Are you sick of that person who constantly harasses you on DU? Now you can do something about it...

[Skinner]

Having received more than 500 responses, this thread is now closed. You can continue the discussion in THREAD 2, which is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3086082


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.

[Guaranteed]

1. An interesting idea, but this could lead to some bad things.

Not just hurt feelings, either. It might segregate DU, as posters will be able to entirely insulate themselves from people with conflicting ideas, which they may not want to hear.

[Skinner]

5. There is no doubt that some people will use the feature in that way.

If willful ignorance makes them happy, then I guess this is a good thing for them.

But we believe that the vast majority of DU members can handle disagreement, and will not use this function to block out polite members who give an opposing point of view.

We shall see what happens soon enough.

[Guaranteed]

14. If people keep in mind that DU is a community, and act accordingly,

both in their courtesy to others and in their use of this new tool, it should work. There's a possibility of "Balkanization," though, if people are reactionary.

[MADem]

29. On the bright side though, the Balkanization only lasts a week--the people will have to keep their

anger fueled, or their snark turned up to high, to keep it going, and it will require an active action to keep the person on the block list.

On edit--looks like I am wrong on that. They're blocked for a week at minimum, but I guess you still have to do an action to take them off your list. So yeah, there could be Balkanization, but maybe some folks actually like the idea of an echo chamber, so they'd be happy, at the end of the day....

[EarlG]

41. Actually that's not correct

An active action will be required to remove a member from one's block list. The seven day period is to prevent a member from putting someone on ignore and then removing them the next day, and then doing it again, over and over. Basically it means if you want to block someone, you have to REALLY want to do it.

But people are not automatically removed from your block list after seven days. You have to do that manually.

[MADem]

69. I realized, and edited, while you were replying!!!!

The seven day thing will slow people down from being excessively dramatic, though. That's a good thing.

[Kelvin Mace]

75. There is sensible criticism

and polite disagreement. While there are some people who will ban anyone who dares disagree with them, that kind of person will soon be banned in kind, so what goes around, comes around.

Personally, I have a pretty high tolerance for criticism, and would only use this function against folks being very disruptive or just all out insulting.

I think DU will benefit from this, since reasonable people will now be able to engage in discourse without having to deal with the loonies.

I am sure the folks who object to all locking and banning as "censorship" will be mortally offended. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but everyone is NOT entitled to INFLICT that opinion on anyone they want.

[blm]

250. I agree BullGoose. The opportunity to correct a false attack is lost, too.

Let people put up their best and worst and let the FACTS and the evidence lead those who also use DU to LEARN about politics, governance and the congressional record.

[Auntie Bush]

310. You mean we do to each other...what bush* does to those he doesn't

agree with? ie Live in a bubble? Those kind of people don't belong here anyway. This is a discussion board and an opportunity to express our opinions to everyone...not just the choir.

Frankly, I don't think we should have ANY ignore options...except to block someone's rude or nasty email. To have a real good political discussion/debate...it sometimes has to be hot and emotional. Otherwise...go to church and join the choir, go to bed or hit the off button or just join another group. If it gets too hot in the kitchen...get out! Stop whining to the administration like a bunch of cry babies.

[man4allcats]

391. Oh please! Stick a sock in it for God's sake!

Just kidding! Sorry - I couldn't resist. ;-) Sometimes I just think I'm so funny. :rofl:

[BoneDaddy]

436. I agree

just use the ignore button. People act like a bunch of whiny lil victims on these boards sometimes.

[mzmolly]

383. That's it, I'm blockin yer ass!

:P

;)

[Guaranteed]

409. :P

Good luck, it's a pretty big one. ;)

[The Backlash Cometh]

456. It's a bad idea for this reason.

Many of us respond to the comments, not the poster. We're truly objective as far as the poster is concerned. Therefore, we might disagree with one statement in one thread, but agree on another.

This method of blocking out will ensure that those opportunities to kiss and make up will be eliminated.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Excellent!

[Beaverhausen]

3. cool

[Chemical Bill]

4. I see good and bad sides.

My biggest fear is that people will block replies that contain factual information that refutes an opinion.

Bill

[Skinner]

8. We believe that the vast majority of people will not do this.

As I said above, there is no doubt that some people will use it in that way. But we think most members will not.

[ContraBass Black]

67. How will you determine whether or not this or other abuse is occuring?

[Skinner]

102. You aren't going to like this answer.

In most cases, we won't even try to determine whether the function is being used in this way. Making that type of judgment is much too arbitrary.

I think we probably will just need to accept the fact that some people will abuse it, and learn to live with it.

My belief is that most people will not abuse it. We shall see what actually happens.

[ContraBass Black]

140. I believe that it will be so abused, immediately and widely.

But then, DU has taught me some unpleasant but absolutely essential things about humanity in general. It is a microcosmic society, with all of the frictions and and behaviors that a society includes.

[EarlG]

231. There's actually a built in disincentive to abuse the system

Let's say you want to create your own little echo chamber where nobody can disagree with you. So you post a thread about your particular pet issue, and then block 100 people (who disagree with your pet issue) from replying. So now 100 people can't respond to any threads you start.

But if those 100 people all block you in return, then you're kinda screwed. That's a hundred people whose threads you can't reply to.

So in the short term it might seem like a good idea to block 100 people from replying to your threads. But in the long term, you're going to seriously limit your ability to participate in other people's threads. Therefore, most people will probably only use this in extreme circumstances. No doubt there will be a few people who can't handle debate who choose to block out large numbers of people, but a) they'll probably regret it, and b) I think that most DUers are not like that anyway.

But we'll see how it all works out.

[papau]

439. This new option will work fine - an excellent idea- it will eliminate the in your face postings that

are not discussions, just some 12 year old trying to flame with an assertion that has nothing to do with the real topic.

It helps as it will do much to retake and restore civility to the Religion forum - and indeed other forums where proselytizing a given idea is more important in the poster's mind than having a discussion. At the same time it will eliminate wasted time responding to the nonsense since I expect I will not be allowed to reply.

A win-win! :-)

[girl gone mad]

260. I agree with you.

Especially with Primary season coming up. I fear we are going to become very segregated.

On another note, I guess I must frequently hit the ignore button on accident, because whenever I go to edit my profile I've got a list of people on ignore, even though I've never intentionally ignored anyone.

[rman]

463. How can you see what's actually happening if you're not going to determine

whether or not the function is being abused?

It's not that i don't like your answer, it's that i don't understand it.

[Skinner]

467. Allow me to clarify.

We are not going to require members to use this function in a particular manner, or in a manner that I personally approve of. My point is that members are free to use this function however they please.

By "we shall see", I mean this: It should become apparent to everyone here whether or not abuse of the system (or perceived abuse of the system) is widespread. We will not need to scrutinize every person who uses the system. We will probably know the answer by simply participating on the discussion forum and dealing with it on a day-to-day basis.

[MADem]

21. Ya know, that probably could happen, but the refuter could start a new thread

...or a new subthread if the blocker isn't the thread originator.

I know what you mean, though--you see a 'bandwagon' thread, where anyone who disagrees gets shouts of "Traitor!!! Evil!!!" and even if you've been here forever, you're treated like an asswipe spy for the KoolAid Right. Dueling threads could well be the result, and if folks start blocking people simply for a polite difference of opinion, well, I guess that could be a two-way street. But both parties have a diminished experience as a result, especially if they like to contribute an opinion.

I do think this is helpful in the sense that people will have to think HARD before they choose to block someone just for disagreeing politely (of course, if someone is constantly up your ass, following you around, crapping on anything you say, and being a snarky shit, that's not a tough decision) because you can't undo it for a week. It's certainly worth a try to see how it goes!

[MADem]

6. This will surely take a huge load of the moderators, and might help keep

threads on track. With any luck we'll see less hijacking and subject-changing, as well.

Amazing, the newfangled things you can do on these here internets!!!!

[ninkasi]

11. K&R I hope everybody reads this

That will save a lot of confusion later, I believe.

[Buzz Clik]

7. I notice that this thread isn't pinned....

A perfect candidate for the new "ignore" feature.



:evilgrin:

[Skinner]

9. We will pin it later.

We usually let stuff like this float for a while before pinning. Many people seem to suffer from pinned-thread blindness.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

31. I think that it's the color of the pinned threads.

It seems to bleed into the top, if that makes sense. I know that I've missed a few even as a mod. :hide:

[MADem]

I agree--maybe just different color letters in the subj line would be better?? NT

[Mandate My Ass]

10. I anticipate a lot of copycat threads

but them's the breaks. :shrug: Sounds like a cool feature to me. Thanks, admins.

[crispini]

12. Wow! What a large change!

That is very interesting. I wish you would give us a short amnesty on the seven-day thing so that we could all play with it. I'd like to see how it works! Although since I just did a blanket clearing out of my ignore list, perhaps I will find a few candidates for this functionality. :P

[emlev]

79. Will you create a fake obnoxious DUer so we can all practice? eom

[crispini]

92. HEY. That's a good idea! LOL nt

[hootinholler]

197. There are PHP based bots...

That will attempt to reply to every post in every thread they are allowed. They sometimes come up with some doozies.

-Hoot

[spacelady]

407. Me! Me! Pick Me! Sorry. the urge to obnoxious was overwhelming.

[cwydro]

13. Kind of a shame

that a function like that is needed. But I guess it will be useful for the real troublemakers to get blocked out.:shrug:

[GreenArrow]

24. "will be useful for the real troublemakers to get blocked out."

Just as likely, if not more so, the real troublemakers will use it to block others out.

[cwydro]

34. Yeah, you got a point there.

Oh well. Guess it should be interesting. Sigh.

[Vincardog]

171. If the real trouble makers us it to block everyone else out they will have short threads that sink

like jr's poll numbers.

[philosophie_en_rose]

402. and shouldn't real troublemakers just be banned?

The "everyone's ignoring you" is just a passive aggressive ban.

[NYC Liberal]

15. Excellent idea....BUT

I don't know if banning people from replying to whole threads is a good idea. Individual posts, definitely. But blocking people from replying to a thread at all seems like you'd just end up with big circlejerks of agreement.

:shrug: I'll wait before I make any judgements though!

[Skinner]

18. As I said above...

...we believe the vast majority of people will not use the function in this way. No doubt, some will. But we think most DUers are not afraid of polite disagreement.

[TahitiNut]

28. I don't think "polite disagreement" has EVER been an issue on DU.

:evilgrin:

[Jed Dilligan]

54. Testing...

[TahitiNut]

62. 1... 2... 3... 4...

:evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

159. What'd they say?

:evilgrin:

[LSK]

151. that is my worry with this

Especially in the primaries, there will be less discussion of candidates and more cheerleading.

[omega minimo]

181. it might encourage people to develop more better gooder communication skills

:thumbsup:

[wizstars]

481. You been takin' English from GWB?

:)

(Sorry, that was VERY RUDE of me!! pls block me!) :evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

174. ...preferable to "big circlejerks" of DISSagreement.............

"But blocking people from replying to a thread at all seems like you'd just end up with big circlejerks of agreement."


:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

266. um, we already have those now .......

I see this as propagating and perpetuating segregation which will undoubtedly create a more peaceful environment, however, erases the purpose of discussion boards.

Oppositional discussion is infinitely more enlightening than cheerleading, but I suppose some are really only here for the latter; however, I thought the specialized forums were for that purpose.

Oy vey.

[omega minimo]

268. It seems the new feature is intended for extreme cases-- those are few

A tool useful, not for "Oppositional discussion" vs. "cheerleading" but -- as Skinner said "harrassment" vs. "discussion."


:thumbsup:

[AtomicKitten]

271. Unfortunately that distinction is often not made by those

that simply cannot tolerate anyone that isn't on board their pet project 100%. For instance, perfectly legitimate reasons for not supporting this candidate or that are often construed by the less discerning as trash-talking their candidate of choice. Oh well. Cheerleading threads are a yawn anyway ...

[omega minimo]

274. Potentially could encourage folks to improve communication skills/tone

[AtomicKitten]

275. maybe

But from my experience I suspect the nurturing of grudges will preclude that making a difference.

Hey - are you a fellow San Franciscan? :)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

329. Oh Dear God No Anything But That!!

[MADem]

350. Yeah, but when you think about it, it's kind of counterproductive dealing with those folks anyway

We've all seen the threads:

OP: All hail X!!!!!!!!

Second Poster (Member since 2001): Well, X isn't so good, X did Y, which caused Z to happen, you know.

OP: How DARE you say anything against X, you effing Freeper troll...

Friend of OP: Yeah, we KNOW about "those" types...check your mail again, I replied to your PM...

2nd Friend of OP: Second Poster never has ANYTHING good to say about X. I have had trouble with "that one" before....

OP: Anyone who says that HAS to be a wingnut. X is the be-all and end-all, we'd be ReTHUGlicans if it weren't for X.


And so on! Right then and there, if you're the poor bastard who disagrees with X, you're screwed anyway--there won't be any discussion of X in THAT thread that isn't infused with invective.

The people who pull that kind of "If you do not see things my way, you are a Freeper Wingnut and I will PM my pals to gang up on you" crap will eventually discover that they are talking only to themselves. It might serve, eventually, to isolate the lockstep cheerleaders on their own little islands....which might, over the long haul, actually aid discussion for those who can tolerate differences in opinion.

[AtomicKitten]

379. I think you are right.

Been there, done that. Maybe it is a good thing after all. :)

[MADem]

385. I'm guessing if it doesn't work out as well as the admins hope, they'll take the right course

...but I think it's worth a try. Most people CAN handle a bit of give and take, and those are the ones I want to talk to--the ones who like debate, who can stick to the subject without tossing smelly red herrings and blaming the OP when their argument fails, and can tell me something new, so I learn from the exchange.

The ones who are easily bruised, and can't deal with the rough and tumble, will be able to avoid the pain--if they start to get bored, they can always unblock people and get back in the game when they feel a bit tougher. The ones who don't want to hear ANY discussion that destroys their lockstep worldview will be able to stick their fingers in their ears and actually, in concert with their no-dissent pals, be able to singsong "Lalalallalalalalala...I can't HEEEEAR you!!!!!" All by themselves, too, odds are! And those who are just plain snarky bully-meanies will find themselves all alone on the playground with no one to beat up!

I think it'll be OK, really...and the admins will tank it if it's unworkable, I'll bet.

[Guaranteed]

410. ROFL! You nailed it. nt

[freeplessinseattle]

421. assuming of course, that everyone would block differing

opinions, but people can already choose to not read something, or continue to read something, that is not something they agree with, but they do anyway. the same subjects com eup over and over with differing opinions, and if someone wants to start a thread about a certain topic that some others disagree with that's acceptable-as long as it's not personal issue. I don't know if that made mcuh sense, I'm really tired, but basically I'm saying I think it will be less of a topic issue than a "tone" and personal repeated targeting reason for blocking.

[LostinVA]

285. I agree n/t

[kestrel91316]

16. Not so sure I like the idea that anybody who doesn't like my POV

can block me from responding to a particular thread.

This is censorship of a rather extreme form.

[cwydro]

22. Yeah, I was thinking that also.

Or a group of people could band together to exclude someone.

[mzteris]

297. yeah, I can definitely

see some "groups of people" doing just that and essentially bullying/shunning those who disagree with their pet POV du jour.

[symbolman]

320. This is what worries me

I've seen people even make that statement, "Hey why don't we all PM each other when XXXX posts and then all destroy that person"

It was an awful thing to see, Remember, you aren't paranoid if someone IS after you :)

Let's says someone has a certain fan club status, and wants to sick their PitBulls on you, where's the protection? Eventually you end up on the DU NO FLY LIST?

How about some way for Others to VOTE you INTO a thread? :)

[QMPMom]

369. I can see cliques forming really fast. I'm not sure about this

new feature at all.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. What kestrel said!

The Professor

[karlrschneider]

44. I read it that you can't block someone from posting in a thread you did't start.

That's how I understand it...

[Skinner]

106. karlrschneider is correct.

You can only block people from responding to threads that you start yourself.

[Sapphire Blue]

235. You can block them from replying to you in someone else's thread, though, can't you?

[Skinner]

247. Correct. They cannot reply directly to you anywhere. (nt)

[msmcghee]

498. This is a bad idea.

A public discussion board is for people to express their opinion. I have no problem with any person blocking from their view any other person's responses to their posts - which is how this has worked until now.

