Reply #57: That's the way I see it

[Time for change]

I understand the purpose of the blocking function, but I think that it has substantial potential for abuse. It may or may not be true that it is abused infrequently, but when it is, it has the potential to hurt us because then people are left with false ideas, and if we spread them around that discredits us. The ability of people to respond to posts to correct misinformation, or at least argue about it, is one of the things that makes DU a very informative site. That's why I'm glad that WillOurVoteBCounted corrected this. Perhaps that kind of action will be the main way to prevent abuse of the blocking function.

Hell, nobody likes to be criticized. I make mistakes, and people call me on it from time to time, and I don't like it when that happens any more than most people do. But it would be wrong of me to block someone for doing that. If someone doesn't want to talk to me, fine. But if you post information or analysis on a public forum, you ought to be willing to respond to challenges to what you're saying. Otherwise, it's very much like the so-called "Town hall" meetings that Bush holds, where all the participants are pre-screened. Maybe it makes everyone at the meeting feel good, but it certainly does nothing for mental stimulation or the development or refinement of good ideas.

I hope that I don't ever succumb to the temptation to block someone for that reason. In fact, I hope that I don't block anyone at all, ever - though I can't promise that I won't. Maybe we'll get to the point where when someone posts an extensive and important analysis, if they want to be taken seriously, they'll have to state "Nobody is or will be blocked by me from responding to this message".

Tell me when and where the party is, and I'll be there :).