Shouldn't we have transparency with recs/unrecs with the advent of "Blog Warriors"?

[cui bono]

There's already plenty of your normal variety troll but now there's that company offering up Blog Warriors to go out and voice whatever opinion they're paid to voice.

Why can't we see names of those who rec/unrec threads? If anyone is ashamed of someone knowing they did either then perhaps they will be a little more discriminating.

Edit to add:

Seriously, can anyone give me their reason that they prefer recs/unrecs to be anonymous? I truly do not know a valid reason and think it would be beneficial to have transparency. Is there any adult out there who cares to state their reason? Or are all those who unrec'd this thread proving my point?

[kirby]

1. No and Unrec'd n/t

[TexasObserver]

2. Unrecommend. Happy now?

Start a thread worthy of being recommended, and I'll recommend it.

[cui bono]

3. I never asked for your recommendation. n/t

[TexasObserver]

7. You asked for disclosure, which is what I gave you.

Why do people who start dumb threads think their problem is hired agents, voting down their threads?

[cui bono]

8. Where did I say that? And why do you feel the need to resort to personal attacks

instead of responding to the original post?

And if you really think the thread is so dumb, how dumb are you for wasting your time posting in it, not once, but at least twice now. I see you are doing your part to lower the level of discourse on this site.

Of course there are plenty of truly important threads that get unrec'd. And if you haven't heard about the new company that has "Blog Warriors" for hire you should go find out about it. If you don't think there are operatives, paid or not, attempting to disrupt public discourse then you have your head up your ass.

[TexasObserver]

14. It's a vote. It's secret. Like most votes.

Here's the point. You say you want to know who is voting to unrecommend threads, but when told, you find something else to whine about. You don't like having people vote the way they want to vote, and you assume that blog warriors are to blame for threads that suck here which get unrecommended.

Good threads that have substance and include an OP that isn't full of childish writing or juvenile profanity get recommends without difficulty. Crap threads get thumbs down. Stop thinking the problem is blog warriors foiling you.

[cui bono]

17. You truly have a comprehension problem.

Where did I say I didn't like the way people are "voting"? Where did I state the paranoia that you are attributing to me? Where did I say blog warriors are foiling me? I honestly couldn't think of any reasons for it to not be transparent and I constantly see comments in various threads about them getting unrec'd so I thought I'd bring it up in GD to see what the reason(s) could be for them to not be transparent. Why do you have such a problem with that that you find the need to attack me for no reason? You're not even attacking me for what I've said, just for what you are projecting onto me.

[TexasObserver]

19. Nope. I'm quite accomplished at it.

Just accept that your lame idea and your whining about it are never going to gain support.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cui bono]

34. Sensitive, huh?

But not towards those you are attacking...

[TexasObserver]

58. Don't start threads if hearing opposing opinions makes you wince.

You are being an overly sensitive poster, and your ugliness toward all who disagree with you is an indication that you cannot bear disagreement.


Try to conduct yourself without resorting to cheap name calling and insults toward those who don't share your point of view.

[cui bono]

127. You did not once present an opposing view. You merely attacked me personally for things I never

said or did. When I asked you to show me where I said those things you failed to produce them.

Case closed.

[Moochy]

146. This Very Subthread

caused that poster to go on the list.

[cui bono]

151. Seriously. I wish it were at least amusing, but alas, it's just kind of...

sad.

[ima_sinnic]

43. sounds like he doth protest too much, if you catch my drift

on the other hand, I did try to recommend, but the ones who don't want to be outed have succeeded in unrecommending beyond the recommends.

[TexasObserver]

60. It's pretty simple. Don't attack other posters, if you catch my drift.

Name calling has no place here. Those who can't follow that rule often run afoul of it.

Personal attacks, such as your call out post referring to me, are also against the rules.

[Renew Deal]

108. Is this a joke?

It must be a joke coming from you. Hearing you say "don't attack other posters" hilariously ironic.

[cui bono]

130. So true, so true. the only reason he posted here initially was to attack me personally.

And has yet to substantiate any of his false claims.

[TexasObserver]

143. Nonsense. Please stop making personal attacks.

I've addressed your thread topic and you've attacked me for doing so.

