Post here to pledge NOT to "unrec" any threads

[Ken Burch]

No attacks on pro-"unrec" people here. Just take your stand against using an unncessary and unjustified feature.

[EFerrari]

1. Yeah, I don't want to get involved in that. Won't use it. n/t

[Ken Burch]

2. Thanks.

n/t.

[EFerrari]

6. Hey, Ken Burch. It's always good to see you on these internets.

:)

[Ken Burch]

9. No trouble. As the (defeated)Republican senator from my home state once put it

"It's just a bunch of tubes".

[NightWatcher]

3. is the opposite of "k and r" a "un and run"?

if so, I predict several un and runs

[Ken Burch]

5. "un and run"? I like that

Another possibility could be "un and stun", accompanied with a "taser" smilie.

[ThatsMyBarack]

4. Personally, I think the "UN-Rec" idea is horrible.

Some of us get insulted enough on DU as it is. I don't have a "clique" to fit in here, so....

[ZombieHorde]

7. I don't have a clique here, but I am not bothered by it. nt

[scarletwoman]

8. Sorry, no can do.

I'm having too much fun exercising my newfound evil power! :evilgrin:

BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAA...

(I did not exercise it on your OP, however, just so you know.)

[Ken Burch]

12. Thanks at least for the last.

n/t.

[scarletwoman]

39. Actually, I just went back & REC'D your OP, because I think it's just mean of people to be unrec'ing

such a non-hostile post.

I was against the unrec feature from the start, argued against it as well as I could, and certainly won't mourn it if it goes.

However, since it's here now, I'm not interested in unilaterally disarming. It's my hope that maybe some of the people who were so happy about will get sick of it if they see it not turning out quite like they hoped.

Peace and love,
sw

[Ken Burch]

47. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

n/t.

[ContinentalOp]

132. Well, it IS hostile to a very useful feature that some of us actually like. -nt-

[scarletwoman]

133. What? An OP asking to hear from people who intend not to use the unrec feature is "hostile"?

Here's what actual hostile would look like: "You damn pro-unrec people are netnazi authoritarian control freaks! You should all eat worms and die!"

THAT'S what "hostile" looks like, nitwit.

[Usrename]

141. What is it exactly that you like about it?

The fact that the numbers are kept secret from the members?

The fact that it lets people put their fingers in our ears and shout "La la la ..." when they don't agree with the content of a thread?

What exactly do you like about it?

[walkaway]

10. Is this part of a twelve step program?

I don't even know what unrec means. I assume it's unrecommend but what happens if you recommend or unrecommend? Something important? I don't get it.

[Ken Burch]

14. It does mean "unrecommend"

It's about letting controversial threads be hidden.

[EFerrari]

15. We can only tell you after you've been posting for 90 days.

:)

[Ken Burch]

18. And you have to WANT to be told.

n/t.

[ZombieHorde]

11. Why would someone pledge not to use a discussion board feature?

Seems like such a little thing to create a pledge over.

[Ken Burch]

17. In the name of real discussion

n/t.

[ZombieHorde]

55. I don't see how this new feature lessens real discussion.

If someone feels like posting, the unrec feature probably won't stop them.

[EFerrari]

62. Posting an OP isn't really the same as discussing one, is it? nt

And if a poster constant finds him/herself dealing with negative numbers, it will have a chilling effect on that poster eventually.

[ZombieHorde]

67. All on-line gamers know that hate mail is the best compliment one can receive.

You only get hate mail when you are kicking ass.

[EFerrari]

72. Or as Joe Kennedy used to say, "when the dogs are barking

you know you're winning".

lol

But a lot of people don't have the rhino skin he did. :)

[Ken Burch]

75. Or all the money from the rumrunning.

(...just sayin'...)

[EFerrari]

93. The money or the rum!

lol

[Ken Burch]

124. money will get you through times of no rum better than rum will get you through times of no money

Then again, enough rum and you won't CARE what time it is.

