Do you think the unrec feature will go the way of the "block replies from certain members" feature?

[Clintonista2]

Into oblivion?

[WI_DEM]

1. No.

[countingbluecars]

2. No.

[fishwax]

3. man, that was a fun couple of days

:D

As to the unrec: I think it's here to stay ...

[Clintonista2]

5. I was genuinely outraged at the "block replies" feature. I don't see what the big deal is about the

unrec one. Good posts will still make it to the greatest page.

[fishwax]

7. yep -- I agree on both counts

[dsc]

12. Do you seriously think good posts about Hillary would have made the greatest page

if unrecommend had existed in the primaries? I highly doubt it.

[Clintonista2]

32. I don't recall her making the greatest page anyways

unless it was a hit piece.

[dsc]

39. many did but they wouldn't have made the top of it

but they would have made the middle and lower half. We had enough people left here to recommend positive threads but not enough to get to the very top.

[SidDithers]

4. I hope not...nt

Sid

[Oregone]

6. First we should seek to change the rec/unrec power, to weight it based on strength of DU citizenship

[LostInAnomie]

11. Who would make that determination?

[Oregone]

15. I would

OR we could rec/unrec people personally, which contributes to the power of their rec/unrecs. Some people are worth .5 points, and others, like me, would be worth 2

[LostInAnomie]

19. Well, as long as it's objective.

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

22. If you're going there, how bout dealing with other DU citizenship issues first

like serially bullying, gang attacks and resident troublemakers?

Really.

[Control-Z]

34. Exactly what I would like to see

addressed. That same group of DUers will be the ones URing good threads.

[eleny]

8. The lord giveth and lord taketh away

I sure hope so.

[niceypoo]

9. Yes

[LostInAnomie]

10. No. The Atomic Ignore actually effected posters' ability to participate in discussions.

Those were some crazy times though.

The unrec feature doesn't actually effect anything but people's fragile egos.

[omega minimo]

13. It's truly funny how many of the jerks hated being blocked out and love this way to block others

:evilfrown:

[LostInAnomie]

16. Block others from what?

They can post any thread they want. They can reply to any post they want. Hell, they can kick their own thread if they feel like it in hopes of creating more discussion. They can still be voted on to the greatest page. They aren't blocked in any realistic way.

All unrec. does is give DUers more control over what makes it to their greatest page. Before, it was a one way street that was easily manipulated by groups and popular posters.

[omega minimo]

20. All it does is give petty posters a way to feel powerful, in control, a new way to detract others

[LostInAnomie]

23. It allows posters genuine feedback on what makes it to the greatest page.

Before, it was a one way street where posters could post something divisive, and those that agree with them could all recommend it. A small fringe group could force a divisive thread onto the greatest page and there is nothing the majority could do about it. Now, if the thread doesn't actually have merit, it won't make it and won't "represent" DU as a whole.

[omega minimo]

27. There's too many holes in your logic to even bother.

[LostInAnomie]

29. Right...

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

14. Yes, after the records of who clicked what are public, like the MegaIgnore lists were.

:think:

[Vektor]

17. I'm sorry I missed that...

It would have been nice to be able to block the replies from stalker types that follow you all around the board trying to start an argument with you over and over again, and totally harassing you.

Alerting often doesn't help.

[JackRiddler]

18. That was a great feature.

It would have allowed cliques and strains to exist alongside each other in a relatively peaceful, common community, sort of like the ideal of what the Democratic Party is supposed to be.

[LostInAnomie]

21. In reality, it allowed one group to post a divisive topic...

... Nuke others for not agreeing with them, then block them from creating another thread giving the other side (because that would be continuing the argument).

It was rife with abuse and a strain on moderators.

[omega minimo]

26. It also allowed people to discuss certain topics without constant disruptions from troublemakers

[LostInAnomie]

28. How would regular ignore not have accomplished that?

DU is a forum afterall. If posters wanted to post their response in a thread they had every right to as long as it was within the rules. Nuclear ignore prevented that, and prevented others from seeing the opposing view. If the Original Posters didn't like people disagreeing with them, maybe they should have gone to a more homogeneous forum.

One person's trouble making is another person's legitimate disagreement.

Skinner made the right choice by getting rid of the Nuke.

[omega minimo]

31. Serial troublemakers break the Rules.

In this case, how would increasing the number of posts needed to reach Greatest not have accomplished the goal?

[LostInAnomie]

36. Serial trouble makers get their posts deleted by the mods if they are that out of line...

... they also get suspended or tomb-stoned if they cannot control themselves. Anyone that has been in the lounge in the last couple of months has seen that take place.

Why would increasing the number of recs be necessary or effective? It would still be the same one way street where a thread can only be voted upwards. Genuinely good, informative, or insightful posts don't seem to have trouble getting on the greatest page. The unrec allows the totality of DU to have more control in separating the wheat from the chaff. In a way, more democratic.

[JackRiddler]

38. I don't think it blocked them from creating another thread!

If people who had been nuclear ignored started a response thread, I'm sure the mods would have allowed that.

The feature would have been good for making people more reluctant to do hit-and-run derisive no-content responses. People would have had more chance to develop controversial ideas (whether or not they could persuade others) without getting into so much personal flamewar.

Each thread would have had more of a blog quality, without any more limit than we have now on members starting as many of their own new threads as they like.

As I remember it was only tried out for about a day before it was nuked.

The kind of people who over-nuked would have likely found themselves with fewer and fewer people interested in what they had to say.

A n y w a y.

[LostInAnomie]

40. The Nuclear Ignore didn't block them...

... but a confluence of it and the DU rule about starting threads to "continue arguments" made it the de facto extension. All it took was a complaint to the mod (and we had some very sympathetic mods at the time) and the thread would get locked. I could point you to a thread or two, just from memory, that happened with, and there were other complaints about it happening at the time. Naturally, if you are barred from a thread that you have strong feelings about it will cause some resentment. Having your response thread locked only compounded it.

All-in-all it was a horrible idea that only lead to a lot of animosity, and would have lead to a very divided forum. Skinner finally made the right decision and pulled the plug.

[Pool Hall Ace]

24. Wait a minute . . . block replies from certain members?

Is this different from the Ignore feature? At one time, you could start and thread and prevent certain posters from replying? *Nobody* saw their reply?

When was this?

[LostInAnomie]

30. It was a few years ago.

It was a disaster. I couldn't believe the admins. were so short sighted on that one. In theory, it was supposed to stop arguments and ease the burden on the mods. In reality though, it did the opposite.

A poster could post a thread and then block out anyone that disagreed with them. They could also prevent those that disagreed with them from EVER posting in another one of their threads (the true nuke). Also, if the people that were blocked from the divisive thread decided to start another thread giving their viewpoint, the nuclear blocker could alert the mods that the "opposing thread" was continuing the argument, and have it locked or deleted. This gave them de facto authority over a topic for the whole forum.

Some of the more fragile and whiny posters on here had nuclear ignore lists hundreds of members long. I can think of one in particular...

[BlooInBloo]

25. I don't remember that, but it sounds like a really stupid feature.

[Clintonista2]

33. It was only around for a few days, and yea it was pretty stupid

[Ignis]

35. Similar situation: Nifty idea, poor implementation.

I still think there must be a way to implement the Nuclear Ignore function without causing the chaos we saw last time.

[girl gone mad]

37. Probably.