Like I said, don't start threads if you can't stand to hear opposing points of view.

[cui bono]

149. I'm fine with opposing views. You simply won't provide one.

You'd rather keep attacking me for things I never said or did. I have asked you repeatedly to show me where I've said/done what you've attributed to me and you have yet to substantiate any of your claims. You simply try to deflect the real issue and turn it around to some false accusations about me. We all know that tactic well. We see it all the time.

It's particularly interesting that you are posting so much in this thread when you've said you think it is "dumb". Most people ignore things they merely think are dumb. Wonder why this one got under your skin so much and why you couldn't come up with a real response.

We're just going in circles now, so you really needn't respond again unless you are going to finally answer the question posed in the OP or attempt to back up your false claims.

But you've already proven you won't do that, so see ya!

[TexasObserver]

144. Two ewes walk into a bar.

That's when I'm joking.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Recommended.

[LostInAnomie]

5. No

[cui bono]

6. Why not? What would be wrong with transparancy? Seriously. I can't think of any reason to hide it

Is there no one against it that can state why it's better for it to be anonymous?

[Orsino]

145. Secret ballots encourage honesty, or at least truth to oneself.

The price we pay is that a few agitators will sway rec totals a bit. Mods can police most of this.

[hfojvt]

9. What advent of blog warriors?

Where is this company? Are they hiring?

I have a steady job, but I wanna be an internet writer. Internet writer.

[cui bono]

12. I don't know if you want the info or not but here's a link:

http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2007/07/make-no-mistake.html

There's a company called Advantage Consultants that's offering up "professional blog warriors" to "flood the zone" with comments. In short, astro-turf trolls for the blogosphere.

Click to zoom on their ad at right, but here's the text:

Are you ready for a blog attack?

Get ahead of your opponent with Professional Blog Warriors.

Be prepared to "flood the zone" with comments from professionals who are ready to put your talking points on the blogosphere 24/7.

Whether it's defense or offense, Advantage Consultants has a dedicated team of experienced blog warriors ready to advance your candidate or campaign.

Why wait for the attack? Launch your attack with a battery of blog and forum comments aimed at all media and blog sites in your district.

Contact us today and let us show you the Advantage in professional blog warfare.

[UTUSN]

10. We canNOT have "transparancy." It is SETTLED LAW!1

What do you need to KNOW?!1 In LBN, the Hugo CHAVEZ-ites will OVERWHELM any new news about Huguito stiffling every single GODDAMNED freedom with UnReKKKs.

The UnReKKK system is SETTLED LAW.

[cui bono]

13. And apparently there is no reason for it.

Fucking chickenshits.

[A HERETIC I AM]

82. Out of curiosity, what's the point of the 3 upper case "K"'s when you typed "UnReKKK"?

Are you trying to associate people who feel a particular thread is not worthy of placement on "The Greatest Threads" page with the Ku Klux Klan?

Is that what you are trying to do? Or are you just being cute?

Do you actually feel that people who unrecommended a thread are comparable to Klan members or that the unrec feature itself is Klan-like?

I find that sort of thing curious, if not downright idiotic.

[Maru Kitteh]

113. I suspect your honest query will go unanswered.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. Coming Soon!

[hfojvt]

16. lol - reczilla

I am kinda curious though. Does Godzilla always win? Because this does not really look like it would be a match.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. I've seen two versions of the movie, and they both end the same way:

RecZilla disappears and Unrec Kong swims away.

[Forkboy]

53. This Godzilla fan says, "You win the thread!"

:)

[proteus_lives]

150. That pic is fairly awesome!

:thumbsup:

[TexasObserver]

15. The admins or mods already review unrecommends for voting patterns.

I recall Skinner commenting about their using some kind of monitoring to determine if posters might be voting consistently in a terribly suspect manner.

I also have read some posts by people who admitted their ability to vote on recommends/unrecommends has been suspended.

If your theory was true, the admins would see these phantom blog warriors voting down great threads, and they'd take action, I'm sure.

The notion that everyone needs to disclosure every vote is a non starter. It ain't gonna happen.