[cboy4]

13. No thanks. This reminds of one of those :***Rec this thread if you'd like

Obama to be your boyfriend!11!***

[Ken Burch]

21. Well, if you don't want Obama to be your boyfriend, that's up to you.

n/t.

[cboy4]

27. Exactly. What I want is for him to do his job. It's a strange position I hold

for all politicians.

[Ken Burch]

29. Well, at least it's a position that doesn't involve special equipment and limbering exercises

n/t.

[liberalhistorian]

16. I totally agree, thanks for posting.

It's a really unnecessary feature that will cause a lot of problems. Cue the whiney babies in five, four, three, two, one..................

[grasswire]

19. I won't use it either, and here's why

It seems wrong to be negative about any kind of discourse. I may despise some threads here, and I may be infinitely bored with some threads here, and I may disagree vehemently with an OP.

But the marketplace of ideas is messy. It's egalitarian, democratic and messy.

I don't believe in reflecting negatively on anything anyone here writes or posts. I'll read what I choose, I'll argue or criticize as I wish. But I won't try to discourage others from reading!

[Ken Burch]

24. well put

n/t.

[WillyT]

139. That's It In A Nutshell Grasswire !!!

Perfect summation.

:yourock:

[sandnsea]

20. I unrecommend your thread

And find the complainers hysterical. They're the ones that caused the feature to be implemented in the first place.

Grow Up. How about that?

[Ken Burch]

25. I'll give you points for consistency.

n/t.

[IntravenousDemilo]

66. Sometimes...

... it would be nice to be able to "unrecommend" individual posts, wouldn't it? Especially ones exhorting us to "grow up".

[EFerrari]

26. Let's see: namecalling, unsupported accusation, ridicule.

Check.

[sandnsea]

32. No namecalling. No accusation. No ridicule.

Just opinion. Like the OP. I'm not entitled??

[EFerrari]

44. Maybe you missed this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6050285&mesg_id=6050359

[vaberella]

126. Name calling? no. Accusation? yes. Ridicule? yes, I find them ridiculous too. n/t

[EFerrari]

130. And your disdain adds to this thread how?

Thanks.

[vaberella]

152. In no way but in relation to the posts above. Threads on "unrecing" seem silly.

I'm sure if a freeper post comes online and says something outrageous a few people who claim they won't unrec, will. Further more, for this to be taken seriously boggles my mind----considering I thought we cared more about political policies, than an "unrec"

[EFerrari]

154. The new system is a DU wide information filter.

It was worth a little discussion.

[Hepburn]

162. IMO, it is totally worthless because it promotes negativity. n/t

[EFerrari]

163. Yep. n/t

[omega minimo]

173. This is an example of why nasty, hyperbolic, belligerent posts are not convincing as "disagreement"

or "just opinion." Baloney.

There's often similar phony claims of "if you don't like it when people disagree with you" -- when what they've actually done is something like EFerrari CORRECTLY identified or WORSE. Much worse.

Those who attack and call it "disagreement" are the same characters who were all afroth with the announcement that they could play their petty power trips out on others in a new, anonymous, passive/aggressive, chickenshit way.

:woohoo:

[omega minimo]

170. sandnsea, will you kindly explain:

How "the complainers" 'are the ones that caused the feature to be implemented in the first place."

[Ken Burch]

190. sandnsea NEVER explains

sandnsea believes herself to be ABOVE having to explain to peasant scum like ourselves. It's a disturbingly Benchleyite trait, but not quite as bad because at least sandnsea appears to post while sober.

[DonCoquixote]

22. Kick and R

I refuse to be the sort that is all for free speech when I am on the bottom, but denies it when my guy is in office. Of course, if people are dumb, I will argue with them, but that is the right way to do things, rather than censor in secret to keep a very stale status quo.

[cwydro]

23. No pledge from me.

I like the feature.

But I didn't unrec your thread.

[Ken Burch]

28. Thanks for not unrec'ing this thread, at least.

n/t.

[Taitertots]

30. I Unrec every thread that mentions UNrec n/t

[EFerrari]

35. As of today, that's every single thread. You must be busy!

:)

[Taitertots]

88. I guess you could say I'm not busy

which is why I have enough time to hit the 850 billion threads about it.

