The Unrecommend Feature SILENCES Free Speech and Dissent.

[earth mom]

Anyone who does not like what you have to say can come along and silence you with a single click.

The unrecommend click has the very last word.

It silences and oppresses opposing views and it is wrong.

This is NOT what this country was founded upon and the founding fathers are no doubt they are rolling in their graves at what is happening in this country.

This is something out of one of Orwell's books.

But I'm sure the DLC loves it.

[WeDidIt]

1. Kicked and Unrecommended. n/t

[Number23]

357. roflmbao

Oh my God! My sides!! :rofl: :rofl:

Is it just a coincidence that the biggest pains in the ass on this site are crying so hard about this feature?? The ones who fight with EVERYBODY and never have a kind word to say about the President, Congress or ANYTHING are the ones so threatened by a damned UNrecommend button??

Skinner had barely hit the switch on this new feature before folks were whining and screaming about it. DU is a damn trip sometimes. :)

[Occulus]

445. And the FUNNY part is

This thread has been continually at the TOP of GD since AT LEAST midnight last night. That's ELEVEN HOURS of being "silenced".

:rofl:

[indimuse]

533. omg..!!

:rofl:

[Number23]

552. lol Excellent point!!

:rofl:
:fistbump:

[grahamhgreen]

555. The point is that it is not on the GREATEST page, where it should be....

[Confusious]

558. This on the greatest page?

I got turds better then this that should be on the greatest page.

[Maru Kitteh]

568. Your turds may be corny....... but this thread is hilarious.

*rimshot*

Thanks folks! I'll be here all weekend.

[annabanana]

2. How exactly?. . Threads with a "negative" count can still be kicked

and commented on. All this does is keep highly unpopular threads off the greatest page...

[earth mom]

55. No, it's a opportunity and vehicle for people to game the system. nt

[onenote]

273. self delete

[Javaman]

414. How? DU members are only allowed either one recommend or one un-recommend

per post or do you think all of DU is against you?

:scared:

[yodoobo]

579. The system?

You have to be joking.

I had no idea that Skinner is actually ..THE MAN when we refer to "The Man"

[greguganus]

3. How are they being silenced? It just doesn't go to the greatest page. n/t

[Ikonoklast]

23. Get enough 'unrec' votes and Skinner comes to your house

and lights a flaming bag of poop on your doorstep, then runs away.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

35. I heard he smashes your computer up with his big Fascist hands.

[Ikonoklast]

86. While wearing a Brown Shirt and singing the "Horst Wessel" song.

We've all been played for suckers.


:rofl:

[Ohio Joe]

222. I hear he also wears his Jack Boots

:rofl:

[Ikonoklast]

323. Only with the Jodhpurs and riding crop.

I hear he has dueling scars from his days of youthful indiscretions at Heidelberg.

[krispos42]

386. And then he reads from "The Poison Mushroom"...

...while EarlG and Elad give a dramatic interpretive puppet show.



I get to run the green spotlight. I'm awesome.


Okay, it's actually a Mag-Lite with the lens covered with green tape. I'm still awesome. :P

[LiberalFighter]

100. Wouldn't it be better to have a Republican in the bag to light up?

Would be just as messy.

[Ikonoklast]

110. Do you want a conflagration?

Can you imagine the size of the fire if you had, say, the amount of fat and grease from Rushbo in a bag?

That's not a prank, that's a war crime.

It would make fire-bombing of Dresden look like a backyard picnic.

[Maru Kitteh]

166. "That's not a prank, that's a war crime."

:rofl:

[LiberalFighter]

170. You would be right. Would have to apply that tactic somewhere else.

[sybylla]

413. Oh, I wish! LOL.

I'd up my dues to the max if Skinner would do that.

[Ken Burch]

147. Why should people be able to keep something OFF the greatest page?

If they don't like a particular thread, why isn't it enough for them to just not participate in it?

Or, if the thread is actually offensive, to alert on it?

[earth mom]

167. Exactly. Thank you for pointing out the truth. nt

[Raskolnik]

186. No, you must be mistaken. No one at DU is allowed to post the truth any more, and all dissent.

is silenced. Can you year the leaves rustling in all that silence?

[Raskolnik]

182. For the same reason people get a voice in what goes ON the greatest page.

Its a measure of consensus. Why does that bother you?

[dionysus]

322. because some can't take it that the consensus opinion isn't perpetual outrage.

[Richardo]

441. !!

:rofl: + :thumbsup:

[Mojambo]

321. Yes. This is the question no one is answering.

If you see a thread on the Greatest page that pisses you off, create a post of your own debunking it.

Unrecommending is fucking lazy, IMO.

[omega minimo]

326. To Make Them Feel Powerful And In Control By Pushing That Button

:bounce: :bounce:

[Confusious]

556. Yea, I get a boner every time.

Of course, I only used the rec and unrec for the first time, because I'm being a jackass today. Tomorrow I go back to not caring. If there are more posts like this, maybe I don't.

[alcibiades_mystery]

336. Positive and negative ratings are a feature of many social media

Why this seems like a new thing here is a great mystery to me.

[redqueen]

362. This post wasn't intended to be hilarious, I bet.

But it sure struck me that way.

[pyoom]

363. Because it empowers DU moderates instead of its extremes.

That is, not political moderates (or the DLC- who I'm not fond of either) but those in the "middle of the road" as far as DU's political spectrum.

A well-thought-out, quality post will never be "kept off" of the greatest page with this system.

[MadBadger]

4. Unrecommend...But I'm sure my action wont silence you a bit.

[greguganus]

5. zing! n/t

[BlooInBloo]

6. BWAHAHAAHAA!!! Please... stop.... the laughter... it's killing me...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Carl Skan]

7. So you want to...

...silence the ability of people to express their dissent to a thread in order to make sure they don't silence dissent?

Am I right or should I ride that infinite do loop a little longer?

[wryter2000]

192. Welcome to DU, Carl

:hi:

[Strong Atheist]

260. Belated Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[omega minimo]

307. Is that ignorance or willful ignorance?

The OP made no move to "silence the ability of people to express their dissent to a thread."

That's what the posts are. Who knew there were so many hoping and trying to keep others from seeing certain OPs?

[pyoom]

364. It's neither. It's active, but silent, disagreement. nt

[Javaman]

531. You have to see the irony, right?

I mean you are getting your candies in a bunch over people that disagree with you.

[MineralMan]

8. How are you silenced?

The original post remains. Nobody is silenced.

[BlooInBloo]

11. Hush. You can't see this thread. I UR'd it. The poster has been silienced.

[MineralMan]

25. Yes. A pity, isn't it, that such a masterful OP can't be read

any longer?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

9. Too bad you can only access DU through the Greatest page.

Wait, there's other ways, too? :wow:

[abumbyanyothername]

150. Until today

I didn't even know there was a greatest page. I do like the "net recommended" column, however and it somewhat affects my decision whether to click on what might otherwise appear as an interesting thread.

Now . . . if we could only get "flat" viewing, DU would be heaven!

[Divine Discontent]

565. ha! SO true.. & I have a feeling PLENTY of people need to go to the lounge & stay there. lol eom

[dionysus]

10. ROFL... lemme get this straight... you can't move the bullshit whiner threads to the greatest page,

so you're being oppressed?

you guys ought to just go form your own obama bashing board already and get it over with.

[Deja Q]

15. Oooh, I'd recommend your response if I could!

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

121. What "bullshit whiner threads"? OIC "you guys ought to just go form your own obama bashing board"

Is that what this is about?

[earth mom]

173. Yes, it is. It's about squashing dissent....about Obama and other unpopular opinions. nt

[Ikonoklast]

12. It does no such thing.

It asks for both a positive or negative opinion of the OP's subject.

Just because your post stays off the greatest page, means nothing except most posters here disagree with either your premise or conclusions.

We all get one vote.

[earth mom]

60. No, you get the LAST WORD if you don't like someones recommendation. nt

[scheming daemons]

62. And a "recommender" can then supercede that.....

[Ikonoklast]

92. Damn, I'm ALL-POWERFUL!!!

Wait, no I'm not. I just get to vote against full-time bashers.

[earth mom]

284. No, you get to vote for the full time cheerleaders. nt

[Ikonoklast]

292. Yes. That's me. Cheerleader.

Rah-rah-ro, Obama bashers need to go!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

13. "This is something out of Orwell's books"?!?!?! Are you serious??

If the worst thing in Orwell's books was that something didn't make it to the GREATEST PAGE, then he's highly overrated. I could understand if a post would be deleted should it have a certain number of unrecs but that is simply not the case.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

24. I wonder what the OP would compare Nazi Germany to.

[dionysus]

28. the DU lounge. or jackeens photo threads.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[SemiCharmedQuark]

72. Holy hell...are you seriously comparing the unrec/rec system to the Nazi...anything?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

77. How are you silenced?

Is the government silencing you? (Hint: No.)

Is the Greatest page the only way to access DU? (Hint: No.)

Does an Unreccomend carry MORE weight than a Recommend? (Hint: No.)

Maybe I should put these hints in a bag so you can take it.

[dionysus]

84. well, you're still posting so i guess you have contradicted your own OP.

:rofl:

[earth mom]

139. I said the unrecommend click silences opposing views. And it does. nt

[Occulus]

361. I don't know

This thread has <0 recs and I found it almost right away. I've been home from work for a little less than an hour, and I've looked at four threads or so since I got home. Yours was the fourth, by the way. In other words, I found your thread almost immediately, given how long I've been browsing DU tonight and how few threads I've popped into.

That fact, to me, proves your hypothesis wrong, thus, I must unrec it, because it's factually incorrect and doesn't belong on the Greatest Page- which I almost never look at besides.

NOW do you get how it works? It doesn't affect threads showing up on the forums, and if all some people here read is the Greatest Page, they're not getting everything they can out of the site in the first place. I'm betting that's only a few visitors compared to the unique hits per month.

In any case, I don't believe your premise to be valid due to my personal experience in finding this thread as quickly as I did, so I'm going to unrec it to keep it off the Greatest Page.

[uppityperson]

369. I disagree with you and just posted so. Neg recs do not silence opposing views

see?

[Javaman]

420. A number of us seem to be opposing your view. I don't personally feel "silenced". nt

[earth mom]

64. Orwell warned us all-perhaps you should read his books. nt

[dionysus]

65. orwell warned us about DU making the recommendation system fair? wow he was prescient

[omega minimo]

122. Please explain how this is "making the recommendation system fair"? It wasn't before?

:shrug:

[earth mom]

175. This is all about silencing the non cheerleaders. nt

[omega minimo]

178. YAY!!!!!!!

:bounce:
:bounce:

[dionysus]

302. are you being coy, or do you actually need it explained to you slowly?

[omega minimo]

309. If you can take time out from sliming, go ahead and state the reason. No one else has.

[dionysus]

317. okay

we had a rec system where a cadre of perpetually perturbed posters could rec an article to the front page, basically dominating what shows up there. all said articles are bitching about the administration.

said cadre is a few dozen posters, there's a few dozen thousand posters who don't agree with that group.

now that each poster on DU has an up or down vote on a thread, no longer can a small percentage of DU dominate the front page.

it's democracy in action.

and even if a post is unrecced and isn't on the greatest page, its still there for anyone to discuss, as evidenced by this thread.

you guys were basically fillibustering the greatest page.

at the end of the day, you can post what you want, but you can't make it artificially look like a majority DU opinion.

i think that about sums it up.

