A Way for Skinner to check for unrec trolls

[Liberation Angel]

It is fairly obvious to me that the unrec feature will be a magnet for freeper trolls who want to disrupt here and keep important stories off the front page and off the greatest page.

Since most folks really only recommend the very best threads there is a certain amount of self control by most folks here (in my limited experience).

Certain subjects (like nuclear power, for example) will bring out the pronuke procorporate propagandists who will defend the indstry til the cows come home.

Whether or not these are rank and file DUers or corporate operatives will be difficult to tell, but there will certainly be the potential for them to organize because the nuke industry has very sophisticated PR operations (I know because I have been engaged with them off and on for many years because I have worked as an antinuke activist and been engaged in NRC hearings and litigation)

So at first blush one can see right away that any thread on this subject will immediately attract a substantial number of unrecs at first to keep it off the greatest page and make it impossible for it to get there.

Ultimately the rec/unrec feature is a poll which can be manipulated by the far right.

But one way to observe this MAY be to watch WHO unrecs certain topics and sends them into the far negative numbers (they will use some restrain, perhaps, and wait for a plus 1 or 2, before pouncing again, but theyt will KEE these subjects off the greatest page at all costs).

By watching WHO does this Skinner et al will know who may be gaming the system and will perhaps begin to understand why the "unrec" feature is so dangerous to DU.

But, frankly, after reading that Rahm and Axelrod were pronuke lobbyists I guess my position desn't have much of a prayer here.

But especially with this new feature any posts opposing nukes will surely die without making it to the greatest page.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. nuclear power's really not a black/white right/left issue.

So no, your paranoid delusion that everybody who disagrees with you is a troll isn't going to be terribly popular.

[vadawg]

2. great reply, unrec

[peace13]

6. Is that k&ur? n/t

[vadawg]

10. lol yup, kicking so others can unrec :)

[Dogmudgeon]

14. You Fascist! You're silencing his/her free speech!

:sarcasm: , of course.

--d!

[Liberation Angel]

19. Depends on your perspective

To me there is nothing quite as clearly pro corporofascist as the nuclear lobby and industry

they ARE the military-industrial-intel-media complex

but that's just me

and knock of the personal attacks

I know you are baiting me but I won't bite

What I think is delusional is anyone who thinks nukes are safe or that pronukers are progressives.

I accept that many have been overwhelmed with pronuke propaganda and do not know the truth or the facts and so are not trolls on this issue.

But very few issues have such a potential for corporate manipulation of this board IMHO.

[spoony]

22. "knock of (sic) the personal attacks"

You started a thread calling people who disagree with you on an issue trolls and propagandists...and you complain about personal attacks??

[Liberation Angel]

34. I was very careful to qualify that not ALL by any means..

but SOME may very well be.

Skinner can start to see patterns if he wants to and he has the time.

But my guess is that this feature will do much more harm to DU than good but will be too simple a solution to be done away with.

Now all threads will just be subjective beauty contests and organized pograms by trolls will be much more possible.

[SidDithers]

116. +1...

well said, spoony.

Sid

[AdHocSolver]

48. L. A. I suggest a different rationale for being against the proliferation of nuclear power plants.

I equate the rationale for considering nuclear energy as a solution to greenhouse gas production as logical an argument as promoting arsenic as a solution to overpopulation.

The reason that nuclear energy was abandoned in the U.S. for the past three decades was NOT out of concern for the health and safety of Americans.

Nuclear energy was abandoned because it was so expensive to operate plants relative to the costs of coal, oil, and natural gas as a fuel, up until now.

The cost of nuclear power plant operation is still the most expensive way to produce power. However, it has one virtue that the alternative power sources such as wind and solar power lack. Nuclear power plants can only be built and operated by megacorporations so that building nuclear plants will concentrate energy production and maintain profits for the big corporations.

Solar and wind power would decentralize the production and sale of energy, just as the internet decentralizes communication. The military/industrial complex promotes nuclear enrgy to maintain its control over our economy and our country.

P.S. You are correct in worrying about the dangers of nuke plants as far as safety is concerned. I worked in technical areas for many years, and am well aware of "accidents" that were covered up or "minimized" in the public's perception. Moreover, let's not forget the Exxon Valdez, Bhopal, India, and other industrial accidents. There have been a lot of "near" accidents in power plants of all kinds, so that calling Chernobyl and Three Mile Island mere aberrations and nothing to worry about (or even worse, worth the risk, if the risk taker doesn't live near a nuclear plant) is indicative of them having their head up their proverbial body orifice.

[Liberation Angel]

114. Thanks - good points and worth a look

and consideration

[Dogmudgeon]

62. Who owns nukes? Those who own solar and wind.

There is virtually no monolithic "nuclear industry". A relatively small number of companies own almost all of the nuclear AND solar/wind/etc. technology. It's easy to find this info; why the anti-nuclear "investigative reporters" ignore this is likewise an easy puzzle to solve -- it would ruin their Good-vs-Evil narrative.

