How many people favor the new Blocking rules?

an·swered , an·swer·ing , an·swers

VERB:

intr.

1. To speak, write, or act as a return, as to a question.

2. To be liable or accountable: You must answer for your actions.

3. To serve the purpose; suffice: "Often I do use three words where one would answer" (Mark Twain).

4. To correspond; match: I found a dog answering to that description.

okay, here goes! If we hold to #1 as the definition of the "purpose" of this forum, then the answer i am compelled to give would be "yes", counterproductive. IF one holds to the definition of #3 then the answer can be interpreted as "no". because when viewed from a broader perspective, ie; psychologically, then we can easily see the purpose of the forum as being a "validation" of a position one holds as in "See, I´m right! Look how many ppl agree with me!" Thus the blatant rejection of dispassionate discourse with its inherent feature of opposing viewpoints, would be considered

"counter productive" to the outcome they sought to achieve. If memory serves me, this falls under "phallacies of logic".But, alas, "Philosophy-101" was many years ago....Hope i didnt just embarass myself!!!

I agree with your stand point. There are other sites that can be used for idle minded, bubble gum chewers. Is this fair? No. Blocking Rules originally are for those who are abusive to others, whereas, the receiver feels threatened either by physical and/or mental harm.

However, in Yahoo's Disclaimer, it states...

"By submitting a question to Yahoo! Answers, you acknowledge that Yahoo! is not responsible for any response you receive or do not receive, and you agree to hold Yahoo! harmless from any loss, harm, injury or damage resulting from or arising out of your submission of the question or your use of or reliance on any response thereto".

On a personal level...I feel your frustration as I am frustrated as well. Maybe, "People in numbers" will gain the attention to this matter, I would not like to see a "Blocking War" start. The problems I see with this -

1. People seeking answers to particular questions, (Whatever they may be) are cheated by an open forum of life's experiences and/or testimonies.

2. If this is solely done to promote self gain for "Points".

Which if the later is the reason, then a serious inquiry should be implemented.

To those who block - Narcissism is not a good thing.

OK,here is my opinion. And I suppose everyone has an opinion. I don't see any use of blocking no one unless they get nasty.

If I ask a question I don't care who all answer my question. It doesn't matter if they agree or disagree with me. At least I got some answers to look at maybe it would help me make a decision.

I love to answer questions, If I know any thing about what they are asking.

And I see no reason to block some one that doesn't like Bush, Just say what you want to say and go on,

Any way I haven't been on here long, and don't know much about blocking people. I just don't pay no attention to people trying to cause trouble, and try to stay away from them.

You cant make someone like you, I like you if you like me. If you don't like me I don't bother you no more, I put distance between me and you. That solves a lot of problems .

Don't mean to scratch any one dandruff.

Sorry I got off the problem running my mouth.

But I see no need to block people.

Queen Bee

The reality is that so many people are getting invalid violations, & one can always tell by an answer if a troll is following you. I would block that person. Also, those with a pattern of insulting, obscene postings. People who don't ike being suspended don't feel that way just for losing points; it's the trolls who don't care about losing points, & when deleted just come back again & again. I would NEVER block someone simply because they disagree with me, & I don't use thumbs down. I use the flag to report only valid, blatant violations. Nothing is perfect, & while this feature may be abused--I really don't know--I think it's the best Y/A could do to partially solve increasing trolls. Unfortunate that we need to "protect" ourselves, but that's the way it seems to be. I have no desire to go into hiding, & while some users have similar contacts, this doesn't mean they've chosen only those who agree with them. I have contacts whose views are totally different than mine, & don't even go to the same categories, but there are times when I'm interested in what they have to say, because I have found them intelligent, & civil. In a perfect world, everyone would be.

I have not seen any blocked but your question surprised me. If anything like this is happening it is definitely bad feature and it would degrade the whole system for sure.

I prefer to see a separated category for such people to go there and ask question as much as they want and not allow some to answer. If it would be separated then that's OK and for example i would know this gategory and I just disregard them.

It is frustrating to find a really juicy question you'd like to sink your teeth into, only to find yourself blocked from doing so. However, the folks who block anyone with dissenting opinions weren't likely to pay any attention to your well thought-out response anyway. I do find it ironic, that the trolls seem to make the heaviest use of the anti-troll system.

It's also cut way back on the troll droppings I get in my inbox, where I just get insults and threats hurled at me. All in all, I like the blocking system. If someone doesn't want to hear what I've got to say, then I don't especially want to talk to them.