But, allowing them to block the response so that other members (including the many non-members who just like to follow the debates but not participate) can't see their opinion is simply censorship of ideas - and that's what it will be used for. I suspect this will be especially true in the I/P forum where there are two bitterly opposite ideologies aligned against each other - and where dozens of good progressive members have been banned from participation in DU.

I understand the angst generated by the need for moderation and the amount of time you must have to spend dealing with that. It's a tough problem - but allowing members to censor the opinions of other members devalues the basic purpose of a forum like this IMO - and will ultimately make DU less valuable to all its members.

Even if I don't post in a particular thread I will now have to wonder what differing opinions I am not being allowed to see on every thread I view. You are turning this from a place where we can put our views up against those who disagree with us and test our views against their best opposing arguments - to a place where we have to figure out how to play the blocking game better than our detractors. That's just sad - but it's your forum.

[cosmik debris]

513. I'm in 100% agreement with that thought

I don't believe we need censorship, but if we must have it, it should not be left to those with an axe to grind.

[Megahurtz]

535. I Totally Agree. It's a Bad Idea.

A very bad idea for the reasons you say.

Censorship is not very Progressive.
Especially at the hands of anyone who simply feels like blocking someone else out on a whim.

This is just another version of what was proposed before.
Regular members having the authority to block out other members.

Not good.

[MADem]

60. Well, there's the dueling threads scenario--you start a thread that espouses your viewpoint

and two separate debates ensue. If anyone blocks you JUST because they don't like your POV, they're probably asswipes, really. So long as you aren't insulting their mommy or calling them names, if they can't handle an "I don't agree with your viewpoint" then they're probably just as well blocked in return!

[treestar]

71. Yes, this gives people the ability not to have any effective opposition

If you are blocked from replying to their threads. It's as if they get the last word on the subject. You can start a new thread but it would have the effect of breaking up the discussion and you'd have to rehash it (your blocker couldn't see it, but anyone else who reads it won't know what you're talking about in the new thread).

Then people might start mentioning that poster or linking the post they were trying to respond to in their new thread, bringing it to a new level of the personal. And then you know they blocked you, so it does that for the non-blocking person. Just because someone blocked me doesn't mean I want to block them, for example.

Just sounds like too much catering to people who are too sensitive to be on the internet. Ignore goes far enough, IMO.

[Kelvin Mace]

98. I think it will be easy to identify those threads

since a thread with only one viewpoint will stand out like a sore thumb.

Like any tool, some people will abuse it. But it is a useful tool to prevent the loonies from hijacking your thread.

[VelmaD]

103. the problem is in defining...

who is a loony and what is highjacking. I'm part of a unorganized group of women on DU who will stop other posters in their tracks in unrelated threads to point out when they use sexist language. Does that make me a loony who highjacks? Some people, who believe free speech means they have the right to say any damn offensive thing they want but that it doesn't really mean I have the right to call them on it, would think that it does.

[Kelvin Mace]

155. It is all in how it is done

You have a right to object about my opinion. If I am a reasonable person, and the objection is civil, then I am likely to agree with you or debate you on the point. If somebody jumps on my thread an accuses me of being a women-hating, freeper-loving asshole, then I might be tempted to spare myself from the pleasure of their opinion.

Some people can't handle dissent and will act accordingly. Such a person will soon find it hard to post to other folk's threads, since their attitude will become known and people will react accordingly.

I must respectfully disagree about your take free speech. It is free, but listening is not required. Listening is a courtesy, speaking a right. Some people will insist on believing what you know to be false. Unless they are willing to extend the courtesy of listening, you are wasting your breath (virtual ink).

[Gwerlain]

220. I agree with that last part wholeheartedly.

I don't like sexist or racist speech, and I try to self-monitor for it; I don't mind a polite reminder if I slip, hey, you never know, I might find a deep-seated piece of crap in my mind and jettison it, which wouldn't hurt me any. OTOH, jump on my thread and make an a$$hole of yourself about it, and I guarantee you'll get the mute switch. I might not the first time if I've interacted with you before, or observed interactions you've had with others, and it was/they were pleasant. But if I've never seen you before, see ya.

Overall, I think the feature is a good idea. It is innovative, but might lend itself to some abuse- OTOH, if you don't try anything new, you're never going to make any progress. And we are, after all, at least theoretically progressive here. :D

If it makes people hesitate before they're nasty, all the better. The consequences, as skinner points out, are immediate and unmistakable. Certainly it will help with freeper trolls, not that they usually get very far here anyway; and it will reduce the mod load, making it easier for the mods to deal with real problems, not to mention give them more chances to participate in the discussions themselves, a not unpleasant concept. After all, whadda ya wanna be a mod on DU for? Improve the conversation, right? Well, there ya go.

[moggie]

422. I'd like to see it easier to identify

For example:

1. If a user has blocked other users, there should be an icon at the top of each of their posts saying how many users they have blocked. If I can see at a glance that someone blocks many respondents, that tells me something about them.
   
2. If a thread is started by a user who has blocked at least one user, that thread should be distinctively marked in the topic list. If I go into a forum and see that most of the threads have blocks in place, that tells me something about the forum.
   
3. It might be good to be able to see statistics on a per-forum basis. For example: "in the past seven days, 18% of posters to this forum had blocked at least one user from responding, they started 30% of the threads, and 108 attempted responses were blocked".
   

I've only skimmed this thread so far (gotta run!), but I see that others have suggested similar ideas.

[Kelvin Mace]

500. Interesting suggestions

I must mull them over.

[Zookeeper]

506. Those would be excellent additions, Moggie.

Especially being able to see how many people a poster has blocked.

'Hope the Admins take your suggestions!

[MoonRiver]

78. Nothing new,

move along.

[Kelvin Mace]

90. Unless I am mistaken

You can only block people from topics you start. If I start a topic, someone else can't ban you from responding to it, only I can.

Is it censorship, yes, but we all exercise censorship every day in what we decide to watch, listen to, and read. Fox News is censored in my house, completely. I don't read the Washington Times, or peruse Free Republic or listen to Rush Limbaugh. These are all decisions I make to exclude certain people and groups from my life.

Government censorship bad, individual censorship is freedom of choice.

Having an opinion doesn't confer to me the right to inflict it on the unwilling (unless that person is an elected official).

[polmaven]

540. With the exception that...

If I start a thread and have blocked nobody, you could still block anyone from responding to YOU on any post YOU make on my thread....Am I correct on that?

[mongo]

305. Agreed

[struggle4progress]

353. A primary use of the "block" feature will be to prevent people from debunking BS

[RoyGBiv]

368. Ayup ...

Off the top of my head I could think of half a dozen names of individuals who never do anything but start threads spouting various kinds of bad information. Because they never (or rarely) truly argue their point, these individuals won't be troubled by not being able to respond to others who seek to expose the fallaciousness of these claims, yet will benefit from being able to block others who do so. In and of itself that might not be a problem except that these individuals have cheerleaders or at least loyal followers who will do enough responding/recommending to keep the threads prominent. If used effectively, such a feature could advance an idea with which the vast majority of DUers entirely disagree, or worse know to be utterly false, yet not so egregious as to break any rules. The result is that the viewpoint appears to the "outside world" as a dominant viewpoint that could in turn shed a negative light on the site as a whole.

I applaud the admin's faith that this kind of thing won't happen, or at least won't happen much. The problem, as I see it, is that attempts at this kind of thing are already made, but the system, until now, lacked the necessary tools to make it happen due to the high traffic and inevitable case of individuals who refuse let such nonsense stand unchallenged from running across the threads and commenting. Having served as an administrator of other kinds of forums, I know too well the lengths to which people will go to stifle honest debate of their pet subject.

The response, I imagine, will be the "competing threads" mentioned in various ways elsewhere, which I don't see as productive, or even interesting.

[spoony]

387. Aye, that's the best point against this idea n/t

[spacelady]

408. I am respomding to this sentiment. n/t

[CatWoman]

17. but.....but.......but.....

Skinner!!!

I enjoy being a jerk, and reading posts made by my fellow jerks!!! :)

[VelmaD]

19. I think this may be the worst idea ever

All I can envision is that this will be used to stop people from ever having to deal with people with differing views...and that's a bad thing.

The first time someone spews some sexist garbage and I call them on it and they block me from replying to them...I will be sure to mention it to you. I'm sure I have gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who will do the same when it's one of our noted homophobes doing it.

If people can't stand up to the debate and exhange of free ideas then they probably shouldn't be here. I get into as many arguments as anyone on DU...I've never put anyone on ignore and I've never used the hide threads function. It's a coward's way out. Just my two cents.

[crispini]

25. I never put anyone on ignore for a long time, BUT,

there ARE some people that, I have found, simply are not very damn rational. These are people who -- for whatever reason-- I found myself arguing with about incredibly stupid stuff; they were usually pretty rude, and irrational to boot. I put a lot of these folks on IGNORE and I admit that my DU experience was calmer.

[VelmaD]

30. Maybe it's me...

but I don't come here for a calm experience. :) Maybe I just relish the arguments more than the average person. Hell, I don't even alert when people call me names. I want to have the fights and I want everyone to see what some of the knuckledraggers around here really have to say when you get them worked up...it's illuminating. :evilgrin:

[crispini]

59. Yeah, but it's just such an effing waste of time to argue with some people.

I don't mind a good discussion / fight, but when the person on the other end isn't even capable of comprehending rational thought, why bother? :P

[Horse with no Name]

261. So "some of us"

whose posts sink like stones anyways...will notice that we can't reply to other threads.
I guess that's when we will truly find it's time to move on.:)

[crispini]

272. LOL, Horse, you know I didn't mean YOU.

Jeesh, do you really think I would say that to YOU? :hug:

[Horse with no Name]

299. Never

was just making a comment and saw a friendly face so I posted it there.:):hug:

[Junkdrawer]

35. Self Delete - Posted at the wrong spot. (Moved to post #40)...

[VelmaD]

39. reply moved

since the poster moved what I was replying to

[Junkdrawer]

121. Sorry I made you move your post, but I wanted an admin response...

:hi:

[mainegreen]

46. Possibly. The thought of entire GD threads being off limits sickens me.

Really, I just don't like it. I could accept the normal ignore feature, but the ability for a person to block of dissent in there threads is just..... well awful. I can only hope that people who do this get quickly marked as pariahs and *every* ignores them back, otherwise I suspect DU will fragment rather badly.

[Balbus]

88. Just agree with everyone and you won't have a problem.

I hear what you're saying, though. This is not good.

[MADem]

357. But you can start one on the same subject for the "less sensitive" and solicit real discussion

Odds are, you won't be the ONLY one who is cut off at the pass. Anyone who disagrees will be excoriated...so simply start a new thread for those who want to deal with the matter in adult fashion.

[msmcghee]

504. In I/P you can only start a thread on a news story.

When one breaks whichever side spots it first and starts a thread with it will get to have only their views expressed about it - as I have no doubt several regular I/P posters there will block all the most effective opposition immediately.

The opposition will not be able to start a new thread because the rules require that threads be started only on new stories.

Let the games begin.

(For the record I have never put anyone on ignore and I seldom even alert on any post.)

[MADem]

512. In I-P, especially, there are at LEAST two sides to the story, and often more

I'm guessing that you could find the Jerusalem Post view, and the Al Jazeera view, and be able to present the story as two different stories, each from a viewpoint. However, if that fails, then I think my idea posted elsewhere in this thread for duplicate posts in LBN might work.

I suggested that if there are dupes, rather than worry about if the poster designated as the "OP" has blocked anyone, that the moderator who combines the threads should serve as the OP. The mod could put in the subject line COMBINED THREAD: (Fill in the Subject of it HERE) and post the two or more threads underneath it. That way, no one gets locked out of an opportunity to contribute to the discussion, though there might be people contributing that they cannot reply directly to...

[Kelvin Mace]

129. A person who can't deal with a

difference of opinion and uses this to enforce it is not worth talking to. What it will do is force people to keep a civil tongue in there head. If I state my objection politely, only an asshole will ban me. If they do, I really don't need to be posting to their thread.

[VelmaD]

135. We have a basic difference in philosophy...

on this, and that's fine. While the person may not be "worth" talking to...I don't think that means they should be able to post whatever they want and be able to use this feature to keep from being called to account.

[Kelvin Mace]

170. Actually,

that is not so. You are always free to start a thread, quote from his posts and respond, then ignore, or don't ignore him as you see fit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

226. Which might mean a huge growth in the number of threads

Say an asshole posts something stupid, and 4 or 5 people who have argued with him before all think "that must be refuted!". They may all start their own threads (because he's an asshole, and has blocked them all - perhaps after losing arguments with them) - how easy will it be to do a good search for "has someone else already refuted this"? So we end up with 5 or 6 threads, all on one subject. I find it hard enough to find the things in GD I'm interested in (and there are many - but there's a lot here that I'm not worried about too). It could be a nightmare with this feature.

[Kelvin Mace]

234. Again, over time,

the wheat separates from the chaff. You learn who to avoid and who to patronise.

[muriel_volestrangler]

252. But the growth in number of threads affects everyone

not just those blocking, or those being blocked. It's like those occasions when some big news story comes along - you can get literally hundreds of threads on one subject, and they can be so similar that you only need to read one. After that, it's much more difficult to read GD (that's when I've used the 'hide thread' function, but you have to do it for each thread - I have only resorted to that a couple of times, in desperation).

[struggle4progress]

358. Absolutely right

[MADem]

362. Well, if they post blazing horseshit, there's always "alert"....NT

[Jim Warren]

167. Agreed

Your post pretty much sums up my initial reaction also.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

216. I agree.

There are already many tools a DUer can use to avoid the full, rough and tumble Democratic Underground experience.

This will surely be used and abused. And, worse, the interchange of ideas will take one more hit and propaganda/lies will not be fully challenged.

[IdaBriggs]

259. I *love* this new feature. I don't have many people on "Ignore"

despite the fact I've posted on a lot of "controversial" topics, including but not limited to: Abortion, Gay Marriage, Illegal Drug Use & Abuse, Karmic Justice, Religion, Health Insurance, and my personal "hot button" topic, Child Abuse/Sexual Predators. Most of the discussions are/were surprisingly civil, even with folks I have adamant disagreements with, but every now and then there is someone who wants to be an idiot and/or is obviously just trying to be antagonistic. Why waste my civility on someone who is aching to show off their idiot side because its an anonymous message board? (And by this, I mean the people who immediately begin shouting "FREEPER" at me because I hold a different viewpoint.)

I think I'm going to go through my "ignore" list, and do a search on those few folks who have irritated me enough to warrant the feature. If I still find them and/or their opinions to be worthless wastes of my time (maybe *I* was in a mood that day?), then I'm going to happily indulge this feature. If my list gets too long (like I said, its under half a dozen I think, after several years at DU), then I may want to reconsider my position, but in the meantime, it just seems nice....

I wish it worked in real life! Snicker! :)

Thanks Mods!

[mongo]

308. I could not possibly agree with you more VelmaD

But there are a lot of cowards on DU that don't want discussion or debate and only want to maintain ideological purity.

[struggle4progress]

356. I completely agree

[Nomad559]

389. It's a coward's way out

I agree, It is a coward's way out.

This new Ignore feature will give the cowards the opportunity to cut and run from a "valid" argument.

:eyes:

[philosophie_en_rose]

405. Thank You. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

If people want to have "Happy Zones," where they only talk to people they like - they should just email their friends.

The new feature is just censorship. Suddenly, everyone is their own personal mod - able to control others without being vetted.

I don't care if or that there are cliques at DU, but I do care if people are treated like the odd kid out on the playground - when most of us are allegedly adults.

[rug]

20. Wow! DU has more twists than Survivor.

[leveymg]

23. There goes the Israel/Palestine Forum

Everybody is going to block everyone else from responding there.

It'll be the quiet of the graveyard. Maybe that's too much power to give people in abnormally contentious forums. You might want to modify that policy at I/P and if there's another war in the region.

People tend to go nuclear at times. Also, please consider shutting off the feature during crises so all discussion on the subject doesn't stop.

