How the unrec feature can be utilized by our opponents.

[Luminous Animal]

Let's suppose that dozens of homo-phobic, anti-women, anti-birth control Focus on the Family members sign up on DU. They don't need to post but they can unrec.

Now let's suppose a great and positive topic countering any of the above (and an issue not likely to expand into the mainstream) gets posted on DU. An activist contingent of FOF members can keep that post off the Greatest page.

Many of our "enemies" use citizen activism to skew numbers in online polls, letters to the editor, and calls to our congresscritters. There is no doubt in my mind that they will try to manipulate DU.

[marmar]

1. Yeah. I don't like this unrecommend thing one bit.....

..... It's so open to abuse.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. WTF? This is a piss poor way to manipulate DU.

Take a look at GD:Presidential. The posts with most replies and at the top of that page on fire because of interest are all less than zero on recommendations.

Are you serious???? LOL. WHO THE FUCK CARES how many recs a topic has? If you like it...great. If you don't like it...great.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Because some people only have time to visit the greatest page.

Many of the posts that make the greatest have few comments or controversy and many of them are those written by our own members or independent bloggers rather than distillations or snips of current corporate news. Opening up these kind of posts to manipulation by outside agitators is not a good way to run a discussion board.

Long time ago on a board far far away (Michael Moore's old board), a group of white supremists invaded and nearly took over. (That was their goal.) The fact that they actually had to post also lent the opportunity for the community to fight back. It is impossible to fight back against anonymous unrecs.

[Luminous Animal]

7. Well, no it isn't.

Many people only have time to visit the greatest page while at work.

An many of the posts that make the greatest have few comments or controversy and many of them are those written by our own members or independent bloggers rather than distillations or snips of current corporate news. Opening up these kind of posts to manipulation by outside agitators is not a good way to run a discussion board.

Long time ago on a board far far away (Michael Moore's old board), a group of white supremists invaded and nearly took over. (That was their goal.) The fact that they actually had to post also lent the opportunity for the community to fight back. It is impossible to fight back against anonymous unrecs.

[Obamanaut]

12. Check the whole forum at your leisure - at home. N/T

[Luminous Animal]

23. I'll do that after I finish cooking dinner, doing the dishes,

and spending time with my friends and family.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Or make threads sowing seeds of dissent, getting credulous DUers to go along with them...

Oh, wait. That happens now.

[Ken Burch]

24. What do you mean "sowing seeds of dissent"?

It's right wingers that demonize dissenters, not us. And there's no left position that should be suppressed on DU.

Nobody has ever really done a thread on DU that did President Obama any harm.

Why don't you trust free speech?

You have a union symbol on your posts. I'm a union man myself. Working people never benefit from discussions being choked off. It's only management that gains from that.

[Beetwasher]

4. What Makes You Think The Rec ONLY Wasn't Already Being Abused In The Same Fashion???

Suppose that same group recc'ed up a homophobic, anti-woman, anti-birth control post to the top of the greatest page?

Or posted something ridiculously inflammatory that barely skates the rules and had their troll group rate it up??

Now there's balance. It's called Democracy.

[redqueen]

18. That's exactly how I see it.

It was no less vulnerable to abuse before.

[Beetwasher]

30. Actually, It Was More Vulnerable

Now there's balance.

[omega minimo]

21. If it was Democracy, the total Recs and NonR would show.

[Beetwasher]

32. Meh

I can understand why they wouldn't show the amount of negatives in a negative rated post as opposed to a positive rated post.

You CAN see the amount of negs in a positive rated post. Not in a negative one. And I understand the probable thinking in that decision. Essentially I would guess it's to spare the feelings of the poster and ASSUMING the post was in good faith, but negatively rated. IOW, if you make a post that's negatively rated, it might hurt your feelings if you see how lopsided that rating may have been.

In that vein, maybe they shouldn't show the total of the positives either, but merely rank them? I dunno. It ain't perfect, but it's better and more democratic than before.

[uppityperson]

37. Where does it show the # of negs in a pos post? I don't see them. Maybe they

changed it again?

[Ken Burch]

26. We've hardly ever had any threads like that here.

And any that started were immediately locked and their authors 'stoned. Isn't that enough?

[Beetwasher]

29. Oh, Really?

There have been plenty of threads barely skirting the rules that have been posted here slamming Obama or Dems or abortion etc. that have made it to the greatest. Obviously nothing blatant, but if you're "clever" enough you can skirt the rules and post something inflammatory that fits into any of the categories I mentioned.

[Luminous Animal]

38. Apparently, not. Now we have to pretend that DU is a democracy

and not a political discussion board. We, in the U.S., have so little experience with broad and deep political discussion. That we have to submit to the notion of popularity to air and discuss democratic ideas to the will of the mob further limits the opportunity to not only hone our own position, but to expose us the broadening our perspective.

[uppityperson]

36. Exactly. Rec function was manipulated also

[Bicoastal]

5. But each one can only unrecommend a single thread ONCE.

And we have plenty of people here to cancel out those trolls.

[Luminous Animal]

9. How would you know that they are trolls?

There is no comment involved to suss them out. They can quite simply squelch the discourse without saying a word.

