Why did anyone WANT an "unrecommend" feature, anyway?

[Ken Burch]

It just seems like a pointlessly negative thing. What threads did anybody start that other people felt they HAD to have another way of suppressing?

What brought this on, exactly?

[Towlie]

1. Maybe they want to be like Digg and Reddit.

[ContinentalOp]

102. Yep, or Slashdot, or Amazon ratings or any of the many other sites on the web...

that have been using this sort of system for years.

[FLAprogressive]

2. Easy....because a certain group of people are tired of seeing objectivity

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Yup. That's what I'd say, too.

[girl gone mad]

7. +1

[ixion]

15. yep...'xactly

+1

[Iggo]

111. Oh noes!!1 Teh clicks! teh clicks!!!111!

:rofl:

[Kingofalldems]

3. I'd like to see one for individual responses

[Mojambo]

4. Some people felt there was too much "unfair" criticism of Obama making it to the Greatest Page

[FLAprogressive]

8. they're the chris crocker GD:P types

[Mojambo]

10. I don't know that reference. n/t

[FLAprogressive]

14. remember the "leave britney alone" guy?

[Mojambo]

31. Ah. I always thought that was a girl.

[Ken Burch]

22. Here's the link to the ref:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc&feature=related

[omega minimo]

20. From comments in threads about this, it appears to be about "Obama bashing"

[Echo In Light]

84. That, and any criticism of the two party system in general.

[omega minimo]

93. There's two?

:wow: :bounce:

[Echo In Light]

96. Ha, well, you know what I'm driving at. Actually this new option only highlights the differences..

...that moderates would just as soon ignore or deny, so it may not be such a bad thing. Who knows?

[omega minimo]

97. We'll see.

:pals:

[timeforpeace]

6. Exactly. Been wondering why this was needed.

[SoCalDem]

9. I think it was about the "greatest" page

I never "go" there, but I guess there were times when all/most/some of the threads that showed up there, were excessively "the same"..

I've always wished we just had a number rating 1-10, and that it took a 7 or better to get to the "page"

[scheming daemons]

11. Because a disruptor and five friends could take tasteless OPs to the Greatest Page

[tkmorris]

18. Yeah and that happened ALL the time

Give it up. Seriously.

[FLAprogressive]

21. his example is someone posting a holocaust denial thread

LOL.

Like someone who posted a Holocaust denial thread wouldn't immediately get TS'ed let alone 5 recs.

we all know why this was implemented.

[Ken Burch]

24. Uh, could you clue in the rest of the class?

Was there some "Greatest" thread that was particularly evil recently?

[FLAprogressive]

28. Obviously not....mr. daemons has been using that as an example in his defense of the system

however.

[scheming daemons]

52. That was one extreme example... here's another....

OP in which poster says "Obama is secretly a Kenyan-born usurper who was chosen by Big Money at the expense of REAL progressives"


EASILY at least five people on DU would recommend.


With no counterbalance, that tripe ends up on the greatest page.

[Ken Burch]

65. Isn't the "alert" feature counterbalance enough?

And why even worry about a thread like that(other than the fact that it was only Republicans who ever questioned Obama's citizenship)since the mods would immediately lock it?

Really, no actual DU thread has ever been all that unfair about President Obama. And President Obama has made it clear that he doesn't want discussion and debate to ever be restricted, so you're dishonoring him in supporting things like this.

[Echo In Light]

90. "Counterbalance" doesn't matter for those who prefer to deem leftists as "whiners" a la Repug style

Upon browsing the threads pertaining to this I noticed how those who are so gleeful re this un-Rec option are quick to call those questioning it "whiners," a long time fave insult used by rightward types against progressives/leftists.

[scheming daemons]

25. That's an extreme example, to be sure.....

But valid.

[omega minimo]

23. "Tasteless"? That's not something the Admins and Mods could address? What are you talking about?

[girl gone mad]

50. I can count the number of "tasteless" threads I've seen on one hand.

If that was the reason, then it was poorly conceived.

[Echo In Light]

92. It's called REACHING in order to dodge the real reason some are sooo happy over the unrec option

[jody]

12. It could be part of the "Hope, Change"movement. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

13. I hadn't really thought about it until the feature came out...

But it makes perfect sense to me. If people are allowed to push one direction, why shouldn't people be allowed to push the other direction?