[CatWoman]

70. LOL

Like that's a bad thing? :D

[leveymg]

139. That's it - you're blocked for life! So are the cats !!!

:P So are you . . . and you, over there:9 . . . and you too, Skinner . . . :evilgrin:and your little dog!!!!!!! :+

[mainegreen]

97. !

:rofl:
Yup.

[leveymg]

144. No laughing. or you're blocked too!!

Everyone!!!!!! BLOCKED :hide: :yoiks:

[SidDithers]

175. Along with the Gungeon and 9/11 Forum too...nt

Sid

[autorank]

26. K & Highly R'ed Tank you for Revolutionary #4

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.

-----------

I'm sure you've had a number of requests for this. Mine was one of them. I use ignore and it's great. One problem is that those who are "ignored" and know it write responses like, "You obviously can't respond to these questions or you would" - or so my amigos tell me;)

This takes care of that and ends unwanted electronic nonsense.

GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Uncle Joe]

37. How can you tell

if someone put you on ignore, not including #4?

[Skinner]

42. You cannot tell.

The first three options are all anonymous. There is no way of knowing for certain if someone is blocking you.

[Phillycat]

43. You can't send them PM's.

[Skinner]

49. That is not foolproof.

The notification you get if you are ignored is the same notification you would get if the person has closed their inbox to private messages.

Now, if someone posts "everybody please send me PMs" but you can't do it... then it's pretty clear that you're being blocked.

[mainegreen]

52. Usually if both they and you are a regular poster in the same areas, it becomes obvious.

[autorank]

344. Uncle Joe!!! ==>& more props to Admin for this feature

The only way you can tell is by telling the person they're on ignore, which I've done every time I've invoked the feature. You don't get a diatribe thought. The rules just say you call tell them this is the case. The #4 part of this is, I suspect, some larger issue than mine; which is people acting like they have not been told. I think that this is just :)terrific.:)

[Phillycat]

32. Question: can you "block replies to me" but not ignore the person?

In other words, could DUer A post insulting things about DUer B, and then block replies to DUer B so they can't defend themselves? Or do you have to have the person on ignore to use the "block replies to me" feature?

Overall, I think this is an excellent idea and I can think of several people who would still be here on DU if it had been available earlier. Great job admins. :thumbsup:

[Skinner]

56. You can use each of these features independently.

So, yes, you can block replies without also ignoring that person.

[piedmont]

84. Does that mean you can reply to someone you've blocked?

I know they can then block you, of course. But it would basically force someone to reciprocate the block, even if they hate the idea of blocking.

[alcibiades_mystery]

107. It would seem that the more effective strategy

Would be to prominently note that the person replying to you has blocked you, thereby exposing that person as a coward?

:shrug:

[piedmont]

133. Yeah, and for that I think it'd be good to let the blocked person have one more reply available..

so that you can't end a sub-thread by blocking someone, thereby getting the last word. In that one last reply, the blocked poster can let it be known that they were blocked. Otherwise, you're right-- we'll see alot of "so-and-so blocked me! He's a coward!" messages at the bottom of threads. I think it would be best to have these posted right in the offending thread.

[Vincardog]

189. How about posting a note XXXXX blocked by the YYYY Let the blocker be shown?

[hippywife]

282. That could have the affect of starting

little clique wars. If it's made public that someone is blocking someone else it won't matter that it's for their own personal reasons, other people will immediately start blocking them, too, because their buddy did. I've seen some of the cliquish behavour while just reading here so I know it would be likely to happen.

[salin]

359. in addition to this sort of problem - there will be the frustrated 'new thread' phenomenon.

Anytime there is an issue that splits the forum (happens frequently on news items that may not be overtly political) - when that person who "has to be heard" finds that they can not reply to the OP - they will start a rival/oppositional thread. The rate of 'thread wars' will, in my prediction/opinion, escalate - crowding out numerous other threads of different topics but that currently stick around on for a little while because some folks respond even though it isn't the flame war de jour - I would guess that if this evolves into thread wars that these other types of threads will sink even faster, because there won't be time enough for these threads to be on the 'front page' due to the numerous "responding threads". That is, instead of responding to a post on a thread, some frustrated DUers will be more prone to start rival threads.

The mods will no longer be able to lock and direct the repetitive thread to a related thread, because the poster behind the new thread may be unable to comment on the original thread.

I *get* the point of the new functions - and can see many benefits - but I can also see some unintended consequences that may lead to more headaches for the mods. Sort of a law of unintended consequences sort of thing.

[ContraBass Black]

134. I like that idea.

[lildreamer316]

33. I think this will have the effect of making people better communicators.

If you want to get your point across without being blocked; you had better be more eloquent and less abrasive with your answers.

This sounds cool; and very democratic! Thanks! And thanks for all your hard work.

[Skinner]

63. That is our hope.

We shall see if it works.

[GreenArrow]

64. "democratic"?

Explain, please. It sounds more arbitrary and punitive to me, puerile even. It's a bit naive to think that only posts that are inelegant and abrasive will be blocked.

[VelmaD]

77. yeah...I'm perfectly capable...

of being eloquent and well-written and still pissing people off. :)

[lildreamer316]

172. I reserve the right to be wrong.

"By the people and for the people..."

[hashibabba]

187. You are SO right! I think this is a good idea, even if I've never used

these features.

Thanks, Skinner!

[nini]

36. If you block someone.. is it appropriate for them to announce it to others?

I see a lot of these type posts - announcing person X has them on ignore to stir the pot.

[Skinner]

66. Is it appropriate? Not really.

But we generually permit people to say that they have put someone else on their ignore list provided that they acutally do it.

[struggle4progress]

392. So somebody could post a reply to me that I couldn't respond to ...

... because they had me blocked, and the mods would regard it as inappropriate for me to post nearby in the same thread as public info that I didn't respond because I was blocked? So my only recourse is to block the other person completely from my threads and posts?

I probably won't use the block feature (since I don't even use ignore), and it would seem only fair to allow me to reply to any replies made to me.

If the blocking person doesn't want to see the response attempt, consider at least adding a blank response to the public response thread-tree showing the post attempt and the attempter's name, with "response blocked" as the subject line so the rest of us can see the blocked attempt

[ContraBass Black]

418. I would appreciate that.

[porphyrian]

38. This'll make some people very happy.

And I think it's a good idea to put the censorship power in the hands of the individual.

[Junkdrawer]

40. Anyway of knowing that a thread is heavily blocked?

Imagine that a group of posters blocks all know critics of a position.

This group then starts a thread that makes it seem that most DUers agree when, in fact, all critics are blocked.

[VelmaD]

47. oh that would be something fun to add...

a list at the bottom of the page with the names of all the DUers who wanted to respond but were blocked from doing so.

[piedmont]

89. I like that idea VERY much!

Your presence/objection would be felt, even if you can't voice it.

[EarlG]

48. Currently no, BUT

this is one of the things that we considered when creating these new functions, and we may implement something like this after we see how it all shakes out.

One possibility is to provide a link to a list on every thread which shows exactly who is blocked out of that thread. Another possibility is to just display the number of blocked members at the top of every thread, without showing the usernames.

[Junkdrawer]

68. I think the latter would be helpful.

A thread with many "Boy and how!" posts, but with 40 blocks would then be easily seen for what it is: a small group pushing a controversial position.

[Zenlitened]

381. Agreed. In fact I don't see any reason to "wait and see" before implementing that feature. n/t

[TahitiNut]

74. Would it also block voting on a poll? (That's not a reply, as such.)

:dunce:

[EarlG]

87. It does not block voting on a poll

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.

[TahitiNut]

93. OOPS! sorry. I thought I read it all. (Blush)

Bad me. :-(

[Bridget Burke]

185. Please at least consider adding the number of blockees.

It would help identify the circle jerk threads.

[hippywife]

286. I would think one clue

that would be immediately recognized is that a controversial thread will start to sink very fast due to few responses except the person who started it kicking it continuously to keep it afloat.

[Junkdrawer]

290. It doesn't happen often, but there are times when special interest groups...

come to DU in teams with the purpose of changing the opinions of other DUers.

I believe it's called the "Bandwagon Effect".

[hippywife]

307. Very true but then

if I see threads with tons of posts made mostly by the same handful of posters with just a few others drawn into the web, I tend to consider they are having a conversation amongst themselves and quickly lose interest. ;)

[K8-EEE]

45. But there ARE NO obnoxious people on DU

Oh no I must be the one then! LOL...

[ContraBass Black]

50. I like the idea, but am very concerned about misuse of the added functionality.

Many times on DU, a dispute between two people has been magnified when one disputant posts an "Is it crap on me day?"/"I'm leaving DU!"/"Why should I keep researching and posting when people attack me for it?" complaint thread with a link to the original argument, and people line up to decry the other complainant without reading the original thread. When the complainant is a popular or prominent DUer, such responses come in hundreds, regardless of whether or not the opposing disputant has been unduly inflammatory or broken the rules.

My concern is that a person who does not disrupt or or attack other posters, but has a dispute with one may find him or her self blocked from replying to a very significant number of threads started by people not involved, in effect, being banned by popular vote.

[ContraBass Black]

83. Upon reflection, I do not like the idea.

[smoogatz]

51. Wel, there goes any semblence of debate--

especially on the candidate threads. Bad idea.

[Buck Turgidson]

53. I have the opposite problem -- no one EVER posts to the threads that I start.

'cept in the lounge. :think: I got it! How about a new function that lets me choose people that must reply immediately or something bad will happen to them. Yah! That's the ticket. Something really bad.

[bobbolink]

152. ^_^

:hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

214. awww...

Hi!

[underpants]

55. WHEW! Skinner hasn't blocked me

IT'S A GOOD DAY!!!!!!!!!!

[nolabels]

116. I wonder if we are going get the option to block skinner?

:evilgrin:


The funny part is it's kind a oxymoron to be known as a Democratic Underground. A more fitting, but not quite as sexy name might be The Conspiracy of Democratic Leaning People

[Skinner]

145. Yes, you can block me.

You would still see my pinned threads. And I could still send you private messages. But other than that, members can block me.

[nolabels]

420. Garsh, really was just kind of kiddin

Skinner you are a favorite, without you we might not even ever of had this great place.
Thanks and thanks again for all your hard work :thumbsup:

[TahitiNut]

57. Before you "make block lists public" ...

... it'd probably be wise to at least let every DUer know just the COUNT of blocks/ignores they have. Right now, nobody really knows how many others are ignoring/blocking them. It might have far more positive results if each person were able to know this privately for themselves before we go the route of listing them like "Johns who patronize prostitutes." IOW, letting people know privately might be far more productive than going public with it.

:shrug:

(No ... I don't have anyone in my Ignore list.)

[annabanana]

164. That WOULD give people a chance to "tone it down", if

that was their desire....

[devilgrrl]

58. Dang. Now I can't be a gadfly. :-(

Come on people! I'm not that annoying. :cry:

[Mythsaje]

61. I like it...

I've only actually ignored one person my whole time here and I rather wished I could do exactly as this function intends a time or two.

I really don't enjoy the impulse to get increasingly snide as someone sets out to deliberately piss me off. I'm reasonably tolerant most of the time, but occasionally someone just rubs me the wrong way. I really don't care to see the "ignored" flag in one of my threads because then I don't know what kind of crap that person is spewing. If anything, this is one of the things that's prevented me from ignoring MORE people in the past.

If you're going to have an ignore feature at all, you might as well make it comprehensive.

[Skinner]

82. Our impression is that many people share your opinion.

They didn't like the old ignore feature because they felt it put them at a disadvantage. The new "block" function removes that disadvantage (somewhat).

[VelmaD]

94. but it can also create the same kind of disadvantage

I could block someone and then I can start a thread saying anything I want about them and they can't respond. How is that any different than before? Actually it's worse...before if I had them on ignore I was the only one who didn't have to see their response...now no one gets to see it. How exactly is this an impovement?

[EarlG]

108. Well... you can't do that

"I could block someone and then I can start a thread saying anything I want about them and they can't respond."

Our rules don't allow members to start threads calling out other members or personally attacking them. That hasn't changed.

[VelmaD]

123. ok, replace say anything about them...

with say something I know they disagree with just to rile them up knowing they can't reply...it's the same thing. (And this has been done...particularly in the Lounge.)

I think this is a ridiculous over-reaction to a non-problem. I've probably been called more names than anyone on DU with the exception of Will Pitt and if I've managed to get through almost 6 years without needing the ignore feature...I guess I don't understand why this is needed.

[ContraBass Black]

125. People already make call out threads with inside references

Rather than explicit ones. In order to catch all of them, the moderators would have to know the story behind every otherwise incomprehensible post.

[EarlG]

147. Obviously the mods can't possibly know the backstory

behind every single callout. We pretty much tell them that if they can't understand an alleged personal attack, then it's not a personal attack.

However, this means that people who DO understand the back story then write to us to complain that we haven't removed it. "Poster X just suggested that my friend likes to eat fish sticks! Why won't your moderators do anything about this disgusting personal attack? I think they must be biased in favor of poster X."

So in these cases, the Block Replies function seems like the perfect solution. Now people won't have to involve us in personal spats that the moderators can't understand.

[VelmaD]

but the spats will still happen

I've seen it in the Lounge...it's why I go in there so much less than I used to. People don't have to be posting on the same thread or to each other to be having a nasty fight. All this function will do is increase the number of threads involved in the little wars because people will have to start whole new threads to defend themselves.

Plus I think deep down, most of the people who get involved in this kind of thing don't want to put each other on ignore permanently...they enjoy the drama too much.

[EarlG]

182. Indeed they do enjoy the drama

So much so that they're constantly trying to get the mods and admins to join in the "fun," which, as I'm sure we've explained on numerous occasions, is a huge waste of our time. Now they can "enjoy" themselves without getting us involved - they have their own way of solving problems which we couldn't (and shouldn't) solve for them. To be honest, I think that if we had this type of functionality available in the past, many of your banned friends may well still be here.

[VelmaD]

196. I guess I just don't see...

how this is going to stop people from cyber-stalking if they want to. Or how it's going to really change anything other than letting people close off debate in the more political forums.

The drama club will continue to be a headache for you because they will continue to harass people and they will continue to violate the rules and you will keep having to step in. I think the potential chilling effect on debate in the more serious forums is not worth it to deal with that problem.

And my banned friends didn't need more ignore functions...they needed to learn to keep their mouths shut and apologize politely even if they didn't mean it. :) (Inside joke that I hope you got.)

Anyway, I hope whatever it is y'all are hoping to get out of this...that it works out for you without making the site essentially useless in terms of debating issues. I love DU. I would hate to see it turn into a place where I don't feel at home any more.

[EarlG]

209. The drama club ceased to be a headache for us a long time ago

when we decided that we would no longer allow it to be a headache for us. Unfortunately, in order to make that happen, we had to ban a bunch of people. If we'd had a system like this in place back then, I think that people could have handled it themselves and not made it into a headache for us.

I'm sure harrassers will continue to harrass people. But now the victim of the harrassment can stop it immediately by simply blocking the harrassers. It's entirely in their hands.

[LittleClarkie]

335. I would hope that if someone is that big a harrasser they would be banned eventually

as a disruptor. I'm not thinking of legit posters at this point, but actually honest to God trolls. I'd hope we wouldn't be expected to self-moderate and just ignore them when they really do need to be booted.

[Skinner]

342. Yes, trolls will still be banned.

As will disruptors.

[mtnsnake]

406. Sometimes you have to "harrass" people so they don't falsify things so much

In other words, I think in some cases that some people get harrassed because they stubbornly post the same crock of bs over and over like a broken record. Unfortunately, with the new "Block" feature, they'll be able to spin their yarns unchallenged by the posters who challenge their yarns the most.

[Mythsaje]

109. Why would someone do that?

Start a thread attacking a specific person and then block them from responding? It's against the rules anyway.

Not to mention really, really juvenile.

[The Backlash Cometh]

459. I dub this new DU feature: The Slam Book option.

[Lex]

111. Seems like in that instance, they would just start a thread of their own?

A thread that refutes whatever you said about them in your thread?

:shrug:

[Phillycat]

115. I think perhaps you haven't been stalked on DU

Anyone who has knows this idea is absolutely brilliant.

[VelmaD]

132. I have several friends who have been stalked on DU...

and had it carry over into real life. I'm probably friends with more banned DUers than anyone else and it has almost always been over disagreements that got personal. So I have some experience that I'm speaking from.

