?

[jgraz]

309. You do realize that mods are locking follow-on threads, don't you?

I posted this earlier, but I want to make it clear just how insidious this feature is. If you are blocked by a poster, you are not only prevented from responding to their threads, you MAY NOT post another thread on the same subject without having it locked by the mods. This effectively hands the OP a monopoly on a particular subject as long as their thread is live.

All they have to do is block you and then alert any new threads you start. You are effectively prevented from commenting on their pet subject, potentially forever.

This is not just a theoretical outcome. It's already happened in GD, and I expect it will happen more and more as the children among us realize exactly how much power they've been handed. My suggestion: stake your claim to a topic now and start blocking. Otherwise, you may find yourself locked out of any subject on which you have a strong opinion.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

311. I think this post really calls for an ADMIN response.

Is it DU policy to lock such threads?
jgraz, can you point one of these locked threads, please?
Do the locked threads in question in some way call out the
poster of the earlier thread? I'd really like to see examples
of this & get an Admin response, because I have been thinking
that a saving grace of this new rule was precisely that a poster
could start a new thread addressing the same issue from a different
POV, as long as it wasnt calling out the earlier poster.

[jgraz]

325. Here y'go

The infamous "douchebag" thread

Original: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3134331&mesg_id=3134331
My response (locked): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3139957&mesg_id=3139957
And another (also locked): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3137379&mesg_id=3137379

omega minimo now completely owns the entire douchebag discussion in GD (her mother must be so proud). A silly topic, yes, but just wait until the same thing happens with "Kerry 2008".

[Pithlet]

328. Lots of threads were started on the topic that weren't locked, though.

I dislike this new block feature, but I'm not sure the first one would have been locked if it hadn't been started with "Expect this poster to be blocked by all the language police in short order." That made it flamebait IMO and I can see why it was locked for that reason alone. I think as long as the new threads sincerely want to offer a differing viewpoint and aren't obviously trying to continue a flamewar, they'll be fine.

[jgraz]

329. I don't see ANY other threads on that subject that didn't end up locked

Can you show me one?

My guess is that the OP decided to alert those threads simply because she didn't like the views expressed in them and the mods happily fell in line.

Snide comments or not, we're suddently nit-picking content to decide who has the right to post a substantive opposing viewpoint. This is not what DU has been about in the past.

[Pithlet]

330. They're probably not going to stop locking flamebait posts

new block or not. I've seen plenty of douchebag threads that weren't locked and still aren't locked. I'm not going to go link them all. I'm totally with you on this new block, but I don't think this is an angle to take on the argument against it.

[jgraz]

341. Only two in GD, both locked

Neither one of those responses would even be alertable if the OP had allowed them on her original thread. Sure, some people posted silly lounge threads, but serious debate on language was supressed (which, I guess, was the goal of the OP).

Like I said, these threads are a silly example. Let's see what happens when one of those fawning kerry threads shows up in GDP. Then the douchebag's really gonna hit the fan.

[Pithlet]

344. I've seen plenty of posts poo pooing the "PC crowd"

that spun off from that original thread. All over DU. I've also seen plenty of threads on other topics started by people who were likely locked out of threads with the opposing view. I'm willing to bet that if you had worded your OP so that it was only an invitation to discuss your view without added unnecessary digs at some of those with the opposing viewpoint, such as your comments about their using the new block, it probably wouldn't have been locked. Your comment appeared to make it an extension of that flamewar, and not just a thread stating your opinion. I've seen no evidence that the mods are just going to automatically lock threads started by people who were shut out of another discussion by the new lock. I hate this new lock probably as much as you do. I think it's a bad idea. But, I don't think the mods are going to facilitate those who just want to abuse it as a means to stifle discussion.