Your question is, of course, valid; whether the blocking feature inhibits free and open discourse on this forum; however, consider the reason why Yahoo installed this function in the first place: to help inhibit the malicious reporting and responses of recurrent trolls. Their motive was surely just as valid.

No matter what Yahoo does, the two most representative political philosophies will continue to "preach to their own choir" and give each other high-fives.

This forum never was - and never will be - a viable resource for the expression of civil discourse.

For most, it's all about the slur, the insult, etc.

I wish it was otherwise...but it's not.

I could not agree with you more.

I think what has happened is there have been a lot of trolls reporting and getting accounts suspended.

But what I don't understand is why that matters. So you get suspended. Big deal. Are the imaginary points and levels how they determine their worth? I have been suspended

more times that I can remember. So have the people that I enjoy the most here.

But you're right. Isn't the whole purpose of this site to let a free flow of ideas and personalities mix? Not just a small group of friends high fiving each other.They might as will go back to junior high school.

There are cliques that develop here. Ok. let them isolate themselves.

Me? I would rather take the hits from the trolls than settle into a nice and safe little place where everybody agrees with me.

To answer your question of how many people favor the blocking rules I would estimate it to be approximately 30%. That figure is in line with the Bush approval ratings. Probably 30% of the population is in favor of blocking democracy as well.

It's frightening that the figures go that high.

Goodness gracious and mercy me!

Get any reaction to this question?

I thought blocking was a really bad idea every time I encountered it being suggested in the Forum.

To my mind, the worst thing about it is it undermines the whole Guidelines/Abuse Report system.

Of course, most participants on this site seem completely unaware of those items, as this system inexplicably hides them.

I didn't read all the answers posted before me, but, as with many other questions and answers about this site, I see that a LOT of people don't realize that insults, and not answering questions (as well as hate speech and spam and non-questions) all violate the Guidelines for using this site (link, bottom of page) and that the appropriate response to abuse is to use Report Abuse (not the thumbs, which do nothing).

Blocking interferes with this system in 2 ways: People block trolls, rather than reporting them, so the trolls, rather than being investigated and banned by Yahoo, flourish; trolls post a question, then block everyone who disagrees with them (as you point out in your question), hiding them from people who might otherwise report them, to better hide from staff.

Yahoo has said that they will investigate people that have been blocked by a lot of people (on the grounds that, if a lot of people block someone, that person may be a troll), but still, this can be counterproductive. If a lot of trolls block you (for instance), then Yahoo would waste time checking your Q&A.

There's also hiding one's Q&A from everyone except their "Network" (contacts and fans, in the site lingo), that puts one in a micro-world of agreers.

There's much that's silly about this site. By blocking reasonable people of opposing views, one can post a rant, and get nothing but "Well said!" in reply. Gee, don't you feel good about yourself to learn that people who agree with you, uh, agree with you?

But silliest of all is how Yahoo hides from users the basic rules of conduct (Guidelines), and refuses to tell violators what, exactly, they did wrong (so they can avoid doing it again).

Yes, between blocking and networking, Yahoo is making the site one where there are little communities, cut off from the rest of the site, where people can mindlessly agree with the like-minded, and they can all feel like geniuses together.

I've seen quite a few of your answers, and, as someone who's (usually) a stickler for the Guidelines, I've never seen you violate any of them.

Your being blocked by lots of users is completely absurd, and evidence that Yahoo has failed to convey to users what this site is FOR.

I mean, come ON, you have useful expertise in your area, and share it; you explain why you say what you say; you distinguish when you're answering from your expertise from when you're simply saying what you think.

You're one of the people this site NEEDS to be what it was intended.

Yet Yahoo is slowly turning what COULD be a valuable question & answer service into a chat site, socializing bunch of clubs, a non-helpful and less interesting place.

Tragic, isn't it?

I am sorry to hear you are having difficulty with this feature. As a rule, I don't block people, although there is one on my list. A clone/troll, which is what the function of blocking is for.

I have always found your answers to be well thought out and informed. You are, in my opinion, fair. (I generally agree with you, though, so I don't know if my opinion counts. ;-)

In a forum such as this, there will always be those who abuse the system. Unfortunately, I don't see a way of ridding ourselves of the trolls, clones, gamers, and closed minds. After awhile, I learn who the trolls are that like to post incendiary questions. The few times I was reported, I deserved it for being insulting to the questioner. One time I was entrapped, fell right into it, and since then I try to remember to be civil. Your answers are always civil. It is too bad that there are people out there who aren't willing to listen to opposing views, intelligently written and to the point. It is their loss, even though I know it is exasperating for you.