[Ken Burch]

36. Y'know, I think we'd have probably guessed that.

Thanks for posting though.

[Taitertots]

61. Your welcome

Now you know why the Unrec threads always get Unrec'ed. I'm sure I'm not the only one fed up with the 80 billion Unrec threads.

[cali]

31. I'll use it the way I use hide rate at kos.

I've used it two or three times so far. I'll use it on obvious trolls and seriously over the top ops. that's it.

[katanalori]

60. me too, what Cali said. n/t

[omega minimo]

168. That could be the new sigline for all the UnReckers

[DJ13]

33. I recommend recommending over unrecommending if recommending is important

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. Why is it unnecessary and unjustified?

Is it any more unnecessary and unjustified than threads that blatantly beg for recommendations? I probably won't use the unrecommend feature. But then I didn't use the recommend feature either. And I've never used the 'greatest' page. I think the whole furore is terribly amusing, personally. Especialy the screams of the overly dramatic insisting that unrecommend 'silences discourse' (which it bloody well doesn't).

[Ken Burch]

This thread didn't actually ASK for recommendations, simply posts.

n/t.

[Spider Jerusalem]

42. Nota bene: I never said this thread DID ask for recommendations.

I'm referring to the endless 'K&R if you agree that...' threads.

[Ken Burch]

45. I've never been sure why those threads offended anyone

They were just about building and demonstrating support for particular causes or ideas. What was the harm?

[kentuck]

37. Why?

For the life of me, I cannot understand the opposition to such a trivial matter? I cannot understand the suspicion, the paranoia, on DU? As if somebody is out to get you?

You post a piece of crap, people vote to recommend or to unrecommend. Nothing more. Nothing less.

But you are voting to take someone off the greatest page! So? What's the big deal? Maybe they didn't deserve to be there? But, no one person or a clique gets to decide. We'll just let the people vote. But no! That wouldn't be fair! That would be censorship.

Never mind that every post operates on the same playing field. That doesn't matter. The opposition sounds so illogical and republican to me.

[EFerrari]

41. You might go back and read tavalon's thread.

The one you were on earlier this morning? She laid the opposition case out very nicely. :hi:

[kentuck]

53. I read tavalon's well-written thread...

but it was not as convincing for me as it seemed to be for you? And what are these "posses"? What am I missing here? Do DUers actually have a posse they can call on to recommend their post and get it more attention? How come I don't have a "posse". It sounds sort of shady and unfair to me and should be prohibited. Even as we talk about crooked politicians.

[EFerrari]

57. Are you sure you don't have a posse? I mean, how often do you check

under the bed? :hi:

I don't have a huge attachment to the Greatest Page. And if you look at it right now, it looks fine -- maybe better than on Thursday. That part worked. But, we're not seeing what isn't there. And, more than that, I think that if someone is going to tank a thread, they should at least say why in a civil manner like a grown up. But, that's just mo.

[kentuck]

59. I ask again.

What is a "posse"?

[EFerrari]

65. kentuck, I thought *you* knew.

:)

Posters here try to get support for their threads for various reasons and in various ways. That will happen regardless, I think.

[kentuck]

108. No. I did not know.

It doesn't sound aboveboard to me. Is that why some folks don't want the unrec feature??

[EFerrari]

131. Not that I know of, nope. n/t

[Ken Burch]

56. could you link to that thread here? Thanks

n/t.

[EFerrari]

58. Sorry! Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6046698

[Ken Burch]

64. No worries. Thanks.

n/t.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

38. I may use it

for one-lined posts like, "Obama's family is awesome!" or "Obama is the next Bush", but I will never use it for well thought out posts, regardless of how pro or anti-Obama the content is. I enjoy a healthy debate on the issues.

[Ken Burch]

52. Fair enough.

n/t.

