Mods close poll about the DU "Block" feature - this is absolutely unbelievable.

[lindisfarne]

Talk about suppressing dissent (or even affirmation).

I'm wondering if I'm now going to be banned for pointing this out. But if DU cannot handle this criticism, then I do not need DU.

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

See here if you're unaware of the Block feature.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3086082&mesg_id=3086082

[babylonsister]

You were told it's being evaluated. What more do you want?

This is a new deal on DU, so chill and let the admins decide what happens, or get banned for being a PITA. This is a big site to monitor.

[lindisfarne]

2. They can't evaluate it while DUers discuss it? How can they evaluate it without feedback?

How can DUers evaluate it without talking to others about it, getting differing opinions as to what others like or dislike about it?

[Blue_In_AK]

3. I'm sure they've noticed the feedback already.

A person would have to be blind not to. :rofl: I think you should just chill and see what happens.

[lindisfarne]

7. That certainly is one approach. But if DUers want to discuss it, in my opinion, it should be allowed

Obviously, the moderators can decide otherwise. But DUers can decide to leave.

I cannot believe the irony - the squashing of opinions, giving others the ability to quash replies which oppose their views. And then the moderators stop discussion of whether this ability should have been granted.

[greyl]

9. Jesus, you've edited your post to add links to the discussions.

Stop saying there's no discussion and join one. :)

[lindisfarne]

16. I began this thread because a POLL was locked. That is the issue. n/t

[A-Schwarzenegger]

14. Hope you wont freak too much when/if this is locked.

[lindisfarne]

15. That will be my signal to leave this community. I don't endorse BushCo for doing similar things - I

won't endorse it here.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

17. Youll leave if this thread is locked?

Are you packed?

[lindisfarne]

20. Yes, I'll leave. If DU cannot tolerate a poll about this BLOCK feature and

DU starts locking threads merely to stop discussion (or polling), then I don't need this community.

Democrats, of all people, should understand how hypocritical it is to criticize BushCo and then turn around and carry out such petty censorship here.

I personally do not like the BLOCK feature. And if it stays around, I will leave as well. If people cannot tolerate opposition to their views, they should not participate here. And if DU is going to become a forum where opposition can be suppressed, I won't get anything out of reading the posts, anyhow. I've stated my opinion in more detail in the thread which originally introduced the BLOCK feature (see message #1 for that link).

[greyl]

27. See ya. nt

[greyl]

5. Your complaint is unfounded.

With about 800 replies to the original sticky, there is plenty of talking about it going on.

edit: about 900

[lindisfarne]

13. Hmm. Just how was a poll BAD? Obviously it was in the moderator's view.

The poll was going to be meaningless, but that's not the issue. The issue is shutting out debate - just as BushCo does, and we here at DU have criticized BushCo strongly for this. Why endorse it here? The Democrats need to lead by example, including this forum.

Yes, we all know that "rules" are set, and that certain people can write rules that say "Thou shalt not begin polls questioning our decision about the BLOCK feature". But when such a rule is written, I shall cease to participate in this forum.

[babylonsister]

23. Well, if you're that rabid about it, don't let the door hit you in the ass.

You protest too much imo. I've been on DU for years, and most times the closure of threads/debates are warranted. Stop threatening if you're serious, and write to the admins like a grown-up instead of complaining here.

[lindisfarne]

31. *I* protest too much? I think you have me confused with someone else, frankly.

This is the first issue I've protested w.r.t. rules (written, or, apparently, unwritten here.)

I believe too much in open discussion to BLOCK the opposition so I won't in this thread!

[babylonsister]

42. I've never 'blocked' anyone, but your harping is a bit over the top imo.

It's all new, to everyone. Those that chose to use it, the mods that chose to close it, it's all new. It will eventually get sorted out, as this site has a way of doing.

I wasn't 'dissing' you, lindisfarne. Just stating the obvious imo.

[lindisfarne]

43. Beginning a discussion, pointing out an event, replying to others, is "harping"?n/t

[babylonsister]

46. Yep. See post #39, and sleep well. That's where I'm headed. nt

[A-Schwarzenegger]

6. "PITA"?

[babylonsister]

8. My 'pet name' for my DH: PAIN IN THE ASS!

And we're celebrating our 25th anniversary next month. :P

And DH is 'dear husband' for those out of the 'know'.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

11. !

Pre-Congrabulations!

[Lautremont]

1. But the ignore feature's been around, like, forever.

[lindisfarne]

4. Oh sorry I meant the "BLOCK" feature .. link here for info if you're unaware.

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

I'll edit my title.

[jgraz]

10. Since it was my post that got locked...

I'll just say that I put it up with the best intentions of simply wanting to see what the current group-think was. I can understand that the mods might have been a bit sensitive to such posts, especially since I've been a pretty vocal critic of the new feature.

At this point, I'm not too fussed about it -- they seem to have let many of the discussion threads go on for quite a while. I assume this means that they're interested in reading feedback on the new blocks.

[greyl]

22. I wouldn't take it personally.

It's not like the mods and admins can keep track of every single discussion here.
Better to keep one thread for such a topic, I'd say.