The point is, that there have always been rules about not stalking other users. Why isn't the current ignore feature enough for people? Is is really such a big damn deal that a person might reply to you and you not know what they said because you have them on ignore? That's not about them at that point...it's about you.

Jesus h christ on a trailer hitch, people. If we can't handle debate on a site where pretty much everyone agrees on 99% of issues, how do y'all ever expect to hold up in the real world?

[Phillycat]

141. Is it a big deal?

Hmm. Is it a big deal on a community that you love, that you spend time on every day, to have someone you once thought was your friend on DU AND IRL post extremely personal private information about you that you would have never aired publicly, and have to take them off ignore to see it, and then be able to do nothing about it?

I hold up just find in the real world, thanks, and any issues I've had on this site are long-since resolved and all parties are civil/friendly. I just think in those awful dark days when I cried over fucking DU, for Christ's sake, that this feature would have been extremely helpful. And the fact that my stepfather molested me wouldn't have been used as a weapon against me, spread all over like gossip as a reason that I was mentally unstable. Blergh.

[VelmaD]

150. this new feature would not stop...

the exact situation you described as happening to you. They would still be able to post that personal information in any thread you didn't start.

And your only resort would be the same one you had available when it happened...to alert the moderators/admins, tell them what happened, and have them deal with the person/people who posted it.

[Cha]

246. I hear ya..Loud and

Clear! :)

[BuyingThyme]

65. Good lord; the only way I'm gonna be able to post is if

I start new threads exclusively.

[uppityperson]

96. naw, you can reply to mine.

But can I reply to you?

This is an interesting thing to try, thank you Skinner for continuing to modify things, trying things out and so forth.

[BuyingThyme]

118. Thanks Uppityperson! I will never block you. (Or anybody else.)

And you're apparently not all that uppity, now, are you?

[Balbus]

72. You've just doubled the thread count on the board.

Each topic will have two threads - one where everyone agrees and one where everyone disagree with the original topic.

[SeattleGirl]

73. I like the idea.

I don't have many people on my ignore list; those who are are people who posted vicious, personal attacks toward me on a thread a while back.

I don't mind if someone disagrees with me; hell, I've learned an awful lot here on DU, and I would never want to block that experience. I don't mind if someone passionately disagrees with me; but I'd rather they did it with logic and fact, instead of calling me names and so forth.

It will be interesting to see how this works out.

[Mythsaje]

128. Yeah, I pretty much feel the same way...

Disagreement doesn't bother me. Being deliberately insulting is another matter entirely. To save myself from totally going off and telling someone to go cheney themselves, the ignore feature is a vital tool. And I see this as even better. Why not block someone you know likes to bait you from screwing with your thread?

[Sapphire Blue]

76. Hallelujah!!!

:applause: :bounce: :applause: :bounce: :applause: :headbang: :bounce: :woohoo: :yourock: :woohoo: :bounce: :headbang: :applause: :bounce: :applause: :bounce: :applause:

[Cha]

80. I like it! And I've never

put anyone on ignore ..I just don't read what I don't want to read. But, this seems like a good way to eliminate predictable harassers.

[Behind the Aegis]

81. My question.

I read through the thread and didn't see this asked, and perhaps I am not understanding something, but if I block someone from posting to me, does that mean they can't post in a thread I have created? Because, honestly, there a few people here that I don't want replying to my posts because they only distract and mislead, but I don't think it is "fair" that they wouldn't be allowed to post in a thread or other comments in that thread. I am reading this new feature incorrectly?

[Skinner]

86. If you block someone from replying to you...

...then they cannot post *at all* in a thread you start.

[Behind the Aegis]

104. Thanks.

That's what I thought. I know this is all new, so I am interested in seeing how it plays out. Is it possible that in the future this feature will be able to block just individual replies and not block a poster from posting in threads? (I know you may not be able to answer that question.)

[Skinner]

113. Anything is possible.

If this function turns out to be successful and popular, then we will certainly consider ideas to refine it.

[Violet_Crumble]

414. BtA raised a good point about the I/P forum, Skinner...

There's regulars in there who I'd prefer not to be replying to me coz of abusive comments they make, but I'm very loathe to block them coz then they're blocked from posting in any thread I start. And with the way that anything slightly resembling a dupe is merged into the original thread, blocking other regulars means they can't participate in any discussion on the particular thread I've started. While I can see this system working well for places like the Lounge and the other upstairs forums, I'm not too sure if it's such a good idea for the smaller forums...

[Lex]

117. So Skinner, they will probably just start a thread of their own

to refute whatever was said in the thread that they cannot reply to?

[muriel_volestrangler]

239. Might this cause problems in LBN?

Person A posts the news first; and that then prevents anyone person A has blocked from commenting on that news at all (in LBN at least) because no-one can start a new thread on which those who are blocked can post.

[emlev]

85. Two questions

1) Since this thread is already getting very long to read, will you at some point in the near future transform it into a FAQ (or ask for a volunteer to do this)?

2) If someone replies to me and then I block them, will that remove the reply they've already posted from the thread in question?

Thanks for continuing to think about how to make DU work the best it can. It will be interesting to see how this evolves.

[Skinner]

95. We will update our FAQ to include this information. Hopefully soon.

If someone replies to you and then you block them, it will *NOT* retroactively remove old replies. You can only block them from responding to you in the future.

[MH1]

91. I think I love it!

We'll soon see.

:-)

:applause:

[hyphenate]

99. As I've noticed for quite some time

there will always be someone who takes delight in antagonizing others. But I also notice that those who are here are a lot more tolerant than those found at certain other sites, and we can take what we can dole out.

I think that while we might see some personal feuds being resolved through ignore/blocking, those that are most blocked will be those disruptors whose whole purpose is to disrupt in the first place. If this helps sort out these people, and at times a list is made available, we will be able to see far more easily the agendae that some posters bring with them, and will make banning a lot easier in the long run.

[alcibiades_mystery]

100. Aaaaaaarghhh! I'm finished!!!!

;-)

I don't ignore (and I won't block) as a general principle - and I never ask the moderators to get involved unless there's been a direct violation of the rules (as, for example, when some poster - and I forget who, as I always do - accused me of being a child molester because I didn't think prison rape was something to be happy about). And, yes, plenty of people think that I'm a jerk, and I have been ignored by many, and will likely be blocked by many, etc., etc. Yes, indeed.

I love DU. I really do. But I have to say that there is an allergy to agon here - healthy sniping, sarcasm, pushing of arguments, relentless response. You know, politics. Now, that may be the community standard, and who am I, as a lone member, to buck the consensus? I can only argue against it - whether my argument takes is, to some extent, out of my hands. I like agon. I think it is a necessary element of rhetorical action in the public sphere. Yessir. I think we've defined "civility" to resemble the tritest level of self-congratulation, so much so that questioning ANY story or position of some DUers results in outraged braying by members of an ostensible fan club. I don't ignore them. I respond to them. They respond to me. I respond to them. And so it goes, round and round. We've defined civility down so much that we've turned the healthy back-and-forth of something like the British Parliament at its most sarcastic and snippiest into the hyper-sensitive equivalent of a teen-age self-esteem workshop. Let me discipline myself. Jimmy's a real peach, he is. Mustn't mention that he's totally fucking wrong, as he might go alcoholic on us. "That was an interesting opinion, Jimmy! Way to go, Jimmyy!" But that's the community standard, buttressed by both the social forces and the technological tools, like this one. Who am I to oppose it? Just a lone member who can, I'll no doubt be reminded, leave whenever I want to. C'est la vie. I can only argue against it, though I suspect I'll be arguing into the windy software soon enough (if I'm not already...can you hear me?), and then I shall slink off on my merry way, in search of agon elsewhere. Some will be happy. Maybe I will be, too. But I love DU. I really do.

I rise in opposition to this, as some folks knew I would. But it's only a mild opposition. This technological fix merely formalizes the direction the community has taken over the past few years - towards self-congratulation, towards clique-ishness, towards fan clubs, in-crowds, and pack behavior, towards Stuart Smalley-esque self-esteem workshop. Way to go, Jimmy! In this sense, the technological fix is perfectly appropriate: it actually responds productively to the desire of the community. I find that desire contrary to the functioning of a robust public sphere - even in this well-constructed and limited forum, among we on the Left, we democrats (big "L," small "d"). But I love DU. I really do.

[VelmaD]

114. Bravo!

:yourock:

You said that way better than I could have.

[Lex]

122. Yes, this feature will definitely have an adverse effect

for some posters. That's for certain.

[alcibiades_mystery]

130. LOL

Ouch!

:rofl:

[CTyankee]

295. Well, Alcibiades, I hear you!

So what if we are offended by some DU poster who absolutely HATES what we have to say? It is better to know that person's point of view. People should just cool out.

Obviously, I don't agree with this policy. Too much mommy-ism. We should be more about adult decision making with all points of view as input, not crybabies who have to have a monitor of hurtful feelings.

Sorry, I don't get it...

[NashVegas]

302. I Disagree

Sniping, sarcasm, relentless response (to get an insult in or try to get the last word) are not healthy behavior patterns and it's not a healthy way to discuss disagreements. It's merely a way to derail discussion and turn it into a pissing match.

What went down during the 2004 primaries and the lead-up to them was a case where, any attempt to have a civilized discussion on certain candidates was an exercise in futility and, it was so unhealthy that a group of people who backed one candidate in particular broke away and started a new board because they were so angry at the treatment they received. Some of them never came back, and their voices are missed on DU.

[alcibiades_mystery]

309. It's not necessarily one or the other

I've seen plenty of contests that people may label "pissing matches" as just that; I've also seen plenty that were substantive. Sure, people put up walls when they're involved, but these contests often clarify the positions for other readers, at the same time that they help the contestants modify, adapt, investigate, and more deeply understand their own positions - AND that of their opponents.

Can they go the way you've described? Sure. They can. They sometimes do. Need they go that way? No, and they sometimes don't, and we're poorer for precluding those other instances - even the pissiest of the pissing matches - in advance. We're poorer for labelling uncivil anything that even mildly reminds our sensitive skins of agon. We're poorer for taking such sensitivity - often useful, but often so sensitive as to preclude experience (experience!) - and elevating it to a community value. It is a dead community value, or the value of a dead community, a dead body of a community, stitched together with stasis, and energized only with the faint electricity of the self-same.

[NashVegas]

316. See, That's Just It - "contestants"

Not everyone on DU wants to engage in a contest, when it comes to discussing opinions. Some people seem to only want to make it a contest.

I'm not a contestant: no one's going to hand me a prize for having the most "right" opinions. Nor is it practice for debate class. You?

Why should those who do not wish to engage in combative posting be forced to defend their opinion, when, because they have no control over who can challenge it, they can get stuck at a wall trying to deal with someone whose sole purpose seems to be behaving like a contentious asshole? And some of these combative posters are trolls. Some of them are the type of poster who delight in sparking and getting into flame fests.

The 2004 primaries I mentioned? A lot of shit went down because there were posters who were actively involved in campaigns, who made a regular habit of trashing any discussion of a candidate who was not their choice. Several of the worst of them were banned after the election, but the damage had already been done. Now, how can the admins tell who the campaigners are for 2008? Ask them to sign a pledge? Doubtful. No one who wants to discuss a particular candidate should have to tolerate having their thread(s) completely trashed by someone with an agenda.

[alcibiades_mystery]

339. I was well aware that I was using contestant

I mean it in the broadest sense of somebody who is CONTESTING another's position. In a public forum, you should either defend your position in public or walk away from the contesting party. And nobody is forced to do anything. One can very easily choose NOT to respond. The only thing that allows somebody to exert a force on another poster is this very technology that you so approve of, which allows any poster to limit the posting privileges of another, at any poster's fancy. That's not public discourse. That's the logic of consumerism and individual taste gone haywire in the public square, an agora full of "Me's" wielding shut-up sticks like a pack of minor street-corner commissars. It's disgraceful, really. But it is the will of the community, I suppose, supposing such a dubious organization of individual fancies deserves the name.

[datasuspect]

453. "shut up sticks"

herd mentality, fan clubs.

i wonder if USENET is still like the wild west?

[NashVegas]

530. More Like the Abandoned West

Except for the porn and other binaries groups. I used to be active in a group that was filled with creative people and discussions. After the deluge of AOL and beyond, the bulk of the most intelligent & creative posters gradually stopped posting and disappeared altogether. Many have gone to the web, on boards (moderated) and blogs (moderated).

Every visit Television Without Pity? It was founded by former usenet gurus, and it has one of the strictest posting policies anywhere on the net: no "meta" discussion, no discussing other boards, no discussing posters, and a host of rules intended to keep conversations civil. And it's flourishing.

[NashVegas]

471. I Know What You Mean, But In the Literal Sense

Some people do make it a contest, as opposed to a simple contesting opinion.

Funny thing - I was going to find a recent exchange where I contested someone's opinion (politely, I felt) and that person responded by insulting me. I called 'bullshit' on it and got out. And here's what's funny: in tracking down the thread, I discovered that person put me on her ignore (can't reply) list. I'm probably not the only person there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=3043977#3044529

And that suits me fine; with tens of thousands of posters, it's hard to recall every person who's offended you, or you have offended. If I had her name on a list somewhere, I might think, 'don't bother, she'll go ballistic.' As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, people who use the ignore function on everyone who they get into it with, for any reason, is going to be lonely in no time.

Peace.

[piedmont]

514. Wow.

The thread you referenced was a textbook-worthy illustration of ignore/block abuse. The "I'm not winning this argument with you so never reply to me again" block!

[Midlodemocrat]

494. I agree with you, Crisco.

Some folks post in a contentious manner all the time. It's the internets, they don't have to behave here, but I daresay that most of the most egregious of those wouldn't behave like that IRL.

It IS possible to have a discussion without chewing someone to pieces. We do it all the time IRL, so why not bring the civility here to DU?

[NashVegas]

532. Aye

Funny thing: Was it you? I think it was you who once got into it with some idjit and I messaged you about shooting fish in a barrel. Later I read some more of her stuff and wish'd I'd stayed out of it.

Most people just have a rare, bad day. Some? Everytime there's squabbling to be had ...

[struggle4progress]

364. Agree 100%

[Batgirl]

415. Abrasive, yes - finished, hopefully not

I am not optimistic that a talk-to-the-hand feature will be beneficial overall. I could imagine the board dividing up into a few subgroups who will speak only amongst themselves and who will basically spend the day agreeing with each other. Then suppose someone else joned one of these threads, and challenged the prevailing opinion on topic A. Perhaps this person, while knowledgable on the topic at hand, was a bit sassy and rude in their comments. Blocks would be put up all over the thread.

Some people under some conditions would deserve to be blocked. But my experience with human nature tells me this is a function that will be used to satisfy human urges such as revenge, rejection, refusal to be challenged, inability to take criticism, plus the humbling experience of sometimes being proven incorrect..

There are a few people here who annoy me, just like in real life. But there have been several times when someone I thought I despised posted something I thought was great, or genuinely funny or smart. I like to keep this in mind as they go about their business the other 80% of the time driving me nuts.

Maybe there's a reason we all ended up here together. Maybe someone who gets blocked is holding a piece of the puzzle.

I only know I've never used the Ignore function and probably would never elect to use a block function. I suspect most people will just keep doing whatever they've always done.

[VelmaD]

417. you are very wise

And you've added another fabulous quote to this discussion with "Maybe there's a reason we all ended up here together. Maybe someone who gets blocked is holding a piece of the puzzle." I hope it makes people think.

[Zookeeper]

534. I have also found that I can be pleasantly surprised...

by someone that I had written off as narrow-minded, hostile or irrational.

I have only put one person on Ignore (briefly), and that was because I needed a break from his juvenile attitude towards women and sex. Usually, I just scan the names and don't bother reading the folks that spout predictable rhetoric.

I'm appalled by the tales of harrassment on this thread, however. I can understand why some DUers will appreciate this feature. In retrospect, I think I was once the target of PMs between members of a certain clique, but I'm enough of an perpetual outsider that I barely noticed and didn't care.

The only people I really want to block are those that correct a poster's grammar and spelling. I find that incredibly petty and counterproductive.

[datasuspect]

452. you hit the nail PRECISELY on the head

Maybe we can have DU for adults and DU lite.