[premiumblend]

40. I will not use it.

[NorthCarolina]

43. Unrec seems to me a tool useful only to the freep crowd among us

so that they can hide stories damaging to their conservative cause. For what it's worth, having a Recommend is all that is needed in my opinion. If you don't like something posted, then don't give it a Rec. Simple as that. Anyone know the logic behind implementation of the "Unrecommend" choice? When I first noticed it, it struck me as kind of counter to something you would expect to find on a Progressive Board.

[liberal N proud]

46. I will pledge to only un-recommend Michael Jackson threads

That is the best I can do.

And any other off the wall, out of control thread posting that may or may not take place in the future on this board.

[nolabels]

87. The other 99.999% of DU that ignores those wishes you would let them fall to the end also

I don't know if the unrecommended does anything other than draw attention to the post, but i do know the more you ignore the crap (sic) the more it goes away :hi:

[liberal N proud]

122. One would think

But it always seems like a spark is struck on a stupid topic and this place is set ablaze.

[SidDithers]

48. Nope. And unrecc'd...nt

Sid

[Ken Burch]

49. Shouldn't you be back at the office kicking Dagwood for falling asleep at his desk?

Just wondering.

[TorchTheWitch]

115. Ditto

Some people seriously need to grow up.

[Lerkfish]

50. sounds like a valid idea. put me down.

[Ken Burch]

51. Thanks.

n/t.

[Quantess]

54. I actually appreciate Unrec now.

At first, I didn't trust it. But I have already grown to appreciate the Unrecommend feature.

[Dappleganger]

63. I'm sorry but this is all quite silly

[demoleft]

68. unncessary, unjustified and unnatural in a blog. i'll never use it. n/t

[Common Sense Party]

150. Perhaps, but DU is NOT a blog. Far from it.

If the Recommend feature is useful on a message board--and many people seem to think it is--then so is an Unrecommend feature.

[demoleft]

151. i know. but it's a place for discussion, not for votes anyway.

and discussion needs reading, first.

UNrec negates this step - just "don't go to read. it's not worth".
this is a closure, not an openness. and i suppose we're people who like to be open.

i used the word "blog" because from the single user's point of view it works like that - be it journal, or whatever.
you post and people come to read/discuss. the logic is the same.

i give you a silly example of abuse of UNrec: i posted two threads on LBN, pure breaking news without any opinion expressed on my part.
someone came and Unrecommended.

does it make sense to you?

(and yes, i know that the majority willl probably use it correctly. but this is a weapon for personal attacks.)

ciao!

[backwoodsbob]

69. why do you care?

threads don't disappear because of this.

What is the big deal?

you cant get your gang of 5 to rec your *does poo belong on the greatest page* THREAD?

why does anyone care?

the best thing they could do is do away with the *greatest* page

it's nothing but a pissing contest

[Ken Burch]

73. Why are you so sure that threads only made it to the page because of some sort of plot?

Is there a reason that you can't accept that it's possible for others to honestly disagree with you about the merits of a thread?

[backwoodsbob]

100. of course people dissagree with me

as they do with you and everyone else

I just dont understand why people need to feel validated with there gang of 5 rec'ing things to the greatest page.

do you really think your opinion doesn't matter if you dont get on the greatest page?

I wish skinner would do away with the stupid ass greatest page..it would solve this problem

[Ken Burch]

128. Which again begs the question: what IS the problem?

n/t.

[TorchTheWitch]

117. gotta agree with that

getting rid of the greatest page. more trouble than it's worth.

[Maru Kitteh]

188. For the first time, the greatest page is actually worth something.

Especially for those who have a limited time to peruse DU.

[kentuck]

70. Just when I got 25 people in my posse...

That are willing to rec any post that I make, they go and change the rules. It really pisses me off! Just when I learned how to game the system. It ain't fair, I tell ya'! :-)

[Ken Burch]

71. Is there a reason you can't accept that the "Greatest" threads actually made it

because people sincerely, of their own volition, thought they should be there?