[cui bono]

18. That's good to know. I still don't see a reason for them to be anonymous. And btw...

you're slipping. You forgot to attack me for something I never said.

[TexasObserver]

20. If you'd read Skinner's posts on this topic, you would know.

You had a weak idea. You started a thread about it. The end.

[cui bono]

21. Then it seems to follow that I haven't read them. A bit hard to have done that when I

was working over 100 hrs/week when this went into effect.

Your inability to have a civil discussion is truly astounding.

[TexasObserver]

59. You could look up his thread on the topic.

But you'd rather complain and attack those who don't share your point of view, which you acknowledge is uninformed. Best to go see what the admins said about this. They addressed it in detail several times. Why you haven't read it is irrelevant.

[Moochy]

29. ..

Not exactly. At first the feature included unrec counts, then they were disabled because it was deemed confusing.
But transparency concerns were never addresed adequately,IMO

[TexasObserver]

147. As you probably know, you can take this up with the admins.

They decided to stop showing the total of the unrecommends, and you fail to acknowledge this is the system the site owner wants.

[Moochy]

148. Why do I even bother

"They decided to stop showing the total of the unrecommends, and you fail to acknowledge this is the system the site owner wants."

How and where have I failed to acknowledge this? Regardless of your supine prostrations to site authorities, :rofl: you can't just make shit up about posts in this very thread.

[hfojvt]

25. I don't even see how they could be public

How would you write the program code? Would there be a list in the OP showing who recced and who unrecced? That would be tough to write, since posts are permanent once the editing period has expired. If somebody unrecced and also posted in the same thread there could be some sort of mark in their post on that thread to show a negative vote, but then people who wanted to be anonymous would just not post in the thread and that would give you less information because if somebody posts something like "this is a load of pernicious nonsense" then you can sorta figure that they unrecced.

So I can see two reasons why they would be anonymous

1. Because as I mentioned above, it would be a major pain to create the program that would make them public

and the second reason is kinda obvious too

2. it would provide motivation for some DUers to attack other DUers and thus cause more strife in the community.

[cui bono]

31. It's already coded in other boards for "thanks" so I doubt the coding would be problematic.

As to your other reason, we're here putting out our political/social opinions. Stating opinions open one up for attacks more than a mere rec/unrec. I don't see how one would be okay with posting opinions but not letting people see what they rec and unrec. I honestly think it gives people an easy way to silently try to quash discussion of various topics without accountability.

[Stinky The Clown]

49. The mods have access to rec/unrec patterns of individual posters?

Is that a fact? can you provide some verification of that?

[Moochy]

52. The rec and unrec is just a row in a database with your user id on it

so yes, i'd be 99% sure that they keep track of it, or else you could unrec multiple times.

[TexasObserver]

55. Verification: Skinner said so. Take it up with him.

He even gave an example. Someone was Unrecommending all threads about gay rights.

They know how you vote on polls, too.

[greguganus]

69. Verification: I can no longer rec/unrec because I went overboard when it was first introduced.

Hitting rec or unrec for me displays 'error'. But I'm not complaining. I deserved what I got and it doesn't bother me that it no longer works.

[maddezmom]

94. Actually only the 3 Admin not moderators have access to the rec/unrec

feature. :hi:

[Stinky The Clown]

126. Thanks for clearing that up

The fact you cite was the assumption I had carried, even in the face of the wrong assumptions stated here.

:hi:

[Quantess]

24. I'll tell you right now, I do my fair share of Unrec'ing

Not quite as often as Rec'ing, admittedly. But yes, I sometimes give threads a negative integer. Get over it. It helps keep lame threads off Greatest Page.

But, I think the Mods might find it informative to see who unrecs particular threads, and whether it is a pattern.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feron]

27. I'm tired of the complaining.

There's nothing wrong with someone downrating a thread. What is a gem to one person is a turd to another.

Personally I think that printing the names that rec/unrec will only create more drama. Either it will be related to some ongoing board drama (ie personal pissing match, religion) and/or you'll have disrupter accusations flying all around because a certain poster doesn't like a thread.

The mods do a good job at sniffing out and squashing disrupters. Besides if the OP is excellent, a few disrupters aren't going to keep it off the front page.