[Ken Burch]

29. You can do that by DEBATING the people pushing in the opposite way

Why should a small cabal be able to BLOCK any thread they don't like from the Greatest page?

You're assuming the motives of "unrecommenders" would automatically be purer and more honorable than "recommenders".

[BlooInBloo]

33. Why not allow pushing against in ALL WAYS that people are able to push pro?

I assume the motives of either side are equally honorable or dishonorable.

[Ken Burch]

51. Is it ever really necessary to try to stop a discussion on DU?

That's the only point of "unrecommending"-to prevent those you disagree with from getting a hearing.

Can you please name any thread(other than ones that are obviously offensive in a personal way or are examples of bigotry)that NEEDS to be blocked on DU?

What, exactly, are you so scared of having people say on this board?

[BlooInBloo]

67. As soon as you tell me how unrec stops a discussion, I'll take you seriously...

Really, taking you seriously in the first place was my mistake. My apologies.

[Ken Burch]

72. Allowing an organized campaign to keep threads OFF the Greatest page

reduces the number of people who know a thread exists. The only reason anyone would WANT to keep a thread off the Greatest page is to choke it off.

Why is that necessary? Why assume you can't win a debate on the merits of your case? And isn't it just silly to imply that President Obama is the victim of unfair attacks here on DU?

[BlooInBloo]

73. Is no different from allowing an organized campaign to keep threads ON the Greatest. Durr.

[Ken Burch]

76. You have never provided a single example of a thread that justified "unrecommending"

You have an obligation to do so. Or admit that no such threads have ever existed.

President Obama doesn't want discussion silenced in this party.

[BlooInBloo]

79. Right after you point me to a discussion that's been silenced by unrec.

[Ken Burch]

81. That's the only reason to have an unrec function and you know it.

There's no difference between pushing a thread off the Greatest page and choking it off. You only want the ability to do that because you want to block any discussion you disagree with. Your antidemocratic comment about "sowing dissent" showed your true colors. Dissent is the only reason for our party to exist.

[BlooInBloo]

82. Show me a discussion that's been silenced because of unrec.

[Ken Burch]

85. "unrec" just started today. It's too early.

You have to show an example of threads where "unrec" was actually necessary first. You can't, because you know there aren't any. You know it's enough to be able to "alert".

[BlooInBloo]

87. Gotcha. Let me know when it happens.

[Ken Burch]

103. Why should censorship be given the benefit of the doubt?

If you can't point to a single thread that actually deserved "unrecommending" how can you make an argument for having "unrecommending"?

It's a solution without a problem.

And the idea that President Obama has been a victim of some kind of orchestrated persecution on DU is as silly as the arguments in 2006 that Ned Lamont's primary challenge to Joe Lieberman was a Green Party/GOP plot.

[BlooInBloo]

104. Um, giving MORE people a voice in what goes to Greatest is the OPPOSITE of censorship.

[Ken Burch]

105. If their using their voice to restrict other people's voices from being heard

(which you know is the only reason anyone would ever use "unrec), than it is censorship. It doesn't stop being censorship just because a large group supports it.

And you've effectively admitted that "unrec" is unnecessary by your inability to point out any thread that would justify it.

Nobody has persecuted President Obama on DU.

"unrec" can never be a positive choice.

[BlooInBloo]

110. So you want to restrict people who wish to unrec's voices from being heard...

And thereby you are a champion of free speech.

Gotcha.

[Ken Burch]

112. Yes, because those who want to "unrec" are censors, and we don't NEED censors here.

There's no one on DU who's rights can ONLY be protected by allowing them to block threads from reaching the "Greatest Page".

You're assuming there's some large group here who's been victimized by open discussion of the issues. There hasn't been. At least not in THIS party.

[anigbrowl]

100. Perhaps also too early for you to judge how it will play out

[Ken Burch]

106. Why are you such a fan of the idea?

You know perfectly well that President Obama has never been the victim of unfair criticism here.

[anigbrowl]

107. Because there are many stupid posts that don't deserve to go on the greatest page

And I haven't said a darn thing about President Obama, nor does it especially bother me if people criticize him. As I think I said elsewhere, I see this causing a decline in the following kinds of posts (among others):

K+R if you want to agree with my slogan!
How the FUCK for the GOP still EXIST?!?! (rant rant, no real content)
Light spotted in sky, must be an alien spaceship amirite?
Urgent news story!!! HUGH!1! (but it's from this day last year and I forgot to look at the year)
I can't string a sentence together but I'm going to post 400 words on something anyway
My thread is exactly like the 4 other threads because I never check for duplicates
Important HUGH thread based on discredited rumor or website
I found mold in my bathroom, obviously put there by the CIA

...and so on.