[johnaries]

74. WRONG! Being able to vote one way but not the other was

unbalanced and un-democratic. If I can vote for an OP I like, then I should also be able to vote against an OP I don't like. The new system is much more fair and more democratic. The old system allowed small groups of people to hijack The Greatest Page. If a thread is to be truly considered among "The Greatest", it must be so considered by a majority of DUer's, not just 5 of them.

Therefore I will continue to perform my duty as a respnsible DUer and rec threads I beleive deserve it and unrec threads I believe deserve it.

And I will start by giving a big U to this thread.

[demoleft]

80. consider this though...

...to rec a thread = i read it and found it interesting. have a look.
to UNrec = i read it and it is NOT worth reading, leave it.

which one u do consider more democratic, culturally liberal, and natural in a place like the internet - made for sharing?

and everybody got aware so far that the UNrec has been used widely for personal questions. not healthy for a community.

[Laelth]

81. Hear, hear! n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[johnaries]

82. Many healthy internet communities use a "thumbs up/down" system.

Such a system RAISES the level of discourse.

And you'll notice that many <0 threads still have a large number of postings.

[demoleft]

83. indeed i noticed already that UNrec threads are among the most viewed.

i posted a thread about it, days ago.

i know it works, instrumentally.

it's the meaning behind the UNrec that i do not like. and the down/thumbs too, as well.

not recommending a thread is already a judgement.
positively Unrecommeding a thread is a bit too negative an act for a community that shares. and a community of democrats, in particular.

though, as u say and it's true - it works.

ciao!

[johnaries]

90. Thanks for the discussion!

:hi:

[demoleft]

92. my pleasure!

:toast:

[knixphan]

144. good point

[BlooInBloo]

91. That's how I like my ballot initiatives: Either vote 'yes', or don't vote.

Because it's soooooo democratic dontchaknow.

:rofl:

[demoleft]

95. ;) this is a blog - it's about reading, sharing, discussing, not vote. am i wrong?!

ciao!

[BlooInBloo]

96. There are many things on the internet which are not blogs. Message boards are one such....

And DU is a message board.

[demoleft]

103. ok, a message board. it has nothing to do with voting anyway.

i used the word "blog" because it works like that. you post and people come to comment/discuss.
anyway, thanx for editing me.

it does not change the substance.
ciao and from my european point of view - goodnight.

[BlooInBloo]

105. Kos, Digg, Slashdot, and a brazillion other posting sites allow it. There's nothing remotely unique

about it.

The only thing that MIGHT be close to unique is the old way DU worked: allowing only 'yes' vote or not vote at all. I've never heard of that anywhere else.

[demoleft]

106. ok, i'm easy. we can agree that we disagree on this UNrec function.

you're right, it is common and widely used elsewhere.
but i do not like it just the same.

ciao and thanx.

[stlsaxman]

112. I view the whole thing like "term limits" -

if you don't like a candidate, don't vote them in again. besides- you don't vote "no" on a candidate, right?

or, if you look at it like a primary election- you vote against a candidate by voting for another more deserving one- not by voting "no" on the one you're against.

It's a convoluted simile but that's how my brain works.

[BlooInBloo]

113. I vote yes/no on ballot initiatives. Congress votes yes/no on bills...

Why use a "convoluted" simile when a completely accurate and simple one is available?

Oh - that's right - because it disagrees with you.

[stlsaxman]

114. but these are not bills or initiatives- they are candidates for The Greatest Page.

that is as simple as it gets.

... and why are you being an asshole to me?

[BlooInBloo]

116. Yep. And I prefer democracy. The ability to vote yes, no, or not vote...

I can appreciate how a certain small segment would prefer that nobody have the ability to vote no, however. People who have no desire or hope of convincing other people typically don't care for democratic institutions.

[EFerrari]

123. Democratic institutions like the Senate?

Most of the people I see not liking this get on the GP and will continue to do so but nice work, trying to make this about a person and not about the issues.

[BlooInBloo]

129. I support your ability to vote 'yes', 'no', or not vote at all for a thread to the Greatest...

even if you don't support that ability for yourself.