[Vickers]

28. I Unrec'ed this.

Happy? I'm not anonymous any more.

I Unrec any thread complaining about Unrecs, so don't feel special.

:rofl:

[cui bono]

32. It's amazing how many people on this board don't understand the meaning of discussion.

And the lack of comprehension by some on here. Where did I complain about unrecs? I think the unrec feature is a good thing. That wasn't the question. Sheesh.

[Vickers]

42. It's amazing how many people here don't understand the logistics of voting.

Or quality threads for that matter.

:rofl:

[TexasObserver]

61. The admins said they favor the system because it DOES weed out bad threads.

Notice that none of the complainers about unrecommend had a problem with anonymous Recommends. It was only when balance was added to the process they wailed in consternation.

This obsession with knowing who votes Unrecommend is based solely on the desire of bad thread starters to see who is rating them so poorly. The simply cannot wrap their heads around the notion that their threads are lame. Why do that they think that? Because in the past, all they had to do was get five Recommends and it was "off to the greatest page with thee!" That fed their delusion that their threads were popular, even worthy of respect.

Now, unrecommend has brought all that crashing to the ground, and the wheat is easily separated from the chaff.

The quality of threads on the Greatest Page is high, and the reason is the unrecommend feature. It works.

[Vickers]

118. Exactly. I had pretty much dismissed the Greatest Page until the Unrec

feature was implemented...I got tired of all of the vanity and least-common-denominator crap.

:thumbsup:

[TexasObserver]

119. UNRECOMMEND instantly restored the Greatest Page.

How self defeating is a system that allows any five posters to send a topic to the Greatest Page?

[bvar22]

30. I agree,

and recommended this thread.

[dorkulon]

33. Secret ballot.

It's a well-established principle that secret voting gives a more accurate representation of what people really think. That's why we don't publish who voted for whom in elections.

[cui bono]

35. That may be, but this is a forum for political opinions.

Should we all post in invisible pixels then? The whole point of this place is to express your opinion and share information.

[dorkulon]

36. I just think you'd get a lot fewer recs/unrecs, because they'd all be invitations to harassment.

This idea has the potential to turn each unrec into a flame war, if the OP happens to be the vindictive type. If I see a "bigfoot is teh realz" type post, I might unrec it, but I don't feel like having it out with some jerk about bigfoot, and then rehash it later when he sees me on another thread, etc., so I most likely wouldn't bother posting. I guess if you want to suppress the number of unrecs, this would do it. Conversely, even a rec could start such a vendetta if each is visible to those who find an OP loathsome.

I get that this is just a message board and we're all supposed to be disagreeing anyway, but crowd psychology and peer pressure do factor in.

[Mythsaje]

37. That's actually a good argument against...

Just about the first in the whole thread.

Bonus points for you!

[mamaleah]

38. And now that we finally know about your feelings regarding Bigfoot,

we know to unrec any anti-Bigfoot thread you post! :P

Your post makes sense though. There are enough flame wars. Next we'd have "Here's a list of jerks who unreccd me and hurt my epeen".

[TexasObserver]

62. Yes, the secret ballot is essential to democracy.

As these threads demonstrate, while those who clamor for disclosure of every vote by person claim they just want to know, their real purpose is revealed in their posts. They want to attack those who disagree with them FOR disagreeing with them.

In every thread such as this, those who hate the unrecommend feature heap their disdain on all who acknowledge unrecommending the thread. It's an inability by some to accept rejection of their lame threads, which is probably a problem they have in other aspects of life, too.

[dorkulon]

68. Yes, that does seem to be the motivation.

Simply put, "Who dares unrec ME?!"

[EFerrari]

39. Sure. There should be a box where the votes are run down by user name.

But that might be a lot of tweaking for the admins.

[Heidi]

40. Your question really should be directed to the DU Admins.

They're the ones who establish DU policy and they're the only ones who can change DU policy. Have you raised you concerns privately with the Admins? I suspect they have sound reasons for keeping the unrecommends anonymous, just as they have good reason for keeping who-sent-alerts-on-who and who-was-alerted-on-by-who anonymous.