[BuyingThyme]

101. If Person A uses "Block Replies To Me,"

to block Person B, shouldn't Person A also be automatically be blocked from replying to Person B?

Otherwise, the block feature serves as a hit-and-run tool. Person A can jump into Person B's thread and say anything, but Person B will not be able to respond to the posts in his own thread. That's horrible.

This might create more "harassment," than it prevents.

Or am I misunderstanding this?

[alcibiades_mystery]

112. That's why the 7 day rule

Besides, couldn't you just respond elsewhere in the thread that X member has blocked you, and is acting in bad faith?

[BuyingThyme]

124. I don't see how the 7-day rule helps.

But, yes, you can respond elsewhere.

Hey, I wonder if you can block yourself. That would be depressing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

131. This whole feature seems like an exercise in blocking one's self

;-)

[BuyingThyme]

148. Hey, you've got something there.

:hi:

[Skinner]

126. We considered that.

After much discussion, we decided that it was better to simply let "Person B" decide for himself whether he wishes to return the favor.

[catnhatnh]

105. Hey Skinner...It's well worth a try. If I may suggest though...

...as well as publicizing who are the most blocked posters, it would also be interesting to see in the OP's message whom he or she is blocking....if it is well known irritants, fine and good and great information to have. But if they were blocking several posters I knew to be of general good repute I could better evaluate my interest in the thread.

[Skinner]

136. We agree that there would probably be value in doing this.

For now, we want to see how the current setup works. If it is successful, then we can consider adding this type of functionality.

[catnhatnh]

163. Thanks for the consideration...

...Charlie Mike...

[Zookeeper]

536. As someone suggested upthread....

it would be helpful to see how many people an individual has blocked. I don't think naming names would be a good thing, as it would lead to the kind of "gang activity" and bullying that folks have described on this thread.

[undergroundpanther]

110. I LIKE it Good idea Mods!

Because it is high time we posters decided what to tolerate out of others, why should decent creative good hearted people be always interfered with by bullies and ass-hats on here? Its something also we need to learn to do in real life Life is not a playpen with mommy daddy authority figure/moderator stepping in to fix it as if we were children. WE have to learn to use intolerance wisely,and not tolerate the intolerable and screen out the assholes ourselves it's called setting BOUNDARIES,and every equal and fair relationship HAS to have them. Lest the bullies use that misplaced tolerance to ruin everything and disrupt.We as people need to take OUR OWN power back and create the kind of environment and social boundaries that promote respect..
'
Thanks DU!

A link about setting boundaries ..Something to think on..


Learning how to set boundaries is a vital part of learning to own yourself, of learning to respect yourself, of learning to love yourself. If you never have to set a boundary, then you will never get in touch with who you really are - will never learn to define yourself in a healthy way.

No one deserves to be treated abusively. No one deserves to be lied to and betrayed.

We all deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. If you do not respect yourself, if you do not start awakening to your right to be treated with respect and dignity (and your responsibility in creating that in your life) - then you will be more comfortable being involved with people who abuse you then with people who treat you in loving ways.

Learning to set boundaries is vital to learning to love yourself, and to communicating to other's that you have worth.
http://www.heart-2-heart.ca/men/page14.html

[piedmont]

119. Skinner, I'd like a "rapprochement" feature.

Let's say poster A blocks poster B for a misunderstanding.
Poster B reciprocates, because they don't want poster A to be able to reply to them without having any response.
Eventually poster A changes his/her mind, and takes B off block.
But B doesn't know this, and keeps A on block.
I think there should be some way of re-establishing relations so that dialogue isn't lost for good. Maybe the system could let someone know they've been taken off block. Maybe also some way of letting apologies go through.
Just my 2 cents.

[Skinner]

138. We might do that.

This is another feature we have discussed. If this system turns out to be a success, then I think there is a good chance that we'll do it.

[Guaranteed]

273. That's a "must" in a system like this. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

120. My Only Reservation Would Be With The Following:

Someone posts something in reply to another, of which the other would feel the need to offer either rebuttle to or defense of, but the original poster who replied then blocks the member they replied to in order to have the last word and keep the other poster from providing the rebuttle. I could not think of something that would be more frustrating to a poster than to be locked out of a discussion they had already been part of or initiated, and need to reply further to. I know overall this abuse should be minimal, but it was still a concern that came to me. I would surmise there would not be a way to make the blocking active to new threads only?

Regardless of the above concern, I think this idea is a pretty brilliant one. Undoubtedly it will have some minor flaws but I am sure as we go along certain things can be tweaked. I personally feel this will help me greatly and would think it would do the same for many others as well, who choose not to ignore. My problem with using the ignore feature has always been the over-curiosity and impulse to want to defend or rebut whatever had been posted. That wouldn\'t be possible if the comment was ignored, but other posters would still be able to see it in an unrefuted manner. With this new process, however, the comment would never had been made to begin with, so there would be no need to defend or offer rebuttle from a comment that probably did not deserve one to begin with. I think that simple fact will assist many people who may have avoided the ignore feature in the past due to the reasons I stated.

[piedmont]

137. Yes, the "last word" blocking strategy

I think that if you block someone they should get one last reply to you.

[Skinner]

143. That is a really clever idea.

We were trying to think of a good way to fix the "last word" blocking strategy, and we couldn't think of anything. Your suggestion is brilliant. A simple and elegant solution.

If it is not too dificult to do, I think we might try to do it. :thumbsup:

[piedmont]

146. Cool! Thanks! nt

[VelmaD]

166. just as long as the person doing the blocking...

doesn't get to keep replying to the person they blocked after they get their "one more post" so that the blocker still automatically gets the last word.

[piedmont]

178. Yep. I thought about that. Glad you pointed it out. nt

[mzmolly]

394. I thought of the "last word" issue as well.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[Double T]

127. The 'Ignore' feature restricts the interaction of different viewpoints........

that should be known and available to ALL who are on this site. 'WE' often bitch about censorship by the 'Authorities' and THEN engage in it and promote it ourselves. Free and open discussions by ALL are much more interesting, informative and thought provoking.

[Mythsaje]

142. Occasionally you run into someone

who just likes baiting you. I've only ignored ONE person here because they were seriously starting to piss me off. And rather than respond in a socially unacceptable manner, I decided I'd be best off ignoring them.

[Double T]

176. "Ignoring" THEM in your mind and NOT responding to THEM..........

is a great idea; I appreciate the situation you describe. I still feel that NO ONE should be restricted from putting forth their opinions, ideas, thoughts or ridiculousness on a site such as this; I believe censorship is counterproductive to the cause of freedom of ideas, thoughts and opinions.

[GreenArrow]

190. I agree with you

but look at how many people seem to be supporting this. It seems childish to me.

[Double T]

201. Sometimes 'WE' have to stand alone............

and NEVER back down from our positions.

[Crunchy Frog]

149. Hey! Something's wrong! I can't get this to post. :(

;)

[ripple]

153. It's probably good that you didn't automatically activate the new feature

for posters' existing 'Ignore' lists. I have a hunch that some posters might not realize how many others have chosen to ignore them. That sort of enlightenment might have caused quite a few ruffled feathers!

Although I haven't had occasion to use the 'Ignore' function, myself, I think this idea seems pretty reasonable. Especially for those who accuse other posters of following them to other threads to attack them, their candidate, etc.

I doubt I'll use it, but at least I'll know who is ignoring me! ;-)

[SmokingJacket]

154. Well, it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

I'm not a big fan of the ignore function in its old form (I think I've only used it once, to block some gross pictures in someone's sig line, and I had to turn it off eventually because I couldn't stand all the blanks spots), and I highly doubt I'll ever use the new one.

Why do people find it so hard to glide past stuff that annoys them? I've been here for years now, and I still don't get that.

[NorthernSpy]

156. how can I make a thread that blocks everyone who has an ignore list?

I never put people on ignore.

If I don't want to respond to someone, I just don't. And I'd never in a million years expect to be able to make comments while forbidding others to reply. Surely, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

So, my question is this: how can non-ignorers ban ignorers as a group from our threads? (Please ignore the slightly self-contradictory aspect of that question.)

[VelmaD]

162. that may be...

the funniest thing I've heard all day. :yourock: :rofl:

[piedmont]

165. Agreed. We need more of a disincentive for ignore and block. nt

[Skinner]

168. My impression is that your question is facetious.

But if you are serious, the answer is: You can't.

[NorthernSpy]

215. yes and no...

What I really want is to be able to make threads that accept posts only from people who do not do the "block replies" thing.

But if that's not going to be a built-in option, I suppose I could just add a "no blocking" request at the start of each thread (not that I could stop people from ignoring it).

[Divernan]

What about a "Fight Club" forum?

No ignorers allowed is the first rule of Fight Club.

[VelmaD]

219. sign me up

That forum would be WAY more fun. :evilgrin:

[NorthernSpy]

233. me too!

I feel very savage right now.

[piedmont]

293. First rule of Fight Club Forum is.. Don't talk about Fight Club Forum!

[TahitiNut]

249. I'll subscribe to that.

I can't help but think "Ignore" is a tool of the close-minded. Too many people seem to think an attack on their opinion is an attack on themselves ... and seem to TRULY BELIEVE that all disagreement with their 'enlightened' postions MUST be racist or sexist or __ist. (All we have to do is resurrect some of the immigration debate for examples.) When someone gets it into their mind that all those who disagree with them MUST be racists, the ability to engage in civil discourse is gone before it even begins.

[Demit]

426. There are reasons other than being thin-skinned to use the Ignore feature

I'm getting into this thread late, but just as an fyi...

I have had two posters on ignore for a long time. Their viewpoints don't bother me, but I found that, visually, I couldn't stand looking at a) the bad art and b) the huge and different colored font sizes the other poster used for what he/she felt needed to be emphasized—which was practically everything, to varying degrees, lol! It was such an irritant, and putting the posters on ignore was the solution for me.

[piedmont]

265. I'd kinda like to have a "Freeper Rumpus Room"

Keep 'em contained there, but have a handy place to go butt heads with them.

[Marie26]

446. Or a Freeper Fight Club!

I'd pay good money to see that.

[eridani]

397. Sounds a lot like the old Usenet alt.flame forum n/t

[omega minimo]

157. Brilliant

Only need this two times. Done.


Saves a lot of mess for those in the Women's Rights & Issues Forum who were preparing to request that a particular serial abuser be banned from the Forum.


Thank you.

[wakeme2008]

158. I like it, :) + Someday could we have an automatic ignore thread

feature based on key words in the thread title and with a expiration date function. There are times there are a zillion threads on the same subject, it would be nice not to see any thread with Saddam in the title for say two weeks.

:) :) :)

[Whoa_Nelly]

160. Thank you!

Solves a very recent problem!

Many thanks for this new feature! :thumbsup:

[bobbolink]

161. Thank you! Interesting experiment.....I hope it leads to more

civility!

:thumbsup:

[LSK]

169. do you think you can make it forum specific?

I know that a lot of the personal issues stem from certain forums but maybe those people stick to them and would be missing out on a valid discussion in the rarer instances when they visit another forum.

Or maybe leave a forum open as a free for all with no blocking or restrictions?

[Skinner]

180. I doubt we would do this.

It's certainly possible, but I doubt it. It would add an additional layer of complexity and confusion.

[WilliamPitt]

173. Sweet. Thanks.

[VelmaD]

188. I was kinda hoping...

for a bit more detail on what you thought about this and why. I figured as the DUer who gets in more fights and gets called more names than any other...you would have some interesting insight on this one. :hi:

[WilliamPitt]

205. My reasons for appreciating this move

are pretty self-explanatory.

[VelmaD]

208. I suppose so

Duly noted.

Don't give yourself a finger cramp putting people on ignore. ;)

[mzmolly]

384. Testing

Just wanting to see if I'm blocked already. ;)

[Catherine Vincent]

177. Heh! This is goanna be fun! n/t

[xultar]

179. Welp, I just put the features into action on Original Jack. The features aren't online..

but I'll love them when they do come on line.

[Elad]

192. The features are live and you can use them

You shouldn't be having any problems.

[Der Blaue Engel]

213. Ack! I just spent a good half hour cleaning out my list

and saved it, but when I went back in, it's all back the way it was. :( Is this still in development?

[Elad]

225. No, it's not in development

Are you sure you are hitting the right button? You need to hit the "Save Changes" button at the bottom of the form, not the "Find Member" button above the form.

[Der Blaue Engel]

228. Weirdly, I'm not even getting the new Ignore page anymore

It's the old format, no extra options. A cache problem maybe? I've never had a problem with caching that was this odd, though.

Edited to add: This only occurs when I click the Ignore List icon in My DU. When I go to the Ignore list from anywhere else, it's the new format, with all of my edits...except two. For some reason, it's not recognizing it when I check options next to two of my Ignoreds. :shrug:

[Elad]

327. Give it a whirl now

All should be well.

[Rex]

262. You can take him off your list.

Skinner or EarlG finally tombstoned his ass. He didn't even try, IMO, should get an award for piss poor freeper of the month or sumthin.

[Catherine Vincent]

183. Good news!

I had about 6 posters on ignore and I just released them. They were all from the "I hate Jason Leopold club." :P

[Anarcho-Socialist]

184. Have you considered the impact on I/P and the September 11 forums?

I mention these because in each there are two major definitive schools of thought, opposing factions if you will. There is a danger towards group-think if each faction bans the other from their threads, causing debate to gradually shut down.

Say in the I/P, one faction posts an Op-ed or recent news article, and blocks members of the other faction. This will shut-down discussion unless the other faction is allowed to discuss the piece in a duplicate thread. Nevertheless debate shuts down.

I welcome the first three reforms, but the fourth causes many problems I think.

[Skinner]

191. Yes, we have considered the impact on both of those forums.

Our impression is that the vast majority of people will not use these functions to block out polite disagreement.

We think the potential upside far outweighs the negatives created by the small number of people who will abuse it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

186. How Do You Know If The Block Was Successful?

When I look at the ignore list I see the poster's name, but none of the checkboxes are checked. :shrug:

[Skinner]

193. That sounds like a glitch.

I'll call Elad to fix it.

[Elad]

195. Well, you can either check the boxes now and hit "Save Changes"

but by what process did you follow to get it to the point where someone was on your list but with no boxes checked?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

204. By Going Straight Into My Ignore List. (Checking Boxes And Hitting Save Didn't Do It)

I typed in the name, saw it highlighted, clicked on it, clicked the last option, and saw the screen refresh with the name and checkboxes laterally instead of horizontally. When I noticed nothing was checked, I check the box again and hit save changes. The screen then refreshes and shows the options again followed by the poster and checkboxes, but none of them are still checked.

[Elad]

223. What happens if you

Click on 'Options,' Click on 'Ignore List,' check all the boxes for this member, and then hit the 'Save Changes' button below that form?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

227. Nothing. They All Still Appear Unchecked.

Know what could be causing the bug? Chances are this poster and I are mutually blocking each other. I wonder if there is a glitch in that case?

[Elad]

238. No, that would not cause it

Are you sure you're clicking the right button? There are two buttons on the form, "Find Member" and "Save Changes." You need to click the "Save Changes" one.

I've just tested this with all boxes unchecked and it works fine, I'm not sure why you'd be having problems.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

258. Yes, I've Tried Multiple Methods.

I've tried it in firefox but also IE. I just logged out my username on both sessions and logged back in and tried again. I've gone in from several different ways and each yields the same results: I get an initial page with vertical checkboxes of which I check, and then after hitting submit see the original page with the username now on the list but no boxes checked. If I check all of the boxes and hit save changes, the screen refreshes to the same screen with all of the boxes remaining unchecked. I even deleted the username and tried again, with the same result.

Actually, I just tried again. Now when I click on the boxes and click on save changes, it goes back to the vertical screen and declares "ERROR: You did not select any options for **********". If I hit boxes in that screen and submit it again, it stays stuck now and keeps giving me that error. :shrug:

[NorthernSpy]

256. ... and I saw one person on my ignore list (I've never tried to block anyone)

Not sure how that happened...


?

[Redstone]

194. OK, I like it. and I'm going to do my part by promising not to do the "workaround" of

replying to someone besides the OP if I have something negative to say.

I'll only reply to non-OPs in a thread where the OP has me blocked if I want to say something directly to the other person.