[Joe the Revelator]

76. Some of you really need to get out more

More loyalty oaths,eh? U'reced with pride

[Ken Burch]

84. not a loyalty oath. An oath against an unnecessarily repressive feature

n/t.

[Telly Savalas]

101. Repressive? You do need to get out more.

[EFerrari]

104. You know, there are a few posters around here that are pretty upset

about the bullying they are experiencing. Maybe you haven't seen it.

/oops

[EFerrari]

86. And some of you, no, actually, I just mean you, lol,

need to learn the difference between a loyalty oath and agreement.

[WeDidIt]

77. I dunno. I might, I might not

depends on the thread.

[boppers]

78. K&U

:P

[sendero]

79. I think the fact..

... that folks are getting their panties in a wad over this feature is laughable. Big Fat Hairy Deal.

[EFerrari]

89. No wadded up panties here.

I don't want to get involved in this because I come here to talk to people, not to rate them. No big hairy anything, just a preference.

[scarletwoman]

110. Unlike me,

I come here TO BEND PEOPLE TO MY IMPLACABLE WILL!!!11!!1

When they please me as they should, I shall benevolently reward them with a recommend; when they dare to displease me, they shall feel the burning wrath of my dreaded unrecommend!

THUS do I smite the unworthy churls and asshats!



:)
sw

[EFerrari]

118. LOL

:scared:

[WillyT]

142. Um... You Owe Me A New Computer Chair...

:hide::scared::hide:

:rofl:

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

147. Sorry about your chair.

Now, just don't make me unrecommend you and everything will be fine. :evilgrin:

:hi:
sw

[Buzz Clik]

85. k&u

[Confusious]

94. I pledge....

To unrec any thread that whines about the unrec feature.

[EFerrari]

98. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

:)

[canetoad]

97. I pledge NOT to unrec any threads

I also pledge, while the unrec system is in place, not to REC any threads either. Seems pointless.

[Forkboy]

99. I wouldn't take a pledge not to take pledges.

[EFerrari]

102. That was yesterday's password.

[Forkboy]

109. A day late and a dollar short.

The story of my life. ;)

[stlsaxman]

107. pledge

"i pledge to vote only FOR a candidate for The Greatest Page that I feel is deserving".

[Baikonour]

111. If a poster posts something that YOU disagree with, you have the option to...

Either rebuke them with a reply or, if you want to take a step further, simply ignore them with the ignore feature.

The unrecommended "feature" only serves to silence dissent and intelligent discourse.

[stlsaxman]

119. +1... and then some.

[Xicano]

120. I pledge not to undo someone else's recommendation

If someone doesn't wish to recommend a thread they're already free not to do so. "Unrecommending", therefore, equates to undoing someone else's recommend and I don't think that's right.

n/t

[Sinistrous]

121. Hiding.

[havocmom]

127. LOL best answer!

:spray:

[omega minimo]

125. Who died and made you ReckLess police?

Is making up funny names an "attack" on the ReckLess Patrol?

WHAT IF we already took that pledge and don't like your TONE?!!!!!!!!!! The belliigerence that this announcement brought out in the ReckLess fans is what sent up red flags about the feature. That and the lack of a clear problem that this nuke toy is a solution to.

No way, DADDY!!!


I suggest a tweak where the ReckLess also triggers a Kick. Provides balance and reduces wreckless ReckLessing.

[Ken Burch]

135. Er...did you mean that as a response to the OP?

I thought you and I were on the same side on this issue.

I'm glad if you already took that pledge. The idea of this thread was to get as many people as possible on record saying they wouldn't "unrec".

Am I missing something here?

[omega minimo]

137. You're right.

We are. However, the authoritarianism in the OP stomps all nuance. It still seems to me that UnReck is petty and Rec is devalued -- intentionally -- by that pettiness. It's been on display here since the announcement.

I still wonder how many people won't use UnReck and how many won't use Rec either, since everything slips down the chute and disappears.

[Ken Burch]

143. Well, authoritarianism was the last thing I intended

I never look good in uniforms anyway.

The idea was that people would pledge voluntarily. I merely meant to create the possibility of putting that on record.