But since you asked: I very often recommend DU threads without kicking the thread, so my recommendations often are anonymous unless I want to share how I voted with everyone else. When I post "Recommended," it's generally to kick a thread that's in danger of slipping off of Page 1. I rarely unrecommend threads, but when I do, it's my business alone and the only reason I could possibly think of for me to post "Unrecommended" would be snark. Further, I don't know how you or anyone else would benefit by knowing whether I recommended or recommended a thread. :hi:

From the DU Rules
Questions about Democratic Underground policies should be emailed to the administrators.

[natrat]

41. please, it's all a scam anyway

a lot of the posters on here are probably one guy in a washington office using multiple user names and being paid by whatever industry that is pushing misinformation that month. Look at the borg on here and how it all jumps on one thread and attempts to bully people who don't bow to obama and the corpratist dlc line. No it's in large part fake so i wouldn't worry to much about the rec unrec issue.

[dorkulon]

44. Inflated sense of importance runs rampant around here.

It's just one message board out of gazillions. Nobody would waste their time or money on a coordinated effort like that. There are plenty of volunteer Obama-lovers to take care of it, and frankly, there are much more popular media sources to sway. Why bother with DU when you can pay a few folks to be rude at town halls and dominate the news cycle?

[pipi_k]

I read what you posted and had a mental image...

A group of people living on an insignificant blue planet in an unspectacular corner of one of a zillion galaxies in a Universe that is billions of light years large think that an All Powerful Being actually ignores the rest of the universe to focus attention on those same insignificant specks of carbon. Sort of the same idea, isn't it?

:7


err...not to minimize DU as a site in any way, but you're right...DU is not the Alpha and Omega of the information world, and it's much more effective for malcontents to get their message across in a more public way...

[Moochy]

45. indeed

Your post contains dangerous truthieness, so much that it will probably be deleted.

[slackmaster]

46. Auto-Unrec for being anti-Unrec

:kick:

[cui bono]

128. Where did I say I was anti-unrec? n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

47. I agree with you completely and i rec this thread.

[Echo In Light]

48. I support at least displaying the # of unrecs. That would at least be 50/50 & transparent

[Moochy]

63. yes

and it was implemented this way for a few hours before (paraphrasing here) 'users confusion' was cited as the reason it was removed.

[Greyhound]

50. Zere vill be no discussion of zis feature.

Did you miss that part?

Sorry, but let it go, it's just a message board.

[Iggo]

79. There's discussion of this feature right here, right now.

It's just not on the Greatest Page.

Big fuckin deal.

[redqueen]

51. Damn!

You sure set off some of the more paranoid types didn't you? :rofl:

I don't see any reason for it to be anonymous either... it's not a fucking vote for goodness' sake.

This is one feature I like about Kos... that it shows the names.

[cui bono]

131. I know! LOL. I was surprised to see how the thread had grown

when I logged in today. Not only paranoid, but also those who don't have a reasoned argument so they just make false claims about the tone of my post.

:shrug:

[Strong Atheist]

54. Agreed, and recommended. A friend of mine talked to me in-depth on this issue,

and told me of the many problems most sites eventually have with anonymous/and or/unlimited rec/unrecs...

[Kaleva]

56. Neither rec or unrec from me on this

But I don't recall anyone arguing for transparency when only the rec feature was available and has only become an issue when unrec came into play.

Democracy's use the secret ballot to prevent intimidation and we, I don't believe, want "true believers" identifying, targeting and attempting to run out those who have differing views.

[Moochy]

64. for me

speaking only as an individual here, the # of unrecs was visibile for a short time, then it was removed. Thats the level of transparency that the system had, and once the unrec counts disappeared it became less transparent. reason given? users confusion. Sounds more like a dodge, but oh well.

[Echo In Light]

66. Agreed. It's so flimsy and nonsensical that it's obviously a cover n/t

[dorkulon]

72. A cover for what?

I don't have an opinion about showing the number of unrecs, but I just wonder what you think is being "covered"?