I do hope this works out. I think it's a positive change.

And furthermore, if someone doesn't like me, and doesn't want to hear my opinions, they shouldn't have to.

PS: I haven't heard back from Second Harvest yet.

Redstone

[Kingshakabobo]

278. I THINK you are missing something.

I think you are completely blocked out of the entire thread if the OP/thread originator has you on block???

Unless I'm reading this wrong???

[Redstone]

280. No, Skinner said you CAN reply to others, just not the OP.

Redstone

[LostinVA]

288. No, you won't be able to post in the OP's entire thread

I do NOT like that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

That's not how I read this post from Skinner

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3076551&mesg_id=3076861

"If you block someone from replying to you...

...then they cannot post *at all* in a thread you start."

[Kingshakabobo]

292. I must be reading something wrong.....

>>>>>>>>>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.<<<<<<<

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

198. Here's A Possible Recommendation I'd Think Would Be Quite Valuable Overall:

Problem is, I fear it would be too complicated to implement.

I think a sticking point for some people is the concept of being locked out of entire threads. I think even a poster who generally wants another member blocked from replying might at times want that poster to have been able to post within a started thread of a given topic. I can't tell you how many times I'll see someone being a royal jerk in a thread of a certain topic, but then that same day see them contribute in absolutely valuable ways to threads of another topic. I find myself perplexed sometimes as to how it actually is the same person.

Having that said, what if when posting a thread there was simply a checkbox of "Allow all posters"? This way there would be the exception basis option of posting a thread in which you invite any and all opinions to reply regardless of whether or not they are on your block list, which I feel does carry value. The default requiring no user intervention when posting a thread, of course, would be to reference the block list, and only checking the box with intention would allow all posters.

Not sure of the complexity, but I do think it would be quite a beneficial override.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

199. BAD idea...

All you're doing is inviting people to start new threads so they can respond to the blocker.
This may be against the rules to "call people out", but its going to happen anyway, thinly disguised.

Besides, I think you're offering a technological solution to what is largely a social problem. Partly by chance, partly by design, the D.U. has evolved serve two entirely different communities. The split isn't so much liberals vs moderates, but more party builders (who I term the "Democrats") against outrage-aholics (who I term the "Undergrounders").

These communities have different needs. Undergrounders are looking for validation for their angry screeds. Democrats are skeptics. Is it any wonder that they clash?

The trouble is that both sides represent too large a contingent for this to work. You can isolate an individual, not an entire community. Rules like these are an open invitation for abuse.

This isn't so say that the D.U. can't be improved. A system that allowed moderators to "censure" posts without deleting them would be the best. The penalty for "censure" would be that the post is initially hidden under a roll-up that people have to go out of their way to see. By doing this, you allow moderators to more freely use their power to correct marginal and/or counterproductive posts, without going to the extreme of deleting them. And I think this would discourage trolls, because their behavior would be available to be seen by everyone, instead of your present "delete only" system. I for one, would like to point out that a certain poster or two, has a habit of calling everyone he disagrees with a "freeper", rather than having his anti-social behavior being effectively removed from the historical record.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[druidity33]

318. but isn't the point...

or one of the points of the whole thing to make LESS work for the moderators?

Besides, i think i'd rather be the one to "censure" what i see or don't see...

but, to each their own.

[SaveElmer]

200. IMO...This is a very poor idea...

I think what you will end up with is a bunch of cliques on DU, with little or no interaction between people representing different parts of the party. Folks will tend to block people they disagree with, and every thread will end up being a hallelujah chorus in response to the OP.

A bunch of mini-DU's within DU...

We'll have the Kucinich DU
the Hillary DU (though much smaller ;-) )
the DLC DU
the impeachment DU...

And on and on...

I think eventually we will seriously regret the implementation of this feature...

Everyone here is an adult...or close to it...whey do we need to be protected from each other?

[Kerrytravelers]

240. It's like you read my mind. I see this new feature leading me me not enjoying my time on DU as much.

I can't imagine how awful I will feel if I see my name on someone's blocked list.

[LostinVA]

287. Yeah, I was thinking exactly what you posted

I don't like the blocked form replying to whole threads thing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

243. Welcome to Bosnia, in other words

To every sect its own, public sphere be damned.

But at least the consumer is served, and nobody gets an experience that would make him or her uncomfortable (all praises be the Market).

[Guaranteed]

263. I agree.

I actually think this will turn DU into a warzone. It's going to amplify disagreements.

This is an awful lot of power to give users. Doing something like blocking a person out of threads/not allowing them to reply is the message board equivalent of the "nuclear option." What worse thing, short of banning, could happen to a poster? It's just a bigger gun to shoot someone and start conflict with.

I imagine it will start out alright, but someone's going to freak out someday and set off a firestorm. Even if DU doesn't become divided via the tool, it's just one more thing to start drama with.

[dweller]

296. shouldn't that be the nukuler option?

or relegated to Sensbrenner's basement, or having your mike O'Reilly'd ...

the possibilities are endless.
dp

[Ann Arbor Dem]

202. I expected to see a Charles Atlas ad when I clicked on this.

But seriously, I think this is a good idea. A lot of people could benefit from this. Thanks.

[El Fuego]

203. This will enable... VIGILANTE CENSORSHIP!

It will make it easy to manipulate outside perception of DU and Democrats in general.

So you start a thread about a contentious topic among Democrats and block all those who disagree. Example: If someone is anti-abortion, they would just block replies from all known pro-choice posters. Hillary supporters would block the anti-Hillary types. And then anyone who is perusing DU would get a false reading of the opinions of DUers!!!!

You're basically giving people editorial control of their own threads.

[VelmaD]

206. I just figured out my actual big problem with this

There are people on this site that I get into arguments with on a fairly frequent basis. But...on occastion I will open a post and find out that we agree on a different topic. I love when that happens becuase it reminds me that I'm "fighting" with someone with whom I'd likely agree on the vast majority of issues. But if we have each other on ignore...we'd never know that. We would lose that experience of finding ourselves agreeing on one thread while duking it out on another. I don't know about other people...but for me that would be a loss I don't want to face. Please think about that before you put someone on ignore. That you aren't just ignoring whatever it is they're saying today that you disagree with...but you're potentially ignoring something they will say tomorrow or next week or whenever that will help you find common ground.

[Guaranteed]

264. Great post, Velma.

That's the other thing- it's such a drastic measure. It disregards what makes us all Democrats.

[bullwinkle428]

477. This is EXACTLY why I don't use the Ignore function!

[Hepburn]

207. Too bad this had to be done...

...it makes me kind of sad that such a great place has to implement something like this. Makes me sad. That probably sounds odd or silly ~~ but when I read this thread, it made me feel badly.

I have been around awhile and I don't recall but maybe once someone said something to me I felt was out of line and I have never had to put any one on ignore.

This almost makes me feel like there is a divorce in the family. OK, label me silly ~~ but it makes me sad that all of us who seem to have the shared goal of making things better have to no work on this, but get into fights. So we have different ideas on getting there. Why fight?

JMHO

[LittleClarkie]

232. Might cut down on alot of the tit for tat

But then regular ignore should have done that, if people would use it. But sometimes I think they like the tit for tat.

[GirlinContempt]

210. I think this is overkill

And it's going to fan the flames more than it will calm the waters.

[JNelson6563]

211. This is great! I love it!!!

Brilliant!!111! :toast:

Julie

[CTyankee]

212. I see what you are trying to do but

in your attempt not to be mommy to people with personal differences on DU, you are being super mommy. I think you're fine as is. No need to help ease people's hurt feelings. Sure, I don't like it when someone hurls an insult to me or puts me on ignore for what I consider to be a minor disagreement. But this is the real world.

I think the freepers will love this. We will look like wusses that can't take a good political argument without running to super mommy to have the bad people's words blocked for us. I can see it now on freeperville (altho I don't visit there): Liberals can't stand the heat so they should get out of the kitchen.

[Skinner]

236. I think you misunderstand.

My hope is that if this works, then I can *remove* myself and the moderators as super-mommy. If people come crying to me, I can tell them: Fix your own problem. Don't privately beg me to censor other people on your behalf. (For the record, some of the people screaming loudest about this change are the very people who scream loudest for the mods to censor people they disagree with.)

If it is not obvious from the OP: The intended long-term effect of this is to allow greater freedom rather than less. Our hope is that the threat of "mutual assured blockage" from other members will act as an incentive for members to keep discussion civil, while simultaneously acting as a disincentive for people to "block first" (except in extreme circumstances).

I know this is an unlikely outcome, but we think it might even be possible to eventually get the mods out of the business of civility enforcement entirely. People who want to fight can fight. People who want to have a civil discussion can block out the jerks. It's a win win. Greater fighting for those who like fighting, and greater civility for people who like civility. And it's not engineered top-down by the mods.

I think the large number of responses in this thread expressing concern about possible blocking of opposing viewpoints are themselves proof that the vast majority of people are not going to abuse this function.

The intentions may seem opaque here. But trust me, our greatest hope would be if we could completely ditch most of the byzantine system of rules and enforcement we have. The moderators do a heroic job enforcing the rules, but the end result is still often arbitrary and unfair. It possibly requires greater banning and censorship than would be necessary under a purely member-driven system.

Alas, we'll have to wait to see if it is possible. Sure would be nice, tho.

[CTyankee]

301. Why do this anyway? The system is working now, except that you are more involved.

"I know this is an unlikely outcome, but we think it might even be possible to eventually get the mods out of the business of civility enforcement entirely. People who want to fight can fight. People who want to have a civil discussion can block out the jerks. It's a win win. Greater fighting for those who like fighting, and greater civility for people who like civility. And it's not engineered top-down by the mods."

But DU admins DO interfere with free speech! So there is a "self policing mechanism" which does limit speech, at least in some ways. Right now, I'd be fine with all the annoyance of free speech that I find obnoxious. That's just the way it is! It's a pain, so what? Please keep it the way it is. And as for admin. folks, I'm so sorry. But institute a "grown up rule": settle your own complaints!

[Blaukraut]

217. Good idea in theory, but it will get abused, of course.

It'll be interesting to see the change in thread lengths, thread numbers, and corresponding subject matter.

[Deep13]

218. Don't like this:

"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."

Blocking someones access to a whole thread strikes me as a way to stifle dissent and prevent honest debate just because the OP is sensitive about the subject. Are we interested in finding the truth or do we just want to sit around patting each other's back like so many Republicans? "If you don't like someone?" What difference does that make? We can't choose to interact only with those we "like" in the real world. Why make that restriction on the internet? Finding the objective truth requires a plurality of views and emotional offense or lack thereof is irrelevant to that process. No one has any right to be pretty from subjective offense.

Guess I'm not comfortable with any form of transportation where the brakes are within reach of the general public.

[Marie26]

221. This doesn't seem fair.

Yeah, there's obnoxious people at DU. I can see the point of just blocking replies, but I don't like that we can block people from responding to a thread completely. This will just lead to different factions forming their own little support groups w/o allowing any dissent. No, thanks. Plus, if a poster posts neutral OPs in LBN, "blockees" can't respond to that thread, even though it's an important news story. It seems like this could stifle real debate & discussion of the issues, which is the whole reason for having a discussion forum.

[LostinVA]

289. Agreed n/t

[RB TexLa]

222. Maybe we should all test this on ourselves first

:evilgrin:

[Rex]

224. I will never put someone on the 'ignore' list.

I never use it. I guess some people have stalkers here. I must admit I've hit the ignore button by mistake a few times.

I just don't see a need for it. People either develop a thick skin or they find somewhere less explosive to post. IMO.

[Deep13]

277. Me either.

What's the point?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

229. "or we might publish a list of the most-blocked members" Oh Yeah Baby...

I'd love to see that. I got a couple predictions.

[omega minimo]

244. Would That Be Blocked, Blockheaded, Blockage or Blockaded?

:loveya:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

336. Yes.

I'm just shocked that some of the most ignoreables
are so against this.

[omega minimo]

378. Zounds. Egads. Shocking That I Have Not SEEN Any Of Those Protests Doth Two Much. Yikes. Criminy. Yo

Maybe this new era will inspire a the most ignoreables" Forum All To Themselves.

:hi:

[NashVegas]

321. That's Because You're Evil

:hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

333. Evil but polite.

I have no idea what that means so dont ask.
I just thought it needed to be said. :hi:

[WI_DEM]

230. It's a shame that the problem must be bigger than I would have thought

or else such extreme steps wouldn't have to be taken. It's also a shame that a small minority of people who can't accept that other people have their own pov and must badger a person has to ruin it for everybody else.

[Nutmegger]

237. I think this is great. Thank you.

:kick:

[LoZoccolo]

241. Overall this is good; I think you've made an accurate call of where there's likely trouble, though.

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?

I think that'll be the biggest challenge, but we actually see this phenomenon already. When someone feels that there are too many people disagreeing with them in a thread, they start another separate one to rally people in collective condemnation and intimidation of the offending opinion and perhaps spread some paranoia about their intentions.

Overall, I'd say Internet forums attract people who do not do well in the environment of punishments and rewards present in real-life interaction, and that's why we have some of the problems we do. The system simply does not reinforce civility the way real life does; many of the social cues we are accustomed to are simply not there, and there is over-representation of people who have been rejected from real social situations too.

I think the chaos both attracts troublemakers and repels sociable people, and we might see an actual shift of the population as a result, rather than a taming of the current one.

[fishnfla]

242. "chip on the shoulder" function huh? Clearly, much needed

Good call

[Lone_Star_Dem]

245. You guys should have called it the "You're Dead to Me" feature

It's a shame that it's needed, I've learned from people who initially I found irritating. Sometimes things go beyond irritating though. I can see how this can help some people feel more in control of abusive posters. It also has potential to stifle some conversations. Still, I'm willing to give it a try and see how it flies.

[matcom]

248. Skinner, why did you float the trial balloon regarding banned posters?

why not do it now? or shortly?

why tell us you MIGHT consider it "Way in the future"?

if this mechanism is in place, and you mentioned the possibility, why not give it a shot and let them back rather than tease the fact that you MIGHT consider it in the distant future?

sorry. I don't really get it.

but the new feature will be cool (if ever needed)

[Skinner]

253. I am a forgiving man. And I am willing to consider almost anything.

But I'm not insane.

I was not trying to tease people. The purpose of that FAQ was to pre-empt all the people saying "now that we have the new system, can so-and-so come back?" The "I might consider it in the future was not intended as a tease. My intention was merely to indicate that I have not completely ruled it out -- and that if the system works, it might be possible.

[matcom]

255. sounds like this could be the catalyst

if it works as well as it sounds. there are some I wouldn't want to see back but definately have friends I would like to see again.

seems to me this new feature might make future bannings ALMOST a thing of the past (not entirely but the bar would/could be raised I think)

thanks Dave.

[MADem]

370. I just thought of a potential glitch. Say, in LBN, you have two threads started almost

simultaneously on the same subject--only problem is, the two thread starters have blocked each other. Depending on which poster gets the "lead" position, the other poster might not be able to contribute to a discussion they have an important interest in. Accordingly, it might not be a bad idea for the moderator who combines the two threads to serve as the original poster to avoid this eventuality.

Hey, it might be a rare thing, but then, it might not!

[salin]

427. Excellent point. Skinner - don't miss the above post.

I think this is one of the reasons this idea is being floated - to pull out the potential, unintended glitches that can only be seen when a lot of minds are put to the task of thinking about the problem.

The situation you refer to would likely be pretty rare - but it would be a dilemna - good solution to the problem. :thumbsup:

[Virginia Dare]

251. I'm a firm believer in non-discrimination

I welcome all jerks and/or assholes to reply to my posts...:hi:

[Buck Rabbit]

294. You call?

[Bjorn Against]

254. I hope you reconsider as I think this will lead to a lack of debate

I am sure that most DUers will use this sparingly, but I can also assure you that a few will put out threads which spew complete crap and then block anyone from rebutting it. I think the ignore feature is perfectly adequate to shut out your contact with those who bother you without negatively affecting the rest of DU who may find those people's voices important.

[EarlG]

257. There's the other built in disincentive

"...a few will put out threads which spew complete crap and then block anyone from rebutting it..."

