[Mark Allinson]

Most writers on Eratosphere are intelligent and thoughtfully engaging, but I want to remind people that if certain posters offend you, you can block their posts:
http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/faq.ph...lesome_us ers

Now here's a great way to smash up a poetry board - just select all the people who disagree with you, and click them off to a cyber-gulag where they will remain silenced forever.

We need never ban another member - just turn off their posts.

The rubric to GT needs changing, I think -

"Debate is welcome, but if contrary opinions upset you, or you are not used to any degree of opposition, then simply tailor the board to your desired membership."

This could be interesting, with maybe 3 or 4 sub-cultures here all rabbiting away with absolutely no awareness of the other groups' posts.

In fact, I am working on a list now.

Anyone want to be on my board within a board, or will I inhabit my own private 'Sphere?

===========

Edited back -

I just realized that it is entirely possible that this thread won't get any replies, since maybe no one can see it!

[Stephen Collington]

Did somebody say something?

Why is the post at the top of the thread here blank?

[Mark Allinson]

Ha!

We had the same thought at the same moment, Stephen.

Hello, hello, Stephen ... are you reading me?

Over.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

I'm just trying to imagine what it would be like to try to follow a thread with whole sections blanked out.

It would be like deliberately leaving a room each time someone you didn't much care for or tended to disagree with said something and coming back and trying to pick up the pieces of the old conversation with no real knowledge of what the current conversation was about.

Besides, how boring would it be if we all agreed all the time?

Sometimes the people I like responding to the best are the ones who aggravate me the most. Sometimes they're the ones I learn the most from.

[Mark Allinson]

But Lo, how is it possible to TOLERATE posts that oppose one's whole belief-system?

Surely that is too much to expect from intelligent folk today.

No, click them off to a cyber-gulag!

The principle is tried and tested - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - they all swore by it.

[Quincy Lehr]

Originally Posted by Mark Allinson

No, click them off to a cyber-gulag!

The principle is tried and tested - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - they all swore by it.

Mark... sense of proportion?

[Mark Allinson]

Mark... sense of proportion?

Well, yes - you have a point, Quincy.

Being cyber-gulagged on a po-board is nowhere near as uncomfortable as the real thing, I admit.

But you have to admit, the principle of ostracism, exclusion and shunning of opposition is identical in both instances, no?

[Michael Cantor]

Good lord! Getting serious, I think that the idea of being able to block from your view any post put up (not just PMs, but actual public posts) by anybody you don't like, or disagree with, is totally alien to the purpose of the Sphere, has the potential to destroy intelligent dialogue, and is a feature that I would normally associate with (if anything) some kind of preteen chat room.

When Carol first mentioned this, and I responded on her thread, I assumed that it referred to blocking PMs. It was only after reading the exchanges above, that it dawned on me that the system allows blocking anything a specific individual posts. In effect, creating a sanitized sphere-within-the-Sphere where you don't have to be annoyed by those pesky folk who might disagree with your ideas, or not admire your poem.

I assume that the Sphere is based on a standard software package for discussion sites, and that the package includes this feature. My understanding is that the Adminstration has already either removed some other features or decided to ignore them, and I urge that we do the same with this one.

(Added in) Clarification: I have no objection if members want to block PMs from a specific individual. My problem is with blocking public posts that are part of a public discussion.

[Mark Allinson]

Michael, I thought that the best way to approach this was in a light vein, but I agree that it is very serious. And I agree that it could absolutely wreck the board.

Imagine the situation of a Balkanized Eratosphere, inhabited by mutually invisible cultures all talking over each other.

I would strongly support the disabling of such a device on this site.

[Allen Tice]

Originally Posted by Mark Allinson

I would strongly support the disabling of such a device on this site.

Oh, Come On!

What's the issue? Are we really wasting time looking for non-issues to run around in circles about? We're excitable enough around here. Do we have to invent problems?

Has this actually been a problem for anyone? I don't see a reason to remove a capability that might be useful for a few days sometimes. It's easy to "unignore".

Honestly, this seems to me to be focusing on a distraction.

"Oh we got trouble. We got trouble. Right here in Eratosphere City. Trouble with a Tee, and that rhymes with Bee, and that stands for Blocking. Yessir, we got trouble. Real trouble..."

I repeat, Has this actually been a problem for anyone?

If someone who felt aggrieved about being ignored were to complain about excessive discrimination, and it could be should determined that there was a cabal against that person (or a group), then even I might air this matter again, but not before.

Heck, if I were blocked by someone, I should think I'd have to evaluate my behavior towards that person as much as anything else. In a free society, no one has to endure malevolent crap. Free speech doesn't mean we can't use ear plugs.

Before too much energy is spent on this, I think the simple question should be asked, and all are invited to submit answers : Has use of this "ignore" option ever caused any long-term problem?

It doesn't take an IQ of 200 to see there are times when giving someone who bugs you a big Zero might smooth things out in the long run. In a way, it's a way of saying to someone, Stop annoying me, you genius.

Calm down, before we get all in a flap about a built-in check and balance (or safe-guard, if you will).

- Allen