GE. Siemens. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Gamesa. Areva. All own wind, solar, fossil-fuel and nuclear technology. Not token investments, but majority ownership dating back to the 1950s in some cases. PV solar energy technology is all owned by the semiconductor industry (a BIG polluter, by the way). And so on. If it produces energy, these industries will control it.

You're waging a Culture War, much like the "right-to-lifers" or the global warming "skeptics". And like the Right's culture wars and warriors, the public sees the "no nukes" crusade as another exercise in silliness. I'm sure most of the warriors will enjoy it -- until it's no longer cool. Most people are more concerned with problem-solving than crusading.

But, believe what you wish; when you want information that isn't filtered by advocacy groups OR profit-makers, you will find it.

--d!

[AdHocSolver]

73. The nuke companies "own" solar and wind technology to suppress it.

When GM eliminated the EV1 and EV2 electric cars back in the 1990's, the patent rights to the batteries developed for these cars were sold to an OIL company.

Back in the 1980's, the government gave billions of dollars to industry to come up with a synthetic replacement for gasoline to save oil. The bulk of our tax dollars went to the oil companies. The eventual result of the oil company "research" came in the 1990's in the form of ethanol. Ethanol reduced gas mileage (thereby NOT saving oil or reducing pollution), but it maintained high oil company profits.

[Liberation Angel]

84. excellent point AHS!

Manipulation is HOW they control the money and the power keeping it in the hands of the rich and keeping the world polluted for profit and greed.

[Liberation Angel]

76. Very interesting and a good point

But I think your statement is misleading. a small number of very powerful companies control most of the nuke industry and they are pretty monolithic.

I will keep this post in mind though as you raise a really important point..

While I support the technologies I do not want to support the industries which are killing us.

[texastoast]

3. The feature is a definite troll magnet

I wish we could have the Skip It button instead.

[FarCenter]

4. It all depends on why people recommend things in the first place

Is it because they agree with the overall political position or cause that the post is part of?

Is it because the OP is a link to an interesting and provacative news story?

Is it because the OP is an orginal work of merit by the poster?

Is it because the thread of comments is vigorous and insightful?

Is it because the OP is someone you feel shares your political views?

[DCKit]

28. "Is it because the OP is an orginal work of merit by the poster?"

I had one of my (very) few OPs today. It didn't die.

However, I don't know how to check the unrecs, so I don't know how many disruptors or immature assholes are out there simply trying to score personal "hail to me" points.

On the other hand, I did do an unrec on a thread that degenerated into hateful and ugly comments - kinda' like being a junior mod.

[Chemisse]

5. What if there was a limit?

Say if you could only rec or unrec 3 or 5 times in a 24 hour period. That would make people more selective and possibly help.

[Liberation Angel]

21. it might help

but it could still be used to target thread where there is organized trolling

[xultar]

7. Today, I've decided to unrecommend any thread ith the word unrecommend in it.

It doesn't mean shit people.

Quit making it out to be more than it is.

Post opposing nukes are often boring and don't make the greatest page anyway. Unrecommend isn't going to change that shit. :rofl:

[mtf80123]

13. Me too!

:)

[Posteritatis]

40. I endorse this product and/or service. (nt)

[Iggo]

I know! I just can't help it...lol. (n/t)

[havocmom]

8. So, now we'll need a conspiracy forum for those who obsess about unrecs?

:banghead:

It's amazing Skinner hasn't shut this place down out of utter despair.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Hey, look at the bright side

It's not GD:Michael Jackson anymore! :evilgrin:

[havocmom]

25. When that's the bright side

I may re-think my position on nuclear weapons. ;) We are a sorry species....

[Statistical]

9. Only you see it as simple as anti-nuke = left, pro-nuke = right.

Reality is much more complex.

I know you think this point of view is wrong but....
Many people see nuclear power as the only option to radically reduce greenhouse gases.

Reducing co2 emissions is a very progressive idea.

Now you might not agree or might not think nuclear is the way to achieve it but your paranoia is showing through when you see freepers behind every threat just because the disagree with your anti-nuke angle.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Pity the uninformed, or maybe they're just pro-Coal industry.

:shrug:

[Sebastian Doyle]

20. Well, there are ways to reduce CO2

Like plant more trees, or any decent plant life for that matter.

But you can't feed nuclear waste to plants. Or do anything else useful with it.

That's my big problem with nuclear power. Radioactive garbage that has to go somewhere, and there is no such thing as a safe place for it.

Not that I'm defending the coal industry either. Much a bigger fan of wind and solar. But corporate America HATES any form of energy where the supply can't be controlled. Not even EXXON can own the sun or the four winds.

[Liberation Angel]

23. Actually I do not see Freepers at all on this issue

this is a corporate fascism issue and I suspect that pronuke corporate PR operates all over many boards.