[omega minimo]

327. "You guys" WTF

:wtf: :nuke: :evilfrown:

I was going to THANK YOU for your reply and your rationale, for trying to put one forward, not much of that has actually occurred today. There have been hints that it was about what you're saying, an "Obama bashing" here and "fringe view" there.................

Your reasons reaffirm the sense this is intended to cleanse the board of criticism of the administration.


But what the FUCK are you saying "you guys" for. You don't know what -- or who -- the hell you're talking about!!! And your bullshit accusations!!!!!!!!!

The beginning of your post sounds like you either have inside information and/or you are making assumptions you can't possibly be certain of.

The end of your post just makes your opinions look uninformed, ignorant and applied to anyone with the misfortune of stepping in front of them.

Nice try.

[dionysus]

356. all because i said "you guys"? sometimes you guys just means you guys

how this change to the recommendation formula pissed you off *that* much i don't quite fathom

[SemiCharmedQuark]

71. LOL...I *have*! Personally, I think Orwell would find the "No Republicans allowed" point on DU more

troubling than your-post-might-not-make-it-on-the-greatest-page.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

249. We did -- we all passed the 7th grade.

[Javaman]

421. Love the drama, when does the play start? nt

[scheming daemons]

14. Meh

I unrecommended... and I GUARANTEE you it isn't the last word in this thread.


Unrecommend is simply "I don't like what you said".


I predict there will be vigorous debate IN THIS THREAD... over 100 posts..... which will, ironically, invalidate the claim that you make in the OP.



I made a single click indicating that I don't like your thread... and you know what? It's still here.

...and a person can come along and recommend your thread and cancel out my vote if they agree with your silly premise.


That's EXACTLY what this country was founded on.... those that like what you say can say so... and NOW, those that DON'T like what you say can say so as well.


Before... we had a choice of "YES" or "Abstain". Now we have a choice of "YES", "NO", or "Abstain".


That's progress.

[earth mom]

75. No-The negative click silences the positive click.

This has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with controlling other people.

[scheming daemons]

82. No more than the positive click silences the negative one

In neither case is ANYbody silenced.

It's simply a rating system.

[Confusious]

557. No-The positive click silences the negative click.

This has nothing to do with free speech or controlling other people.

[cboy4]

114. You've been cancelled out. FYI

:hi:

[scheming daemons]

118. Good! That's DEMOCRACY

[earth mom]

140. Thank you.

:hi:

[JonLP24]

16. I don't like the so called "unrecommend" option

But it doesn't help our argument when we start using phrases such as 'silencing'. I mean we all still see your post, just not on the greatest page.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Damn you - now I can no longer say "they're all fucking crazy liars"....

Thanks a *lot*.

:P

[earth mom]

146. Don't you think that important topics will bite the dust because of vested interests?

It's just common sense to see that there are people around here who will game the system and try to silence those with whom they don't agree.

And they will use the unrecommend button to do it.

[dionysus]

17. shaping up to be a good FAILTHREAD. and what the fuck does the DLC have to do with anything?

[earth mom]

287. The DLC does not want anything negative about Obama to be said-ever. nt

[northzax]

342. wait, I thought the DLC hated Obama?

and vice versa? wasn't Hillary, that racist, conservative corporatist the DLC candidate? I'm all confusled now.

edited to change potentially offensive language.

[BlooInBloo]

18. You aren't for free speech. You're for freedom from criticism for just those you agree with.

[omega minimo]

128. Is that one of your intentionally absurd posts? Forget the :sarcasm:?

Do you see a real need here for folks to cancel out someone else's Rec? :shrug:

There's still posting free to criticize.

[Tim01]

19. The greatest page will be clean and pure without non-beautiful opinions like yours. nt

[earth mom]

247. No-the greatest page will be fake and full of lies and bullshit. nt

[Javaman]

424. LOL there are plenty of anarchy sites out there for you. LOL nt

[Luminous Animal]

20. It can take them off the greatest page.

Sometimes, a very good post get very little responses but a large number of recs. Now it will take numerous worthless "kick" posts to keep them visible.

[scheming daemons]

26. If it is a "very good post", it will still have 5 more recs than unrecs

Shit posts like this OP, however, will not.

[Luminous Animal]

38. Not necessarily. Very good is in the eye of beholder.

For instance, there are quite a few vegetarians and organic food advocates on this board. When there is a good article regarding either, it can get a lot of recs... but, there are even more folks who find vegetarians and organic advocates supercilious and will unrec their topics off the greatest.

[FLAprogressive]

41. or people who are anti-torture, or anti-war, or pro-single payer.

[scheming daemons]

49. The majority of DU is anti-torture, anti-war, and pro-single payer

If any of the polls here are to be believed.

Those threads will be on the greatest page easily.

[FLAprogressive]

68. then why are posts critical of Obama for being pro-torture, pro-war, and anti-single payer buried?

[scheming daemons]

74. Buried? Are you nuts? Look at the posts that get the most responses.... it's THOSE

...and many of them end up on the Greatest Page with 50+ recs.

[PufPuf23]

154. Perhaps the Greatest Page should have the threads with

the most responses or the most views rather than a black/white, +/- dicotomy of recommends and non-recommends.

Progress takes debate. Some debaters at DU are more impatient than others. Some debaters at DU are more bought into the status quo than others also.

[earth mom]

80. Exactly. No one will be allowed to criticize Obama or his policies. nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

85. No...they are allowed to do that. Their post just might not wind up on the greatest page.

[scheming daemons]

89. Really? The unrec/rec system keeps Obama critics from POSTING?

...and yet here you are, posting all the anti-Obama spewage that you want.

[dionysus]

87. BURIED!?!?! are you series!?!?!1?11!1?

:spray:

[GoneOffShore]

306. The bullshit keeps on coming.

I'm not talking about your post.

:popcorn:?

or

:beer:?

or both?

:rofl:

And the usual suspects showed up to bash the Un-recommend option, as I suspected they would.

Again - not talking about you.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. Isn't that what groups, the search function, etc. are for?

If you are looking for something there are a number of ways to find it.

[Luminous Animal]

81. Well, since I only have a few minutes a day...

I do have work and family obligations, I check the "Greatest" then the fist page of GP and that is really all I have time for. I'll bet a lot of people who can't surf the net at work or have family obligations use DU in a similar manner.

[omega minimo]

141. Double Plus Good is in "1984"

[omega minimo]

134. No, there's nothing Orwellian about this at all

:rofl: "unrecs"

[FLAprogressive]

27. and that is the point.

[dionysus]

33. you can go unrecommend positive threads about dems in revenge if it makes you feel tingly.

[ohheckyeah]

22. Really?

If I click unrecommend on your post you will quit posting and be silent?

Didn't think so.

[Spazito]

29. Silences????

Damn, and here I thought I was reading your OP but that CAN'T be if you are being silenced, can it? Please explain to me how the possibility of not reaching the magic # of 5 recs so one can see one's OP on the Greatest is oppressing and silencing anyone? As long as one can post OPs, have others respond to the OP, they are NOT, imo, being silenced and/or oppressed.

[scheming daemons]

30. The OP hasn't responded to her own thread because our unrecs silenced her

Damn.. she was right.

[MineralMan]

34. GMTA, dang it.

[greguganus]

37. Either that, or she realized what she wrote and is embarassed. n/t

[dionysus]

40. it's very slowly sinking in that there are only like a few dozen posters out of thousands on DU

that subscribe to their views

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. No, it's always been apparent that every clear thinking person agrees with me.

:eyes:

[earth mom]

42. Can't you read? The Unrecommend click has the last word.

I stand by my post.

And I could give a damn what you think.

[greguganus]

44. LMAO!!!!!!!! n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. Clearly it does not, because this has been unrec'd (by someone...not me) and it's at the top of the

forum and you and I just replied to it.

[dionysus]

51. here, you"ll need this

see you in china.

[Javaman]

432. ...

:spray: :rofl:

[scheming daemons]

54. And yet somehow you made it through Skinner's fascist firewall to reply....

[Raskolnik]

105. You're worse than Hitler multiplied by Stalin times a billion.

"I could give a damn what you think."

Why are you silencing me!?

[earth mom]

184. Wow, do you really hate what I have to say that much?

:eyes:

[Raskolnik]

191. You mistake mockery for hate.

You are being ridiculous, and people are making fun of you for it. Appropriately.

[earth mom]

203. The viscousness on this thread reminds me of the a$$holes on Faux news.

:puke:

[omega minimo]

242. oh lighten up it's not like politics or issues matter that much anyway......

why you trying to make people :think: :evilgrin:

[Raskolnik]

251. Then why is the OP spending her time whining about a feature on an internet discussion board?

Shouldn't you both be out inspiring the world with your sensitivity?

[omega minimo]

258. Your comments all exemplify the venal BS that will result from this new function.

And the bigoted, hostile, arrogant, macho world view that goes with it.

Good job :applause:

[Raskolnik]

299. That's right. The unrecommend function is the source of my being a d-bag. You've nailed it. n/t

[omega minimo]

303. That's right. The DUers who serially treat others crappy will use this tool to be tools.

:hi:

[Raskolnik]

313. Or, it could just serve the exact same function as the Rec button by measuring DU opinion

But you'll claim to be a victim no matter what, so I guess it doesn't matter either way, does it?

[omega minimo]

314. You can see in this thread the arrogant mob mentality at work. People ASSUMING things they can't

possible know.

Your stupid jibes aside, there IS a difference b/w disagreement and belligerent bullshit. The latter is out in full force here.

[Raskolnik]

333. Oh grow up and quit your damn whining.

Seriously. Just grow up.

[omega minimo]

334. I'm not whining. Adults don't need to knock others down. Enjoy your little power pushbutton.

[Raskolnik]

335. Enjoy your perpetual whiny victimhood. Or don't.

It really doesn't matter at the end of the day.

[omega minimo]

338. Your stupid accusations don't make it so, buddy.

:hi:

[Raskolnik]

347. That's an observation, not an accusation.

And you sure do post a lot for someone that's been silenced, censored, and otherwise horribly mistreated, don't you? Why isn't the UnRec function working as intended and silencing you brave, sensitive souls?

Anyway, good night.

[omega minimo]

349. That's just stupid logic. More overgeneralizations. Looking to separate.

:thumbsdown:

[Javaman]

425. if you have to state that you aren't whining...you're whining. nt

[omega minimo]

466. another false accusation on top of the one replied to. b/c you say it, doesn't make it so.

:freak:

[Javaman]

488. epic fail. nt

[earth mom]

I guess I just never realized how polarizing I could be....

:evilgrin:

O8)

[omega minimo]

259. Looks like the poles are shifting ........................

earth mom................

[uppityperson]

375. I unreced but guess what, I can still have the last word! If everyone else

decided they've been silenced by my unrec that is.

[earth mom]

83. I have responded. What the hell are you talking about?

:eyes:

[Raskolnik]

109. But by posting this, you are silencing everyone else. Seems kind of fascist, if you ask me. n/t

[MineralMan]

31. The only way you are silenced is if you do not return

to your thread and address the replies. Then you are, indeed, silenced...but by your own inaction.

[dionysus]

36. you win the thread.

[omega minimo]

145. Yes this new function is perfect for those who think "discussion" is about "winning"

:thumbsdown:

[dionysus]

325. in an argument you either win, lose, or draw.