Threads on DU survive by people responding to them. If someone blocks everyone, then their threads are going to quickly sink without trace.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

306. It still doesn't stop cliques from abusing the function

e.g. a poster posts a polemic thread on a major issue. Like-minded individuals post in congratulatory replies and 'hear hear' whilst known posters with the opposite viewpoints may be shut-out. I'm not suggesting that it will happen every time, but there is a possibility that debate will be severely constricted.

[druidity33]

319. i think

that a data field that states how many posters are blocked from the thread/or replying would go a long way towards solving that issue...

[sufrommich]

267. I predict a profoundly boring

DU in the very near future.

[omega minimo]

269. The people responding negatively/exagerratedly must never have been serially harrassed

"Bully" for them. :evilgrin:


Thanks Skinner, Elad, EarlG

[VelmaD]

281. you couldn't be more wrong

I've been called names. I've been on the wrong side of more than one Lounge clique. I've watched close friends get chased off DU. And I still think this is an amazingly stupid idea. It's overkill - like shooting an ant with an elephant gun. And I think it's going to seriously diminish the quality of debate on this site.

[omega minimo]

366. May I Possibly Be Considered Slightly Less Wrong? Please? OR ELSE!!!!11

I love you Velma D :yourock:

I understand what you said above about disagreeing with folks on one thread and connecting on another. That happened to me recently on two big issues-- I haven't given up on communicating with the DUer.

Skinner's OP offers a tool to deal with people who make us Sick by Constantly Harrassing us on DU-- maybe as individuals, maybe as groups or specific issues/forums.

When those (hopefully rare) occasions occur that a belligerant asshole/Blatant Troll/serial abuser cause continuous problems that the Mods or Admin can't solve, that "elephant gun" may be a needed (and appreciated) tool.

"And I think it's going to seriously diminish the quality of debate on this site."

I can see the concern-- but if people apply that tool -- apparently intended for specific EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES -- with a hair trigger response in trivial or "abuse the system" ways, how much is hat mentality going to be missed from the "quality of debate?" Maybe they weren't here to discuss in the first place.

:hug:

[VelmaD]

396. nope...you have to be WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!11

Totally wrong. Wronger than anyone in the history of human wrongitude. Though not wronger than George Bush...I'll at least give you that. :)

I think I probably just come at this from a different pov. For instance I was reading the thread about this in the Women's Rights forum and while I didn't post...all I could think was "but it's such fun to beat up on the trolls". I'd rather keep right on arguing than just put someone on ignore. It's a personal thing with me.

My actual concern stems from some of my recent exchanges with people who were less than thrilled with being called on their use of sexist language in GD. I have a feeling if anyone blocks me it'll be so they won't have to hear me call them on that kind of thing. And that would be a bad thing.

I also kind of view this as a whiny baby thing. I figure given the copious amount of shit I've had dumped on me around here (hit the archives for the old "bitch" wars sometime to see a good sampling of what some people have said about me) that if I can take it and keep on going I don't really understand why everyone can't put on their big kid undies and act like grownups. The real world is a lot less friendly than DU...and if a person's ideas can't stand up here, in a relatively safe space, then they are well and truly fucked in the real world.

Plus fighting is fun. Beating up on trolls is fun. They've already banned sex threads in the Lounge. They aren't leaving me any fun anywhere. *pout* ;)

[omega minimo]

487. "human wrongitude"

:rofl:

[2Design]

270. Good - mostly needed in first year on du - I found restraint worked

the ignore list just made me curious about what the others were saying. The distractors would high jack threads. I found staying out of one forum changed it all a lot. Some people just attack a lot and accuse others of doing it. Haven't had anyone on ignore for over a year. Not sure if I will use the new feature but it will be nice to see less of some people in some threads. So it will be a good thing. Learning to communicate seems to happen in a public place. The differences in personalities here is drastic. I continue to be amazed at the level headness of skinner and elad during any of this considering how young they are. They seem to be able to see through the bs. Even in answering this thread - they see through to the rabble. Thanks this looks like it might be an interesting way to help everyone mature a little.

[Sugarcoated]

276. Will moderaters still be around if a Freep type tries to disrupt?

Or is this new feature for that as well?

[Skinner]

340. The moderators will still be around.

DU is in good hands.

[Lost-in-FL]

279. Wow!! DU going "Nuclear"

I think this is too much and I agree with those who think that the feature would cut a lot of the free-thinking.

This feature makes think of the time when Coca Cola tried to change their formula and was a flop. I have to say I like the ultimatum feature suggested here as a way to ease a thread going wrong or telling stalkers to knock it off. I don't use the ignore and I have no plans on using it. I think I am in most DU'ers ignore list tho. I have a lot to learn from all.

[LostinVA]

283. I think people should be allowed to respond to the thread, but not the poster

[La Lioness Priyanka]

284. sounds wonderful.

[UrbScotty]

291. You misspelled Vilsack (nt)

[Skinner]

341. Good catch.

I fixed it. :thumbsup:

[Lost-in-FL]

298. I have a suggestion if I may add

Why not add a reverse "recommendation" feature? We can all recommend a thread but we should have the capability to un-recommend threads that are very damaging to DU. That feature could erase a thread after lets say 25 hits. I have seen some threads that are just outrageous or extremely insensitive and at times mods are too busy, or there aren't many mods to take on a particular thread that need to be prioritized. :shrug:

If the idea is to free mods, I'll rather see a feature like this one than people fighting and canceling each other for thinking differently. Of course, this is also subject to be misused but I think it could be tricked a little bit.

[jpgray]

300. I don't like the idea of someone limiting anyone's posting privileges.

I can just imagine the I/P folks or the Chavez/anti-Chavez folks all using this nuclear option on each other--part of what makes DU great is that you are often forced to read things you might not like.

[mongo]

303. So much for discussion

DU will now become the maintain my ideological purity board.

[paulk]

304. rule# 4 - preventing people from posting on your threads

will make DU even more of an echo chamber than it already is.

it will discourage discussion on a discussion board -

it's a bad idea.

imo

[Robson]

311. Sorry Folks

I join a forum not to hear my own views echoed back to me, but to learn and hear any and all opposing views.

OK I'm just a non-contributing newbie here that really has no say on this, but I do have an opinion.

I don't agree with any feature that removes true debate and honest discussion. I say that regardless if I agree or disagree with the post or the poster. But that's just my opinion. I'm not here to sing "kumbaya".

[NashVegas]

312. DAMN You, Skinner!

There goes my 'Deaniac's Revenge, 2008 Style' operation.

:thumbsup:

[Ms. Toad]

313. I am indifferent to the changes, with the exception of #4

I view threads more as the property of the group than of the individual who started the thread. Just because I had the idea (or ran across the news article first in LBN) doesn't mean I should get to censor the group's discussion of the topic. Banning all discussion is considerably different from banning someone from replying to me within a thread when that person has repeatedly harassed me in the past - a distinction I would think the moderators might recognize given the number of "removed subthreads" I have seen recently.

Now that I have expressed my disagreement, I have a question: In LBN, when only the first poster's thread survives, how will blocking of the combined thread be determined? Could the mods at least be instructed to select the unblocked thread as the controlling OP even if an earlier thread posting the same article exists - but has blocked one or more members from posting?

[Skinner]

326. When two threads are combined

the thread that remains as the OP will count for blocking.

[Ms. Toad]

331. For the sake of fostering discussion,

before moving threads around, can the mods please review whether either of the threads is subject to blocking and move the blocked thread to the unblocked one, rather than the other way around?

[Skinner]

343. We're not going to do that.

Sorry.

[Ms. Toad]

360. So,

in LBN, where only one thread on a topic is permitted, the winner of the race to post gets to decide who is allowed to participate in discussion of the breaking news story?

Although I am generally troubled by permitting the OP to control participation in any discussion thread, because of the additional restrictions in LBN it is particularly oppressive as it plays out in that forum. I am surprised by your blunt, no explanation, rejection of what would I really thought was a no-brainer in a discussion forum - when two threads are combined, pick the one that encourages rather than discourages discussion to remain the OP.

[MADem]

373. I say let a MODERATOR serve as the new "OP" for combined threads

and throw all of them into the pot. That way, even if the two, or three, OPs have blocked each other, they can still respond to the thread, just not each other. Of course, the mods would have to not block anyone to make that work...

To force the mod to make a judgment about which one is more discussion-worthy could be problematic, especially if the topic has to do simply with diametrically opposed viewpoints, both encouraging discussion, but on opposite sides of an issue.

[Ms. Toad]

375. I was making the suggestion specifically for LBN

where discussion is limited to only one thread - and the decision would be based solely on which (if either) was blocking replies. IMHO when there is a choice between making an LBN thread in which replies are blocked the OP thread and making an LBN thread in which all voices are welcome the OP thread, the mods should opt to make the thread in which all voices are welcome the one to continue. That doesn't require the mods to make a decision about discussion-worthiness - they only have to look to see whether either of the OPers in the threads is blocking replies from other members.

I like your idea for other thread combinations.

[MADem]

380. Well, the reason I suggested the mod restart the thread and combine all others under it (in LBN)

is because it would probably be quicker than checking the status of each poster, and what if you have two people who posted the same subject LBN subject who were blockers, or even blocking each other? It wouldn't shut anyone out in that eventuality. In the other sections, like GD or GDP, if there are dupes, just leave them....I mean, we have survived with five thousand smoking threads, or (Insert Name of Controversial Candidate) is Good/Bad type threads...!

[Skinner]

428. Here is why we're not going to do that.

First of all, because the purpose of this new feature is to give people the ability to block the jerks and bullies from posting in their threads. If someone wants to block a jerk or bully from their threads, they should be able to do it everywhere on DU, including the LBN forum.

Second, I think you might have a different perception of what it means to "encourage" discussion. In my opinion, threads where the bullies and jerks are blocked out are much more likely to be productive than the ones where discussion is being dragged down by the dead weight of DU.

And third: We haven't even had this system in place for a day. My belief is that the vast majority of DUers will use this function responsibly, and civil differences of opinion will be welcome almost everywhere. If I turn out to be wrong, then I'll consider changing the system or scrapping it entirely. But at this point, I do not think it makes any sense to start programming new loopholes to undermine the system before we've even had a chance to find out if it works.

[Clarkie1]

314. When a person starts a new thread, it's their house.

No reason they should have to open the door for everyone in town (unless they want to, of course)!

I think there is great potential for this leading to a higher degree of civility on DU, because just like in real life, people will need to treat others nicely if they expect to be invited to the party.

[muriel_volestrangler]

425. You might think so - but what about LBN?

Where only one thread is allowed - should the first poster get to 'own' the story? Looking at the subthread just above, and a lack of answer by Skinner to an earlier post of mine on the same subject, it seems that's what the Admin now want.

You assume that it will be a lack of civility that leads to someone being blocked. But it could be ideological reasons - on the highly divisive topics like Israel/Palestine, Chavez, Castro, gun control, 9/11 theories. I suppose those wanting a right of reply when they've been blocked will have to make a duplicate thread on purpose, so that a moderator adds that thread, with their comments, to the first one. But that will mean more work for moderators, not less.

[BattyDem]

315. Drastic move ... but not a bad idea

Like most DUers, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. It's good to debate an issue because we often learn things we weren't aware of. Sometimes, another DUer will present an argument that I hadn't thought of and it causes me to re-evaluate my position. Other times, we both maintain our different views and simply agree to disagree, which is fine. On occasion, we may end up being being a little ticked off at each other, but that's fine, too. We're all adults and we get over it.

BUT ... there are times when a person takes the debate away from the issues and the facts and makes it personal by injecting insults, name calling and ridicule into the conversation. In the past, that's when the "ignore" function would come in handy. However, there were times when "ignore" wasn't good enough. In the 3-1/2 years I've been posting here, I put only two people on "ignore" --- both attacked me personally because they disagreed with my opinion and I saw no reason to "debate" anyone who resorted to insults. One of them seemed to be following me from thread to thread for the sole purpose of antagonizing me. No matter what I posted or where I posted it, that person showed up and nitpicked every comment I made ... it was unbelievably childish and petty. DU is full of very thoughtful, intelligent people and that kind of behavior seemed so out of place on this board. The "block" feature will certainly put an end to that. ;-)

My only concern is that we all use the feature responsibly and I hope we don't block other DUers simply because we disagree. "Stalking" with the intent to antagonize and personal attacks are uncalled for ... but difference of opinion and honest, open debate is why we're all here. :-)

[Strelnikov_]

317. Good Idea

Disagreement is one thing.

But there is a very small but 'vocal' minority that have never made a positive contribution to the discussion to the best of my knowledge. Simply an entire record of negative and/or sarcastic one line posts. This feature will be useful for that class of troll.

I come here for news and discussion, not abrasiveness.

[distantearlywarning]

322. I think this is a good idea.

IMO, most of the nasty threads on this site are caused by a handful of the same awful people posting in an inflammatory way, which riles up other, normal, people who would not otherwise be jerks. If we all ban those uncivilized people, over time things should get a little better.

And BTW, I'm not averse to a little debate. I'm just sick of uncivilized debate. Be nice or be blocked. I like it.

I also have a prediction about some of the names on the "Most Blocked List". I'm sure that at least a few of the "negatives" in this thread will be at the top of the list (i.e., "How dare you try to prevent me from being an asshole to my fellow DUers and causing a flame war in every thread I enter!!!!")

[nuxvomica]

323. I'd like to see how it plays out but I have one major criticism

If I understand it correctly, I could block another person but deliver a blistering attack in a reply to them knowing they could not return fire. That doesn't sound fair.

[Tellurian]

328. Interesting...will see what the answer is..

certainly sounds like a valid question..

[Skinner]

346. No, it's not fair.

But then that person can block you back. And then you're pretty much even.

We do still have our rule against personal attacks, and the mods will remove the blistering attack if someone alerts on it.

[nuxvomica]

351. By blistering attack, I meant a really strong argument

Which could go unanswered. Of course the blocked person could reply to his own post as well and refute the argument. This sometimes happens by accident anyway.

[Tellurian]

355. Can someone define what constitutes a "blistering attack"

I've never read one here.. or never posted one..
Many of my posts have been deleted for simple disagreement.

[laundry_queen]

324. Slightly OT

I realize we cannot hide pinned threads, but I'm wondering if there is a way to collapse them? I like the expanded view and don't want to collapse the whole thing, but scrolling past 327 replies in a pinned thread is kind of frustrating.
That said, I like the new ignore features.

[Generator]

325. My gut response is, this is awful

If you can stop people from responding to a thread you post I think you are missing the WHOLE point of being here. The point is the other people here and their opinions is it not? Or is just your opinion and those that agree with you? I get that that one horrid person could go away but that's what regular ignore is for!

Sometimes the replies are brilliant and sometimes dull and occasionally awful. It's a crapshoot. But really, another--insert candidate here---is wonderful or horrible is trite anyway. If you don't want to hear a Hillary hater or a Hillary lover ignore those threads. It's pretty simple. But apparently this way, all the Hillary haters and Hillary lovers can hang together in their own world. Never the twain shall meet. (Hil being just an example, doncha know) And thus, you can never convince me-finally! that she can be president or I can convince you-finally! why it's a bad dream. So it goes.

[LittleClarkie]

345. But then, I think things will be getting pretty awful as we go into primary season

Hence I see this as a way to head that off at the pass. DailyKos is somewhat self-moderating, but they do it with ratings. Too many troll ratings and a person goes byebye.

We shall see. I should hope that they will reevaluate as they go along.

[LittleClarkie]

330. Question: Skinner or Elad, in light of this new feature, what will still be alertable?

I only occasionally alert on people bothering me. But if I see someone violating the rules, which do indeed include civility rules, then I alert.

So that I don't waste my time, what will still be "alertable" stuff? Obvious trollage? Or shall I proceed as I always have, and let y'all decide if you're going to take action or not.

Thanks.

[Skinner]

347. Everything is still alertable.

The rules have not changed. The mods will continue to enforce the rules.

If this thing works, then we'll consider backing off on civility enforcement. But we're not *anywhere* close to doing that at this point. And to be honest, we might not ever get there.

[quinnox]

332. The only way this might work

Is if the names of the people blocked from a thread are listed publicly. No hiding from the thread starter, if they block someone the names are there for all to see. Which of course will lead to hard feelings anyway.