That is not to say that everyone who believes nukes are a safe alternative is anything more than poorly informed IMO. I believe they have fallen for the extreme corporofascist Propaganda.

Some may be reasonable and argue facts and some may be simple unaffiliated pronukers and others may be organized PR for the industry.

But many people here cannt actually HEAR the factual debate because such threads are magnets for a very vocal and active and sometimes abusive pronuke faction here.

Since i have more experience in this field than the average DUer it saddens me that this feature may stem any serious discussion of these issues. In my experience very few here at DU can withstand the assault that comes when one posts or tries to defend an antinuke position. Ad hominem attaks are almost the rule.

And it also is quite depressing that you too are resorting to ad hominem attacks

[scheming daemons]

31. France, which gets 80% of its power from nuclear energy, is a bunch of "corporofascists"

Gotcha.

:eyes:

[Liberation Angel]

36. Well _ I posted the news on another thread

but you won't see it for the unrec's

France has to import power because its nukes aren't working right now for the most part.

And yes the corporate fascists have their fingers in France and have since before Vichy.

Their current prez is a right winger

[uppityperson]

45. How about you post the links here too as I would like to see them and don't feel like searching?

[Liberation Angel]

79. Here's the link on French reactors shutting down

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8519864

Read the OP

[uppityperson]

83. Thank you for the link. Was reading along until this one...

(By the way, I can see it though, even with unrecs)

"I don't see many women running nuke plants like Cheney and Bush whose companies and backers WANT th population rates to go down so they don't mind a little cancer here and there."



And, for the record, see nuclear power as a bad deal since the aftermath is so toxic for so long. I live in Western WA, am very aware of Hanford b.s. Way an anti-nuker, but also annoyed at people saying that unrec will make threads not be seen.

[Liberation Angel]

85. A lot of my threads will get less exposure on this issue

if they make it to the greatest page they get more exposure.

Manipulation means pronukers can keep the exposure to a minimum and so can others with right wing agendas

[uppityperson]

87. A lot of us NEVER look at Greatest. You are getting close to call out here

If someone thinks it is great, they will rec. If someone thinks not worthwhile, will unrec. You sound like you want to silence those who disagree with you. Being able to vote and rec or unrec a topic is "manipulation"? wow.

And you are getting close to a call out with your last line.

If someone never goes to Greatest page, as many don't, it will. not. matter.

[Liberation Angel]

88. I never called out anyone - I am talking AGENDAS here

people with what i consider right wing agendas will more easily be able to game the rec system

I don't CARE about organized lefty pushes to K&R.

But people can hide their agendas by unreccing a thread and i am confident pronuke folks will unrec my antinuke posts en masse.

And because nuke corporations are so powerful they can do it stealthily. Not all pronukers are stealth posters by any means. But people can join and post little but disrupt just by organized unreccing.

They can just help kill subjects (and by kill I mean keeping them off the front or the greatest pages) without even posting their names.

IMHO the nuke lobby is one group powerful enough to do this and they are in cahppts and ARE weapons maufacturers nd prwar industry and intel types who have the capacity to disrut in this manner.

I don't call individuals out. Its against the rules.
But if I see organized hassling or baiting or flaming (as I have experienced in my short time here) I will respond to that

[uppityperson]

93. I seriously doubt there is a cadre of pronukes roaming DU, trying to silence others

If you feel that is happening to one of your threads, alert so the moderators can check it out. I am sure they would appreciate it.

[Liberation Angel]

100. Try posting an antinuke thread and then tell me

insults, name calling. ridicule. fake arguments, even lies, Lots of lies. And chaos-making.

But generally they stay on this side of the rule line most of the time.

I debate, though, i don't alert unless they seriously breach the rules.

But the unrec feature allows such people to disrupt and censor without even being public about it.

And if they want to organize off board to kill threads they can without being detected.

This is not anything Skinner is not aware of btw.

Catching such activity can be tricky though.

[uppityperson]

101. OK, here you go. Let's see.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6030136&mesg_id=6030136

Ed to add what does "And of they want to organize off board to kill threads they can without being detected." mean? Your sentences are getting difficult to understand.

[Liberation Angel]

107. Very cool - good luck I recc'd it

I hope I'm wrong

but with the set up I expect the responses to be warmer and fuzzier

When i talk about people organizing off this board I mean organized activity.


I meant "If they organize..." (spelling error, thanks for noticing)

[uppityperson]

108. I realize my jargon is poor, but I have the ideas down, and amwilling

willing to listen and learn if people can figure out what I'm asking.

[Liberation Angel]

110. Just watch the rec/unrec thing

you'll see what i mean

And see the flies buzzing around too

[uppityperson]

111. I know I'll get 1 unrec

may be obvious reading down the replies whom it is. I see that as more of a personal issue though, but will watch

[Liberation Angel]

143. Yeah and they got your other thread locked

because you called me out (with my permission)

The unreccers never sleep!