[BlooInBloo]

108. "President Obama has never been the victim of unfair criticism here"....

That's a joke, right?

[Ken Burch]

115. Evidently not, since you've provided no examples.

n/t.

[denem]

35. Why should a small cabal be able to RAISE any thread they like to the Greatest page?

Same argument, only more so.

[FLAprogressive]

39. threads that get 100+ recs are a "small cabal"?????

[denem]

46. The greatest page is 5.

Not talking about a 100 recs - A small cabal could NOT take that off the greatest page.

[FLAprogressive]

59. Yes, but a lot of the threads that people want to get rid of (those critical of Obama) often got 100

plus recs.

[LynneSin]

60. Do you know that?

To be honest you have a valid point; however, you can get on the top of the list with sometimes as little as 30-40 recommendations. Last time I made it to the top 5 for the DU page (the big headlines) I got there with just over 30 votes.

But if something things something is 'the greatest' shouldn't the rest of DU have a voice to say if they agree or don't agree? Allowing all sides of an arguement to weigh into a debate and have a voice in the quality of the article means that the best of DU will make the home page and not just a small group trying to push an agenda.

[FLAprogressive]

63. start an opposing thread then.

[LynneSin]

70. Scared of people having a chance to react to what you have to say?

Worried now you can't push threads to the home page?

Thin skin and don't like criticism?

I had a post in the lounge with 24 unrecommendations and I just laughed my ass off at it (but the lounge is a different world).

Why not have debate within the thread and let all of DU decide what is on the DU homepage? If my threads don't make it because of this new system them perhaps I'm not sharing information that people found useful and wanted to ensure that all visitors coming to DU will see. The homepage is the first page that new visitors see when they discover DU. Why not put the very best of DU writing on the homepage instead of reactionary threads and "K&R" attempts for attention.

[Ken Burch]

42. Er. because starting a discussion is a positve act while preventing one is a negative act?

And because no good comes of preventing threads from reaching the Greatest page.

[Ken Burch]

119. Because starting a discussion does no harm, whereas stopping one usually does.

Silence never serves progressive goals.

[Orangepeel]

62. how can a small cabal block a thread from the greatest page?

that would be true if any thread getting five "unrecommends" was automatically blocked, but that's not the case. A small cabal can't block anything. All members of such a cabal could do would be to vote and they could easily be outvoted.

Obviously, opinions vary, but I think it is reasonable for a thread identified as one of DU's "greatest" to have at least five more people who like it than who don't.

[Turbineguy]

16. I wanted one

so I could be contrary and recommend wildly unpopular posts.:evilgrin:

[anigbrowl]

17. why not?

Most social websites where voting is implemented let people express both positive and negative opinions. Negative opinions are not somehow less valid. I haven't asked for it BTW, I just think it's a good idea and I did the last time it was implemented too. If someone posts something which others find idiotic they have as much right to express that opinion as something they find excellent.

[Ken Burch]

57. Why isn't it enough to express that by debating the posters they find idiotic?

Why should suppressing a discussion(and reducing the number of people who know of a threads existence by forcing it off the greatest page is suppression)by an acceptable tactic?

[anigbrowl]

64. You could ask the same about positive support

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Personally, I don't give a shit about the greatest page and have never ever used it as a guide to quality.

[IADEMO2004]

19. Always with the negative vibes Moriarty

[scarletwoman]

26. I'm guessing that certain topics showing up on the Home Page were making certain factions

around here unhappy.

Now they won't have to go to the trouble of actually posting on a thread to present a counter argument, they can just pm all their buddies to swarm a thread with "unrecs" and make sure it never shows up on the front page of DU.

sw

[FLAprogressive]

32. +1 -- they have no counter-arguments besides personal attacks

[LynneSin]

47. I hate to disappoint you but it's a two way street

DU home page should be for the best stuff that appeals to all of DU and not just a select thru. Isn't the point of democracy that we can debate the issues. If you post a thread that a large group of people disagree with you, why shouldn't that side also have a voice as to what goes on the DU home page.

