We've decided to remove the block function

[EarlG]

In the six years we've been running DU we've had some good ideas, and some bad ideas. It seems that the new block function turned out to be one of the bad ideas. As you know, we originally intended to run the trial of the block function until at least February 1, but given the response we've decided that we might as well put it out of its misery now.

To be clear, we still think that the block replies function is a good idea in principle, but it became apparent that most of you are very comfortable with the current setup and the function was too much of a change for most people's taste. We think that this system could still work on a brand new message board where the rules and expectations have not yet been set in stone, but that's obviously not the case at DU.

Let me recap briefly what we were trying to achieve with the new function. Running a message board the size of DU is not like running a smaller message board. The bigger a message board gets, the more difficult it is to moderate in a "top-down" fashion, and when the board reaches the size that DU has it is natural to look for certain ways in which the members can take more control of their own experience and solve their own problems without the intervention of a third party (the moderators).

The block function was not something that the Admins just suddenly thought of three weeks ago - we discussed it for months before we decided to test it. We understood that the block function would cause a fundamental change in the way that DU works - essentially we took a system which had operated for six years under the principle that a message board thread belongs to everyone (with moderator oversight, of course), and changed it so that the person who starts the thread has some control over it.

We thoroughly considered this change. We anticipated all the ways it would be used and abused; we knew what your biggest concerns would be; we also anticipated that it would be a shock to a lot of you. But we didn't anticipate that so many people would be unwilling to give it a chance. The irony is that the system worked pretty much exactly the way we thought it would - the vast majority of members didn't use it at all, and the majority of the ones who did blocked only a few people. Yes, there were a few people who abused the system - as we expected some would - but they did so by isolating themselves in the process. (Read http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=14094&mesg_id=25981">points 2 through 5 in this post by a DUer who understood what we were attempting to do.)

Unfortunately we do not believe that we will be able to overcome the perception that the worst-case scenario of massive abuse would come to pass. In retrospect, we should have realized that this would be a problem. When we proposed a member-moderation/rating system some time ago, the membership made it clear that they prefer the top-down moderation system we currently have in place to a peer-review system in which they are "judged" by one another, primarily because of the perception that their peers would abuse the system.

Having said that, it is encouraging that so many of you trust us to run DU under the current top-down system. This does give us some hope going into the upcoming presidential primaries, because the current system is going to be in place for the forseeable future.

Those of you who were here for the primaries in 2004 will remember that it was a difficult time for almost everyone, not least for the moderators who were constantly bombarded with accusations of bias and favoritism. Some of you guessed correctly that among other things, our thoughts were turning to the upcoming primary season when we developed the block function. The block function was not primarily intended to be a solution to the "primaries problem" but we thought it might be of use.

We're sorry if you felt that the system was a good idea and were making use if it, but some good has come out of this episode: while the block function has been met with much disapproval, it has at least given us some useful information on how to approach the primaries. Also, we are keeping the other improved ignore functions, including the ability to block private messages without having to completely ignore someone.

So, finally, thank you for your patience while we gave this function a trial run - we understand that it was not particularly pleasant for many of you, and we apologize for any inconvenience caused.

The DU Administrators