[uppityperson]

112. Thanks for the clarification. "If" makes sense.

I've been here since 04. There are periodic invasions, and DU has had things happen that I disagreed with. It can be easy to get sucked into spending lots of time here, and good to take breaks to have it not mean so much. There are some very good things about this forum, some very good people here also, doing very good things.

It can be hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and little gets people's dander up more than insinuating that someone has all the answers.

Welcome to DU by the way.

[scheming daemons]

47. Why would unrecs stop me from seeing it?

You mean one can ONLY see threads that are on the greatest page?


How am I seeing this one?

[Liberation Angel]

61. If it is on the front page r the greatest age you are more likely to see it

and thousands more people will see it

If it is only in one forum for a limited time it will disappear forever with very little notice

This happens to be a hot topic BECAUSE pronukers are attracted to it to demean me and my perspective AND because I suspect the unrec button favors those who are better organized and resourced (as huge industries usually are to promote their "products") as is my opinion and so it is getting attention (and mostly negative attention DESPITE the fact that it is al about proposing an investigative technique to Skinner to suss out trolls

[uppityperson]

66. Wrong. It is on the Greatest page only 24 hrs, but if people kick it or continue to reply

it can stay top of the forum page for days.

This happens to be a hot topic because of the paranoia factor here, since you have no idea what most of us feel about nuke energy. At least you've not asked me how I feel.

[Liberation Angel]

74. But it is still on the front page and gets the most exposure when people first arrive here

I am relatively new here.

I have been an antinuclear activist for years, though.

I have never seen such vile and childish and organized ugliness as when I post an antiNuke post.

They seem to swarm.

And they are usually very demeaning and they bait with thinly veiled personal attacks.

Anyway, i generally check the new posts and the greatest threads first and LBN

I don't get the opportunity to do much more than that so if a thread dies off it is less likely to be seen, unless people rec it. But organized unreccing can wreck it

[uppityperson]

77. I never go to Greatest, start at Latest and particular forums I am interested in

Hence the only way it stays on MY front page is if people reply to it.

A topic only stays on Greatest for 24 hours, no matter how long the replies go on. So EVERY thread that gets on Greatest WILL fall off in 24 hours, no matter how long the discussion goes on.

I notice that you are making lots of claims about nuke power in this thread, yet aren't posting anything to back it up. Even a link to what you are talking about here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6028580&mesg_id=6029047
might help. Otherwise it is just someone's anonymous opinion on a forum.

[Liberation Angel]

80. I posted the links just now

my advice is go to www.radiation.org as well as the link I posted in my reply but her it is again:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8519864

[SidDithers]

117. Similarly Ontario...

we get about half of our electricity from nuclear power. But us Canadians are all a bunch of corporofacists too, with our univeral health care, gay marriage and liberal pot laws.

Sid

[Luminous Animal]

12. Because we are too stupid to address them ourselves.

[Liberation Angel]

142. yup

nt

[scheming daemons]

15. So... if the majority of DUers are pro-nuclear power (like the administration), that makes them

far right stooges of the nuke industry?



Here's a clue, honey:

your position is not a popular one, even among Democrats. The fact that the majority of DU disagrees with you is NOT an indication of "freeper trolls". It is an indication of YOU being out of the mainstream of thought, even on a Democratic site.


The world isn't out to get you.


You just have an opinion about nuclear power that is not based on facts, and is not as popular an opinion as you want it to be.

[omega minimo]

53. That claim is specious, unfounded and bogus

:hi:

[scheming daemons]

56. A trifecta? Woohoo! Here I was only going for specious.......

...

Like getting an extra peanut M&M in my bag.

[omega minimo]

70. LOL

[AdHocSolver]

64. Corporofascists or progressive pronukes who don't know what they are talking about.

Nuclear power plants are the most expensive way to produce energy. Nuclear power plants are the most pro-corporate method of energy production. Nuclear energy is a surefire way to keep Americans enslaved to the corporations.

Moreover, the best way to solve the energy problem is the one method no one has even mentioned, namely authentic conservation methods. This planet wastes energy in vast amounts. There is no technical limitation for maintaining a reasonably "luxurious" lifestyle while reducing energy waste at the same time.

Energy reduction is coming anyway with the coming recession/depression that is going to reduce energy consumption for many people. Large segments of the U.S. population will not be able to afford high-cost nuclear energy anyway, and a lot of people will of necessity be cutting back on spending.

Economically, building more nuclear plants makes no sense anyway. The taxpayers will surely wind up paying most of the tab, so it makes as much sense as giving bailout money to the banks that brought us the financial meltdown.

[scheming daemons]

17. If I were as paranoid as the OP, I would claim she was a corporate operative for "Big Coal"

But I'm not.

I realize she is just a misguided soul who holds an opinion that is based on emotion without any basis in fact.