[blogslut]

8. You sell us short

We're pretty good at sniffing out trolls.

[Luminous Animal]

11. How could you possibly know whether an unrec comes from a troll?

Let's say there is a great pro-gay non-controversial topic. 56 people rec it, 55 anti-gay activists unrec it. It will now show up as only one rec.

[blogslut]

20. Well, for one thing

Trolls are addicted to attention - they rarely stay silent. Trolls aren't activists. Trolls are people whose mission is to disrupt. Disruption via rec/unrec is barely effective. Logical people read topics based on the content contained in the title, not recommends.


Frankly, I think your argument comes too close to calling out existing DU members.

[Luminous Animal]

39. I'm not trying to insult you...

but you have little understanding of your political opponents.

There were several well-respected and well-liked DUers who outed themselves as Bush supporters after the 2004 election. These were people who posted here for several years and pretty much fooled everyone. The realization and fallout was sorrowful.

[blogslut]

40. I'm not insulted

I know very well that there have/are posers that come here to disrupt and some of them remain a long time before they out themselves, or are outed by others. I started posting here around the time of the 2004 election. While I may have missed those past trolls reveal themselves, I've certainly encountered enough of them since to realize that most of them aren't what I consider to be political activists. They are shit-stirrers convinced that "invading" a message board actually means something. They come, they post, they rec, they unrec and in the end DU stands strong because the majority of our members are earnest people looking for common ground and the occasional friendly reply.

We will survive our new feature and this place will continue to be full of life, information, discussion, argument, silliness and most important: DEMOCRATS.

[Luminous Animal]

41. Just to clarify... these were peple who gained this community's trust.

They posted regularly for several years. The betrayal was heart-breaking for many people.

They didn't disrupt but rather, engaged in a stealth campaign. I honestly think that the unrec option opens up DU to an anonymous campaign to squelch democratic ideas and, as important, perhaps a method to suppress fringe ideas within the Democratic party that deserve more than an offhand click of an unrec button.

[blogslut]

42. And I respectfully disagree

n/t

[SidneyCarton]

10. Paranoia strikes deep man...

They could just kidnap Skinner, brainwash him, and have him do mass tombstonings.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Go ahead and accuse me of being something that I am not.

I have seen board invasions happen on both ZNet and the old Michael Moore discussion board. In both cases, it was a conscientious decision by the invaders.

There is a good reason why Daily Kos has had to tinker with their ratings systems over the years (and are currently updating). Rating systems are open to abuse and the looser the guidelines are, the more opportunities for abuse to occur.

[SidneyCarton]

15. Sure, it could happen, I won't argue that.

Yet it seems that you are one of a large contingent here on DU that bellows and hollers, and is generally against any improvement or tinkering that Skinner & Co. do on DU. I'm sure if it turns out the way you fear, the Admins will act on it accordingly, with plenty of granite cookies to go around.

[Luminous Animal]

25. I think you have me confused with someone else.

[eleny]

14. And how many people will say they Unrecommended?

I'm happy to tell posters "K&R". I believe that this new feature will be an anonymous weapon.

[scheming daemons]

16. The rec feature has been utilized by our opponents in the past...

To get garbage to the Greatest Page

[Luminous Animal]

27. I've seen very little garbage on the greatest.

And when it has shown up, there is a lively debate within the topic.

[Beetwasher]

33. Whoo Boy

Well, I guess it depends on one's definition of "garbage". I've seen plenty.

[KharmaTrain]

17. I'm Already Missing The MJ Threads

What a waste of angst...sheesh...

[Redneck Socialist]

35. LOL. n/t

[TomCADem]

19. Couldn't "Recommend" Also Be Abused, Then?

Shouldn't we remove both then?

[nomaco-10]

22. I love the unrec feature....

I've been laying on it since I came back in here today. Much needed. Thank You DU!

[immoderate]

28. This thread is a good example...

I think it's a worthy discussion, and it's already been knocked off the greatest page.

--imm

[Beetwasher]

31. Actually, It's A Good Example Of Something That Probably WOULD Have Been But Shouldn't Have Been

At least IMO and the majority of DU'ers.

And yet, somehow, even though it's not on the greatest, there's attention and discussion happening! Wow!

[Luminous Animal]

34. Indeed.

I had a post that asked for transparency re: the finances of DU (given that we are regularly asked to donate). Oh, the vilification! Really such out right nastiness, you would have thought I proposed pulling the eyeballs out of living dogs. It made near the top of the greatest page and surely, based on the comments, was not worthy. But. Lo! Skinner chimed in and remarked that I had a legitimate point and (haha) all the criticism stopped.

This illustrates 2 points:

1) Though some people are willing to rec unpopular posts, they are reticent about supporting them publicly. And..
2) DUers (as is the case with the rest of society) often run with the herd. That is, someone will be slammed most viciously until a popular authority chimes in.

This is a political discussion board. It should be based on the breadth of ideas and the willingness of those to stand up to support those ideas. DKos has tweaked with the "tyranny" of the mob. And they are tweaking, still. That reflects community.

There is a model to emulate and this is not it.