so ethereum was an intentional split. rather then changing the rules for everyone to head in a single direction and let orphans take care of the minorty.
That doesn't mean it was intended to split the network. They intended for everyone to update to the fork. That code was included in case not enough hashpower updated before the DAO attacker could move his funds. This is similar to Mike Hearn's "checkpointing" in XT -- in case XT became the minority chain, keep the rules intact.
Are you saying consensus rule changes should be decided by "orphaning"? How would that even work? The reason a network split occurs in a hard fork is because
users haven't updated, and so some miners return to that chain.
Those users won't even see the rule-breaking chain no matter how long it is. "Those users won't even see the rule-breaking chain no matter how long it is. "
because they blacklist the nodes transmitting the changed rule.. to not even get that changed rule block
No, it's not because they blacklisted anybody. It's because those nodes broke the rules, transmitting invalid blocks. Like Satoshi said in the whitepaper, nodes "reject invalid blocks by refusing to work on them". This is true for any rule violation -- it's nothing to do with blacklisting, but the rules in the Bitcoin software. Blacklisting means "targeted". But the software's rules apply to everybody, no matter what. It doesn't matter
why the block is invalid -- could be that it includes double spends, doesn't matter. The point is that nodes ignore invalid blocks.