[earth mom]

90. Judging from the reactions-I have struck a nerve. Can't handle the truth can you? nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

104. What truth? That the system to see what gets on the greatest page on a message board is Naziesque?

:shrug:

[earth mom]

126. That people like you will game the system.

Bet you wish you could unrecommend this thread a thousand times. :eyes:

[scheming daemons]

130. The whole point is that he CAN'T. One DUer, one vote.

Viva Democracy.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

133. I haven't even unrecommended it once! I'm honestly in shock that the Greatest Page means so much to

you. Comparing the new system to Nazi tactics? Bringing up Orwell? The Founding Fathers? It's bizarre. What stifles free speech for certain is the rule that allows only Democrats and progressives to post here. Republicans aren't allowed to post here. Why didn't you start a thread about how not allowing conservatives to post here stifles free speech and dissent?

The Greatest Page didn't even exist for awhile on DU. DU was fine without it.

[earth mom]

151. Then get rid of the greatest page. Because it's utter crap now. nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

153. I've suggested getting rid of it myself.

If people can't act like adults with it, then so be it.

[Spazito]

156. Wow, I just checked the Greatest page to see the "utter crap" and...

I don't see any crap but I DO see a good mix of topics and issues. Here is the link to it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads

Could you please point out ALL the crap on it, I am just not seeing it.

[dionysus]

396. the most classic example of projection i have ever seen on DU.

[MineralMan]

293. Me? I never recommend or unrecommend anything, except

as a joke over in the Lounge. I also never go to the Greatest Page. I like to judge threads on their own merits. This one, I judge to be nonsense, from the beginning.

If DU doesn't fit well for you, then I have no suggestions. If you think getting a post to the Greatest page is the be all and end all, then I have little but sympathy for you, since that could once be done by assembling five people to recommend whatever thread. That's why I don't visit that page. It's often full of threads that are not the "greatest" anything. Perhaps that situation will improve when a thread cannot simply be pushed onto that page by a cabal of like-thinkers.

You seem very unhappy. I'm sorry about that, but that is none of my doing, nor of any concern to me. DU is, if nothing else, a pretty egalitarian progressive forum. I like this new tool, even though I won't use it, since I don't visit the Greatest page.

Right now, everyone's playing with the tool. Soon, that silliness will stop.

[Javaman]

433. The only thing you struck is dirt on your way digging through the earth.

:rofl:

[sufrommich]

32. What is this great,unspeakable power that

The Greatest Page has?I must be missing something. I've seen threads go onto the hundreds with no recs,but lots of interest.I've also seen threads go to the greatest page with hardly any interest.The number of recs has no bearing on the interest in a thread.

[FrenchieCat]

39. Having a choice of recommend vs. unrecommend vs. doing nothing

reminds me of having a 3rd party with equal powers.

Isn't that a good thing? :shrug:

[earth mom]

52. The negative click silences the positive click.

It would be like we were having a conversation and I spoke and then you replied but also muzzled me at the same time so I could not respond.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

56. And another positive click silences the negative one.

[dionysus]

63. they just realized they're vastly outnumbered, they aren't taking it too well.

:rofl:

[Carl Skan]

73. Yeah but then another negative click silences that positive one.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

79. And another positive cancels the negative, etc.

[Carl Skan]

127. But then another negative cancels the positive

[Maru Kitteh]

281. and pretty soon, you're dancing!

[earth mom]

95. But I can't recommend a second time. So you have silenced me. nt

[dionysus]

96. so basically you're pissed about being outnumbered by pro-dem posters on a pro-dem board. gotcha.

[earth mom]

188. Pro-dem?!

:rofl:

Get a clue.

[dionysus]

304. yeah, DU is a nest of friggin republicans. holy shmokes folks....

[omega minimo]

312. where the fuck are you getting YOUR assumptions from?

:wow:

[dionysus]

319. from reading DU daily for 8 years.

[omega minimo]

324. your assumptions are flawed.

[scheming daemons]

97. And I can't unrecomment a second time... so you cancelled me out too

[SemiCharmedQuark]

99. This is true. You can not single handedly decide what gets to the Greatest Page.

But if the majority thinks it is good, it will go there. If not, it won't. But either way, it stays in the forums.


Further, you are no more silenced than the person who unrecs a thread and is canceled out by a person recing a thread.

[scheming daemons]

102. If the unrecommends silenced you, how come you haven't STFU yet?

:eyes:

[subcomhd]

263. It must be broken

[omega minimo]

310. If you're telling the OP to STFU why hasn't your post been deleted yet?

[FrenchieCat]

107. So how come I still can read everything you have to say?

I mean.....where's this silence from you that you are crying about?

[earth mom]

189. Quit playing games. You want to control the greatest page and never ever see dissent about Obama.

Why don't you be honest and stop the b.s.?

:puke:

[FrenchieCat]

209. Yeah....that's it! It was all my sinister idea, and Skinner is my (fill in the blank)

:eyes:

[earth mom]

235. You said it, I didn't. nt

[FrenchieCat]

238. no, actually, you said it,

I simply summarized what you were saying. :shrug:

earth mom (1000+ posts) Thu Jul-09-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #107
189. Quit playing games. You want to control the greatest page and never ever see dissent about Obama.
Why don't you be honest and stop the b.s.?

[earth mom]

246. Again, quit playing games. nt

[Raskolnik]

111. So unless your vote counts for *more* than others, you are being silenced. Got it.

[dionysus]

57. basically you're upset that there's only a handful of you, got it. most ppl here actually like dems

[scheming daemons]

58. And the positive click cancels out a negative one..... whadaya know? DEMOCRACY

Three choices:

Yes
No
Abstain



Previously, two choices:

Yes
Abstain

[Uncle Joe]

434. Not quite there were three choices before

Yes
No
Start an opposing thread.

[MadBadger]

43. Just because you havent responded, doesnt mean we've silenced you.

I imagine you sitting at ur computer going, "I cant Type! I can't Type!"

[scheming daemons]

47. Shit... if all it takes was a single unrec click to shut some people up... this place will be quiet

in a hurry.

[uppityperson]

377. indeed. oh crap, I'm still not silenced.

[NashVegas]

45. Bullshit

[reflection]

48. k/u. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

53. How are they being slienced?

Look, I hate it when some stupid thread gets moved to the greatest page because of the stupid, barely-evolved past Chimpanzee group think. However, when you make it clear that some things better not get said, you do two things:

One, you punish honesty, which means we do not get at the truth. This is a time when we need the Truth.

Two: You encourage people to lie, using "code words" as they learn to work around your system. The Deep South could not say "we hate Black People and will screw them any way we can." But they had so many little codes that everyone knew what was being done. The same applies in every oppressive culture, from Europe to Asia. Censorship does not stop bad behavior, it merely hides it under a layer of sauce. You can pour a lovely sauce over poisoned food, but you will still die when you eat it.

[NeedleCast]

59. THis threads amuses me, so I recommend it

[scheming daemons]

61. You UNsilencer you!

[NeedleCast]

112. This post is easily the most fun I've had at work today

:evilgrin:

[anigbrowl]

67. No it doesn't. Your post is #3 on the page.

This is NOT what this country was founded upon and the founding fathers are no doubt they are rolling in their graves at what is happening in this country.

Um, DU is not part of the government, it's a private discussion forum. Get a fucking grip. You can post whatever you want (within reason) but you're not entitled to receive only positive feedback.

[LoZoccolo]

69. DU silences free speech and dissent; it might be one of the most censored boards on the Internet.

Look at how many rules there are; it's hilarious. If you're so concerned about that, then there are way bigger problems that you should worry about.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. The act of unrecommending is not suppression.

It trivializes what suppression really is.

What it does do, is make DU more of the echo chamber it often is. I'm glad the feature was not in place during the primary.

Here's my suggestion. Each unrecommend should also function as a kick. The fact that people care enough about a topic to crap on it suggests that it's either worth discussing or should be deleted by the mods.

[omega minimo]

78. You have some problem with being Disappeared?

[Raskolnik]

98. More hyperbole! More! n/t

[dionysus]

101. its worse than the south american death squads, i tell ya

[omega minimo]

113. Maybe you can explain what the problem is that makes this necessary

[Raskolnik]

129. Makes what necessary? The unrecommend feature, or the OP's flailing?

I can speak the former, but you'll have to ask the OP to justify the latter.

The unrecomment feature levels the playing field. If a small group of DU'ers thinks a ridiculous post is worth of recommendation, the rest of DU gets to weigh in and counter that minority sentiment. No one's vote is worth any more than anyone else's, so what could possibly be unfair about that system?

[omega minimo]

162. For starters it's petty. Controlling. Paranoid. Judgmental. " If a small group of DU'ers thinks a"

"If a small group of DU'ers thinks a ridiculous post is worth of recommendation...."

With all the crap that goes on here, being critical of others' ability to recommend something seems trivial. Your reply did not help.

[Raskolnik]

180. No one is being critical of anyone's ability to recommend anything they like.

You are free to recommend anything you like, just like always. But everyone *else* gets to vote, too.

[omega minimo]

237. Nonsense.

[Raskolnik]

253. Who gave you the right to silence me by disagreeing with my point.

Why should you get to weigh in with your opinion, when it could cancel mine out?

[omega minimo]

261. What gives you the right to use your evident talents for evil and not good?

:evilgrin: :toast:

[Greyskye]

267. Who started a game of questions without first invoking Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?

:evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

270. What is the sound of one Rec clapping?

:yoiks:

[Javaman]

435. Only on DU can an petty argument transform into Taoism. nt

[omega minimo]

467. there is no argument. UnRec is petty. Have fun with that.

[Javaman]

486. fasinating...

you choose to continue the petty argument when replying to an existential observation.

[tammywammy]

131. Why does there have to be a problem?

It's just another way for members to express how they feel about a thread. And people have been asking for this feature for a while.

It's better than the rating of threads they tried out months ago.

[omega minimo]

165. "And people have been asking for this feature for a while." Where is that?

And if there's not a problem, what's the point?

"It's just another way for members to express how they feel about a thread."

Isn't a neutral position adequate? Why the need to CANCEL SOMEONE ELSE'S VOTE?

[Raskolnik]

194. "Why the need to CANCEL SOMEONE ELSE'S VOTE?"

You don't really know how "voting" works, do you?

[earth mom]

196. Why the need to CANCEL SOMEONE ELSE'S VOTE?

Good question. :thumbsup:

[tammywammy]

200. It's not canceling someone's vote

Another poster is just voting differently than you. That's how voting works.

[omega minimo]

210. A recommendation is not a VOTE. That's the POINT.

[tammywammy]

216. You said it was a vote and it is a vote for or a vote against. n/t

[omega minimo]

219. Treating it as a "vote," trying to control and CANCEL someone's Recommendation (positive) is petty

and controlling.

The actual tally of positive and negative will not be visible.

[tammywammy]

228. I just don't understand how it's controlling

I can still recommend to my heart's content. No one's stopping me from expressing my viewpoint. I can recommend, I can kick up a thread, I can post over and over again in that thread in favor of it, even if another poster disagrees with me.

That's life. People are going to disagree with you, why only allow positive reinforcement in the recommendations and not anything negative? It seems more fair to allow an "unrecommend" option.

[omega minimo]

234. It's tacky

How about that? You have your view, we see the "neutral" position differently. I see no need for a negative and consider the positive and the affirmative concept of "Recommendation" as just fine.

As for disagreement, there's plenty of room for that in the threads. It's hard to understand how you can't see "it's controlling" to try to intentionally keep someone from being Recommended and on Greatest. Like I said, never occurred to me. :shrug:

I appreciate your comments. However, in several threads here, no one has presented what seems to be a firm answer on why this is necessary.

So be it. We'll see how it goes.

