Block lists are now public

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have no idea what you are talking about.

months and years ago.

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

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

Radio Lady in Oregon

You are too clever!

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

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

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

:rofl:

Test related, for sure, but funny nonetheless.


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

:rofl:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Prof! :hi:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of posters blocked by the most people!

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

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

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

Anyway, its certainly interesting to see.

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

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

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

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

how will I no who wuz blocked at the time?

because persistent bad actors will show up on many lists!

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

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

Hahahahahahaha!

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

Is that a record?

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

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

Already.

How the heck does that happen?

people who have called them out??

Or, at least, people who are really sensitive.

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

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

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

This is my opinion only, and I am grateful that I am allowed to share that on this post, without being censured by a single individual. I suppose that is my whole entire point to my complete dislike of this feature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edited for missing word in title)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's what the old ignore was for.

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


and I quote Mr. Skinner himself:

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

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

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

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


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


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


Just asking.

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


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

edit to fix links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mods have been informed of this, too.

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

The thread is here. I alerted on it.

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

sorry for skimming past the rules.

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

Too many gleeful posts.

:rofl:

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

Hehehehehhe

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

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

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

Jengaoccolo.

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

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

so that nobody is prohibited from discussing breaking news topics?

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

Thanks for adding the block lists and for the explanation.

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

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

massive block wars and clicks forming because of this."

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

I may have just peed a little:)

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

This just smacks of public flogging...

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

peace!

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

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

What?

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

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

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

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

we mentioned earlier, eh?

They were all added yesterday out of spite.

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

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

That's a hoot!:rofl:

Bush's NSA programs?

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

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

we make their negativity public and encourage it to spread?

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

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

:spank::evilgrin::rofl:

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHHA!

Good one!

ignore is defensive.

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

PB

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

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

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

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

P.S. this took about five minutes.

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

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

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

...O...

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

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

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

it's good to know the weather.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:crazy:

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

I think a poll could be very illustrative here.





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

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

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

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

...etc.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

Poster 1: "excellent!"


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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is my hope that this is vigorously enforced.

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

:shrug:

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

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

It's already sort of distracting.

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

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

Blah. :-(

a negotiation.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:(

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

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

edit: to add a missing word

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

PB

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

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

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

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

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

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

of what I valued in the DU.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just hope it doesn't hurt, lol.

:)

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

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

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

poof!

What's going on please?

:evilgrin:

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

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

Weird.

It's gone for me now as well.

What's going on here?

??

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

I looked a little but didn't see any.

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

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

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

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

:D

:rofl:

:hide:

:rofl:

Godwin's law has been invoked. :yoiks:

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

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

But, EarlG, where's YOUR list?

Or am I just too dense to find it?

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

Just my small attempt at humor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


:rofl:

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