[Liberation Angel]

26. Jeez, I oppose coal too. i support solar and renewables NOT coal or nuclear

I guess my years of experience in the industry and in litigation and legislation don't count.

Nor do the facts I've posted and the info.

I espect this to get LOTS of negative recs and will serve Skinner well

Because the pronuke activists will try to take me down here

I LOVE the refrain about how paranoid I am. Coming from one poster after another, And ALL pronuclear posters.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Unrecommending this post

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. What I don't get is why you're so intimidated by the Unrec feature.

I notice that it seems to be the constant bashers who are most incensed by it. Finally, DU'ers have some control over what appears on the greatest page...what's wrong with that?

[scheming daemons]

27. Because the OP is using projection

She wants to be able to spread her anti-nuke propaganda on the greatest page, simply by getting a handful (out of thousands) of readers to rec her propaganda.


Now that it has become harder for her to spread her anti-nuke agenda, she's whining.


The projection comes into play when you realize that she is exhibiting all the traits of someone who is pro "clean coal" trying to kill a MUCH MUCH cleaner alternative.


(hey, if she can accuse everyone who disagrees with her as being under the employ of Nuclear lobbyists, then I can say she is working for Big Coal).

[Liberation Angel]

41. I oppose big coal. I am for renewables and solar

so left wing opposition to nuclear power is "propaganda" ?

So citing facts about how dangerous nucler power is is "propaganda"

so using catchy psych phrases from Psych 101 to impress folks is ARGUING FACTS?

Not so much

[scheming daemons]

50. renewables and solar can never provide enough energy for the world by themselves

Not even a decent fraction of it.

But you knew that.


The only way we can provide for the world's energy needs, while at the same time eliminating the emission of greenhouse gases, is with a combination of nuclear, solar, renewable, and wind. But nuclear would be providing the bulk of that energy.


Thank goodness our President "gets" it.

[Liberation Angel]

58. Solar and renewables Can provide 100% of the world's energy needs.

where have you been?

It is a goal to work towards.

And it can and will ultimately happen.

But only if people are well informed and motivated

That is the LAST thing nuke companies and big coal wants

so people get paid to promote lies

all over the internet

and to manipulate the media

why is that so hard to believe?

[scheming daemons]

59. So let's say I concede that it will EVENTUALLY happen....

We need power for the transition until we get there... and that transitional power has to be environmentally-friendly and not emit greenhouse gases.


Only one power source fits that bill.... Nuclear.

[uppityperson]

67. Proof of that assertion is needed. Link?

[Liberation Angel]

95. Well i heard a German government scientists say it on BBC this morning

but I could not find a link.

He's an advisor to the German government on energy issues and he says 100% solar is doable and the cheapest way to go (and that includes heat and transport.

[uppityperson]

99. Not a good enough source. I heard something on the radio also

can't remember what it was or who said it but it sounded really good. Something about the economy not being in a recession

[Liberation Angel]

102. 100% solar/renewable Here's a link "taking Germany 100% renewable"

http://www.grist.org/article/taking-germany-100-percent-renewable/

[uppityperson]

103. Have you a source that is NOT "Environmental news, commentary, advice"?

Maybe from a scientific place?

Do you know of this forum here? Environment/Energy might be of interest to you
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=115

[Liberation Angel]

104. Yes, at the sites links are there for the scientific data

if you read through that

As for the forum i am familiar with that

But right now Obama is considering the energy bull and pressure is on him to include $50 Billion for nuclear.

So I posted anthet thread in Predidential beause this is about Obama and what he is or os not going to do.

It is not a general environmental thread

This is about my concern that this issue will get derailed with the unrec finction and what Skiner and friends can watch for. speially on this issue where i think it is mist viral in terms of oposition.

Check my latest post in GD Presidential

[uppityperson]

106. Keep kicking your topics to keep them up on the page

That is what people do, esp after they are over 24 hrs old and not able to be on Greatest any more

[ContinentalOp]

63. Do you have some proof of that? I don't buy it for a second. -nt-

[AdHocSolver]

69. Your header makes the most fraudulent claim of all.

Greater than 99 percent of the energy of the earth comes from the sun. All life on earth past, present, and future depends on the energy from the sun.

The energy in coal, oil, and natural gas came from the sun. Before the industrial revolution, almost all energy used came from sunlight.

According to your pronouncement, when the coal, oil, and natural gas are used up, life will cease on earth.

Actually, most of the energy consumed on this planet is wasted energy, that could be saved by intelligent conservation. So far, increasing energy efficiency has only been tried at the margins. We have barely scratched the surface.

[Liberation Angel]

30. Because organized manipualtion is likely. It is like the 2000 election

but the freepers get as many votes as they can organize as many times as they want in ANY race or topic.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. Paranoid much?