And I don't know you that well, I'm sure you're a great person who has written some excellent stuff. But I saw this during the primaries and it was bad. Team Hillary would push their anti-Obama stuff to the home page only to have team Obama do the same with anti-Hillary. If anything, that kind of reactionary stuff would be kept off of DU homepage but still has a right to be in DU.

[scarletwoman]

91. So? I've never complained about posts I don't agree with appearing on the Home Page.

I'm not the one who needs be reminded that "it's a two-way street" -- tell that to the folks who can't bear to see dissenting viewpoints.

And what happened during the primaries is irrelevant, that was well over a year ago, this is about discussions on DU now.

If a post makes it to the Front Page because a sufficient number of people agreed with it and recommended it, that ought to be good enough for everybody. People clicking on that post can read any contrary opinions posted in that thread just as well as they can read the supporting opinions.

To institute a function whereby one faction of DUers can anonymously blackball an otherwise popular thread strikes me as extremely undemocratic -- not to mention a chickenshit.

sw

[Life Long Dem]

27. 2 are better than 1?

:shrug:

[Odin2005]

30. It keeps highly polarizing flamewars from clogging the Greatest Page.

[redqueen]

38. +1

[scheming daemons]

53. +100

[anonymous171]

71. Exactly. nt

[Ken Burch]

83. Isn't it enough that the mods shut those threads off as soon as they start?

n/t.

[redqueen]

86. !

:spray:

[Individualist]

34. DLC rah rahs thought they had enough influence to keep threads off the greatest page

[FLAprogressive]

36. turns out they do

:scared:

[Individualist]

48. Not this one...

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/10/kucinich_see_ufo_new_book_clai.html

or this one - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6022082&mesg_id=6022082

For the time being, progressives outnumber DLCers on this site.

[scheming daemons]

55. Exactly.... and so threads that reflect the majority opinion of DUers will be on the greatest page

...and what's wrong with that?


Got a problem with Democracy?

[LWolf]

43. Nailed it. nt

[LynneSin]

37. Because I'm tired of not having a say when I see crap on the DU home page

Stop assuming everything that makes it there is widely accepted by all DUers. I'm annoyed by these "K&R if you blah blah blah" threads. You know if your thread is that much appreciated and respected by all DUers then it'll get on the home page.

A perfect example of why we need this feature was from a month or so ago when accusations came out that Nancy Pelosi was very aware of the torture hearings that occured during the Bush administration. Pelosi is already a polarizing woman here at DU so a concept like seemed like something that some DUers wanted to send off to the DU home page immediately. However, people didn't read the arguement and notice that this accusation was coming from the GOP. Funny how the GOP would want to say something to discredit Pelosi.

So instead we're stuck with this article on the home page in the top threads and well we look stupid because 50+ some people just saw 'Impeach Pelosi she knew about Torture blah blah blah' and never bothered to read the article. Eventually it came out that indeed Pelosi was not involved.

Thing is, stuff like that would be kept off the DU home page if there was a system that would allow people to disagree with the validity of a thread. The DU homepage should be for the best stuff we post here at DU NOT for people to use it to push their agenda. We saw that during the Obama/Clinton Primaries.

As for having someone unrecommend you - get a thicker skin. I posted a thread in the lounge that got 24 unrecommendations (before Skinner fixed that) and I just laughed about it.

I want good stuff on DU home page, not embarassment from people who are pushing an agenda with reactionary threads. The homepage is the first stop for hundreds of new visitors each day - let's show them the best DU has to offer.

[FLAprogressive]

54. see this is so typical -- according to a lot of you, all criticism MUST be coming from the right

any left-wing critics of Obama are automatically labeled "freepers".

[LynneSin]

66. Wow, put words much into other folks mouth?

What if myself and my 30 closest friends of the DLC wanted to push our agenda on the home page? Last time I made the home page to the top tier post it was just over 30 recommendations. It could be done.

The example I gave was about a mislead by the GOP. I have no problem with people who oppose Nancy Pelosi when it's with facts and not smears by the GOP. Even the CIA has come out and said that Pelosi was not involved.

And btw, my only definition is that I'm a democrat. I support all democrats, I support the party but yeah even I get pissed at them too!

[Hippo_Tron]

40. I've never understood "The Greatest" page in the first place

Topics that are the most compelling should in theory attract the most discussion and thus get the most replies. Just go to the forum of your choice and the threads that are constantly getting replies will keep bouncing to the top, or look for the ones with the "flame" next to them.

