Do you think folks who complain about Unrecs are trying to divert attention from the thread subject?

[valerief]

Do you think folks who complain about Unrecs are trying to divert attention from the thread subject?

[sui generis]

1. in this world there are a limited number of types of people

There are kings and priests (leaders and witch doctors), there are quarterbacks and scorekeepers (do-ers and critics) and everyone else is just a wannabe until proven otherwise.

So, if someone is busy squawking about the number of unrecs, I'm guessing they are probably a scorekeeper, or rather, a speedbump, to the rest of us.

[cloudbase]

26. Here's a take on that:

[sui generis]

28. grin

that was perfect

[ThomWV]

2. It isn't at all uncommon to see unrecommends for posts that have no possibly objectionable content

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. What IS common though are threads with 100+ recs and a snarky complaint about unrecs

somewhere within the first five responses.

[valerief]

20. Those are the people I'm talking about!!!! Over and over and over again

they complain about unrecs. A mile long list of posts about unrecs. Makes me not want to read the thread, so I'm thinking these people do it on purpose.

[valerief]

12. Yeah, but it isn't uncommon to see the first posts on that thread be all about the unrecs, not the

OP. I find that strange. Like the power of the OP is being diverted to scorekeeping crap. Hell, we get enough scorekeeping crap from "journalists" (bwahahaha) on teevee.

[dmallind]

3. Nope - I just think they are neurotic

I mean who cares about whether people like or don't like what you post, especially as there are no "rules" about what an unrec actually means, and could easily be intended to unrec the subject of the post rather than the poster. For example someone could post a well written opinion about a mass layoff, and get unrecs which were intended to show feelings about the layoff itself, not the post about it.

Even if we assume ALL unrecs are intended to say "I disagree with YOU" to the OP, what the hell use is a discussion forum other than one where disagreement is not only expected, but actually welcomed? The least useful form of discussion is "yeah me too". Disagreeing with me at least either shows me where I am mistaken or shows me where my argument or presentation of it needs work, even if in some cases the work it needs is only being clearer to idiots.

[TexasObserver]

24. Yep.

[leftstreet]

4. UnRec seems to keep stupidness from the Greatest page

I like it for that

[onehandle]

10. Exactly right. nt

[valerief]

13. This poll isn't about unreccers. It's about the complainers of unreccers who

respond right off the bat at unrecced posts.

[TexasObserver]

25. co-sign

[Maru Kitteh]

5. NO! The unreccers are killing the free speeches. It's just like Hitler and Germany in 1943.

I don't care why people cry and complain about unrec, it always sounds silly and childish to me.

[valerief]

16. I don't care about the unreccers. This poll is about the complainers of the unreccers. nt

[damntexdem]

6. Hey, what issue are you trying to get us to ignore by posting this poll?

;-)

[valerief]

14. Ha! I've wanted to comment on this, but I didn't want to take away from a thread the

way the unrec complainers all do. Ergo, my own poll!
:hi:

[L0oniX]

7. If you've been an asshole blog nazi to DU members you might forever get unrec'd as a result.

I'll admit this ...I unrec every sara palin, tiger woods op because I am so sick and tired of seeing and hiding those damned threads. More over, when ever there is a flood of ops over the same person or subject I will unrec it ...it's fucking over kill and I am tired of that shit and tired of hiding those kinds of threads.

[valerief]

15. Totally understandable, but this poll isn't about unreccers. It's about

people who automatically complain about an OP being unrecced. The next twenty responses are about the unrec, not the OP.

[nemo137]

9. How deep does the rabbit hole go?!

[Bobbie Jo]

11. It's ego-based, imo....

Rec Me..Rec Me..Rec Meeeee!! :rofl:

To put it bluntly....it's a real turn-off.

[City Lights]

17. I totally agree! nt

[Stevenmarc]

18. No they're whiners that need to step away from the keyboard, go outside and take a deep breath

and regain a little perspective in their life

[greyl]

19. Trying? Probably not.

[frustrated_lefty]

21. Of course it's a mixture.

Personally, I suspect there are a handful of people who un-rec virtually every thread, no matter its content. Again, this is speculation, but I suspect they simply don't like the feature and are trying to invalidate it through across the board un-recommendations, hoping the feature will consequently be removed. Or, it could be freepers, or cyber-ninjas spreading discord throughout the ether, or even Glenn Beck practicing pre-masurbatory foreplay.

Ultimately, the first few unrecs and the inevitable trail of posts by the rec police which follow them are generally wasted space, devoid of content, and do distract somewhat from the OP.

[petronius]

22. I think that a relatively small number of people have an exaggerated view

of the importance of (un)recs - and an even smaller group have realized that unreccing willy-nilly is a 'fun' way to screw with the first group...

:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

23. No, they're simply obsessed with unrec and cannot stop themselves.

Some think they're helping the thread in which they angrily post "well, I see the unrecommenders are trying to knock you down!"

[gkhouston]

27. Depending on my mood, those people either make me giggle or roll my eyes.

What they don't accomplish is changing my opinion of the post I'm reading or the use of the rec and unrec features.

[UTUSN]

29. No, not the LEGITIMATE unRecs. The MALICIOUS UnReKKKs not based on content.

Since I am a prime "complainer" against the malicious UnReKKKer(s), or, I prefer to regard my campaign as guerilla warfare, here, once again is my rationale:


There is one or a few who go around UnReKKKing topics nefariously. I saw Admin's post to the effect that they have looked into it and that it is unfounded that MANY or a GROUP are doing it, and I accept this at face value (as I do ALL of Admin/Mod findings). But it is incontrovertable that somebody abuses the system for unknown reasons---either to push buttons or being a wingnut troll.

Now, let me be CLEAR: I make NO reference to the legitimate use of the Unrec feature. Do I need to repeat that?!1 I am referring specifically to the abuse of the feature.

Also, my calling attention to the abuse, which I do by replying to it, both in my threads AND in all other threads by others where it happens, is NOT to "divert attention from the thread subject." My objection to the ABUSE is what it is.

And, repeating another point, NO, the abuse is not aimed JUST at my own threads, it is in many, MANY topics that are perfectly legitimate for posting on a discussion board for Democratic partisans. Why would somebody UnReKKK perfectly legitimate Democratic topics? I can only think, for wingnut disruption purposes.

And, to tie up one other loose end, NO, my use of "UnReKKK" does NOT "compare ANYBODY who uses the UnRec feature LEGITIMATELY" to the KKK. I use that only for the abusers, whom I really suspect are wingnuts, and I consider KKK-ism to be a core value of wingnuts, as in KKKarl and BecKKK.

Oh, one other loose end: To the poster who said we complainers (about the UnReKKKs) are "obsessed" with counting Recs/Unrecs---uh, no, it is the abusers and even some of the legitimate practitioners who are. There are some legitimate users who are POMPOUS about their rating topics or presentations, claiming some "high standard" of quality----HAH!1

[surrealAmerican]

30. No, but I think they overestimate the importance of recs.

[pecwae]

31. No.

Their skins are far too thin to be posting. Unrecs seem to affect the more prolific posters the most.