:eyes:

[Liberation Angel]

37. Do I hear an echo

I am suggesting to Skinner that he use a method to keep watch for trolls using unrec

I suppose if there are hundreds or even thousands of trolls here it will be impossible to tell

But I keep hearing that wonderful ad homiem refrain

like a chorus

from everyone who seems to love nuclear power

could it be...

(I don't know... ask the church lady...)

[Posteritatis]

38. Those complaining don't want anyone who disagrees with them to have that power

They want it for themselves, hence the number of idiots demanding people who unrec their posts be identified and banned.

The "my specific opinions are the only valid ones" crowd's going to be shrill and loud enough for the next while to call dogs from across the planet.

[Liberation Angel]

43. I said nothing about banning but its not a bad idea if there is organized unreccing

any idiot can unrec something to try to kill discussion and coverage of an issue.

Only positive support for an issue can guage how much suport it has.

The unrec button becomes a manipulable popularity contest wherein nonprogressives can organize to kill progressive ideas from coming to the fore.

i think Skinner will get this sooner or later.

[Posteritatis]

60. You didn't, but others definitely have

While I disagree with your take on the whole unrec thing - I personally find the drama about it ridiculous nearly without exception - I apologize if I gave the impression I was accusing you of that one in particular.

[uppityperson]

65. Do you seriously believe there is no organized support to rec a topic, only to unrec it?

For instance: The rec button becomes a manipulable popularity contest wherein nonprogressives can organize to promote non-progressive ideas to come to the fore.

[uppityperson]

44. Yah think?

me too

[Tarheel_Dem]

68. Agreed. I have a feeling that Skinner's getting an earful from the malcontents

as we speak. I hope he won't do away with this system until it's had time to prove it's effectiveness. Who knows, Skinner himself may have had enough of a Greatest Page full of anti Obama, anti Dem crap.

[TexasObserver]

29. Absurd. Kicked and Unrecommended.

[Liberation Angel]

32. Well I can safely say that ...

freeper trolls are going to be the most likely to unrec this thread

I know some others will too just for the nyah nyah factor, but mark my words, children

some subjects will simply never see the greatest page again.

They are THAT important to suppress.

[vadawg]

33. oh look, over there, yes it was him

wish i could unrec this thread more than once, though im willing to kick it for prosperity

[Posteritatis]

39. We'll have to - gasp! - delve into the individual forums!

The horror... the horror...

[uppityperson]

42. Shit, I unrec'd it. Am I a freeper troll? This seems like a call out of a large % of DUers.

Oh yes, I never welcomed you to DU since you joined 3 months ago. Welcome.

And no, there aren't probably hundreds of trolls here.

[Liberation Angel]

46. I never called out anyone

but I think some folks may call out themselves when Skinner starts looking at certain threads and who all is unreccing them

Unfortunately it is just evidence of trolling and not proof.

IMHO the only solution is to kill the unrec function

[vadawg]

49. why kill it, are you worried that when you post anti nuclear stuff other dems will un rec it

thats the price of having opinions that others differ with.

[uppityperson]

51. Bull puckey

"Well I can safely say that ...
freeper trolls are going to be the most likely to unrec this thread
I know some others will too just for the nyah nyah factor, but mark my words, children"



"That is not to say that everyone who believes nukes are a safe alternative is anything more than poorly informed IMO. I believe they have fallen for the extreme corporofascist Propaganda."



"I espect this to get LOTS of negative recs and will serve Skinner well
Because the pronuke activists will try to take me down here

I LOVE the refrain about how paranoid I am. Coming from one poster after another, And ALL pronuclear posters."



"any idiot can unrec something to try to kill discussion and coverage of an issue."

[spoony]

86. Wow you're doing a lot of admin-baiting

in the midst of a LOT of rule-breaking. You might not want moderator attention to this.

[Liberation Angel]

89. I want the admins to be aware of this problem

and I am not baiting them or breaking any rules

Moslty I am just defending myself and hoping the mods pay attention to potential trolls manipulating the unrec function

[spoony]

90. *forehead smack*

"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know."

"Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion."

You began this thread doing these things, and you've continued to do so.

[Liberation Angel]

92. I haven;t done either of those things

I have bee very clear - I never claimed any individual was a disruptor and I never said all pronukers were conservative disruptors.

Far from it.

In fact I have been very clear to NOT make those statements. I understand the rules and abode by them.

Be that as it may, groups may certainly manipulate these features and lots of folks are talking about them.

And silencing me would certainly benefit someone who wants to silence me.

[uppityperson]

94. Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html

[greyl]

52. No, freeper trolls want to see garbage on the DU Greatest page.

Therefore, they would recommend really stupid threads that they think will embarrass DU.
What's so hard about that to figure out?

[TexasObserver]

54. No, you can't. It's a broad brushed smear, entirely undeserved.

As many here have already noted, this imaginary freeper army simply doesn't exist. If it did, the poll results would reflect it, which they don't.

Accept that your paranoia is getting the best of you, and you're imagining boogey men.

[Liberation Angel]

71. Actually my position on this is pretty simple and straightforward

All over the internet there are people who have shadowy agendas.

out of 100,000 plus registered DUers it might be safe to say at least 1 or 2 % could be actual corporofascist trolls. Freepers in general are extreme right wingers and freelancers but their site is organized and supported by a corporofascist element and elite I would suggest. But the numbers would be in the thousands.

Just a just a handful of these (a small percentae) organized on any topic could keep a subject off the greatest page.

Right now one of the hottest topics in the corporofascist agenda is support for nuclear power. Not all supporters of nukes are corporofascists any more than all people who likes driving a gasoline powered car is a corporofascist - but I would argue that BOTH would be supporting a corporofascist energy agenda which claims we NEED nukes and gasoline powered cars.

Anywa it is these elites who really have the money and resources to do organized propaganda and influence the "chatter" at places like DU.

Agent provocateurs are as old as the hills. T.O., and if you have any experience in activism you would know that.

It is not an imaginary army of drooling freepers I worry about, that was just shorthand for the agents of death and the extreme right. Most freepers are probably just good ol' boys with no teeth and nary a penny. They couldn't really organize a pissing contest in a swimming pool.

[TexasObserver]

78. I've watched the polls and they suggest minimal troll voting.

There are polls here which smoke out the troll factor, and based upon those, I think the whole TROLL mythology is way overdone. The admins have said as much on occasion with their comments, which consistently suggest that most of those accused of being TROLLS are simply DUers who have a different opinion on a given topic.

If you want to figure percentages of posters here, you should start with the regulars, not the total memberships. I think you'll find that most of the posting on GD is done by a few thousand people. And if you want to use percentages further, calculate how many of the top 5000 posters have some form of mental illness.

[Liberation Angel]

81. Heh.

The thing is that trolls won't reveal their true colors in polls because their votes can be checked.

But an unrec is harder to assess

and when the subject is perceived as a one which can have supporters on the right or left (altho I would argue it is a far right wing technology because it kills huge numbers of people for profit - its just most people have no clue about the dangers) then in these scenarios organized manipulation can easily take place.


I think this place can drive folks crazy too

but generally i think the folks who post at places like this are pretty more stable than your general population where if you are truly nuts you wouldn't give a damn about a DU (or if you were fully sane either perhaps)

DU is very influential from what i can tell

it has a high profile and a huge following

it is a great source of info and news imho

so seeing it potentially manipulated bothers me.

Especially on issues I care about which will get marginalized by organized opposition

and if I can't get my posts seen then I can't change those views in people who do not have the info I do.

[TexasObserver]

96. I'll weigh your advice and treat it accordingly.

Thanks for your 90 day evaluation of DU. I'll treasure it.

I see it as a place where generally like minded people come to find hairs to split.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

136. I unrecommended your thread.

I'm not a freeper troll, it's just a shitty thread.

[uppityperson]

55. Been thinking about your concerns & would suggest you email or pm Skinner directly

rather than posting a topic about it here. Might be better to deal with him directly

[xchrom]

57. UNrecommend

[spiritual_gunfighter]

72. corporate operatives? n/t

[Liberation Angel]

75. blackops. propaganda tools, agitprop, bad actors. freeper trolls, whatever

agents provocateurs

what have you

[SidDithers]

120. I'm going to miss you when you're gone...

your posts are funny.

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

144. Is that a veil?

ed threat?

just asking

[JVS]

82. K&U. GO NUKES!

[masuki bance]

91. Is there really a contingent of pro-nuke protocorporate propagandists roaming the halls of DU?

Kick and unrec'd!




*edit- Fuk! I kant spel!

[Liberation Angel]

97. This is one way to find out

there are a lot of very vocal pronukers though


and they are ornery and not very nice

[masuki bance]

98. That's a stereotype, not all of the French are that way. nt

[moggie]

105. This thread is not on the greatest page

Yet it's clearly getting a lot of attention and is stimulating debate. So I don't see a problem.

[Liberation Angel]

Check my new thread in GD Presidential

we'll see how that does on the nuke issue

[Liberation Angel]

109. As soon as I go to bed it will die because of the unrec thing (I bet)

But folks could prove me wrong, i guess

[Liberation Angel]

113. Damn - not one post since I went to bed

just as I figured

but it WAS late

without the unrec function this might have gotten more exposure

[SidDithers]

115. Unrecc'd...

posters have just as much right to an informed pro nuclear energy opinion as you do to your anti-nuke on. I'll state publicly that I'm going to unrec anti-nuke threads, especially ones based on specious pseudoscience, because I generally disagree with the anti-nuke position.

If you think that's an unfair use of the unrec feature, too freakin' bad.

Sid

[slackmaster]

118. This is stupid - Kicked and UnRec'd

:kick:

[Soylent Brice]

119. K&R for prolonged debate.

:evilgrin:

[Liberation Angel]

121. thx all for

proving the points

[Soylent Brice]

123. i'm not proving anything.

just chiming in with nonsense, as i have no valid point to offer.

translation = shit stirring.