[Moochy]

84. The reason : userswere confused

Is a cover for the admins reasons for eliminating unrec counts,which is more likely because this site values it's self appointed hall monitors acting as public relations watchdogs. Nothing nefarious, but it'd be transparent if they could come out and say this.

[Echo In Light]

87. Good question. To suggest posters here are too unintelligent to read both rec/unrecs ...

Sounds both unlikely and odd, hence points to some other, undisclosed reason. It's not jumping into murky water for its own sake, it's simply that the stated reason for not displaying both options doesn't stand to reason, and therefore is curious. I suspect the only ones who disagree w/that point are those who, for whatever reason, really like the feature as is where only one side of the equation is on display.

[dorkulon]

107. I imagine they probably thought DUers were too sensitive to take multiple unrecs.

Imagine the kind of fits some here would have at -100 recs.

[Echo In Light]

111. That's a far fetched, "ticking bomb" type scenario as most posts would not receive such a high #

Ha...I mean, I'm not that concerned either way since it's apparent the site's owners want the feature as-is ... but I do find people's reasoning on the subject revealing.

[dorkulon]

114. I don't know, there are posts with that many recs and more...

And I bet if you put up a real stinker it could get that many unrecs. Just a theory, anyhow. Just saying that just because there's a mystery doesn't make the real reason nefarious. I mean the "show the long form BC" nutters are employing basically the same logic -- why won't he show it? He must have something to hide.

[Echo In Light]

116. I disagree w/showing names of recs/unrecs, but support displaying both numbers

That's just 50/50. Anyone arguing against that is working their own angle ... which, for a big forum like this, fine, whatever. But I'd still prefer to see both figures displayed.

[dorkulon]

117. Personally, I'd be fine w/that.

Might actually be kind of funny to see how many some threads get.

[cui bono]

138. I think you're right. If I saw how many urecs this thread got

I might do something that would get me tombstoned! ;)

[dorkulon]

70. "I don't recall anyone arguing for transparency when only the rec feature was available"--very true

Again, it reveals the motive behind unmasking the unrecs. Retaliation/persecution.

[redqueen]

74. I thought the motive was this "Blog Warrior" shit...

y'know, like it says in the OP.

[dorkulon]

76. Tilting at windmills IMHO.

The extent to which organized disruption or suppression occurs here has been exaggerated, to say the least. It smacks of low-grade paranoia to me.

[redqueen]

81. Whatever... I'm just pointing out the actual motivation. (nt)

[dorkulon]

88. I suppose, but what do you want to bet that every unrec would be accused of being a "Blog Warrior"?

Totally inevitable.

[redqueen]

91. Don't care really.

I just think it's funny how many people are so paranoid about having their names show up.

The 'secret ballot' argument is especially entertaining. :D

[dorkulon]

100. From the OP:

"If anyone is ashamed of someone knowing they did either then perhaps they will be a little more discriminating."

Albeit mild, this implies a form of intimidation. It is the same reason we have secret ballots. Obviously, the recs on a thread on DU aren't as important as an election, but the principle is the same, I think.

But yeah, I don't really care either. :boring:

[cui bono]

129. I see it as accountability.

More like you want to know how your congress critters voted.

You want to know who is donating to candidates/causes.

I just don't see this as a secret ballot situation.

[cui bono]

139. That wasn't my motive. I do agree with the post you quoted though.

I hadn't really thought about that. I posted the OP because I recently finished my last job and had time to come by here more and read through threads and kept seeing comments about unrecs.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about my motive or opinion, no need to presume. :)

[pipi_k]

57. No firm opinion either way

Although maybe there could be an option attached for people to click if they wanted their vote displayed in any posts they make. That way the people who didn't actually want to have to SAY they unrecc'd could have their decision memorialized.

Doesn't make any difference to me, really.

But I do think that if people are going to be asked to explain WHY they voted "unrec", everyone who voted "rec" should also have to explain why they voted that way, and not just with the lame old, "Great post!!!" bullshit.

If the "recs" can say "Great post!" or "I agree!" and get away with it, then those who "unrec" should also be able to give "Shitty post!", or "I disagree!" as a perfectly valid reason and not have to justify it.

Fair is fair...