[omega minimo]

146. Thanks for your patience.

Very much. Three volleys of it, a new DU record.


I'm discouraged by the attitudes that have been revealed. Very vicious. Toward people supposedly of common cause. Not sure what to make of it.

[Ken Burch]

148. That and this whole "you know perfectly well what this is about and you're part of it" tone that

the "pro-unrec'ers" take.

Where does this "we know your kind" attitude come from with them?

[omega minimo]

149. Someplace very

shallow













and fucking frightening.

[EFerrari]

153. Mob mentality, more tyranny of the majority.

The story is that people who don't like the new system are all Obama bashers. I don't think I've ever even posted an OP that disagreed with Obama. :crazy:

[omega minimo]

155. Is that what it's about?

Rilly? Maybe that Rush Limbaugh Armed Forces Mega Recced thread that cast asparagus on the O Admin as well............

[EFerrari]

157. I just realized how hard it's going to be to get minority issues on the GP.

GLBT, Latin America, Veterans, Labor, Election reform. Welcome to Vanilla DU!

[omega minimo]

159. And realizing

that right away was not :tinfoilhat: it was clearly expressed -- if not specifically on all of the above -- in the Yee Haw!!!!!!!!!!! reactions.

:thumbsdown:

[EFerrari]

161. People who don't belong to minorities don't seem to get it.

But the admins should.

[omega minimo]

167. LOL

I'm sorry. Why did your lead line make me :spray:!!!


As for the other bit, is that the message we're supposed to suss out for ourselves?

Give the jealous and petty (who don't have seem to contribute much in constructing OPs but love being hall monitor) a button to push, which some others will use judiciously; don't show a tally that would provide a point of reference for popularity of the thread; discourage those who think the Yee Haw reaction is ugly; the chilling effect leads them to marginalize themselves; voila!

Everyone to their Ungeouns!!! :hide:

[scarletwoman]

156. It doesn't matter that you didn't write such an OP, you might have voted to *recommend* such an OP.

Now all such irresponsible and offensive votes can be beaten back and neutralized by the righteous and correct-minded loyalists. This is why they rejoice so fulsomely over the new feature; the Front Page of DU need never again be sullied by embarrassing dissent.

sw

[EFerrari]

158. The front page won't see a lot of things that we used to see.

The new broom is also sweeping it clean of threads from the small forums that few people visit but that more would be interested in with a little encouragement -- like Election Reform and Vet's Issues.

[scarletwoman]

166. Looking over the GP just now...

It's pretty much dominated by threads from LBN, GD, & GDP, with a smattering here and there from Editorials and Political Videos. Looks like 3 GLBT, 1 Economy, 1 Latin America, 1 Health, 1 Science -- didn't see any from Election Reform. No Labor, no Veterans.

Since I usually only ever noticed the top 5 "Greatest" that made it to the Front Page of DU, I have no way of knowing if this is typical of what the mix has always been on the GP -- maybe it is.

Posses, we need posses. :)

[EFerrari]

175. Or more time in the boutiques.

:)

I counted 11 threads from the topic forums, all pretty far down the page. Don't know how many threads on the GP, though. Whatever. I need to learn to love the new Echo Chamber. :)

[scarletwoman]

177. I, for one, welcome our new unrec Overlords!

We will now know Who Is Of The Body and who is not.



Welcome to Landru Underground!

[Ken Burch]

180. Oh...you're doing satire...

not bad.

[scarletwoman]

185. Thank you.

:hug:

[omega minimo]

164. Yon sweet floral words

sheath a thorny stem, dear scarletwoman.

If you want to shed some light on the un/realities of "Obama bashing," please do share.

[scarletwoman]

172. I know nothing. Nothing, I tell you!

O8)

[omega minimo]

174. Nuzzink!!!!!

:patriot:

[Ken Burch]

179. did you actually use the phrase "embarrassing dissent'?

And what does "it doesn't matter that you didn't write such an OP, you might have voted to *recommend* such an OP" mean?