Certainly there are compelling topics that don't get a whole lot of replies but those don't usually get a whole lot of recs either.

Since I don't use the greatest page, I kind of assumed the whole idea behind "unreccomend" was to get rid of Michael Jackson threads and such.

[LWolf]

41. Suppression is not a good thing.

IMO.

:(

[aaaaaa5a]

44. Please explain to me how this works

I don't understand why there are no threads with a negative number (-2,-5,-8 etc.). All I see are + numbers, 0 and <0.



For instance, can you have dueling "recommends?" One poster hits a thread with a negative -1. And then another 2 posters hit it with a positive, to bring the thread to +1?

[NeedleCast]

45. Yes, I like it

[PeaceNikki]

49. It would have been nice when the Greatest Page was flooded with "Hey gays, STFU!" threads.

[FLAprogressive]

56. now it's just going to be used as a tool to do just that.

any criticism of Obama from the LGBT community WILL be silenced.

[scheming daemons]

61. Really.... threads criticizing Obama will be deleted from DU?

People who post in those threads will have their posting privileges revoked?


REALLY?


SILENCED?


Using hyperbole like the word "silenced" hurts your case.

[Ken Burch]

114. Moving them off the Greatest page is the same as silencing those threads

The difference between banning those threads and restricting people's awareness of them by allowing a group to kick them off the page is a difference only of degree.

And it's total hypocrisy to say that the "unrec" function is necessary to protect some people's views and then to insist that letting people kick threads off the Greatest Page will have no effect on the survival of the threads. You can't have it both ways, people.

[scheming daemons]

123. And why should threads that only have the support of 5 or 6 nimrods out of thousands of DUers make

the Greatest Page?


And I include nimrods of all political stripes across the entire spectrum.

[Ken Burch]

124. Why not?

The idea is that those five people(and in most cases threads on the Greatest Page got many many more rec's than just the five)represent probably a lot of other people who hadn't posted as yet, or the idea that a particular thread may be worthy of larger circulation.

Given that those threads that just barely make the list with only 5 recs slide down the queue and die out from lack of response anyway, what(I ask again)are you so bloody afraid of? How has our party ever benefited in the past from limiting discussion and expression?

It's a solution without a problem.

[Jakes Progress]

58. Because it bums some people out

that other people have different ideas. This way we can be all neutral and plain. This way we don't have to actually look at things we don't want to see. We can pretend that things are all hunky.

[FLAprogressive]

68. +1,000,000

[Divine Discontent]

69. I prefer a +/- for individual posters... LOL but, I guess they wanted to avoid

anti-Democratic politician commentary from being on the top of the page, and they could defeat any of us who are upset at the Admin. by having the "he's PERFECT!" crowd giving an unrecommend to the posts that are questioning a horrible decision that resembles something that * would have pushed as pres. just my 2 cents...

[Hansel]

74. If the point of the recommend is to have DU'ers decide

which are the best (or greatest) threads that deserve being highlighted on the greatest page, why would you leave people out of the voting?

It's possible to have a post go to the greatest page that 90% of the people on DU don't agree with and, in fact, does not represent the overall thoughts and values of the people on DU. How does a post like that warrant a place on the greatest page?

If you really believe the post is the greatest, why would you disallow a large segment of the members to vote on it. If it can't hold its own, it doesn't belong on the greatest page.

After all, democracies are based on people negating each others votes. I go to the polls and I negate the vote of someone who voted for my choice's appointment. Someone else will come in and negate my vote. The one with the least negated votes wins.

By only allowing those who agree with a post to have a say as to whether it is a "great" post, you usurp the rights of others on the board who don't agree. It is amusing to watching how many people are arguing that their right to free speech is being taking away because Skinner has decided to allow everyone to have a say. Sounds like Palin logic to me.

You exercise your free speech when you post. But you don't get to cram your opinion down the throat of the majority of DU'ers if they don't agree and force them to respect it as a "greatest" post. Posts on the greatest page should at least represent a democratic viewpoint of the people on DU.

Sounds like some around here just want to cram through their ideas Rovian style. They know they don't have the votes to make the greatest page, but are going to force their opinion into prominence anyway to try to make it seem like that's how most of us feel. Maybe this is not the board for them.

[sufrommich]

75. Because people get to voice their opinion on the

content of an OP.If recommend is going to be an option,it makes just as much sense to be able to unrecommend. I don't get what the big deal is. Threads aren't being suppressed at all.