:)

[Iggo]

65. K & U.

:patriot:

[breadandwine]

67. Hey. Why should people have a right to know their accusers???

If you don't have anything nice to say, why not say it anonymously, so you can get away with it, huh?????

What's wrong with a little anonymous accusing and McCarthyism???

Witch hunts are good..........

Do you know the names of everyone screaming and hollering at these town hall meetings???

How can people get away with smearing other people unless they're anonymous, right???

Kids throw spitballs. Why not adults??????

The right wing "spontaneous protesters" at the 2000 Florida vote count who turned out to be GOP operatives, why shouldn't they have a right to be anonymous, huh????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Iggo]

71. Accusing? Smearing?

Or am I just unrecommending another whiny anti-unrec post so that we don't air our dirty laundry on the front page?

Signed -- Anonymous

[Kaleva]

78. Equating witch hunts with the unrec feature is a stretch

What was to stop a troublemaker from starting a flame bait thread and then have a few of his buddies rec it enough to make it to the Greatest Page?

As I said in a previous post here, I don't recall anyone calling for transparency when only the rec feature was available. Why was that?

[PVnRT]

85. Right, let's publish user names so it can be non-anonymous McCarthyism

:eyes:

[dorkulon]

93. Yeah, I though McCarthyism was about naming names. nt

[Renew Deal]

73. Here's an easier solution. Eliminate unrec.

Problem solved.

[dorkulon]

80. What problem?

I don't really see a problem; I see people who can't take even the slightest, most insignificant form of criticism.

[Renew Deal]

86. Unrec hasn't been about "criticism"

Seemingly non-controversial threads (for democrats) get unrecc'd instantly. They go down before they go up. And it happens all the time. It generally drives down good material. The feature doesn't work correctly, though it never will on a political site.

[omega minimo]

90. Problem solved. The toxicity & arbitrariness of UnRec spoils the process. Some quit using Un & Rec

altogether.

[Renew Deal]

92. I saw a thread in the GLBT forum about Harvey Milk getting the medal of freedom get unrecc'd

Seemingly non-controversial thread, and some stooge hits unrec. It's just f***ked up and a f***ked up feature.

[omega minimo]

105. Wow. Can't have a positive honor to a cultural hero like that on the Greatest Page!!

Honestly, some of us have mostly quit playing the game and more opportunity -- not less, IMHO -- is there for troublemakers to game the system. :shrug:

[Renew Deal]

106. Some here will blame it on the "homophobes"

I don't buy that. I think DU's leftist "homophobes" wouldn't do that. I think it's the other assorted trolls. Maybe I just don't want to believe that true DUers would do something like that.

[TexasObserver]

120. Really? Why don't you link that thread?

I just checked the GLBT forum and didn't see any such thread.

Are you sure it was there? Could it have been in another forum?

[TexasObserver]

123. I found that thread. It has +20 Recommends.

Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x143462

Perhaps others here will want to read it and recommend it.

Is your complaint that someone - anyone - unrecommended that thread? While it's certainly recommend worthy by my standards, each poster has different standards.

[TexasObserver]

103. Easiest solution: Accept Unrecommend as it is.

And take it up with the admins if you cannot do that.

[Stephanie]

75. At Kos there's transparency, and also Trusted User status

You don't get to Unrec Kos diaries until you've achieved TU status. Both are good policy, IMO.

[Renew Deal]

89. It's really a lot of complexity for a simple problem.

You don't need "trusted" status and "transparency" if you just eliminate the unrec feature. The old Rec feature worked great and was super simple.

[Stephanie]

95. I think you're right

[Echo In Light]

98. There's a substantial Left/Moderate split @DU, and the unrec feature is hand in hand w/that divide

Sure, there are those who will insist it's beneficial in preventing tabloid-esque threads from the Greatest page, and while that has some merit to it (for those concerned about appearances on that page) there sometimes are telltale patterns in any thread pertaining to any topic that is even vaguely controversial/unconventional ... it's those type of topics that are often rallied 'round most diligently by the unrec'ers.

[SidDithers]

77. I lol at whining about unrecc'ing...

Sid

[dorkulon]

83. That... that's really funny.

Good show.