You can't condemn people for things you think they MIGHT have done.

And how could the phase "sullied by embarassing dissent" ever be appropriate to a progressive board. What is "embarrassing dissent", anyway? And who are you to say what sort of dissent is and isn't acceptable here? Something very embarrassing slipped out about your attitude in that post.

...If, on the other hand, you meant that as comedy, it was quite good...

[scarletwoman]

181. *kiss*

My apologies for my sardonic humor, it's just how I am. Please know that I'm on your side.

[Ken Burch]

182. A little further down the thread, I got what you were doing.

Damn, you're good.

[scarletwoman]

184. *blush*

I have to admit, I was depending on people like EFerrari who know me, to get where I was coming from.

If you had seen some of my other posts arguing against the unrec feature, you would have known sooner.

Peace and Love,
sw

[Ex Lurker]

134. I've never "rec'd" a thread, so I won't be "unrec'ing" threads n/t

[Jennicut]

145. I hardly ever rec'd until this whole debate came up. I just forget to do it.

I am bad.

[Yukari Yakumo]

136. KU and FU! {nt}

[donheld]

138. Absolutely not!

Some threads just beg for an un-recommend.

[WillyT]

140. K & R !!!

:kick:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

160. maybe only donors should unrec...this will keep trolls from doing it?

[Rex]

165. I am pro-unrec and feel no need to justify why it should be here.

Rec is here, why not unrec? Is it that much of an assault on personal liberties here that we can only say if we 'like' a topic? Don't we always fight over everything eventually anyway? I say show HOW many unrecs as well as recs...lay it all out on the table.

Okay to solve all this non-sense, you could put a 'rec-unrec' counter on a poster so if they unrec alot it will show the color red for negative attitude. Gray would be a 'fair and balanced'(tm) poster and green would be the zen flowing positive enchanters who weave the whoo-haa here on DU.

There, go now and do...

[defendandprotect]

169. Well, I'll keep KICKING the threads that I think need attention . . .

[Zorra]

171. I'd never consider unrecommending a thread.

However, the feature may be temporarily useful as a troll trap.

[Better Believe It]

176. I won't unrecommend a thread. That would be undemocratic and here's why

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from anywhere on DU. And DU'ers who don't agree with the post or who just don't like the poster, are free to criticize the post or even put the poster on ignore!

The unrecommend feature is a whole different kettle of fish.

The unrecommend feature enables people to remove, bump down or even prevent posts from even appearing on the "greatest page" and the front home page with a simple click of the mouse!

The clear objective of such clicks is to reduce the number of views (hits) of posts that they don't agree with. That's censorship even if you try to pretty it up by claiming it's a democratic form of censorhip, a peoples censorhip!

Again, the undemocratic political objective of the "unrecommend" feature is to reduce the number of DU'ers who notice and are likely to read the post.

It's a simple as that.

And the purpose of "the Greatest Page" is not to record "votes" in support of or in opposition to political views.

Democratic Underground clearly states: "The Greatest Page lists threads which have been nominated by the members of DU as the most noteworthy." It was not intended as a means of casting "votes" for or against including posts on the "greatest page" or the homepage on Democratic Underground.

We're not talking rocket science here!

[derby378]

178. I'm not un-recommending anything on DU - this feature is shortsighted and detrimental to the site

The ability to unrecommend turns these forums into a pissing contest.

You don't like a particular thread on DU? That's fine. Don't read it. That way, you won't bitch about it.

[alittlelark]

183. I have 'unreced' one thread from an already tombstoned troll.

I prefer the 'rec'. I will only 'unrec' for the obvious and/or ludicrous.

[Iggo]

186. Rec this thread if...

[JTFrog]

187. Damn, too late to unrecommend. n/t

[NEDem]

189. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[WI_DEM]

191. I'll use sparingly but won't hesitate to use it if I feel inclined.

[slackmaster]

192. I pledge to Unrec every thread that has anything to do with Sarah Palin

To the best of my ability.

[BlooInBloo]

193. This stupid thread is still alive?