[Greyskye]

298. How about this example that I've seen many times before:

1) Some event happens, and in the initial burst of enthusiasm, gets 'recd' through the roof.
2) Within a few hours - OOPS! New info appears! It seems that the OP had something wrong with the initial post, and the thread is now either irrelevant, or simply wrong (and therefore confusing) to have so many recs. People get attracted to the initial post, don't read the followups, and perpetuate the incorrect meme further by either posting to the thread or taking the false info elsewhere. In that case, it usually (eventually) has to be deleted by the mods.


The new system is self-policing. If new contradictory info comes in, people can simply unrec it into oblivion. At which point people will stop posting on it, and it dies a natural death.

For the record, I don't see the new system as being 'controlling' either. All posts have to go through the same gauntlet, and they rise or fall (on the Greatest Page at least) on their merits, as judged by a majority of people. Any contentious posts that stir up lots of debate will be clearly visible simply due to the activity level, whether the rec count is positive or negative.

IMHO. As you say, we'll see how it goes. Previous attempts at doing something like this haven't lasted long - who knows if this will or not.

Cheers.

[omega minimo]

315. Thank you for that plausible reason

And for your post. I was going along with your ideas -- after we have disagreed elsewhere in the thread -- dreading reaching the last line and (as frequently happens in such a case) find a zinger or put down in the last line....................

Thank you for not doing that. :thumbsup:

[Greyskye]

353. Back at 'ya. :D

I knew that anyone who broke into a spontaneous game of 'questions' upthread had to be a decent person. :toast:

Communication is a wonderful thing. :thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

358. What is the sound of 4 Recs clapping in the UnRecUnderworld.............. ?

:hi:

[tammywammy]

197. In my years on DU I've seen many people express interest in a feature like unrecommend

If there's a positive recommend, why not the opposite of unrecommend instead of just neutral?

And it's not like these threads disappear if there's too many unrecommends, they're just not on the Greatest page, they're still located in the forums.

[omega minimo]

208. If there's no real reason, it seems petty. If there's positive R, why isn't "just nuetral" adequate?

:shrug: It's a control thing. People may not agree with the OP's view on the nature of that control, but that's all it is. It NEVER occurred to me to try to cancel out someone's Rec, as it IS a positive, rather than neutral.

There's enough negativity as it is.

[WI_DEM]

88. how is that? it isn't preventing anybody from responding to the post.

[Raskolnik]

91. You know what you need, earth mom? More paranoid hyperbole. That's what you need.

I just don't think you've gone far enough by comparing an "unrecommend" feature on an internet discussion board to Nazi policy. I think you can do better.

Go for it!

[dionysus]

94. bastard.. soda burns when it goes up into your sinuses

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

93. Wow.. 91 responses (and growing) in a thread that has been SILENCED

We've gotten past Skinner's sentinels!

[Maru Kitteh]

103. .

[PretzelWarrior]

106. Here's a quote "The 'Unrecommend' feature passes through 3 stages

First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

[blogslut]

108. Silences with one click?

Oh please.

You know what? I barely visit DU's front page. I go straight to Discussions. You know what else? I don't click topics based on recs. I click them based on the content included in the Title.

Members here are allowed to post and have their voices heard. If that's not free speech then I don't know what is.

[pecwae]

115. FFS!

I highly doubt the founding fathers are monitoring DU from the grave. Your post is still visible even with less than 0 recs, so how is that silencing anyone?

[omega minimo]

116. The hostility on this thread shows how the UN function will work

[scheming daemons]

120. Yes..... batshit crazy OPs will get the "label" they deserve

...and NOT be on the Greatest Page.


Viva Democracy!

[Javaman]

437. And that's what makes the batshit crazy posters crazy! LOL

they can't take that for 8 long years batshit nuts were taken seriously and now that they aren't, they are out for blood! LOL

[Raskolnik]

132. It will be worse than the Soviet gulag sytem by a factor of one trillion. n/t

[NeedleCast]

138. I can't wait to unrecommened your woo-woo threads!

[omega minimo]

187. and at some point in your life you will discover the very reality based fact of Karma.

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

190. So will you

Hence post #138.

[omega minimo]

201. Your posts are proof you haven't a clue about Karma. Nice try.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

214. I was thinking the same about your posts.

[omega minimo]

217. Case in point.

[anigbrowl]

144. ...in response to a nonsensical overwrought OP.

[omega minimo]

185. The moronic replies to that post show how the UN function will work. Lord of the Flies may be more

apt than Orwell. Except for the "Unrecs." :wow:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

215. Looks like you forgot to log out then back in again.

Again.

[omega minimo]

229. The MegaIgnore is next on the DU Wish List. You gonna be MIGHTY lonely........

:cry: Casting your aspersions all over yourself.

[uppityperson]

379. That makes sense

a lot of sense. I had wondered

[earth mom]

199. Thanks for pointing that out. nt

[omega minimo]

244. "Some pigs are more equal than others"

:hi:

[subcomhd]

257. As usual - any disagreement proves you are right

I see the sun come up in the East every morning and after a while I start counting on it. I'm sure it's somehow sexist as well.

Edited cardinal direction

[omega minimo]

272. Please try to comprehend and tell all your friends, there is a difference b/w "disagreement" and

belligerent bullshit. :think:

[subcomhd]

280. I'm not going back to count but..

inevitably you end up saying something along the lines of - "the reaction here proves my point." You have mastered the circular argument. Congrats.

[omega minimo]

283. So you didn't even try to comprehend

:shrug:

[GoneOffShore]

311. Ouroboros consuming itself, but not fast enough.

Someday it will succeed and disappear into its own maw.

A singularity will occur and the Universe will suddenly right itself.

added on edit:

And then turquoise will reign.

[omega minimo]

318. There is a difference b/w disagreement and belligerent bullshit. Of whatever color.

Why do smart people act stupid and make assumptions based on nothing?

[GoneOffShore]

340. Oh, I know I shouldn't but I will.

As they say:
Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

So - Did you major in victomology or was it a minor?

[omega minimo]

343. This stupid meme ain't gonna work, buddy.

:hi:

[GoneOffShore]

346. Your crystal blue persuasion doesn't work with me Ouroboros.

[tammywammy]

117. Wow, someone who takes the internets waaaaay to seriously n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

119. You know, the Nazis had unrecommend buttons they made the Jews click.

[blogslut]

125. heehee

I still wish we could recommend individual responses. :hi:

[Javaman]

442. first they took away my unrecommend buttons...nt

[Bluenorthwest]

123. The worth of the function itself is seen in

the mob mentality mean spirit that is now running amuck on DU.

[Raskolnik]

136. Yeah, DU and the internet in general used to be so genteel and polite.

If you get the vapors, just ask someone to bring you a fan and a mint julep.

[earth mom]

158. The proof of the mean spirited mob mentality of DU is running amuck on THIS THREAD.

:puke:

[Javaman]

443. yeah, free speach sucks...

:eyes:

[MoonRiver]

124. I tried to recommend this thread,

but the <0s overwhelmed my vote. :crazy:

[guitar man]

135. ???

I don't see threads disappearing because they have been recc'd down

[JTFrog]

137. K&U n/t

[Common Sense Party]

142. The founding fathers don't give a shit what is recommended on DU.

If they're rolling in their graves about anything, it's probably about how many times people today allege that the founding fathers are rolling in their graves about something specious or silly.

[earth mom]

163. The founding fathers would hate what this country has become.

And I'm sure they would give a flying fuck about DU.

[Common Sense Party]

168. Oh, I'd guess they hate what this country has become.

But it has nothing to do with the unrecommend feature.

[Carl Skan]

198. The only thing the founding fathers would hate about the UR feature

is the fact that blacks and women are able to use it.

[uppityperson]

381. oooooooooooooooooooo

:rofl:

[semillama]

543. Not to mention people who don't own property! n/t

[JonLP24]

240. -1

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LanternWaste]

143. self-delete

edit: self-delete... or self-censorship... or self-silencing, or whatever Orwell would call it...

[cali]

148. Codswallop. Pure and unadulterated. And no, I have no intention of

"unrecommending" your OP.

[earth mom]

155. Go ahead, I could give a damn about my thread being on the greatest page.

I care about all the other threads that shed light on how fucking corrupt so many things in this country are, that will get disappeared by special interests.

That's what I care about.

And you should too.

[tammywammy]

160. "I could give a damn"

So you want your threads on the Greatest page?

[earth mom]

207. Feel free to unrecommend. This is not about my thread but about future threads

people will fuck the hell up.

And fuck them up they will.

[tammywammy]

218. I have yet to unrecommend a thread

But your thread isn't going anywhere, it's still on the board even if it's not on the greatest page.

[earth mom]

226. Again, this is not about my thread. It's about threads that are important that will be trashed.

and disappeared from the front page of DU.

FYI-I rarely post OPs and this is NOT about me.

[omega minimo]

350. It seems about the need to detract

We have enough of that already.

It also seems a difference b/w those who look at Recs as a positive and those who want to control the Greatest Page and feel powerless to do so.

Now the mob can rule with a click. It's destructive, rather than constructive, which would be -- oh I dunno -- posting an OP and getting Recs or Reccing OPs to displace those that one finds objectionable on the Greatest Page ......

There's some upset about "Obama bashing" and sense that Greatest is where only those who are "worthy" get to appear.

I didn't know there was a problem :spray:

:shrug:

[Javaman]

444. the OP fails to understand a simple fact...

That threads that usually go to the greatest page (apparently that is her goal in life), are usually well written, researched, insightful and have a point; instead of being a whine feast of epic Napa Valley proportions.

The whine on this thread is flowing so fully, I'm surprised we aren't all drunk on her inane comments. :)

but what do I know? Indeed, what DO I know.

[Common Sense Party]

176. The threads will not disappear. They. Will. Not. Dis. Ap. Pear.

The thread is still there! And people will still be vigorously debating it and discussing it! And learning from it.

You have inexplicably jumped from the unlikely possibility that special interest groups will infiltrate DU and unrecommend something off the Greatest Page, and drawn the non sequitur conclusion that those threads and topics no longer exist.

There is a glaring disconnect in your logic.

[SidDithers]

149. The only problem that I see with the unrec function...

is that it maxes out at <0, and we don't get to see just how many people think a thread like this one is truly idiotic.

Sid

[mwooldri]

152. It doesn't silence but it sure makes good but controversial threads less visible.

There's another thread elsewhere that's talking about an evangelical Christian getting nominated for some top Health Department job. It is IMO a good thread, and most likely because people have seen "evangelical Christian" it's getting knocked down.

[Spazito]

179. I read the thread and it was an unfair hit on an eminently qualified candidate merely because he...

was also a man of faith. One needs to read the WHOLE thread to understand why the OP was rated the way it was, imo.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[cboy4]

161. There is nothing more irritating than people who slow down a thread

because they have to post a ridiculous number of smileys to draw attention to themselves.

:thumbsdown:

Too bad I can't unrecommend that

[noamnety]

224. you can consider it disruptive behavior

because it's designed to make a thread hard to read - and take the appropriate action. ;)

[earth mom]

212. I said rolling in their graves at how fucked up THIS COUNTRY is. Why don't you learn to read?

:freak:

[Common Sense Party]

227. But that was DIRECTLY linked to the silencing of dissent here on DU.

YOUR words:

The unrecommend click has the very last word.

It silences and oppresses opposing views and it is wrong.

This (note no change in subject, still referencing the Unrec option) is NOT what this country was founded upon and the founding fathers are no doubt they are rolling in their graves at what is happening in this country.

YOU included the line about the Founding Fathers in YOUR post about how the Unrec function is wrong. That leads one to believe that the Unrec is one symptom of a changed country that the FF would dislike.

[aikoaiko]

159. This is sarcasm, right?

How does this stifle what you say? Your thread still exists and can be read and kicked.

[verdalaven]

164. Choice is always good.

Given the choice to "recommend" or "unrecommend" a thread is DU practicing real, live democracy. How is that silencing you?

[Geek_Girl]

169. Unrecommended

:evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

171. Let's see the totals Rec or Un for this thread.

[scheming daemons]

172. It would be ugly for the OP.... I'm guessing negative a billion

[omega minimo]

177. Your posts are a waste of space.

[earth mom]

220. This thread is proof that "unrecommend" doesn't work.

I knew this thread would be shit canned, but it's not about what people are doing to this thread.

It's about the hundreds of other threads this will happen to.

Threads about Obama that are negative.

Threads that paint the Obama administration in a negative light.

Threads about how corrupt Congress is.

Threads about 911 truth.

Threads about any controversial subect.

Threads will be kicked to the curb because there is an organized effort here on DU to silence the truth.

[Echo In Light]

232. Yep. A given. On all counts. It won't necessarily 'silence' the Left here, though.

Sorry this thread turned into such a hate-fest ... but you saw it coming.

[earth mom]

241. Nothing ventured, nothing gained as they say.

At least I tried.

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it!

[omega minimo]

252. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained. " Is that Like Oldspeak? And who are "They"?

:evilgrin:

[Greyskye]

294. Doesn't it just take one example to disprove a theory?

A thread w/ (currently) +12 votes, which is celebrating a House vote against Obama.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3961879


This one doubts Obama is serious about health care reform. (+7)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8517000


Here's one saying Obama's approval ratings are artifically high (+6)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8517715


Yep, anti-Obama threads kicked to the curb is right.

[Javaman]

448. Quite you! the OP only likes threads that she wrote

and is flailing around senselessly in a grant pursuit of trying to prove to the world that she is the lone voice of sanity and everyone else fails to see her genius!!!

[dionysus]

402. "Threads will be kicked to the curb because there is an organized effort here on DU to silence the

truth"

you need some fuckignthorazine..stat..

:rofl:

[Javaman]

449. I think a little shock treatment wouldn't hurt either. nt

[Javaman]

447. you forgot this...

:tinfoilhat:

[Canuckistanian]

174. The Unrecommend feature kicked my puppy

Bastid.

[anonymous171]

181. DU is a private website. It is does not have to follow the Constitution.

[Greyskye]

183. Yes - this thread, while wildly 'unpopular' has generated no views and no discussion

Oh, wait...

Posts....Recs....Views
175......<0......1790

[omega minimo]

193. It doesn't have

<0 Recs. They disappear down the Memory Hole.

[tammywammy]

202. So this thread is going to be deleted? n/t

[omega minimo]

211. THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT IT RECEIVED DISAPPEARED.

:eyes:

[tammywammy]

221. So what?

You can only recommend in the first 24 hours anyways. There have been times when I saw a great thread, but alas it was from the day before and I couldn't recommend anyways.

AND even if is has negative recommendations THE THREAD IS STILL HERE! People can still discuss it. If it falls to the second page in a forum, someone can kick it up.

You're taking an internet message board way too seriously.

[omega minimo]

225. Yes the petty, controlling attitude is much more appropriate than anything "too serious"

[Javaman]

450. wow, you need to take a serious chill.

step slowly away from the keyboard, turn off the computer and enjoy the day.

[CakeGrrl]

550. At the end of the day, it's all about the "Attaboys" (or "Attagirls, I guess)

Some egos need stroking. That is all.

This isn't about whether the OP's comments can be seen. That's been proven over and over as this thread keeps getting kicked to the top of GD with every new comment.

The OP can continue to post whatever comments about Obama being a centrist, lip-service-only corporatist that she wants. It's not about that.

It's about how many people LIKE and AGREE WITH what the OP is saying, as evidenced by the number of Recs. If they don't get that positive reinforcement, it's distressing to them.

[Javaman]

452. Caps always work so effectively to get your point across.

:eyes:

[Greyskye]

205. Sense - you make none

:shrug:

Current tally of this thread which has generated no views or discussion:

Posts....Recs....Views
200.......<0.......1999

[omega minimo]

213. Where is the tally of the Recs and NonRs? It doesn't have

<0 Recs actually. They aren't SHOWN

[Greyskye]

243. Changing the subject now? Buh-bye! :D

The point of the OP was that the new feature silences minority views. Yes, no one at all can see this spirited debate going on. :eyes:

Current tally of this thread which is generating no debate, has no recommendations, and therefore has no exposure to the DU world at large:

Posts....Recs....Views
240.....<0.....2312

[omega minimo]

248. You don't understand what's being said and that's

somehow the other posters fault? :rofl: :wow:


OIC -- YOUR point of view and presentation is the only CORRECT one, so anything else "doesn't make sense." :thumbsdown: UnRecced

[Greyskye]

262. IMHO it's YOU who don't understand.

The point of the OP was that the un-rec feature stifled dissent.

As the view-count and the number of replies shows - even though this thread has a neg rec rating - the minority view is being heard and debated. Therefore it appears that the premise of the OP is faulty.

Care to actually have a debate, or are you going to continue to put words in my mouth?

[omega minimo]

266. It's you

who want to put words in others' mouths and make them say only what you consider relevant to YOUR point and YOUR point of view. Otherwise, they "don't make sense" or are "changing the subject."

You need validation that you were heard? Fine. You were.

AND the OP did NOT receive LESS THAN ZERO recommendations; the Recs received are not SHOWN.

The need to cancel out others' Recs appears -- in the absence of any solid reasoning so far today -- to be petty and controlling.

So be it.

You want to "debate"? Not discuss. May be one of those who comes here to "win" and loves the idea of competing "votes."

That is not what I am here for. That sort of competitive BS IMHO is boring and counterproductive.

[Greyskye]

289. so certain are you. :D

OK, a step back.

You said "It doesn't have <0 Recs. They disappear down the Memory Hole."

1) well, the header on the General Discussion page says "<0".
2) seeing as I can see "<0", and your hyperbole about a "memory hole" is just that...
3) the OP stated that the un-rec feature would stifle discussion and keep minority views from exposure
4) the number of replies and views of this thread disproves that premise.

Therefore - the point that you made about votes disappearing 'down a memory hole' just didn't make sense to me. I didn't really get where you were coming from until you explained it more clearly just now. I still don't agree with you, but now it makes sense to me. Kudo's on making that clearer.

I don't seek validation or recognition - take a look at my relatively low post count even though I've been around for a while if you want some evidence of that. I've got a third of your post count LOL.

I look at the new rec system like a balance scale. Each vote places a weight on the appropriate side. We get to see the tally when it's positive. All we know when it's negative is just that - it's negative. Allowing how many negative votes that are cast to be seen could easily turn into a form of social shaming that I think would be terrible, and a huge disservice to DU.

I've been on DU since 2001. In that time, I've seen multiple requests for this kind of system. It seems to come around every couple years or so. What Skinner, Elad et al have provided seems to be the best balance that I've seen proposed.

I'm here for discussion, debate, and to broaden and deepen my worldview. Doesn't seem "boring and counterproductive" to me. :shrug:

[omega minimo]

320. I see your point. TY. Looks to me like this is to give people a sense of power by pushing a button

Pavlov's posters. :thumbsup:

[Javaman]

453. oddly, you have that same power, yet you feel that everyone is out to get you.

interesting.

[omega minimo]

470. I have no need to UnRec

[Javaman]

484. We have no need for twinkies, but people still eat them. nt

so rather the use this new feature, you choose to just complain about it.

Still interesting.

[Homer Wells]

401. I think the whole point of this thread and of the OP is

that there is some great "honor" in her (or those of like mind) to be able to revel in their particular post being considered "GREATEST", thereby elevating their status (in their own mind) as being somehow "Greatest" also. She has definitely set off quite a firestorm of opinion, and one helluva lot of interest, much more so than many topics that have made it to the front page.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

454. Deleted message

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

[SpartanDem]

195. The idea of one person, one vote would make the found father sick?

I don't think you know the slightest thing about democracy. -1

[earth mom]

231. Why didn't you read the OP before you posted?

I spoke about what's happening to this COUNTRY.

DU is just a microcosm of the bigger picture.

[Javaman]

455. Um, okay, let me know when I can "un-vote" then get back to me.

and upon rereading your original post.

Either you are really poor at getting your ideas across or you are now making things up, because, your logic is faulted by this current statement in regards to your OP.
"I spoke about what's happening to this COUNTRY."

in your OP you stated:

"Anyone who does not like what you have to say can come along and silence you with a single click.

The un-recommend click has the very last word.

It silences and oppresses opposing views and it is wrong.

This is NOT what this country was founded upon and the founding fathers are no doubt they are rolling in their graves at what is happening in this country.

This is something out of one of Orwell's books.

But I'm sure the DLC loves it."

Where do you state that this is happening in our nation? You are trying to equate the rules on DU with the same rules that are stated in the Constitution? Like someone else pointed out this is a private site and therefore is subject to the rules of the owners.

And by you stating that the un-recommend silences and oppresses opposing views, you just refuted yourself. The un-recommend could be looked upon as an opposing view, so therefore by you stating that you are against, the un-recommend function, you are against opposing views, thus pointing up and conflicting directly your concept of silencing and oppressing views.

Try a course in logic next time, it will serve you well.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

204. Wait, You Were Serious? ROFLMAO!!!!!

I thought for certain this was in jest!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Thanks for giving me my first chance to try out the new system though!

[Fla_Democrat]

206. I'm not even gonna say it

:eyes:

[Laelth]

223. I agree with you. I do not like the idea of mob violence against an unpopular thread.

If you don't like a thread, just ignore it. That's easy enough.

There's no need to beat up on a non-freeper poster with whom you disagree.

:dem:

-Laelth

[earth mom]

230. Thank you. I'm taking the heat here but it's not about my thread, but the great threads

that will be trashed up one side and down the other.

[Laelth]

268. None of my threads would have ever made it to the greatest page under this system.

I don't author a whole lot of OPs, but when I do I am making a liberal challenge to people who call themselves liberal. Under this system, my greatest contributions to DU would have scarcely ever been heard.

Remember these three? No way the would have made it. Too controversial.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/28 (96 votes)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/22 (79 votes)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/23 (21 votes)

The Greatest Page will become very boring under the current system. Disagreement is how we learn and how we grow. The current system will do exactly what it is designed to do--squelch controversial threads.

That's too bad.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Raskolnik]

301. You're a bigger martyr than Ghandi and Jesus' baby. n/t

[omega minimo]

316. It appears this is to give

the petty and mob mentality a sense of control and power they lack. They get to push a button and MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.

It's some weird consolation for them. Otherwise, why not just up the number of Rec's required....................

Let them have their bone. :pals:

[Zhade]

374. Think about a thread on Israel. Could be a reasonable one.

But thanks to Israel-firsters on this board, it would be shot down before it's even read.

[uppityperson]

383. Usually they are moved to I/P forum where you can't rec from

[grantcart]

233. I disagree

Nope you can still express yourself and dissent as my reply proves.

[noamnety]

236. I understand where you are coming from but

here's where you are off base. It's not a Free Speech issue because that implies government control and suppression, whereas this is a private board. DU has always stated in its rules that it suppresses certain types of speech, and it's always been acceptable here for the mods to even tombstone people with opposing ideas (racists, for example), and that's fine and appropriate.

I agree with you that the unrecommend feature silences opposing points of view - I understand what you are saying there. It doesn't prevent you from speaking your mind (as some are trying to use as a strawman, due to some sloppy wording in the OP), but it definitely serves to make certain points of view or criticisms less visible. I agree with your underlying sentiments, in other words, and share your concern that it will help DU become a mouthpiece for DLC policies and politicians. But I don't think it helps the cause to try to phrase this as a Free Speech issue on a board that never pretended to be about free speech.

[earth mom]

296. Perhaps you're right, but I had to honestly post how it felt to me at a gut level.

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your post and will give it some thought. :hi:

[NMMNG]

239. M'kay

Right wing meme much? Dissent isn't silencing. Someone telling you they disagree with you isn't silencing you. Get over yourself.

[sendero]

245. For the life of me..

... I cannot understand the objection to this feature.

First of all, the "greatest page" - who looks at that? New users to the site? Certainly not me.

It stands to reason that if someone can have a vote saying "this thread is great" that having a vote that "this thread sucks" is just democratic.

[RoyGBiv]

250. 2388 Views and 248 Replies ...

... as of this posting.

"Score" is in negative territory, indicating a majority of un-recommends. Yet, somehow, people have seen your thread and have been posting in it.

Now what the fuck is your point?

[Raskolnik]

255. She's been censored and silenced. She's the greatest victim in the history of the internets.

[RoyGBiv]

264. Oh definitely ...

Poor, poor victim of the Cone of Silence ...

I forgot to bring my orchestra, so I'll just do a solo.

:nopity:

[earth mom]

278. Kick the messenger and the message-that's your m.o.

:thumbsdown:

[anigbrowl]

290. Well, your point about unrec = silenced seems to be contradicted by facts

In fact, it's been one of the top GD threads all afternoon, despite not having any recommends. How come it hasn't disappeared into the oblivion that is page 2?

[Raskolnik]

300. If by "kick the messenger" you mean "make fun of someone with delusions of persecution" -- I agree

And how dare you give me a thumbs down! Don't you know that's censorship?

[Greyskye]

265. Yeah, I tried to make that point about 100 posts ago. ROFLMAO

Guess it still hasn't sunk in. :rofl:

[earth mom]

271. Again, this is not about this thread, it's about the greatest page. Read post #220. nt

[RoyGBiv]

285. Ah, the Greatest page ...

Clearly, we have an inalienable right to having threads on the Greatest page, because if we do not, then dissent is being SILENCED.

Thus flows your tortured, inane, yet somehow thrillingly amusing logic.

You know what's really silencing dissent right now? You and several of your buddies running around screaming your fool heads off about a function on a message forum that damn nearly every other major message forum already has in some incarnation, starting new threads, drawing people's attention to this non-issue like it's some epic battle of free speech or death.

CAKE OR DEATH!!!

Meanwhile, actual issues are generally being ignored at the moment while the gallery, myself included, remains so distracted by this infantile babbling that draws stunning stares of horrified interest like the image of a train barreling out of control off the tracks and through a convent full of homeless children who were all going to be adopted tomorrow.

Some of y'all really need to get out more.

[redqueen]

373. *dies*

[RoyGBiv]

380. No, no, really ...

Don't die. It was a trick question.

Take the cake. We have plenty.



:P

[SidDithers]

392. CAKE OR DEATH!!!...

:rofl:

That's absolutely perfect! :applause:

Sid

[grantcart]

277. highly inflammatory threads by a small group of posters who give it

enough recommendations to get it noticed on the "Greatest Page" even though they actually do not represent the opinon of the majority here and actually endenger a lot of anger are going to die.


Some posters have just lost their attention device.

[earth mom]

279. Shit like this has driven the majority of leftists away from DU. nt

[RoyGBiv]

291. This ...

... is the correct answer.

[greyl]

389. Yep. nt

[BlooInBloo]

254. Irony = the length of this thread.

[izzybeans]

256. Argumentation without proof...

silences itself.

The unrecommend option will make the troll games less likely. Time will tell whether my hypothesis is correct.

[omega minimo]

269. There's a hint of a possible reason here

Would you mind spelling out how you see that? What "troll games"?

[izzybeans]

282. Recing flamebait to the top of the greatest page

and then posting in those threads to keep fights going.

At least the unrecs will balance that out and if the admins would reinstate being able to see the difference between total votes and the unrec total we could see whenever obviously progressive posts are being unreceded for nefarious reasons.


Already there were questions of people asking "who unreced this thread" if no one shows up to provide a valid reason then the silence speaks loudly. I think this stronger version of the unrec that they originally started would make life much easier for all, especially if we informally come to expect the "unrecer" to show up and explain themselves.

"Tell me why there is a valid reason to hate Michael Moore?" That's what i'd ask in your scenario.

[omega minimo]

286. Who decides what's "flamebait"? Who is objecting to what topics being prominent?

[izzybeans]

390. I think we will be more able to decide as posters and the mods will

have less work.

I could say "I've unreced this thread because I think its flamebait". If it's your thread you are free to tell me why I'm wrong. if it's truly flamebait then likely the poster will be long gone anyway.

This thread though might serve as a self-exemplary example for how it will work.

[earth mom]

276. The trolls are licking their lips & can't wait to unrec threads about Michael Moore, Gore, & Palin.

Do you really think the unrec thread will serve any other purpose than to control the message?

[greguganus]

305. What's wrong with unrecing Palin threads? She sucks. n/t

[masuki bance]

274. Sarcasm? This is one of the best straight-faced posts I've seen in a long time. nt

unrec'd!

[onenote]

275. I want to unrecommend the OP and recommend the responses

Can we change the system again?

[pipi_k]

288. Actually, if I ever use the unrec option, it won't be to silence

an opposing viewpoint.

It will likely be to knock the "Rec this if you __________" threads off into the next dimension where they belong.

I think I have a pretty high tolerance level for a lot of the silliness that goes on...I either laugh and back out of the thread, or don't bother opening them at all.

But the ones asking....begging...PLEADING for people to rec them....

what the hell is up with that, anyway?

I've never once rec'd a thread where someone asked for it to be rec'd. Not even if I agreed 100% with the thought behind it. Just because.


So the only ones getting an unrec from me will be the ones asking for a rec. Otherwise, I don't much care what people post.


:7

[earth mom]

295. Ha ha! Thanks for your reply, I needed the laugh.

This thread has become beyond ridiculous with all the mean spirited reactions.

Your post is refreshing and a great way to look at it all.

So thanks. :hi:

[City Lights]

297. How does that work exactly?

Does the unrecommend have some magical powers that make your thread go *POOF* and disappear it?

[BlooInBloo]

308. 1) Unrec a thread... 2) ????? 3) PROFIT!!!

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

331. ROFL!

:rofl:

[redqueen]

403. *roffle*

[sarcasmo]

328. The Onion has taken control here at D/U.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

329. BS, unrecced...

The threads don't disappear ya know. They just don't make it to greatest page. Hardly a trip to the gulag...

I'm having a great time with this.

[Name removed]

330. Deleted message

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

[omega minimo]

337. Has this been rubbing you the wrong way for a while now?

:wow: :shrug:

[Richard Steele]

351. Nope-I just now logged on, and the HYPOCRITICAL STUPIDITY of this thread caught my eye...

I just finished putting the OP on "ignore",
and I think I'm gonna log off now.

One of my co-workers heard some rumors
about some Japanese Lesbian Granny-porn
websites...

And I think that investigating those rumors
might be a much better use of my time
than posting in this fucktarded thread could ever be.
"Kon-ichi-WA", DU! :hi:

ALOHA "Google Image Search!

[omega minimo]

352. Don't let the doi-tash-mashte hit you on your way out!

[Richard Steele]

359. Bwahaha! LOL!!!

Nicely referenced, my old friend!:rofl:

[omega minimo]

370. konichiwat's so damn funny?

:spray:

Poor little Bushie. Poppy and Barbzilla really did a number on him.

[varelse]

332. Heh

what about the "hide thread" feature? And don't get me started on ignore. :silly:

[Arugula Latte]

339. Unrecommend this thread and tell 10 of your friends to unrecommend it.

If you don't do it, you will DIE within seven days. A girl failed to unrecommend this thread and the next day she choked on a calzone and DIED.

SERIES!!!1!1! :o

[pipi_k]

398. bwahahahahha!!!!

I love a HUGH laugh in the morning...


:7

[northzax]

341. yes, I am fairly certain that Tom Jefferson is rolling over at Monticello

over the 'unrecommend' feature.

yawn. no one ever guaranteed the minority view prime placement, only that it wouldn't be illegal to express it. if you can't convince a majority of people who care enough to vote on your thread to recommend you, then you either don't have a good point or don't have much of a way with words. the constitution guarantees you free speech, unfettered by congressional restrictions. I don't remember anything about private websites in the first amendment.

[TexasObserver]

344. It doesn't silence anything, but it is awesome!!

[RoyGBiv]

345. Just have to add this ...

... being a fan of irony and all.

[yoyossarian]

348. I'm with you, mom!

Recommended! (hope it sticks!)

[Redneck Socialist]

354. This thread really makes me wish we could see how many "unrecs" there are. n/t

[chrisa]

355. I love when people claim "free speech" on an internet board.

They could just ban us all because they hate us, or if we said anything bad about a sports team they like. There's no such thing as the guarantee to "free speech" on a board somebody else owns, and I really don't know why anybody cares about the recommend system.

[Cali_Democrat]

360. This is one of the funniest threads I've ever read on DU

Has the OP been silenced yet? :shrug:

[Zhade]

365. One of DU's worst, most cowardly moves ever.

NT!

[omega minimo]

372. You just say that

cuz you wish you could see the breakdown of plus/minus and whether something got UnRecced enough or not......... :think: :hi:

[Zhade]

376. I think DU's been a bastion of cowards for years now. Afraid to face the issues.

Resulting to personal attacks. Shit, I don't even bother to control those anymore -- the mods sure as fuck don't.

The unrec thing is just going to turn DU into a battlefield that obscures why DU was formed in the first place. I mean, damn, people can unrec a thread on the 2000 theft of the presidency, THE VERY THING THAT PROMPTED THIS WEBSITE'S CREATION!

It's ridiculous.

[omega minimo]

378. good points, well taken.

It's also a challenge to find new ways to be -- constructive. The notion of this negation of positivity is ........ mucky.

[earth mom]

394. The theft of the 2000 election-a great example of what I'm talking about.

:thumbsup:

[Laelth]

583. Hear, hear! n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[fishwax]

366. no it won't

losing a recommend point in no way equates to being silenced.

[uppityperson]

367. 360+ replies on a negatively rated thread. And this shows...we are...silenced?

wow

"This is NOT what this country was founded upon and the founding fathers are no doubt they are rolling in their graves at what is happening in this country."

wow again, actually double wow at that one. Rules on a private forum are "not what this country was founded on" and they are making the founding fathers roll in their graves.

wow wow wow

[earth mom]

408. Quit playing games. This is about making sure negative threads about Obama etc. don't make it

to the greatest page.

But you knew that already.

[defendandprotect]

368. WTF . .. I wasn't sure what this was about or how it would work but looks like

those who want to keep popular issues/threads from rising now have a tool
to do it with!!!

This is nuts!!

If this is to be done . . . a thread still has to RISE ON ITS RECOMMENDATION . . .
not fall on "unrecommends." One cannot negate the other!

Let's see two tallies -- one "recommends" - the other "don't recommend" --

Then let the thread rise on its recommendations.

[leftstreet]

371. Also, extend the 'rec' period

"Too late to recommend" is really annoying when you've missed a good thread

[defendandprotect]

384. Absolutely . . . because 24 hours is too short . . . especially for a popular thread...

The info here moves quickly -- threads fall quickly -- sometimes I don't get to see
them all and I try to read most of everything here when I can.

So too often I miss some information first time around - or when I come back thread
is gone.

It's a good recommendation !!!

[mamaleah]

382. You can also be "silenced" by being ignored. Wanna get rid of that too?

No one has to read your posts, you know.

[defendandprotect]

385. Kick & R

[Iggo]

387. K&U.

:P

[tomm2thumbs]

388. Hey, how about if only people who donate can 'unrecommend'

yes, of course, I am joking

or am I?

[earth mom]

393. I have my reasons for not donating. And it has to do with this kind of crap. nt

[MineralMan]

404. That would be your choice.

I donate to keep a forum dedicated to progressive points of view in the public eye. It seems to me to be an important goal. But, donating is absolutely a personal decision. You've chosen not to. OK.

[earth mom]

406. When good left leaning DUers get kicked off the site and threads like mine are trashed like this

why would I want to donate?

[MineralMan]

416. Your thread is one of the largest posted recently.

It contains both agreement and disagreement with your position. As for the other stuff, I have no ideas regarding people being kicked off the site. Seems to me that if you have questions about that, you should take them up with the admins, not in threads. But...whatever.

Your reasons for not donating are your business, and none of mine.

[Javaman]

460. LOL simply priceless...

you like to rant, rave and complain on a free forum yet, in order to rant, rave and complain that same free forum has to pay it's bills, but heaven forbid you donate to that same site that allows you to rant rave and complain! LOL

And yet, you complain about it's policies!!!

:rofl:

This is like someone getting a free car and being pissed it's not the color they wanted!!

:spray:

[CakeGrrl]

564. Why not? "Pay to play" doesn't seem like a half-bad idea

Other sites have "premium" services for paying or higher-paying members.

[davidpdx]

391. Kicked and unrecommended

Oh, this is fun.

[moggie]

395. Thank-you for this parody!

This is masterful stuff! Bravo!

[Better Believe It]

397. This procedure allows political cliques to control/dominate discussions and debates

This new procedure gives a huge opening to individuals and political cliques who want to police posts on DU and control/dominate discussions and debates on DU.

[earth mom]

407. Bingo! But no one-except a few honest people-want to admit that it's all about control.

Thanks for your post. :hi:

[omega minimo]

477. "Some pigs are more equal than others"

[pipi_k]

399. I just came up with what I believe is a reasonable solution to the problem

Instead of having "rec" or "unrec", why not do away altogether with the Greatest page....

Then people won't have to agonize about whether they'll make, or be dismissed from, the Greatest Threads page.


Everybody's equal...everyone's happy...

Except for the ones who might decide to complain that not enough people are posting in their threads to keep them kicked to the top. And the ones who think there should be an "unkick" option.


:7

[madmom]

400. Apparently it's not working quite the way you think/want. This op was posted last night

and still this morning it was right there so I saw it after only about 15 minutes of being logged on.

[earth mom]

411. Did you even read the thread? This in NOT about me, but about threads that will trashed

by people with an agenda.

Why is that so damn hard to understand?

[madmom]

438. Yes I did read the thread. I still don't see a problem. Only time will tell.

[dionysus]

405. this might be the most legendary failthread DU has ever produced...

[earth mom]

409. How many fucking times are you going to post in this thread and spew crap?

:puke:

[dionysus]

410. maybe a few more times, because you're continuing to embarrass yourself after being proven wrong

hundreds of posts ago. you've gotten thoroughly pwned and you keep coming back for more.

maybe kucinich will swoop down on his magic unicorn and save the thread for you.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

412. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

417. elevens!!11!!11!!!11 yes, i saw that a handful of posters hates it that they can't game the front

page.

the horror.

[MineralMan]

428. Calling people assholes, now?

My, my...

[omega minimo]

471. that's his thing

[BlooInBloo]

423. The commonality between almost all failthreads is the utter inability of the OP...

to simply admit being wrong. That's what makes these threads gifts that keep on giving.

[dionysus]

426. STOP SILENCING ME!11!! you have snuffed out my hopes and dreams, washington would weep.

for i cannot rig the greatest page any more.....

[subcomhd]

415. Well, one night's sleep, a drive to work and this is still here?

When does the silencing start?

[Javaman]

461. It's the slow motion kind of trainwreck.

:rofl:

[Iggo]

418. How many times has this thread been unrec'd?

And yet it still floats near the top of GD.

Go Free Speech!

[Javaman]

419. I think the louder you complain is in direct proportion to the un-recs you get.

whining helps no one.

[Javaman]

422. Am I the only one seeing the positively hysterical irony here? LOL nt

[dionysus]

427. how can you post in this thread? it has been silenced, purged, "snuffed out".

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

430. By no means. Most everyone sees it.

[redqueen]

431. No.

This thread delivers like Domino's.

[Javaman]

429. Best example of obsessive compulsive thread EVER!!

oh and delusional paranoia!!

I wish I could recommend it, but I can't I already un-recommended it!

:rofl:

[rug]

436. This thread makes no sense. I have everyone but one here on ignore.

[Javaman]

439. LOL nt

[gkhouston]

491. and you're reading it, anyway? That's... telling. n/t

[Swede]

440. Kicked and unrecommended

This is an epic thread.

[myrna minx]

446. Is this a meta thread?

I can't tell anymore. :cry:

[TexasObserver]

451. I'm still waiting to see how disapproval of your thread SILENCES you.

So far, the new feature has not been able to silence any of the thread starters who have claimed it would silence them.

If only that were true ....

[Occam Bandage]

456. You funny. nt

[dionysus]

457. i can see this one getting to 5-600 posts!

[Occam Bandage]

458. But how? It's been unrecced! THE SILENCE IS THUNDERING!

[dionysus]

459. lol.

[Maru Kitteh]

462. Ill do my part. I LOVE this thread.

[BlooInBloo]

463. I declare this failthread to be a bonafide contender to Seabiscuit's for all-time fail.

[dionysus]

464. oooooooooooooooh.... that's the holy grail of FAIL.

:rofl:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

506. ok, i have to ask

What thread is that you two are talking about?

[dionysus]

509. here you go, kind poster;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5847583

[Maru Kitteh]

496. How many posts did that thread have? What's the all time longest?

Because this one really rocks. It's hard to imagine it getting any better than this.

[BlooInBloo]

499. They're close to the same length. It's not just quantity though, but also quality of fail...

Seabiscuit still wins, but this is a contender at least.

Judge for yourself:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5847583

[Maru Kitteh]

563. After careful consideration, I think a point system should be developed

Original Post 100 points:

OP should be designed to produce instant WTF in any reader possessing of a 6th grade education and the most minimal of critical thinking skills. Especially prized content should include references to things like Hitler/Nazis, conspiracy theories, cliches, the imagined thoughts of historical figures, living or dead or falsehoods so bold as to immediately inform the reader that reason will no longer be served at this particular buffet.


Subsequent Moonbattery 50 points:

The more the better. OP and sock-puppets/cohorts should continue to amuse the audience with the same flavor of moonbattery that makes the original post so delicious. Extra points may be added if subsequent moonbattery actually escalates so far as to top the OP in brazen absurdity.


Holy Grail Bonus Points. The following shall immediately be considered eligible for up to 50 HG bonus points:

Denying that the OP says what the OP says.
Soylent Green.
Delusions of persecution to include wiretapping or other monitoring by nefarious entities and/or the government.


Thread length 50 points:

200+ posts = 30 points
300+ posts = 40 points
400+ posts = 50 points


Total possible points: 250+ points

I give this thread 270.

While Seabiscuit's thread is QUITE impressive - I have to give the edge to this one. I give the Seabiscuit thread about a 245 mostly because Seabiscuit didn't show up often enough in the thread to truly enhance the thread fail to it's maximum potential. YMMV.

[DevonRex]

465. This is my first post in over 2 months. Unrec brought me back.

Just wondering if you realize that giving people ONLY the choice to recommend a thread is like giving folks in totalitarian regimes ONLY one candidate to vote for and then having a huge parade for the guy who got all the votes?

Why do you want to quash dissent?

Now perhaps I can start telling people again that I read DU regularly and that I'm a member. For quite a while now I have kept that information to myself. Because I didn't want somebody who had never been here before to come here and see the "Greatest" on the front page of DU. They were all flamebait anti-Obama, anti-Dem posts that basically made people feel like we were already screwed so there was no reason to be active in politics.

Now maybe some legitimate discussion will be on the front page.

[dionysus]

468. where have you been?

:hi:

[DevonRex]

502. Hey you! I took a much needed break.

All the negativity was making me unhappy so I left. We'll see how it goes from here on, eh?

:hi: and :hug:

[dionysus]

503. well you picked the right thread to come back in!

:hi:

[DevonRex]

505. Heh. It appears to be so.

Fun, ain't it? :rofl:

[earth mom]

469. Why shouldn't there be anti-Obama posts on the greatest page? He is doing a shitty job.

Your post proves that you don't like what I have to say and want to shut me up.

[dionysus]

472. no one is shutting your whining ass up. but you have to understand you guys are < 1% of DU

so you can't game the greatest page anymore. learn to live with it.

[omega minimo]

475. your claims are based on what information?

[redqueen]

481. That's why this is causing such a loud and tiny contingent to absolutely lose it.

That advantage is gone now. Someone call a WAAAAAmbulance.

[dionysus]

483. seriously, if there's not enough people that share their opinion to balance out recs, that's not our

problem.

[DevonRex]

504. No, YOUR post proves that you don't want anybody to be able to disagree with YOU.

Well, now we can do that in recs, unrecs and posts. Until now, all the whiny people could rush in and rec hateful, negative posts and get them on the HOME page of DU under Greatest Threads.

As IF the whiny threads are the ones most DUers agree with. Not.

Well, now we have a voice. And that seems to trouble you. Wonder why that is. Hmmm.

[WilliamPitt]

473. Unrec

:eyes:

[earth mom]

474. No surprise coming from you.

:puke:

[WilliamPitt]

476. Good

At least you got something right. Way to go!

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

478. This feature may be intended as a positive and will foster more negativity and pettiness

[dionysus]

480. really? i see less than ten people complaining about it, and all 10 are the people who post negative

shit non-stop. look at this thread. there's a couple people complaining about it and the vast majority of people are laughing at them.

[omega minimo]

485. Yes it's brought out an overwhelming number of the negative and petty, laughing about

being detractors, bragging about what topics they will target.

[dionysus]

489. the people laughing at this Op aren't the ones who serial-post negative shit day after day.

[omega minimo]

490. coming from you, that's rich.

[Javaman]

492. if he posts nothing but negative things as you indicate, why then

respond in kind?

kind of refutes your point, no?

[MineralMan]

512. Oh....

[LynneSin]

494. Yeah you figured it out - Wil Pitt is one of those right-wing DUers that is DLC supported

:eyes:

[earth mom]

495. You said it, I didn't. nt

[redqueen]

497. *rofflemayo*

Best thread ever!

[LynneSin]

498. Must really burn you inside to see that pretty much everyone rejects what you have said

500 posts and you can't even get into the postives. Hell I started a thread stating that the new system works and I made it to the greatest page.

[omega minimo]

547. This pile on does not represent "pretty much everyone." And look at you BRAGGING

"Hell I started a thread stating that the new system works and I made it to the greatest page."

:woohoo: :applause: you and your bitter buddies WIN!!!!!!!!!!!! :woohoo: YAY

[omega minimo]

507. Will Pitt has a public role and reputation and chose to mock the OP, encouraging others

in groupthink.

[MineralMan]

514. You've degenerated into personal attacks now.

How unpleasant. One DUer, one opinion. There it is. Live with it.

[omega minimo]

519. Bullshit. It's his prerogative. You're the one attacking.

:thumbsdown:

[MineralMan]

520. Not at all. You make some sort of assumption about the

poster, and imply that he is some sort of paid minion or something. That's a personal attack. I called you on it. Never mind. It'll be easier just not to respond to any of your posts in the future. You just go right ahead with whatever you're doing.

[omega minimo]

522. I did nothing of the sort. What a load of provocation.

:evilfrown:

[Javaman]

515. Wow, just wow.

you would have done well during the McCarthy era. There are commies everywhere!!!

seriously, you need to take a very close look at your very odd sense of paranoia.

[Maru Kitteh]

551. 472 times, people weighed in on this thread before Will Pitt said a peep.

[a la izquierda]

479. If the founding fathers are rolling now...

what were they doing for the last 8 years? That you conflate something on DU as minor as the Unrec feature to the problems happening in this country is laughable.

You aren't being silenced, as is obvious by the 400+ comments (yours included, which means by default that you're NOT silenced).
You can Unrec anyone else's threads you view as "cheerleading".

And I can assure you, this isn't like anything in Orwell's books. Warrantless wire-tapping? Now that's what Orwell was worried about. Not an Unrec feature on a message board that emphasizes healthy debate.

Jeez louise.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

487. The founding fathers who voted to keep slaves and deny the vote to women are now apprently such

beacons of democracy that they care what goes on with some internet message board.

[jakefrep]

482. The silence is 477 x deafening.

:crazy:

[TexasObserver]

493. Your 50 posts on this thread suggest you haven't been silenced.

The thread title looks really silly now, doesn't it?

Turning thumbs down on your thread does not silence you. We can wish it would, but it doesn't.

[Greyskye]

500. 150%

[Regret My New Name]

501. I love threads like this...

They give me the giggles.

[gkhouston]

510. I had pneumonia two weeks ago. I'm laughing so hard I'm wheezing again. n/t

[Javaman]

516. It's like being part of a happening. LOL nt

[Crunchy Frog]

508. Unrecommend. n/t

[SidDithers]

511. Is this officially the most ironic thread of all time yet?...nt

Sid

[MineralMan]

513. It certainly is in the time since I've been here.

But that's not all that long, so I can't say whether it's the all-time ironic thread.

[semillama]

544. It has to be a top contender for that honor.

I almost never read threads that have more than 100 replies because I simply don't want to spend that much time staring at a screen, but this one was pure gold. I'd like to thank Skinner and the mods for providing so much amusement today. Awesome feature, Great Job!

[Javaman]

517. What surprises me is that this thread hasn't been moved to the lounge!

:rofl:

[MineralMan]

521. Oh, no....not that! Please keep the Lounge sacred.

[reflection]

518. "Come see the silence inherent in the system!" n/t

($1 to Monty Python)

[A HERETIC I AM]

560. "Help, Help I'm being unrecommended!" n/t

[reflection]

562. "1...2... less than zero!"

"Three, sir"

"Three!"

[scheming daemons]

523. This thread: 500+ replies, 6000+ views, at the top of GD more than 24 hours old

Disproves the entire argument of the OP.

[Obamanaut]

524. Is disagreeing with a policy a form of dissent? nt

[mvd]

525. I don't think it silences free speech. I would keep the system..

with one change - zero is the lowest a topic can go. The main goal is to keep what the community wants on the greatest page, and I think <0 is unnecessary.

[BlooInBloo]

526. That games it in favor of "to the Greatest".

[MineralMan]

534. Not necessarily. If the count is kept, but the lowest visible

number is 0, it would still be the same. I don't think the suggestion is to stop counting when the result is 0...just to display a 0 at zero or lower, rather than the <0 currently displayed. The recommends would still have to exceed the unrecs to display a positive count.

At least that's what I got from the suggestion.

[MineralMan]

527. That makes sense.

The point seems to be lost on many that it is the community that decides what is on the greatest page...the entire community. Just plain zero would work just fine.

[mvd]

528. Yes, how would it be gaming anything not to have negatives?

People would still get to cancel any recommendations. You already can't see the negative number.

[MineralMan]

532. Makes sense to me. If people were artificially

recommending things to get them on the greatest page, then the zero point would do as well as the <0 point.

Hide the number of total clicks, too. Just let the total show if it's >0, or just 0. It would remove some of the "stigma" of having a minus approval count, I guess.

Anything that stops the whining would be a plus.

[BlooInBloo]

537. It games it in favor of "to the Greatest" because a thread could never be more than 5 recs away...

Whereas to get it *off*, a thread could require arbitrarily many unrecs.

Make it symmetric: don't allow a thread to have more than 5 recs.

[MineralMan]

539. See my post upthread.

I don't think that's the suggestion. The count would still be kept, but the display won't show <0...just 0. It would still take more recs than unrecs to move into positive numbers.

[mvd]

542. Agreed

Now if this was a system based on thread score or pos/neg, I think we'd have to have negative. But in a recommendation system, it doesn't really fit.

[Javaman]

535. What I find amusing is the thing that they are raging against completely

backfired and produced their desired results as this thread is apparently the most popular.

However, the un-rec works just fine because the greatest page is meant for good posts not inane posts. LOL

:rofl:

[MineralMan]

541. Bingo!

[enigmatic]

529. Once again, I'm going to have to pull this out

[Vinca]

530. My first thought after learning about the new feature was that I

probably wouldn't start new threads anymore . . . not that I post many anyway . . . because I'd feel kind of bad if people reacted to the post by unrecommending it. In any case, I've given it a day to stew in my brain and finally decided it doesn't matter. If you don't like anything I post you can kiss my ass. One of the few advantages of reaching a "certain" age is things such as this are small potatoes and really don't matter at all. Recommend me, unrecommend me to your heart's content.

[MineralMan]

538. Good choice.

Post away. If I disagree, I'll reply in the thread. This voting stuff adds nothing to the thread, anyhow. It's only to move things to the greatest page anyhow, and that's been artificially pushed all along, anyhow, to the point that its meaningless.

[gkhouston]

548. I always click on your stuff and find it worthwhile.

I think of the "unrecommend" button as mostly shorthand for "Dumbest. Post. Ever." or "Jesus, not the 50th iteration of the hot topic du jour". If I saw a thread that I didn't care that much about one way or the other, I'd simply move on. It's not like DU's a friggin' video arcade and I have to shoot red or green lasers at everything that comes along.

[polmaven]

536. OMG!

The eeeevilll DEEEE-ELLLL-CEEEE again! The world cannot possibly ever survive another attack of the DEEEE-ELLLL-CEEEErs! :scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

[anonymous171]

540. Kicking for free speech lol

[Matariki]

545. "This is something out of one of Orwell's books"

Because new web features always make me think of rats gnawing at my face :rofl:

[Javaman]

546. ...

:spray:

[gkhouston]

549. I didn't know you were a software engineer. My sympathies.

}(

[anigbrowl]

553. And > 550 posts later, the thread remains SILENCED

Buried, hidden, suppressed, oppressed, censored, obscured and gagged...or not.

[Laelth]

554. 554 responses, and this thread is not on the Greatest Page.

That's pathetic.

:dem:

-Laelth

[CakeGrrl]

566. Quality vs. Quantity

Someone took a snapshot of the Greatest page and it had topical subjects in it.

Why should this one automatically show up there just because it's spawned some lengthy arguments? I've seen a number of threads with high post volume locked as flamebait.

Does an OP that compares a simple messageboard feature to Nazi tactics really deserve a spot on the Greatest page, especially when there's no merit to the claim that the OP is being "silenced"? I'd say the fact that it isn't there proves that the Unrec feature works pretty well.

[Laelth]

567. We could do it either way.

Personally, I used to read the Greatest Page to see what DU was "talking about." This thread is a perfect example of what DU is really talking about. The innocuous threads on the Greatest Page now are worth reading. I love a happy, liberal news thread, and that's exactly what the Greatest Page is with the unrec function working, but it's not a reflection of what's really being discussed by the members.

It will simply be more difficult for me now to find out what people are really discussing. The threads that appear on the Greatest page now are interesting and worth reading, but they're not really generating interesting discussions. It takes a controversial thread like this one to get people talking.

:dem:

-Laelth

Edit:Laelth--sloppy proofreading.

[Maru Kitteh]

569. No, this thread is a perfect example of what DU is laughing about.

There's a difference.

[Laelth]

574. Laughing? Really?

Some of us have legitimate concerns about the unrec function, and we are being demeaned, dismissed, and now, laughed at? Wouldn't it be moe productive to treat us like the intelligent, liberal people we are, as opposed to being rude and childish? Should I treat your opinions with equal scorn? I was attempting to discuss this matter with you like an adult.

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[BlooInBloo]

576. Adults like to laugh, too.

[Laelth]

578. Indeed. Adults can be as rude as children.

But they should know better. And you'd think they would want to act better around friends.

:dem:

-Laelth

[BlooInBloo]

580. Sure. And they can also laugh at that which is laughable.

[Warren Stupidity]

575. Excellent!

Exactly the change the GP needed.

1) GP not full of STUPID FAIL like this OP
2) the 554 responses prove that nobody is being suppressed or silenced, falsifying the thesis of the OP.

[Greyskye]

559. Congrats - this thread never made "Greatest", but it made the DUzy's!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6036952

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

561. If by "one of Orwell's book" you mean "In the Penal Colony" then sure.

[Maru Kitteh]

570. Skinner is Frenchie cat's bitch & DU is like Fox news.

Let's summarize.

Unrecommend is oppression.
The founding fathers are rolling in their graves at unrecommend and this country.
Unrecommend is something out of Orwell's books.
The DLC is happy about unrecommend.
Unrecommend is like Nazi censorship.
"Vested interests" will conspire to kill topics.
Orwell warned us all about unrecommend.
The DLC will use unrecommend to "silence" all dissent against Obama.
The Greatest Page is now lies, BS and "utter crap."
Skinner is Frenchie Cat's bitch.
DU is like Fox news.
"Operatives" are efforting to silence "truth" on DU.
Will Pitt is a right-wing DLC operative.



This thread is better than McDonald's.

[BlooInBloo]

572. This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on DU.

[Maru Kitteh]

581. This thread should have it's own Facebook page. n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

571. Bummer, I only get ONE UNrecommend per thread!

How am I supposed to silence this thread with only ONE UNrecommend? Damn, we need MORE shots at each thread or something!

[Moochy]

585. Use one of your many sockpuppets

naturally.

[mkultra]

573. seems like thats what you are trying to do.

how very Rovian of you.

[yodoobo]

577. lol

I had no idea that the unrec button deleted your post!

[Garbo 2004]

582. And yet this thread is still here and active, days after initial post...

evidently the unrecommend click does not silence an op and does not have the very last word.

[chrisa]

584. "Unrec" doesn't delete posts, right?

So what's the issue?

[Wizard777]

586. Not having the unrecommended feature silence those who disagree with a topic.

It provided them with a means of expressing their opinion on the popularity of the piece. Also we have 142,668 members. By the old system even if a topic gets 668 recommendations. 142,000 members must think it's not worthy of recommending. As we know with 668 recs it's a highly popular piece. But in contrast to the 142,000 members who didn't think it was worthy of recommending. It could appear to be a highly unpopular piece. I guess it's all in how you look at it. But now we get to hear from both side on the popularity of a piece. Sooooo Kick & Unrec.