The new unrecommend feature enables political cliques to control/dominate discussions on DU

[Better Believe It]

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

I know Skinner had good intentions and wanted to give a new system a fair test.

It's now obvious this system just isn't working the way some had hoped.

It's causing more problems and solving none on Democratic Underground.

It's encouraging unnecessary conflicts, harmful divisions, growing hostility and bitter rancor among DU supporters.

It's doing nothing to encourage healthy, vigorous, democratic and civil discussion and debate on DU.

I believe this test should end soon.

[Bicoastal]

1. Oooh, just you wait until my clique gets here.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

14. Cobras! SSSSSsss!

[Ken Burch]

68. "When you're a Clique you're a Clique all the way, from your first cigarette to your last dyin day".

(C'mon, you WANTED someone to say it.)

[CJCRANE]

2. There have always been

"unnecessary conflicts, harmful divisions, growing hostility and bitter rancor among DU supporters".

This feature just gives us a chance to "nay" where before we only had a chance to vote "yay" (which gave the small cliques an unfair advantage).

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. hmmmmmmmm.....

I think more time is needed to study this before I am ready to pass judgement.

[redqueen]

4. Should every DUer start a thread stating what they think about it?

Maybe a few threads?

This is so hilarious.

[Renew Deal]

11. Yes

:shrug:

[Hepburn]

61. If she or he has an opinion....

...why not? :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

74. Why not?

Who are you to say what people are entitled and not entitled to post about?

There's a really ugly sense of superiority and entitlement in your posts. You should just remember you're only another poster.

[redqueen]

78. Good citizens check for duplicates!

:patriot:

[Ken Burch]

81. As a general rule, but given the fact that your side is going to be unrec'ing all "unrec" threads

Isn't it simply common sense for free speech types to start new threads simply to make sure some exist?

Was there ever REALLY a reason to create the kind of tsuris that the "unrec" feature creates?

It kind of sets up a high school mentality, with "unrec" types saying, in effect "We, and not you, are DU".

[redqueen]

84. "to start new threads simply to make sure some exist"

:spray:

Yes, it's really hard to tell if any threads whining about the unrec feature exist... you've got me there all right.

:rofl:

[pecwae]

5. How is it unfair?

You don't think that cliques were partially controlling what got to Greatest before this new function?

[Better Believe It]

13. Well, I'm not part of any clique and have voted many times to recommend so ....

I don't think so.

Certainly not to the extent that this can happen now.

[EFerrari]

97. It just exposes and gives attention to power struggles while

doing nothing to encouraging civil discourse.

[Hepburn]

62. Yes, in some instances. n/t

[Xipe Totec]

6. I disagree

Every argument you advanced against the new procedure applies equally to the previous procedure.

[Better Believe It]

17. You don't understand the difference between promoting a point of view and censoring it?

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from anywhere on DU.

Those who un-recommend are trying to censor by removing a post from "the greatest" page.

You really don't understand the difference?

I'm not going to click the un-recommend feature no matter how much I may disagree with a post or dislike a particular poster.

That would be undemocratic and I just won't do it.

How about you?

[blm]

25. When unsourced charges against Dems are posted should they be allowed to stay uninterrupted?

Should we invite all the fans of FOX blogs to come here and post lies about Democratic lawmakers?

[Bicoastal]

32. When you voted against John McCain in 2008, were you censoring him?

Since when is letting the people decide censorship?

Only the ones in charge--ie, the mods--can possibly censor.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

37. I voted against Sarah Palin and I never heard from her again.

[CJCRANE]

41. ...

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

98. No. Was John McCain posting on DU and did you cast your 2008 presidential vote on DU?

DU is not a ballot box or machine used in elections.

You're not familiar with the voting system used in this country?

Your response was silly at best and hadsnothing to do with the issue being debated here.

Did you use DU to cast your vote against McCain in the 2008 election?

Now that question makes just as much sense as your post!

[CJCRANE]

39. Undemocratic? In a democracy there is always a choice of "yay" or "nay".

Only in a dictatorship do you only get the choice of voting "yay".

[omega minimo]

51. Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of "recommend."

[CJCRANE]

55. "Recommend" means "yes, I like this thread

and want to register my approval".

"Unrecommend" means "I do not like this thread and want to register my disapproval".

That seems similar enough to me.

[omega minimo]

57. Orwell was right

:rofl:

[Hepburn]

63. Snicker....

...:rofl:

[Javaman]

7. I guess this is part three of the now legendary epic thread. nt

[pecwae]

Are you sure it's just part 3?

I thought it advanced far beyond that.

[Javaman]

23. very true, I'm losing count. nt

[dionysus]

45. if they combined these failthreads... it would be the biggest DU thead evah!

[gkhouston]

No. We enjoy kicking your ass.

actually not, but what a hyperbole-laden OP.

[Ken Burch]

73. Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

And who are you trying to drive away?

This shouldn't be a site where any left-of-center people are made to feel unwelcome.

It's the RIGHT that's about exclusion.

[gkhouston]

92. if you'd read the body of my post, you would have seen that I was not serious. n/t

[lamp_shade]

8. Oh. It's you.

[Mrs. Overall]

9. Umm, political cliques, like the one known as Democrats?

I'm trying to imagine the horrors of conversations on DU being controlled mostly by Democrats.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. "It is no obvious this system isn't working out" Really? You gave it what...1 day?

[reflection]

12. I'm not seeing it.

It may be obvious to you, but not to me. I think the signal-to-noise ratio may actually be down.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Of course there will be people who don't want *everybody* to have a say.

[TomCADem]

16. I Think It Does The Opposite - Think Of A Primary...

In primaries, the most extreme base catering candidates often do well, particularly in California. Then, the general electorate is left with extreme candidates to choose from. A one sided recommend feature encourages extreme position posts that excite either trolls or fanboys to recommend threads that are often fairly divisive, which do not really represent a board consensus. Indeed, even though a majority of the board may very well disagree with the content of the post, the provacative post garners a lot of recommends.

For example, a President Obama fanboy post will garner a lot of recommends among President Obama fanboys, and the cynical leftists who hate President Obama can only respond by flaming the thread.

Conversely, a President Obama Is The As Bush post will garner a lot of recommends from the cynical leftists, and the President Obama fanboys can only respond by flaming the thread.

In contrast, a recommend/unrecommend feature does tend to encourage moderation, rather than extremism, because the posts with a net recommend will be those posts for which a consensus supports the position. There is a greater likelihood that the post with a high number of net recommends will represent a post that most people on the board would like to read.

P.S. This is from my experience in California, which just has the most extreme ideological divide in its Legislature that you could imagine.

[SidDithers]

18. The old recommend procedure enabled political cliques to control/dominate discussions on DU..nt

Sid

[Better Believe It]

20. There is a huge difference. The new feature is anti-democratic

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from anywhere on DU.

Those who un-recommend are trying to censor by removing a post from "the greatest" page.

You really don't understand the difference?

[SidDithers]

21. Right. The ability to vote a post on or off Greatest is undemocratic...

before I was confused, but you've cleared it all up for me.

Sid

[Better Believe It]

38. One action removes and censors and the other one doesn't

Still confused?

[SidDithers]

47. I think it's you that's confused, friend...

Now, Greatest will contain posts that reflect the opinion of a majority of DU memebers. It's now a much more representative sampling of what all DU'ers think is important.

It'll no longer be subject to the groupthink of a vocal minority pushing a particular agenda.

I find it funny, tho, that you think

Yes
Abstain

is more democratic than

Yes
No
Abstain

Sid

[countingbluecars]

22. Just think of it as a system

of checks and balances. Seems democratic to me.

[redqueen]

28. I doubt any amount of logic will work.

But nice try... simple and direct. :thumbsup:

[dbonds]

35. You need to revisit that word 'democratic'

It is the people voting whether it is worthy of the greatest or not. You get a yes, no vote. Before it was any clique could push it up on the greatest. But (and this is a VERY important point), it does not censor a thing. The posts are not removed from the board or a forum. It only affects the greatest page.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Ah it is opposite day. I didn't know that. nt

[dionysus]

44. it's an up or down vote per user. it's totally democratic. you are jealous that there are only a

tiny fraction of DUers that are perpetually outraged like you.

it's quite simple really.

[Maine-ah]

52. I see it as everyone gets to vote which ever way they want to

people who like the post can rec it. those that don't like it can unrec it. This way, everyone gets a say. How is that undemocratic? And even if it were undemocratic, this is a private board and Skinner can do what he damn well pleases, so it doesn't matter anyway.

[Spazito]

53. Anti-democratic?

The way it worked prior to the addition of the 'unrecommend' feature was:

Those who supported an OP had two ways of indicating this: 1) by posting within the thread and 2) by recommending it

Those who did not support the OP had one way of indicating this 1) by posting within the thread

With the addition of the 'unrecommend' feature, we ALL have two ways of indicating our opinion of the OP and whether it should or should not be on the Greatest page.

The rec/unrec option ONLY affects what is 'showcased' on the Greatest page and that only lasts 24 hours. The option does NOT affect OPs in any of the forums. Using the 'unrecommend' does not move the OP down the page, it does not delete it, it does not inhibit DUers from posting in it.

The admins, imo, made the system of checks and balances more fair not less, imo.

[earth mom]

19. You're right. And if you want to see proof check out my thread.

It's full of propagandists, disrupters, disinfo agents, dinos, DLCers, Obama cheerleaders, freepers and a helluva lot of assholes who have nothing better to do.

The hate and fury on that thread has to be seen to be believed.


Good luck with this thread, I hope it doesn't turn into a hatefest like mine did.

[grantcart]

29. Your the only one labelling people who disagree with you hateful names.

You said you were silenced but your thread and comments are everywhere.


You said that it encourages hatefest and you are the one that is spreading hate.


Looks like the system is working very well in allowing the people who populate DU to express their opinion freely.


The very large majority of them just don't agree with you.


You can keep the hate all to yourself.

[TexasObserver]

40. Wrong. Your thread is full of DUers expressing themselves.

Your delusion and paranoia are amusing, however, and this line is hilarious:

"It's full of propagandists, disrupters, disinfo agents, dinos, DLCers, Obama cheerleaders, freepers and a helluva lot of assholes who have nothing better to do."

Can you accept that most people here simply don't agree with you? Why is that so hard for you to accept?

[kiva]

43. I'm still undecided about unrecommend,

am going to wait and see what it will bring. The main problem I have is arguments like yours--do you really think that those "propagandists, disrupters, disinfo agents, dinos, DLCers, Obama cheerleaders, freepers and a helluva lot of assholes" wouldn't have come into that thread without the unrecommend function? Do you really believe that everyone who disagrees with you fits into one of these catagories? Do you honestly think that every thread that adopts one of your pet topics should be on the Greatest Page?

I suspect that once the shiny button newness wears off, things won't have changed that much; if they do, it's up to Skinner et. al. to decided what to do about it.

[SidDithers]

49. Many of your threads turn into indigo, moon cycle train wrecks...

why should your thread about unrecs be any different.

Sid

[dionysus]

59. you physically cannot accept the fact that people just don't agree with what you say, can you?

[pecwae]

60. Surely you jest.

Your post got vast attention. Your opinion was noted and posted for everyone to see. Can't you be satisfied with that instead of making a group attack on DUers?

[earth mom]

64. My OP was a troll magnet. I don't need or want that kind of crap. nt

[Boomerang Diddle]

24. Ummm, I'm not sure how to break this to you....but....

THIS IS ONLY A MESSAGE BOARD! Hello?

[dbonds]

26. It is the opposite of that.

Cliques now can't push an agenda the rest don't want to see on the greatest. But still, it is JUST affecting if it appears on the greatest page. Nothing else. Topics can still be posted in. They appear as normal in forums. Nothing changes except the voting. So if 20 DLCers push up a pro-corporatism thread to the greatest, the rest can take it off. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[snooper2]

27. The new Unrec Feature give People yet another thing to Bitch About

:rofl:

IT's HUGH! :rofl:

[mamaleah]

30. There are two other features you might not be aware of: Hide Thread and Ignore.

And the always easy, "Just don't click on a thread".

No one MUST read anyone's diatribe on anything. Even if it's good and well written.

The only conflict that the new Unrec feature is creating is with people who think everyone hangs on their every post or interrupts their day to find out what their newest thread is.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. No it doesn't. n/t

[TexasObserver]

33. No, the opposite is true. Finally, a handful can't send a thread to the Greatest Page.

Finally, the tyranny of the cliques has ended.

Before this feature was added, any five posters could send a thread to the Greatest page. Now, it takes a majority of those voting, and enough Recommends over Unrecommends to get there. Now, the voting means something.

Face it. You're wrong. It works great, and the vast majority of posters find most threads NOT worthy of recommendation.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. um - no it doesn't, or at least now less so than before.

Before your gang of five could vote itself onto the GP and never get voted off. Now the community gets to override that decision. Less power to the cliques more power to the majority consensus.

[dionysus]

42. someones upset they can't dominate the greatest page with 4 of their buddies!

:rofl:

[A HERETIC I AM]

56. Dionysus, can you tell me what is so great about the "Greatest Page" anyway?

Isn't it a dubious distinction at best?

I've been here for something like 6 years now and though not a prolific thread starter, I've only had a small handful of my threads make it to "Greatest" status, yet I can't for the life of me think that my experience on DU has been somehow diminished.

Are the people arguing against this new feature so tied up in the idea that a thread they might start MUST get to the greatest page in order to validate it's importance?

I just don't get it.

I suppose if I have something to say that others value, it will get recs. If they don't it won't.

I just don't think I'll lose any sleep either way.

[dionysus]

58. i, personally, couldn't care less about the greatest page. here's my take on the whole deal.

if you noticed lately, there's a very small but vocal group dominating the greatest page by reccing up negative articles.

therefore a small minority was controlling what shows up there. the unrecommend feature gives each DU poster the same amount of input on a thread, so the "obama = bush" crap isn't going to show up on the greatest page because the vast majority of DUers find the notion ludicrous.

therefore, the said little cadre of angry posters are enraged that they lost whatever pull they on being able to place posts on the greatest.

for me personally, it's hillarious to see people invoking the founding fathers, nazis, and orwell over this issue, when the idea that anyone is being silenced is patently absurd.

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. K&R... Not that it does any good any more. n/t

[mamaleah]

50. You do realize that comments like this ona thread like this only look

like you are mad because now other people can say "No I don't agree and do not want to recommend this. In fact, it's so terribad I'll unrec it. I will not have the Greatest Page held hostage by a few people."?

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. No, I don't "realize" what everyone else thinks.

Which in a nutshell, is the whole issue.

Unrec gives the prevailing groupthink a veneer of legitimacy that would otherwise be impossible. Before, a cadre of people who consider an issue to be important could bring the issue to visibility. Now, a competing cadre can prevent that from occurring and/or undo it if it inadvertently does.

Gun control, LGBT civil rights, education reform, civil rights for people with developmental disabilities... I can think of literally dozens of issues which we won't see on the greatest page because as many or more people have a vested stake in the status quo.

One person's heartfelt concern, is someone else's "terribad" post.

But who knows... maybe the real problem with DU is that it suffers from a shortage of Bo photo threads.

[mamaleah]

66. Groupthink is acceptable sometimes then?

How is it NOT groupthink to have a thread with 300 comments that consist of "k&r!"?

What really seems to be the problem is the anti-unrec crowd only wants their thoughts and opinions to be splattered on the Greatest Page. Little bit of elitism.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. Really? Do you really think that?

If you really think that people who dislike Unrec because they recognize that many of their views are outside the mainstream, simultaneously expect only their opinions to be on the greatest page, I don't know what to say.

Well yeah, I do actually. That's stupid.

[Ken Burch]

71. Democratic Underground is not SUPPOSED to be about

saying that some people's views are "outside the mainstream". We're not supposed to be "gatekeepers", or to be arguing that any views on the left-of-center side aren't allowed here.

Deliberately setting up a mechanism to marginalize people is a betrayal of DU's values.

[mamaleah]

89. Not really.

Look it's very simple. Those that like a post could hit "rec" as well as kicking the thread. People who did not had no such option.

You click rec on a thread, someone else click unrec. If the information contained in the OP is really that good, there will be many more recs than unrecs.

And you never answered me. Why is groupthink ok when it come to rec'ing a thread, but not for un-rec'ing?

[OhioChick]

54. Same here. n/t

[omega minimo]

48. I disagree. The detractors and forces of marginalization are quite invigorated.

[Tan Gent]

69. And that's a change...how exactly??

:shrug:

[Common Sense Party]

70. It's now obvious this system just isn't working the way some had hoped.

It's now obvious this system just isn't working the way some had hoped. I want.

[scheming daemons]

72. Only "cliques" that represent 51% of DU or more.....

...you know... cliques with names like "The Democratic Party".

[Ken Burch]

75. You can't assume that the pro-unrec crowd represents Democrats and the anti-unrec crowd doesn't.

It's Nixonian to paint yourself as "The Silent Majority" anyway. Don't lower yourself to that.

There haven't actually been any threads that justify unrec. If there had been, some of you would have posted links to them.

[scheming daemons]

77. No, but mathematically, the "pro-unrec" on any thread that is '<0' represents the majority

And since this is "Democratic Underground"... then it represents the pathos of the site.

[Ken Burch]

79. "The pathos of this site"? It's a manifestation of pathos that we sometimes have spirited threads?

And "less than zero" simply represents the majority of those who happened to respond AT A PARTICULAR MOMENT, not the overall majority of all DU members.

There's an obvious logical question in your presence here: If you don't want to see discussions, why are you a member of a message board?

[scheming daemons]

80. Voting "unrec" on a thread doesn't mean I don't want to see the discussion

That's the fallacy you're perpetuating.


It is simply saying "I disagree with the OP" or "I think the OP is full of crap".


If I didn't want to see the discussion, I have a DIFFERENT tool for that: Hide Thread.

[Ken Burch]

82. As you say, you CAN 'Hide Thread".

Which is another reason that you don't NEED unrec.

And if you disagree with the OP, it's enough that you can use your words and say "I disagree with the OP". "Unrec" is not the expression of an opinion, since the use of the feature doesn't actually express anything.

And there's no way it could have any positive effects that are worth the hard feelings it's caused.

[scheming daemons]

83. Maybe I don't WANT to hide the thread.. maybe I WANT to read it

Again, you are perpetuating a fallacious argument.

Unrec means that I disagree with the OP, or I think the OP is making a shit argument.

But I may want to read the responses others have.



....and Unrec most definitely *IS* an expression of an opinion. The opinion being... "This OP has no business being on the Greatest Page"

[Ms. Toad]

93. That actually doesn't work.

What I like about the new feature is that it gives me an option to move the popularity contests and attack threads off my entry page to DU (which includes the top 5 Greatest Page threads). I don't care at all what ends up on the Greatest Page, except the top 5. If they are interesting, I click on them - otherwise I either ignore them or get angry at idiots who think it's fun to post "Rec this thread if you think the crybaby gays should STFU".

"Hide Thread" doesn't hide it from the front page - only keeping it out of the top 5 does that.

[arcadian]

76. It has basically turned the current Lounge ordeal to forum wide situation.

[blogslut]

85. I cleared my ignore list for this?

What a waste.

[Deja Q]

86. Quite. Even before the change, plenty of legit threads WERE on the top page.

Maybe we can get Michael Jackson to die again, just to test the lunacy... :eyes:

[Ken Burch]

95. Or maybe if you could arrange for "Q" to re-kill Michael Jackson

and then provide a cosmically brilliant intellectual justification for the act.

[Better Believe It]

87. So what Democratic faction most appreciates this new feature? I'd say the "blue dogs"

IMNSHO

[redqueen]

88. Yeah that's why those Kucinich threads were knocked right off...

excellent detective work, McGruff!

[Turborama]

90. Internet

[Hippo_Tron]

91. "The Greatest" page isn't DU

[ecstatic]

94. Give it a mfkn rest

Gotdamn! The more people like you complain the more I think it's a good idea.

[CakeGrrl]

96. I don't know why there's so much cause for upset on a recreational discussion board,

but if it's really rocking people's worlds so badly it must go, the ENTIRE Rec/Unrec system should go.