:evilgrin:

[Ms. Toad]

122. Do you really think that "trolls" are going to find

your proposed little game interesting enough to be worth watching 24/7 in sufficient numbers to counter recommends solely for the purpose of changing the order of the stories on the greatest page/top five on the home page? If so, I think your sense of the importance of the DU greatest page in the grand scheme of things is vastly overblown.

It is far more likely that people who do hang out here and participate - but who get annoyed at the clique mentality that propels a lot of relatively trivial or "I'm right and you're wrong" posts to the front page of DU will actually be able to do something about it.

[earth mom]

124. This is exactly what I was talking about in my OP. Why doesn't this thread have any recs?

This is a political website and people are pretending that there are not propagandists, disinfo agents or trolls here with serious agendas.

I wish you luck with this thread and I did recommended it for what that is worth, which isn't much anymore.

[Liberation Angel]

125. It is being flooded with unrecs to kill discussion and lower the profile of this issue

it is therefore a GOOD example of why unrec is a BAD idea here.

It is way to easy to game the system with impunity

[earth mom]

126. The thing that gets me is all the people who say the greatest page doesn't matter.

They are lying through their teeth.

[Liberation Angel]

129. And the FRONT page is insignificant? Right

When folks first come here that is what they see.

[SidDithers]

131. Exactly, so it should reflect the majority opinions of DUers...

not just a vocal minority pushing a particular agenda.

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

135. A vocal minority or a silent minority can keep threads off the front/greatest page

It doesn't by any means reflect a majority.

It amounts to a minority veto and a way to KEEP threads from getting enough display so that more people can recommend it anf get it up on the greatest page or to the front page.

Sure where there is VAST noncontroversial support for "safe" ideas they will get rec'd and not unrec'd.

Only if another poster notices the thread or laerts others to it wil it even have a chance and the general DU folks wil only get to see it for the half hour or so it is near the top.


But organized disruptors CAN game this system. So can any pressure group. But that would be unseemly. Unfortunately on some issues only those with time and resources will be able to effectively game this system. That is the danger.

[masuki bance]

132. Over 130 comments, and, with a straight face, you claim

the discussion is killed and it has a low profile?

[Liberation Angel]

145. No greatest page, no front page - the unrecs win

and marginalize this issue

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

138. Because it's a stupid, shitty thread?

The OP has no point, uses faulty logic, attacks other DUers, and generally seeks to disrupt.

[Liberation Angel]

141. Oh please, this is a proposal to the operators of this site

they can use it or not as they choose.

THEY know that disruptors operate here.

They may not appreciate how much is at stake to some corporate entities to stop dialogue on certain issues.

But my guess is that they do and they might fid this suggestion helpful.

[Jennicut]

127. Uh, what if someone just disagrees with your post? Is there anything wrong with that?

If someone wants to unrec a post I made so be it, its free speech. I don't even read the Greatest Page, I link directly to the forums.

[Liberation Angel]

128. The point is that the system can get gamed

weihin in is cool with me.

But I worry about real organized disruptors who want to stifle discussions.
There is NO WAY to stop or detect them

at least not easily.

Corporofascists can be very well organized and they own the technology to hit and run and hide and sabotage

[eleny]

130. I'm sure that I read about how they can track how much we Rec threads

If that's accurate, then there could be a way. Seems like a lot of work for them but I guess a report could be generated for what they deem excessive.

[Liberation Angel]

133. Yes they can BUT it is very hard to tell

if there is an organizd disruption from people who are intentionally trying to sway opinions and quell threads.

Individuals can be tracked as most of us here can. But in my experience there are very organized meia manipulation operations which infiltrate, plant stories, tag team, and disappear into the shadows.

As I said, i think , up thread here - one person with enough resources could have ten or ANY NUMBER of username and ISP addresses.

And the means to create an infinite number of other identities which are not traceable or capable of being tracked as long as they do not post excessively and keep changing identities.

It happens all the time on the net and should come as no surprise to anyone here that people may disrupt very well here if organized and resourced.

It depends on the issue how they wil aproach it. in the past all they needed was to tag team and post demeaning (but legal) responses. Nw they can do it witout posting. They can simply tag team the unrec button.

[Occam Bandage]

134. If you think GE pays people to hang around DU unreccing things...

:rofl:

[Liberation Angel]

137. No pobably not --- but Cheney might

Halliburton and KBR are HUGE nuke freaks.

And they have the money and the desire to get that money in Obama's budget.

Because DU IS an effective means of communicating, they would probably try to game it if they can.

And they can.

Much easier now IMHO.

[greguganus]

139. What a cushy job that would be! n/t

[Liberation Angel]

140. and very lucrative if they get the $50 Billion of our money

because we could not organize a decent opposition