[jgraz]

345. I'm glad we agree on the block feature at least

but since you still don't accept the rest of my arguments, I'm blocking you. :)

[Pithlet]

347. Well, I'll just block you back. So there.

:)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

348. From the looks of it, you appear to be right about this ...

"I'm willing to bet that if you had worded your OP so that it was only an invitation to discuss your view without added unnecessary digs at some of those with the opposing viewpoint, such as your comments about their using the new block, it probably wouldn't have been locked. Your comment appeared to make it an extension of that flamewar, and not just a thread stating your opinion."

I think the issue still warrants an Admin take, but in this case
the secondary threads reference the previous threads and thereby opened themselves up to locking. Is the issue that I want to argue with the person who blocked me, or that I want to get the facts and/or my opinion out? It's a kind of a game based on rules--you can say what you want in a new thread, but don't make it screamingly clear that you're aiming one at a previous poster who blocked you. That's just my read on it, and I'd still like an Admin read, if any are around & willing.

[jgraz]

349. The content of the new threads is irrelevant

The problem is that the mods are taking a rule designed for moderator locked threads and using it to further poster blocks. If the poster hadn't blocked people, those responses would have been yawned at by the mods. The fact that the responses were forced into new threads is the problem.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

351. The content is not irrelevant. ADMIIN AROUND?

The content of the two threads you cited included, started with, references to the earlier threads. That's always been against the rules, as far as I know. The mods said they were locking because the threads were carryovers of the previous threads, which they were clearly labeled as being by the OPs. They were invitations to lock. I'm not saying it's not happening, I'm just saying those two cites of yours are not good ones precisely because they both reference the earlier threads. Again, if this is happening, it would change the way I see the new rule. I understood that a blocked poster COULD just start a new thread on the topic in question. I sure wish an Admin would weigh in.

[jgraz]

353. Sorry if this seems nitpicky, but the hairsplitting is EXACTLY the problem

These threads WERE responses to the OP. There's no reason to pretend otherwise. The fact that I included wording in my post that could be interpreted as violating a certain rule goes to the heart of the censorship promoted by this new feature.

My position is this: If I start a new thread to carry on an argument that has been locked by the mods, I'm disrespecting them and the rest of the posters who follow the rules. But for the mods to jump in and lock threads responding to a poster's block?? That turns a bad feature into something that should be intolerable on a supposedly open, democratic forum.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

355. Unfortunately ...

It looks like there very well might be "reason to pretend otherwise."
That is, reason to pretend the new thread is not a response to the
earlier thread/post. Rules often lead to such pretense. In fact, I've
seen many locks (not related to this issue) where the mod suggests a
new way to re-post on the topic with changed language.

"But for the mods to jump in and lock threads responding to a poster's block??"

But shouldnt it be the POINT in the blocker's post that youre responding to, rather than the BLOCK. I think personalities could play into this as much as the debate over the issue or point in question itself.

Of all the objections to the new rule, this problem is one of the biggest to me, IF it is true that new threads cannot be started on the issue or point in question. Respectfully, the two threads you pointed out dont make that clear, to me anyway.

I think the Admins are over at Skinner's with the new kid on the block.

[jgraz]

357. that's the worst part of this new feature

People now have to carefully watch what they say in order to avoid getting blocked or having their follow-on threads shut down. Arbitrary rules (especially in the hands of petty people) lead to respondents pre-censoring their own speech for fear of being sent to the cornfield.

No matter what noticeable effect this has on the DU community, the truly chilling consequences will happen before any post appears on the site.

[hunter]

312. If you block someone without good reason we know your stuff is crap.

Before you start blocking everyone you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky?

Because the odds are good it will be like announcing to the world that whatever you are writing is utter crap.

All in all, this is a fascinating experiment.

[jgraz]

326. No, we won't

How many people are blocked on this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3134331&mesg_id=3134331 ? Can you tell?

Part of the issue is that blocking is COMPLETELY SILENT. I not only can censor your response, I can do it while pretending to be an innocent poster only interested in the free exchange of ideas. I can then make more posts that you may vehemently disagree with which will have, by all indictions, your tacit approval.