[OhioChick]

77. Good Question. n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

78. Passive agression and cowardly face slapping

Use of the feature seems to me little more than maliciousness for all but the most outrageous posts.

[Adsos Letter]

80. Because there was a lack of drama here.

[Teaser]

88. so this ancient codebase can finally start acting like web 2.0

.

[EFerrari]

89. This is so interesting. Yesterday I posted a thread about the Honduran coupster

who indulged in yet a 3rd racial ephithet about our president.

Last night it had ten votes or so. Today is was neutral. lol :shrug:

[scarletwoman]

94. Perfect example. The organized RW disruptors now have a great new tool to prevent the truth

from ever showing up on the front page of DU.

We KNOW that there's a group who shows up to swarm any threads that support leftist politics in Latin America. Now they don't even have to bother posting, they can just blackball a thread they don't like so that no one will ever see it on the home page.

sw

[EFerrari]

95. More, they tried to down a thread defending Obama.

:shrug:

I don't really know what I think of this feature but, it has been interesting so far.

[Fire1]

98. Why? To keep stupid shit off the GP. n/t

[Ken Burch]

122. And those who favor the "unrecommend" features are the only ones who can judge this?

It's awfully convenient to use phrases like "stupid" in this context.

[sam sarrha]

99. yea.. the Freepers wanted it..!!

[dixiegrrrrl]

101. Did yu read Skinner's original thread??????

Why Are We Adding This Functionality?

If you have spent any time on DU, you have probably noticed that under our old system -- which only permitted positive recommendations -- there was a tendency for highly polarizing topics to climb to the top of the Greatest Page. We believe that giving members the option to unrecommend topics will help insure that the threads at the top of the Greatest Page are those threads that have the broadest appeal to our members.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6021143&mesg_id=6021143

I unrec'd his thread......heh

[Poll_Blind]

109. Ken, read this please:

First, what Skinner said: "If you have spent any time on DU, you have probably noticed that under our old system -- which only permitted positive recommendations -- there was a tendency for highly polarizing topics to climb to the top of the Greatest Page. We believe that giving members the option to unrecommend topics will help insure that the threads at the top of the Greatest Page are those threads that have the broadest appeal to our members."

I've been pondering those two sentences a bit. I'd also have you look at this thread. And this one.

I would also humbly rebut those two messages with this one- which I feel genuinely represents about 99% of DUers.

I'm not saying this was specifically related to Chavez/Ahmadinejad threads but I am having a hard time pulling up other issues which have caused him so much consternation (in relation to the Greatest Page, specifically)- what I feel is definitely a misunderstanding of intent.

PB

[Ken Burch]

113. OK, Skinner seems to have freaked in those threads

(btw Skinner, nobody was calling for Hugo Chavez to be made "the honorary leader of the Democratic Party"-just for a clear position that the U.S. shouldn't be about overthrowing him.)

And on both issues, Skinner was able to express his views by STARTING A THREAD. Why wasn't that enough?

[Better Believe It]

116. Why can't your thread be recommended?

I just clicked recommend as a test and nothing happened!

Not even one recommendation shows up!

[reflection]

117. There was a thread today

that I unrec'd and did not post in because the subject line contained a bunch of useless profanity.

I was trying to introduce my 9-yr old daughter to DU and I didn't like her reading what I consider to be filth. It was a shame too, because the subject matter was relevant. Since she had already seen it and asked about it, I just used it as a teaching moment.

I know there are many people here who think that trying to shelter my child from profanity is a losing cause. It is. I know that. But I still try.

I also know that there are probably people who think my use of the unrec feature in this fashion is counterproductive to DU. I disagree, and will continue to use the unrec feature this way unless management tells me otherwise, in which case I will gladly comply.

Suffice to say, I think it is good to educate my child in a political way, and DU has a lot of useful tools, and so I will, on occasion, use the unrec feature to try to make DU a nicer place. Flame away.

[Ken Burch]

120. I respect your wish to protect your child

But you could have achieved the same end through the "alert" feature.

[reflection]

121. Profanity is not against DU rules.

What good would alerting do?
:shrug:

[Milspec]

118. Like T-Rex has a big head and little arm's

I don't thing this plan was well thought out. I rec killing it....But

I think I have looked at the Greatest Posts threads twice, and I have been here a while.