[jgraz]

33. yeah, I'm not taking it personally

I'm just guessing that the mods may be feeling a bit put-upon right now. I didn't want them to feel I was trying to pile on.

[greyl]

37. Yeah, I'd be curious about the poll results, too.

But after it's tallied, it still wouldn't exactly be "scientific". ;)

Just another thread with arguments that have been dealt with. I think they've listened to everyone, and are going back to the drawing board.

[Raine]

12. What is the big deal

about the ignore feature, it you don't like it don't use it. The continual debate about it reminds me of the conservatives who constantly fight change and may lose something that could improve their lives cause of it.

[Lautremont]

18. I would guess the big deal is that it can be used on you

and so is not simply a matter of "if you don't like it, don't use it."

In the meantime, however, I'm adhering to just that suggestion.

[GreenZoneLT]

19. It's not just an ignore feature

The new block feature prevents you from posting on threads, if the person you want to respond to has blocked you from doing so.

I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but it's a lot more than an ignore feature.

I imagine it will just generate more redundant threads, as blocked people start a new thread in response to the one they're blocked from.

[jgraz]

24. nope, new threads get locked

as they "continue the argument". Once the OP blocks you, you're done discussing that subject until their thread gets archived. It's a pretty draconian feature as it's currently implemented.

[lindisfarne]

25. Especially if it's in LBN, where you CANNOT post another thread to have your

views expressed.

[Sterling]

48. That is terrible, are they really doing this?

This is the kind of terrible idea I would expect from our government.

[Skittles]

29. the big deal is it is CENSORSHIP

if someone has me blocked and they start a thread and you respond to that thread, I CANNOT REPLY TO YOU. So even though YOU don't have me blocked, I cannot reply to you and YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IT.

[EFerrari]

21. This might be a good time to chill out. Skinner just had a baby

This new feature is very new.

This might be a good time to let it go for the moment. You know, it's just not that important.

[jgraz]

26. What the hell? Are you trying to tell us his new kid is more important than we are?

That guy needs to re-evaluate his priorities.

(kidding, in case you can't tell)

[EFerrari]

35. I 'm still wanting to know Lucas' user name so I can block him.

lol

[jgraz]

36. They named their son Lucas? Cool name

But yeah, let's block the little squirt. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

38. Really! He's a disruptor!

:rofl:

[lindisfarne]

28. It's wonderful he's a dad. But then this wasn't a great time to implement a feature

that was clearly going to be very controversial.

I'm sure he hasn't slept much since the birth ...

[EFerrari]

32. I remember being sleep deprived for years, lol.

:)

[jgraz]

30. Isn't there already an open thread on this topic?

If so, I'll respectfully suggest we help the mods out and take our discussion over there.

[lindisfarne]

34. Yes, this thread was about the closing of the Poll - opinions about the

BLOCK feature should go in the original thread (see msg. #1 for link).

[LittleClarkie]

It's not a democracy

It's a benevolent dictatorship.

And generally comments about the moderation are asked to be sent privately to the mods.

[EFerrari]

40. That's what I say out loud to my puppy on our walks.

"This is NOT a democracy."

:rofl:

[northofdenali]

39. I think this whole thing is totally blown out of proportion.

Anger management issues? I can't see this as DU not being "able to handle criticism" - never seen that, at least since I've been on the board (2002). If something this simple is going to inflame you, I recommend staying away from any of the upcoming primary fights.

It's not like there aren't a number of other threads out there about the new feature, whether positive or negative. Even the OP isn't this upset about being locked.

Take a chill pill. Relax, hit the Lounge for a bit, get a good nights sleep.

[lindisfarne]

41. It's hypocrisy. If we do it or endorse it here on DU,we're hypocrites if we criticize BushCo for the

same thing.
Edit: By "it" I mean shut down others' views (be they oppositional or supportive), or even, shut down one thread that was a well-behaved discussion.

[EFerrari]

45. It's nothing of the sort. The admins added a feature to see if DUers

could use it. That's why this site works so well, because the admins are always working on it.

If you are not liking it, you have means to give your feedback.

So, what is the continuing problem? Why not give it a rest for now?

[lindisfarne]

47. This thread, as I've stated above, wasn't about BLOCK; it was about a poll being shut down./n/t

[EFerrari]

49. And per DU rules, the rules you agree to when you post here,

it would be appropriate to flag a mod or email the admins.

You know, DU will sort this out. If this new thing isn't working, it will be changed. :)

[Renew Deal]

44. You're a dead man walking.

;) j/k

The block from responding feature is terrible. You can block any person that disagrees with you. It's a great way to silence dissent. Are anti-choice dems supposed to ignore choice threads? Are pro-gun dems supposed to ignore gun threads? Are certain candidates supporters supposed to ignore posts about whichever other candidates? It's undemocratic.

[Heidi]

50. Locking.

Per the DU Rules: Treat the moderators and administrators with respect. Do not post messages attacking the moderators or administrators. http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

FYI, the referenced poll was locked by EarlG, a DU Admin, and not by a Mod. If you want to discuss the new block feature, please follow the link the OP to the open discussion thread. If you want to express concerns about DU Moderation and policies, please do so privately by contacting the DU Admins: http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html

Thank you,

Heidi,
DU Moderator