[greyl]

331. If who was blocked from a thread were public,

would that help? It would at least address the problem of not being able to tell how one-sided a discussion is because of exorbitant(irresponsible, cowardly) blocking by the OP.

[hunter]

334. OMG. Why would I care?

I think all the twisted copycat threads in the Lounge were a most appropriate response to all this.

Personally, I wouldn't use DOUCHEBAG as an insult. I like to think my own insults are much more creative, and much more biting.

Colbert's "The man is a sexual predator ... you have no idea what that's like" is the kind of personal insult I aspire too, although I also like to hurl insults like a Russian sailor in appropriate situations, a current favorite being "That guy's got his head so far up his own ass he can French kiss himself!"

[GOTV]

342. You don't have to care...

... but some of us read threads to see an issue discussed and to see what the pros and cons are. Even immature responses are helpful because we may run into such responses in discussions in the real world. It's helpful to see how people, both reasonable and unreasonable, attack an idea.

If you enter a thread where the OP has blocked people, you may not be seeing all available views.

If I can tell which threads have been censored by their OPs, I can read them, or not, aware that all views might not be available.

Since I cannot tell, all threads are suspect.

[Moochy]

343. In keeping with the "I'm a Coward button" theme

Maybe threads started by reply blockers could have a yellow background... :evilgrin:

[jgraz]

346. I say just turn their avatar into the :scared: smiley

:scared:

[Psephos]

313. This is a body-slam against deep liberal beliefs in tolerance and the right of all to be heard

What's next, a goose-stepping button? Can I choose a picture of Kim Jong-Il as my new icon? Are you going to rename DU the Borg Collective?

Man, the freepers are going to have a heyday with this. And rightly so.

The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.
- Bertrand Russell

[hunter]

337. This is satire, right?

It can't be anything else.

[Psephos]

338. Why don't you ban me? n/t

[hunter]

339. I don't do that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3157000&mesg_id=3157093

[jgraz]

368. POLL UP -- make your opinion known

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

[lindisfarne]

375. Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE - that poll was locked by the moderator.

BushCo would be pleased - only took 5 hours to suppress opinion on the DU site.

[New Earth]

372. what to do about people who DO abuse this feature?

I know of one person who has now blocked about 10 people in the last few hours, because of one or two disagreements, very petty disagreements at that.

This is somewhat useful for members who just dont' get along at all, but what about the people who do abuse it? It is really ridiculous and childish. I really do not like this feature. I do not want to name the person by name, but if a mod wants to know, I will tell in a PM. I think it's out of control.

[New Earth]

373. double wow

and that person is in this thread more than once stating they think it's a bad idea :wtf:

[Renew Deal]

374. I'm seeing the same thing with at least one person on here.

In one of the candidate threads. I made an honest comment based on opinion and experience and got blocked. The block replies to me thing needs to be changed. It should not allowed for blocking dissent.

[Random_Australian]

381. Ok, I have one really big, very different concern about this: (I hope someone notices)

Quality of posts on DU - like this:

1) The more angry someone is at someone else, the more likely they are to do the big block on them.

2) People get angry when they plain lose arguments.

3) People are more likely to plain lose an argument to someone intelligent, insightful and thoughtful.

4) Therefore, based on the previous three things, if someone were to skim off the people who irritated them the most, they would not only pick arsewipes, but also people who have intelligently, but bluntly, shown them why they are wrong.

In other words, the better you are at arguing, the less you get to participate in the conversations - (after all, the onlookers who applaud such things do not start the threads in which these things come to light as much as those with the opposing view).

In other words, it's exactly like blocking the best people against you in an argument to make yourself look better.

In other words, I fear that this measure will dumb down DU.

I was thinking about ways around this, and for what it is worth, if there is any other options than

1) placing a list of all the people that the OP has blocked at the top of the thread

OR

2) Not using the big block feature

Then I've not thought of them... but that would not suprise me, I'm not all that clever. :dunce:

I await your reply with (adjective) (noun).