A quick summary of the improvement is that, if you don't like someone, you can block them from responding to you directly in all threads, and from responding at all in threads you start. To your blockees, threads you start will behave as though locked.

Good idea or bad idea...and why?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 64x3076551 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3076551)

A quick summary of the improvement is that, if you don't like someone, you can block them from responding to you directly in all threads, and from responding at all in threads you start. To your blockees, threads you start will behave as though locked.

Good idea or bad idea...and why?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 64x3076551 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3076551)

Bad idea.

If one wants to ignore someone, that is fine with me. But why shut down discourse to do so? INstead, would it not be better just to have the ignorer not be able to see the work of his chosen ignoree?

If I put up a thread that said yada yada yada was what I thought and KOBH says in response, "No, rabba rabba rabba" (Sorry about that Dino of the Black Hole :) ) why should not everyone who views the discussion be able to see that exchange. It is up to me the ignorer whether *I* want to see the exchange. It is not up to me whether YOU want to. A person who chooses to participate in the exchange by using ignore in This Place will be doing so because they do not want to - or cannot adequately - defend their point. It will not be because some DLCer comes running everytime you put up a thread that is anti-imperialistic; this is a material difference than the situation at the faux big tent of DU.

A quick summary of the improvement is that, if you don't like someone, you can block them from responding to you directly in all threads, and from responding at all in threads you start. To your blockees, threads you start will behave as though locked.

Good idea or bad idea...and why?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 64x3076551 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3076551)

Bad idea.

If one wants to ignore someone, that is fine with me. But why shut down discourse to do so? INstead, would it not be better just to have the ignorer not be able to see the work of his chosen ignoree?

If I put up a thread that said yada yada yada was what I thought and KOBH says in response, "No, rabba rabba rabba" (Sorry about that Dino of the Black Hole :) ) why should not everyone who views the discussion be able to see that exchange. It is up to me the ignorer whether *I* want to see the exchange. It is not up to me whether YOU want to. A person who chooses to participate in the exchange by using ignore in This Place will be doing so because they do not want to - or cannot adequately - defend their point. It will not be because some DLCer comes running everytime you put up a thread that is anti-imperialistic; this is a material difference than the situation at the faux big tent of DU.

Believe it or not..I agree with you. Which actually, I normally do :)

I'm wondering one thing though: lets say I really, really dislike Redstone. Could I post a response to him, slam his stupid ass on ignore and thereby prevent him from responding to me?

If that kind of tactic is going to be possible, I predict a lot of upcoming "ignore wars" -- you ignored me? FINE! you're on ignore!

I mean the truth is there are so many people of totally different political persuasions out there, this is not a bad idea in a certain sense. Like if everyone chose pre-identified labels for themselves like "DLCer", "Suburban Liberal", "Barry Goldwater Democrat" etc then you could just block by label :) (and in turn they could block all "Crackpot Intellectuals" from their discussions)

What's the point if you aren't willing to listen? Might as well talk to yourself or the amen choir because it is listening to those who challenge us on many different levels, who more accurately reflect the world.
Typical DU stagnation and regression.

I wonder if there is a way to go the opposite direction?

All of the banning, alerting, ignoring etc. - what is that based on?

At PI recently, we saw that people were motivated by annoyance with anyone - by merely expressing a contrary opinion - who was harshing their buzz, breaking up their lovefest and mutual admiration society, spreading blasphemy among the faithful.

Are people afraid of opposing positions? At DU, why dis-invite "Republicans?" How can DU convert anyone if it is a membership requirement that people already be converted? On the other hand, so long as one claims to be a Dem and doesn't criticize Hillary or otherwise express disloyalty to the team, they can spout conservative views all day long without being challenged. They can claim that those conservative views are not conservative. If they are challenged, the challenger is then viewed with suspicion.

There was a flap at PI between David Mills and me. He was aggressively defending and promoting capitalism, "free markets," and "personal responsibility." I merely pointed out the obvious - that he was expressing the traditional Republican view of economics. No big deal. I didn't intend it as an insult - I don't think it is an insult. I don't have a problem with Republicans. The problem I have is when Republicanism is called "Left." That causes terrible confusion.

On the other hand, a free-for-all can result in people trashing out the board for the fun of it. If a group of people was sitting at a table, or in a meeting all and having a discussion, people would not be free to do or say anything they wanted to.

Why not have some sort of procedure? You file a grievance, there is some sort of due process with a group (rotating or elected or volunteers or whatever) passing judgment based on an agreed upon criteria?