[redqueen]

96. LOL

[TexasObserver]

102. Ashley says: every time you unrecommend, God drowns a puppy.

[cui bono]

133. That pic is funny! But where is the whining of which you speak?

I have nothing against unreccing. I'm totally fine with it. That wasn't what I brought up for discussion.

[cui bono]

134. dup

[Kaleva]

97. I doubt cui bono is your real name. Why not use your real name..

and be transparent? Also, photocopies of the ballots of every election you voted on since 2000 would be useful too. We don't want GOP operatives or Blog Warriors here!

[cui bono]

140. apples and oranges

[mkultra]

99. no,

because some people are wrong and aggressive assholes about it.

[loyalkydem]

101. Just like

they are unreccing this thread. THey did the same thing to mine and I'm sick of it. It's proably freepers with nothing better to do.

[Echo In Light]

104. Moderates, and professional Know-It-Alls who dislike the "Loony Left."

I'm guessing there are far more of those here than actual RW trolls.

[Kaleva]

112. One needs a thick skin in a political forum

I've been called just about every name in the book in several forums even though many people who know me personally say I'm a very nice guy, rather smart, and that I go out of my way to help others who ask.

[Echo In Light]

115. And the anonymity of the medium often brings out the worst in people.

See, for me that's indicative of the mindset I associate w/those who like the unrec feature as is. While it can function on another level it is undeniably conducive to the mindset of those who enjoy the "Take that!" sort of 'smackdown' discourse.

[Kaleva]

121. I like the unrec feature just as I like the rec function

In the vast majority of threads I read, I neither rec or unrec and usually don't even make a comment myself. Some threads I rec even if I disagree with the content or conclusion but the OP did make me think. I unrec others where I think the work is very sloppy, opinions are expressed as facts, or its a flame bait magnet and nothing more.

I don't see anything evil in how I'm using the functions. It's just a quick way of expressing my view on the content of the OP. I've been involved in forums for a number of years now and I do try and not judge the motive of the author and only judge, praise, or question what he or she wrote as anonymity prevents me from actually knowing the person.

[Echo In Light]

122. I'm not supposing "evil" (?!) and personally tend to Rec much more than I unrec

[TexasObserver]

124. It's probably posters who have a different standard for "recommend" than you do.

Your imagining those who vote against your thread are freepers would be comical if not tragic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. reason to prefer recs/unrecs to be anonymous: to avoid tit-for-tat wars

It stops it becoming personal. Some people would decide to count up who rec/unrecs their threads, and do their own recs/unrecs based on that, rather than the merits of the threads themselves.

Yes, people may[/i be voting already, based on the poster rather than the post; but this way, there isn't the evidence needed for factions to develop.

[dionysus]

110. you really think someone pays people to post on DU?

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

125. (a) I agree. (b) I unrec'd because whining about unrecs is so fucking pathetic.

[cui bono]

141. Then you unrec'd the wrong thread. I never whined about unrecs.

You misread/misinterpreted the OP.

[Echo In Light]

142. You've brought focus to something, though: the obvious WANT of that type of framing

... and really, that's the part I don't get, or, agree with, if I'm understanding that particular 'want' accurately.

In other words, to me, anyhow, it seems as though there's a group of posters here who, despite complaining about these "unrec threads," actually enjoy posting in them b/c it present the opportunity to be snide and nasty, framing anyone not on their side as whiners.

So, from there, if that's what's actually going on w/some posters, I think it by default lends substantive credence to the opposition (if the majority of DU supports the feature as-is) in that one side merely wants the rec/unrec count on equal display, as where the others do not, but, again, don't leave it at that, and seem to really get fired up over being able to use these threads to sneer, belittle and name-call. Anyone not w/them is a "whiner." If that's the defining mentality behind it, than what's to support?

[TheKentuckian]

132. If I unrec ya. I'll tell you why.

[reflection]

135. Unrec'd. Asked and answered.

Several times. Take it up with management. I also agree with an earlier poster who thinks you should use your real name if you are anti-anonymity.

[NoPasaran]

136. I live to unrec threads like this!

[L. Coyote]

137. Kick and Unrec

I just don't like whining :rofl: