Does unreccing a post amount to "silencing" the person whose post you have unrecced?

[Occam Bandage]

[Forkboy]

1. Only if they choose to silence themselves over it.

[Occam Bandage]

3. Should the unreccer in that case be credited/blamed for the silence? nt

[Forkboy]

8. No. People choose to shut themselves up over it.

If I think something is important I'll keep bringing it up whether it gets 1 rec or a thousand. Others should just do the same. To me it seems that a lot of the hand wringing over this stems from a sense of insecurity. No on is being silenced by this feature when they can just turn around and post what they want again and again. If the thread doesn't go over then that's absolutely nothing new here. Threads sink daily with nary a response, often times good threads. The only difference now is that's there's a handy visual aid to see who doesn't like what threads, whereas before we could surmise that only by watching it sink.

[Richardo]

2. Unfortunately, no.

:^)

I'm sorry, I could not help that.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. They can always keep a thread kicked in its own forum. The greatest page is great and all but

fortunately it is not the only avenue for getting a thread out there. (If it was, then I would say yes, unrec could be used to silence people.)

[TexasObserver]

5. No, it amounts to telling them their thread ain't that great.

Notice that the greatest objection seems to be lodged by those who don't want THEIR threads judged. As many have pointed out, a thread about "my kitten turned two months old today" can get 5 Recommends, but it would get 100 unrecommends. There's no reason for that kind of tripe to be on the Greatest Page.

[sutz12]

6. competing rec/unrec sounds democratic to me.

:shrug:

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. The answer is "yes"

The answer is yes only for those people that have no idea what censorship is AND have not read or understood the rules governing this forum.

[Bicoastal]

9. Iz worse than Nazi Russia!!1!

:eyes:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. LOL. I'm just thankful nobody has compared it to the Iranian situation...yet.

It's too late to hope nobody compared it to Nazi Germany. That ship sailed away last night along with a bit of DU's sanity.

[That Is Quite Enough]

10. Maybe to the people who forget that there's more to the forum than the Greatest Page.

[kenfrequed]

12. Actually it depends.

It CAN be used to silence a person or an position or an issue. Does that mean it automatically means you are doing so when you do unrec something? I cannot answer that question.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

13. Please explain how one's post not appearing on the Greatest Page silences someone.

[kenfrequed]

19. It isn't about silencing a person

The "I" (individual) Being silenced is a red herring.

The real concern is that a group or organization can knock a post down to -5 before we even are aware it is there. This is not about individual people being silenced, it is about inconvenient ideas.

When I was looking through the boards yesterday (and they still listed the numbers) I found healthcare posts that were unrecommended between two and six votes within three minutes of them being posted.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

21. But you *found* them. They were easily available within the forums...just not on the greatest page.

If these ideas were silenced, then they would have been disappeared. If nobody bothers to reply to them, or rec them, or kick them, then you might have to go back a few pages to find them. But they are still there.

If the idea is that important, there is nothing that says the OP can't kick their own thread.

[kenfrequed]

24. Uhm actually

I don't think you can recommend your own thread. At least I couldn't the last time I tried. Of course I am sort of an egotistical sot so I would be the sort to attempt it.

As to it being easy to find I have my doubts as new posts are constantly being put up you end up scrolling down throw it quite aways, if your post isn't given a +5 in the first half hour it will likely never get to the "greatest" level. So this ends up creating a system that allows any organized group to easily bog down a thread till it ends up on page two of the latest threads. At which point it is practically dead.

It also reinforces those people that have NOTHING to do but watch threads all day long, and if you happen to be paid to do so you will have a distinct advantage.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

25. You can't rec your own thread, but you can KICK your own thread. People do it all the time.

[kenfrequed]

28. You know...

You really haven't disputed the practical problem of unrecommend. Is there a reason you feel so strongly about it that you cannot acquiesse that this is a tool that has great potential for organized mischief?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

29. Yes. I think hysteria over one small *feature* on an internet message board is ridiculous.

And whichever shady organization (alledgedly) spends money trying to control DU's Greatest Page should have its board members replaced.

[kenfrequed]

34. Bah

Most PR groups now actually do have some cyber patrols.

Your board of directors would have stated that it is not worth it to advertise on television or to buy up radio stations.

[kenfrequed]

35. Additionally

It takes less than 5 minutes to blur through dozens of posts and un-rec them. We have made information control oh so much easier now. The same employee could probably cover a few dozen websites and message boards this way. If a PR group is the employer they could be targeted to go after those that will have the greatest impact.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. What does the verb "to silence" mean in this context?

:shrug:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

15. If it were true that not recognizing someone's work with an award were silencing them...

We would have been spared from Jim Carrey movies.

[kenfrequed]

20. Uhm

No, the example and arguement are off. Not acknowledging would be passively ignoring something or just jumping to a different thread. Unreccing is an active process.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. A process whose ONLY result is the thread not being displayed on the Greatest Page.

That's it. It doesn't drop the thread, nor disappear it. Just...makes it not appear on the Greatest Page.

[kenfrequed]

26. Uhm...

When the thread drops down to page two of the latest it will not likely be seen by anyone. I am sorry "technically correct" matters about as much here as everyone "technically correct" about everyone technically being free to publish their own newspaper or own their own television station.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. The top threads in GDP right now were started hours ago.

They are kept alive by people posting in them, not rec-ing them.

[fishwax]

36. so? It can still be kicked ...

and then it will no longer be on page two ...

When the thread drops down to page two of the latest it will not likely be seen by anyone.

[greendog]

16. It silences the rec that it cancels. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

18. (facepalm) Just plain stupid.

[Occam Bandage]

41. Just like my vote for Obama disenfranchised a McCain supporter somewhere?

[gkhouston]

17. Need another option: "Gawd, I hope so". n/t

[grantcart]

38. lol

[SidneyCarton]

23. Keeping a person off the greatest page is not silencing them.

I have a blog off of DU. It doesn't get a lot of traffic, and my readership is small. The fact that the "unwashed masses" have seemingly neglected my "genius" in favor of more popular blogs does not keep me from blogging, nor does it force me to write anything other than what I desire to write. Freedom of speech has never meant a guarantee of popularity, indeed quite often it has meant quite the opposite, such is life.

[redqueen]

27. I think a whole lot of people are unclear on the meaning of 'silenced'.

Or... maybe it's just a few really noisy ones.

[BlooInBloo]

31. A classic case of a word meaning everything and nothing.

[Political Tiger]

32. Of course not!

The only way a person can be "silenced," at least on a message board, is to be banned from said message board.

[ContinentalOp]

33. I wish! That would be great. -nt-

[GoneOffShore]

37. You be careful - Ouroboros is going to show up in a minute

And chase you around in a circle of illogic.

[Boomerang Diddle]

39. Negative.

n/t

[PRETZEL]

40. Personally,

I don't see it as silencing a particular thread nor poster.

I use the Rec only for those threads that I feel warrants greater discussion and participation. I also use it rather sparingly.

I seriously doubt I'll ever use the "unrec" button. If, in my opinion, the thread is just another topic of ordinary conversation I won't recommend nor unrecommend it.

Maybe another possible solution would be to increase the number of positive recommendations to a level where a decision to place a thread on the Greatest Page is very easily justifiable.

[RufusTFirefly]

42. I like the un-recommend feature. It explodes the myth of unanimity

Using recommendations by themselves was like holding an election with only one candidate. All you could see was the total recs on a particular thread. You had no sense of how many people thought it was garbage. Un-recs just complete the final leg of the feedback loop.

[RufusTFirefly]

45. ... it's also a superior alternative to in-thread sniping

Let's say the Greatest Page is dominated by threads devoted to obsessing about Michael Jackson or Levi Johnston. Some folks can't resist jumping in and posting something to voice their dismay. That's not especially helpful for the obsessed. It's not going to change their minds. It's obnoxious and disruptive. Voting un-rec on the other hand is an effective means of voicing your dissent without directly antagonizing those people who think that tabloid-style topics are worth discussing. Over and over and over again.

[Canuckistanian]

43. No! That's the exacty same reasoning Rush Limbaugh uses against the Fairness Doctrine

Rush claims that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would "silence him" by taking him off the air in favor of some commie librul.

It's balderdash when Rush says it and it's baldedash when thinking DUers say it.

The "unrec" feature, much like the Fairness Doctrine, ensures that a dissenting view is heard. Nothing more, nothing less.

Everyone gets ONE vote - up or down. I don't see how that in any way "silences" anyone.

[izzybeans]

44. I believe deleting the post would be the only way to do that. Only Mods have that power.

And I applaud the clear rules of our forum and the diligent attempts to enforce them... so that no progressive/liberal/centrist/etc. voices will ever be silenced here, so long as they can speak with the civility that the rules demand.

This rec vs. unrec thing remands of the east coast v. west coast feud.

Who do you role with Tupac or Bigee? I plan on using both rec and unrec just as I listened to both artists. But again I'm from the midwest and not partial to either coast so long as one gets me near enough to enjoy the water.

[REP]

46. Wait - was I being 'silenced' when a thread I posted didn't get rec'd or make Greatest?

If I'd only known! Sheesh! Guess I better write something about how anyone who doesn't read my posts is a running dog douchebag coconspirator against everything good people stand for.

[Dorian Gray]

47. Maybe because I never go through

the Greatest Page, I really don't get the whole brouhaha over this!

[RufusTFirefly]

48. Come to think of it, your poll provides a perfect argument in favor of un-reccing

Imagine if your poll had only one option: Yes.
Some might think that 11 yes votes (which is the total at the time I am writing this) indicates widespread support for that position. But we have both "yes" and "no" instead, which is far more illuminating.

[inna]

49. do threads actually get kicked off the GP if they were unrec'd to less than 5 votes??

inquiring minds NEED to know.

[Spazito]

53. No, nothing happens to them at all...

They stay, they are active as long as people are posting to them, they go up and down the page based on responses NOT on recs. The ONLY difference with the new feature is that the OP may not appear on the Greatest page, that's it, it has no other affect on an OP.

[inna]

55. i.e., the answer to my question is "yes, they do kicked OFF the GP".

that's all i needed to know. in that case, the new feature is an absolutely HORRID idea.

:shrug:

[Spazito]

57. Why is it horrid?

Shouldn't the majority of DUers have a say on what is being 'showcased' on the Greatest page? Should 5 DUers determine this regardless of what the majority might believe?

[Laelth]

50. It's an "attempt" to silence that speech, certainly.

Whether your attempt will succeed is to be determined by popular vote, evidently.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Occam Bandage]

51. A thread with 100 unrecs and 0 recs is not silenced.

It simply isn't on the Greatest page, like most other threads.

[Laelth]

52. Then why push the unrec button at all?

Seriously? Hitting the unrec button is like sending a warning (like a label on music with profane lyrics) that says "beware"? Or, "don't read this."

As such, I can't imagine what hitting the unrec button does other than attempt to stifle unwanted, undesired, bad speech. And that's fine, but let's be honest about what it does.

Nobody said our own individual attempts to stifle (or promote) our peers' speech would succeed.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Occam Bandage]

54. As a means of voicing one's opinion on the thread.

We already had a button for "register favorable opinion and vote for honoring thread on Greatest page." Now we have its natural counterpart, "register unfavorable opinion and vote against honoring thread on Greatest page."

It is so obviously impossible for an average poster to stifle anyone else's speech here that even suggesting that such would be the intent of a poster is absurd. It's as absurd as if you were to claim that people who hit the unrec button were trying to murder the thread's creator, and then when challenged on the impossibility of murdering someone by hitting an unrec button, claim "well to me it's obviously saying you want that person dead so what's the difference?"

[OMC]

56. Of course not. Anyone who thinks so is being irrational and rediculous

[HughMoran]

58. Hmmmm, OMC II didn't last long

:rofl:

[Sparkly]

59. The point of the OP you're taking issue with was not what you're pollling here.

It was about "silencing" (neutralizing, undoing, whatever) a recommendation.

Agree or disagree with that, but I'm not sure you're representing the point here.