Another thing to consider, it might lead people from being afraid to voice disagreement because of fear they might be blocked from threads in the future.

And then DU will just be one long boring agreement from thread to thread.

I agree with the others who say this is a bad idea and will cause a decline in DU discussion.

[welshTerrier2]

334. this is "Reaganesque" - i hate it!!

i appreciate the effort the admins have made and some of the problems they face moderating the site ... we have so many users of all shapes and sizes that moderators must have an extremely difficult job indeed ...

but this newest functionality is positively "Reaganesque" in the worst sense of the term ... it smacks of "I paid for these microphones" ... a line, btw, that Reagan stole from one of his old movies ...

i hate this new feature because it makes a very serious fundamental change on DU ... no longer are threads in the "public domain" ... i can own mine and you can own yours ... that is no longer "the public square" where we can each stand on our soapbox and say our piece but we still must subject ourselves to public feedback ... instead, i can OWN THE MICROPHONES ...

the problem is, how can the public and other DU'ers reading a thread know that they are getting an honest mix of DU opinions on any given thread ... what if those who disagree with the OP have been muzzled????

arguments that the admins hope the new feature is not abused are not at all comforting; we can no longer determine whether contrarians have been blocked from participating ... that seems just plain wrong to me and greatly weakens the credibility of DU ... we already have a special place for people of like mind to congregate without conflict or debate: the candidate supporter forums. I've always respected the sanctity of those "restricted areas" and i believe other DU'ers have as well ... but to muzzle anyone's voice, especially in the "big forums", who is not in violation of DU rules turns the public square into something less than a come-one-come-all free speech zone ...

i've actually thought about this option in the past and realized it would detract from DU ... i'm very sorry to see the admins make this unfortunate misstep and I hope they withdraw this new feature as soon as possible ... i just plain hate it ... we need rules ... we need good software to protect us from abuse ... we need good moderation ... but when the software impinges on multi-sided discourse, it steps into a very dangerous new area and diminishes DU's most valuable commodity: free speech in the public square ...

this is a very sad business indeed ...

if i'm stuck with this new feature, let me request another ... any thread started by someone who is blocking anyone from responding to their thread should have to be labeled as such ... something like: thread originator does not allow responses from some DU'ers who might disagree with them. if we can't get rid of the new feature, disclosure is the next best thing ...

sorry to be so negative ... i do appreciate the constant effort and regular software upgrades ... this one is NOT a good idea ...

[Tellurian]

349. Yep, after all these years, Skinner has caved into the biggest complainers..

The existing system in place projects just the right balance. Skinner's proposal wreaks of stifling decent and is
tragic to the lexicon of this forum "Democratic Underground". There is nothing democratic about selective discrimination of posters who disagree with a poster. This forum was set up as a debating venue, now you propose to put a fence around it keeping certain posters out and protecting certain posters from defending their positions until the cows come home.

It would have been nice before all the software development was done, a notice had been posted stating who the objectors were and why they have a problem with just using the existing feature at their disposal and put anyone who is not to their liking on "IGNORE".. This system has been in place since the inception of the forum...now suddenly, it's not good enough and we MUST have MORE control of people preventing them from RUINING a thread?

Pray tell, how does one ruin a thread? Can't another thread be created and using the hidden feature be their own private little thread? Skinner, I think you are succumbing to pressure and undue influence from certain posters and
are very mistaken by pursuing this new venture termed Democratic Underground... with the caveat, NOT all posters Welcome to post freely in all threads, Forum."

[Skinner]

352. I haven't succumbed to pressure from anyone on this one.

As far as I know, nobody has asked me for the ability to block replies from other members. The blame for this tragic stifling of dissent is entirely my own.

[LibraLiz1973]

361. Tragic stifling of dissent...... OMG

I just laughed for almost 2 straight minutes.

Good one, Skinner.

[Tellurian]

363. So, what prompted you to radically change the premise of the forum?

It's expected when the candidates are up for nomination supporters are going to be jockeying
for position. I understand that and can live with it because once the Nominee become official
there will be no more denigration or bashing here allowed of the official Democratic Presidential/VP nominees..

My plan was to wait it out..and just go with the flow..

You mentioned early on...once the Nominee was named, there would be no bashing allowed.
I thought that was a fair decision and for the time being everything was wide open to support or descent
against the candidates who have declared or haven't decided yet..and I fully agreed with your strategy
and applauded your decision..

So, forgive me for not understanding the need for the radical change?

[Skinner]

429. Here's why...

Because I thought it would make DU better.

At the very least, it was worth trying. And if it doesn't work, it's very easy to undo.

[NYC Liberal]

365. I agree on all counts - and a suggestion

As I said in my post before, it's not so much the blocking of replies to individual posts that bothers me (that's basically a small extension of the Ignore feature already in place), but the blocking of replies to entire new threads. That does smack of censorship.

If we're going to have it, I would like there to be a feature that lets us see WHO EXACTLY is banned from replying to the thread. That way, if we have to have it, we can at least see who the OP is censoring and at least get a sense of just who is replying to the thread. Make it public and make it open for all to see.

[Balbus]

449. "Weakens the credibility of DU..."

Very well said and very true. The word "Discussion" had been taken out of "Discussion Forum." And I also 2nd the idea that if a thread is started by someone who has blocked people from responded it should be visibly marked somehow to be visible from the beginning.

[RestoreGore]

337. A subtle way to stifle dissent

I don't approve of anyone not being able to post an alternative opinion in a thread. It also caters too much to cliques and the gang mentality. Not hard to see this is being instituted for those who may not like a certain candidate or agree with a certain opinion regarding them. It is as if criticism will be subtly pushed to the side. I don't see that as particularly Democratic.

[JohnLocke]

338. But Skinner, what about the Dodd-haters?

;)

[Skinner]

348. You're right. I probably should have put him in.

The massive pro-Dodd contingent on DU is going to kick my ass now.

[Pacifist Patriot]

354. Jury's out with me.

I'm perfectly willing to wait and see how it shakes out. I trust the administrators can determine at some point whether the feature is useful or disasterous for the site. Personally, I'm unlikely to use it simply because I won't remember. Heck, I never remember the ignore function is available until someone mentions it.

[FredStembottom]

367. I am confused and missing something. Please advise.

If I feel that someone is a jerk and "ignore" them - then I never see their evil spew again.

So.....why the new thing that won't let them post to threads I start? Doesn't that just put that person (temporarily) on everyone else's ignore list?

Right?

Like saying: I am ignoring you and, in addition, I will now block everyone else reading this thread from seeing you, too. All other readers of that thread are forced to have the suppossedly jerky guy on "ignore" as well?

If Skinner, as an example, put me on the new #4 "no-replies" thingy - I would be out - toatlly - of this giant thread? I couldn't talk to ANY of the several hundred others here???

That can't be right..............can it?:shrug:

[Skinner]

431. That is right.

If I had you blocked, you would not be able to participate in this thread.

Obvously, since I'm the admin, I probably can't use this feature. So I'm not a very good example to use.

But if it were someone else, you would have to search around and find some other thread among the ten-thousand-or-so available in which to share your opinion.

[FredStembottom]

438. Then I don't understand........

Because if the aggrieved party (as they see themselves)has already ended the "harassment" by using the ignore button - so this new feature just involuntarily puts everyone else on "ignore".

But then.... I have never been in a fight here at DU.

I can't help but feel that such a thread then needs to be labeled "private" or "by invitation only" or "limited"....or something.

I will watch this experiment with great interest.

[Skinner]

445. Except the old ignore function didn't end the harassment.

All it did was make it so that you couldn't see it.

It goes completely against human nature to "stop" harassment by not reading it. The harassment is still there. You know it is still there. Hiding it does not make it go away. It is still there, gnawing at you, and the desire to read what this asshole just said about you -- in front of an audience of thousands, without you hearing it -- is overwhelming for most people.

[FredStembottom]

464. I'm on the fence with this idea.

But will simply wait to see what happens.

Bowing out of this ginormous thread now.

Thanks for your patient responses.

[Phillycat]

475. EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS RESPONSE BY SKINNER

If you don't like this new feature, read the above post for a very accurate description of what it's like to be harrassed/stalked by someone you've place on ignore to try to move on.

[Pithlet]

490. Then those asshole's posts should be removed.

I just don't understand the need for this, really. If the reason for this move is taking care of stalkers, then it seems to be a very sweeping and potentially DU changing solution for one particular problem. If the poster is being an ass and stalking another DUer, then that person should be stopped because stalking is against the rules. Giving the stalkee the power to stop them instead seems like a good idea until you consider that other DUers can use that same power to bad ends, even unintentionally. I think the risks to the overall quality of DU are too great for the benefits. The more I think about it, the more I really feel that this is a very bad idea. It might take care of one problem, but I think it will create a whole bunch of other problems. I just seems to me that if I'm not a stalker, then I shouldn't be blocked from a thread just because the DUer that started it doesn't like me or my viewpoints, no matter how civil and within the rules I am. It punishes good DUers along with the bad.

[Skinner]

505. Here's the thing...

...and to be clear, this is NOT a reference to any specific "stalking" or "harassing" situation:

Sometimes, alleged stalking or harassing isn't particularly clear. To be more blunt: Sometimes stalking is in the eye of the beholder. We cannot ban people simply because someone else claims that they are being stalked. We get allegations of stalking with some frequency, but as a former mod you probably know that often the alleged "stalking" is just a situation where someone happens to be replying to their posts a lot. I'm not going to do anything to stop it.

Let me be clear: If we do have legitimate reason to believe someone is stalking someone else, we would still ban that person. But we cannot ban someone based on someone else's say-so. The moderators and I are not pawns to be manipulated to further a member's personal vendetta.

[Pithlet]

508. I'm not suggesting that you do so.

Of course, if the stalking allegations against a DUer are unfounded, then there isn't a problem in the first place. I was only referring to actual posters who really are a problem.

[Skinner]

515. You say there isn't a problem.

But, it would seem that there in fact is a problem. If an alleged victim has appealed the moderators to fix an alleged problem, then at least one person believes there is a problem.

This system allows that one person to fix the problem. If that person is unwilling to fix the problem, *then* we can say for certain that no problem existed. At least, not one that was particularly serious.

[Pithlet]

518. It allows them to fix the problem

at the expense of the person who's been incorrectly named the problem. I guess this would be easier for me to get on board with if it didn't completely shut out whole threads to the user. If this were just limited to direct responses to the person implementing it, I could understand, because it's not that I don't see the benefits to this. At that point it's basically a mutual forced ignore that's initiated by the user instead of you. In other words I could still respond in a thread they started as long as I wasn't replying directly to any of their posts. Some people will use that as a sneaky loophole, but they're going to do that no matter how you implement this. The true problem posters are going to find a way to keep being a problem.

[Skinner]

521. Here, again, it is a matter of perception.

I think it is not completely correct to completely dismiss the person in question as being "incorrectly named the problem." I have seen plenty of situations where passive-agressive weasels figure out ways to make themselves "the problem" without actually breaking the rules and triggering moderator intervention. It's like a game.

I tell the moderators: If you feel like you need a map and a secret decoder ring to find an alleged hidden and implied personal attack buried deep in someone's post, don't bother. We get pages-long emails explaining why one throw-away phrase is actually, deep down, a personal attack.

The bottom line is that the moderators cannot be all things to all people. They cannot fix all problems, real and/or imagined. This new approach recognizes that. Some problems are not our problem.

It is true that the problem posters will continue to find ways to keep being a problem. But they will find their options severely limited as they get blocked by more and more people.

(BTW: You wouldn't be able to respond in a thread. If the OP is blocking you, you cannot post in the thread at all anywhere, for precisely the reason you outlined in your post.)

[Pithlet]

522. I don't think

that it's completely correct to dismiss the fact that sometimes people are indeed completely innocent. Sometimes accusations are leveled at people as a weapon to hurt that person.

I know you tell the moderators that because I've been a moderator. I was a mod during a term where a bunch of long time members were banned. The big brouhaha in the lounge last year, for instance. It's precisely because of incidents like that that I'm very much against this, among other reasons. People innocently got caught up in that mess for posting things that were taken to mean they had taken a side in that mess, and were immediately and viciously attacked. I remember how bewildered they were. Now, not only would they be attacked for it, but could very possibly be shut out against their will from participating on DU at times.

It's one thing to allow us to customize our own experiences here at DU. I'm probably the rare dissenter in this in that I actually appreciate the ignore feature as it was used before now. I like customizing my own DU. But, I have no interest in customizing others for them. And, I don't like it that other users who aren't mods or admins have potential control over my experience at DU. Particularly in the lounge but also everywhere on DU, there are threads that practically become events, often started by prolific and popular posters who are sometimes involved in the drama on DU, and I don't think it's right that anyone could be shut out of them on a whim.

Yes, the problem posters will see their options limited. But a lot of otherwise thoughtful posters will get caught in that net as well. I don't know if you saw my other post addressing the posters who fall in the fringe area of what is acceptable on DU politically. I have a strong feeling they will get caught in this and start finding their options limited through no fault of their own other than they often hold unpopular opinions, and that would be a real shame.

ETA that I don't mean to convey a harsh tone. I'm just personally pretty strongly opposed to this idea, and I guess that's coming through in how I'm wording myself. I do enjoy DU, and it's because I think this is bad for it that I feel so strongly. I'm sure that regardless of what you do, though, that DU will continue to be a great place.

[Skinner]

525. Only time will tell if this works.

I know you and other people are sincere in your opposition to this new function. Just as and others are sincere in our belief that this will turn out to be a good thing for DU.

But we aren't going to know what really happens unless we try it. I guess I just don't see the harm in trying it for a while. What's the worst that could happen? It sucks and we get rid of it. A few people will be able to tell me "I told you so" and my ego will be mildly bruised. I'm willing to risk that, on the off chance that it might actually make DU better.

[Pithlet]

528. That's true.

It doesn't hurt to try. I know you guys have scrapped things that haven't worked in the past, and it's not like this is so drastic it will damage DU forever and ever if it doesn't work out.

[IDemo]

371. Sounds excellent. Any chance of a "hide threads by keyword" option?

"smoking", for example. Just a thought.

[Skinner]

432. I agree it would be nice.

For the time being, we can't do it. But maybe in the long-term future.

[troubleinwinter]

372. Oh well, there goes open discussion and legitimate challenges.

What a poor idea this is.

[struggle4progress]

398. Agree 100%

[mmonk]

374. Hhhhmmm. An end debate button. Is this good?

[Dammit Ann]

376. I never even noticed the "ignore" function.

I don't need a "function" to do that, I just do it.

I guess I just assumed this was a democracy, being DEMOCRATIC underground, you know, free speech and all. Being a relative newbie, I must have a lot to learn around here... although, I find overbearing liberals, even though, I AM one, sometimes as appalling and shrieking as our appalling and skrieking counterparts, but that's JUST POLITICS. Polite and politics may share five letters, but the similarity ends there. CONGRESS needs to figure that out AND FAST!
Seriously though, I love being part of a loud, raucous, constantly ENGAGING crowd, even when I don't agree with someone (which is rare, I'll admit) but, honestly, people, if we begin bickering amongst ourselves over silly shit where does that lead?

THE DAMMIT CHRONICLES

[MADem]

388. I kind of think of it as being able to hang up the phone on one of those salespeople who call you at

dinnertime! It's like a DU "Do Not Call" list....

I don't even know for sure where the ignore button is, but it's nice to have it if you ever really need it.

[Dammit Ann]

390. Fair enough...

Lord knows I do that about three times a day! :toast:

[MADem]

399. Our Do Not Call works pretty well...except that we occasionally get calls from the RNC

and it is so strange because we are a houseful of registered Democrats, and have never had a Republican in the ranks, ever. I guess the list doesn't screen out political parties or charities, and the GOP don't have a lock on their mail and solicitation functions, apparently.

We do take turns fucking with them, though, and keeping them on the phone with obtuse questions for as long as we can get away with it...the best conversation that had us all rolling in the aisles was "Gee, I would LOVE to contribute...but I lost all of my pension money in that ENRON mess and I've had to go back to work to pay the heating bill, you see."

:toast:

[Dammit Ann]

404. HAHA!

Silly repugs, they make me laugh, through my tears, of course. Keep fucking with them, one day, they may figure out irony! By then, it will be way too late, of course...