Can DU limit an individual's Unreccs to 3 a day?

[Tom Rinaldo]

I know DU's software can limit the number of threads that a poster can start in one day, that was done during the last Presidential primarys.

I have been critical of Unreccs at DU but would probably favor them IF people had to think twice before using that function. A daily limit on the number of Unreccs anyone can make would make all of us carefully consider how we were willing to use them up. I think it would curb some of the knee jerk Unreccing of OPs just because we may disagree with them, or just because an OP was written by a poster seen as an adversary of some sort

[PeaceNikki]

1. Why?

Would you also propose limiting "recs"?

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. No, I have a bias in favor of praise for voluntary efforts

It takes an effort to write OP's, even simple ones. Sometimes people put great effort into it. There would not be a Democratic Underground if there weren't people willing to start threads here. When people get recognized by fellow DUers for their efforts in the form of a Rec. by someone who appreciates that effort made, I think that strengthens participation in our community. Unrecs consciously cancel out that encouragement for contributing. There is no harm in most cases in having more threads reach the 5 rec threshold, it still will always be obvious which threads are most liked and appreciated here because those are the ones that will receive dozens of Recs.

We all would still have the ability to help bury threads that are truly offensive through judicious use of unrecs.

[PeaceNikki]

8. I subscribe to Blue-Jay's theory of unrec:

1) The thread is not about politics. This is a political website (aside from the Lounge, where rec/unrec is not an issue)

2) The OP is complaining about "recs & unrecs". (Bad Form = automatic unrec)

3) The OP is seeking personal attention, instead of rational discussion. (also Bad Form)

4) The thread is posted by a troll seeking to sow discontent. (Obviously, this is subjective.)

5) The thread adds nothing. (ie. "FUCK REPUKES!" or "Did you just see what _____ said on TV?")

6) The thread is stupid. (Again, this is very subjective, but I know stupid when I see it. If I'm wrong about the stupidity of a thread, my vote will probably be overruled so there's no harm done.)

[Warren Stupidity]

58. yup nt

[azmouse]

12. NO threads get "buried" by unrecs.

They get buried by lack of responses.

[PeaceNikki]

15. True. In fact, it may be just the opposite.

Train wrecks tend to pique curiosity.

[azmouse]

16. Yep. And this should be at the top of the page until it inevitably gets locked.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. Why?

What's the big deal? I'm pretty sure the knee-jerkers are a minority here on DU. I would think "normal DUers" (whatever the hell THAT is) would counter whatever mischief those relatively few can muster up.

I'll go weeks without unreccing but there are days, for example, from the 150th post on GD about Carrie Prejean, yeah, on 151 I start Unreccing because it's so bloody unnecessary.

[Vickers]

3. Hey, I just used one of mine!

Let me just get that in before the "it's only used by anonymous cowards!" bullshit starts.

:spank:

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Nah, a thread like this is virtually inviting folks to use "R" or "UnR"

It totally is in context :)

[CTyankee]

19. It would be nice if people stood up for the reasons to Unrec. If you have something to say,

then say it! Alas, there are too many Unreccers who don't bother to defend their views and I always wonder why. It may be an idea I hadn't heard before and I might change my mind about a thread...with information I can do that. With just a hit and run Unrec I can't. And isn't that what we come to DU for, to debate/discuss our views?

[PeaceNikki]

21. Why kick a thread that you believe adds no value?

I refer you to my reasons for using it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7108980&mesg_id=7109087

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. There is a tactic I use for situations like that

It is relevent to posting on any thread here, not just to the question of R's and UnR's. If I feel a thread is vile or objectional but I feel a need to counter it's content, I wait to make my post until someone else posts on the topic and has already kicked it to the top of the page without my help.

But personally I would never UnRec a thread simply for posting an opinionI don't agree with but that I acknowledge other Democrats in good standing share also. I think there is is value in the debate, even if I desagree with the side of that debate that a thread OP starts out from. In those cases, no matter which side of the issue I come down on, I appreciate reading why those who disagree with me do disagree with me.

[kirby]

22. LOL!

"isn't that what we come to DU for, to debate/discuss our views?"

I rarely see any debate around here. You either agree with the mob mentality or you are accused of being a 'freeper troll', corporate shill, unprogressive, etc.

People do not need to stand up for their recommendation, why should someone have to stand up for their un-recommendations. I would personally like to see automatic banning of anyone kicking the dead horse of the unrecommend feature.

[CTyankee]

25. I'd rather see a change in the "kick" procedure than cut off debate.

Funny, it's almost as if people here have no real use for the underlying philosophy of the First Amendment. As I've said, if I'm interested in a topic I like to see a lot of opinions on it, especially from those people who dislike it to the point of Unreccing it. The hit and run Unreccer strikes me as being a pretty superficial thinker...

[kirby]

28. How does unrec cut off debate?

I do not think the unrec buttons hides or disables anything. It is just a way for non-moderators to express whether they think a post is relevant and worthy. Kinda like a 'digg'.

[CTyankee]

29. No problem if they defend their Unrec. That's fine. But if they don't go on to offer

their reason then we don't know why. Their input adds to the debate...which we may or may not like...but they are part of the debate. I don't see the point of using Unrec if you don't add what you consider your value to the ongoing discussion. It doesn't make sense to me.

[kirby]

35. It can be a waste of time...

If one of the purposes of Unrec (by those who use it) is to disapprove of things that they think are off-topic, irrelevant, and/or a waste of time, why would the person spend even more time to post comments on a thread they think is a waste of time.

If there are 14 threads about Michael Jackson, having to justify 14 unrecs makes no sense. Furthermore, no-one has to justify their recommendation so having a different standard for unrec is not symmetrical.

[CTyankee]

50. In that case, if I have nothing of value to add, I don't participate in the thread.

I might then start a thread with something I feel does have value.

Since I don't Rec or Unrec I don't get too worked up over it. If I have something to say, I say it. I also don't bother with the Ignore function. I can do that all by myself!

[Ms. Toad]

72. Perhaps because it has nothing to do with agreeing

or disagreeing with the OP. Personally, it has a lot more do do with not wanting to be smacked in the face on the front page with "Rec this if you think Bush is evil," (or whatever the meme of the day is). We all agree Bush is evil - no point in debating it, and it adds nothing to the front page.

The "Rec this" crap is often used to promote or slam contingents within DU - and before unrec was added two of the five threads featured on the front page were often opposite "Rec this" threads. I don't happen to think that is the best of DU, and I don't think it should be our face to the world. Unrec pretty much keeps that crap (which adds nothing) off the front page. I see nothing my posting an explanation would add to the "debate" which is not really a debate, but more of a popularity contest. Now the battle is for slightly above or slightly below zero on those threads (and most OPs don't bother to post them), but close to zero is not going to land on the front page, so I'm happy.

[CTyankee]

74. Maybe it's because I don't go to the front page first thing that it is not that important

to me whatever lands on it. I'm here for the exchange of both views and information. It is a valuable website and I have also met some incredibly talented and brainy people here. But this Unrec thing has its followers, who seem pretty upset at the idea of it being revoked, so my guess is that you'll still have it...

[Ms. Toad]

76. But what you seem to be missing

is that the value of the website has to do with the discussions - not the rec/unrec popularity contest - which determines nothing more than what shows up on the front page, the Greatest Threads, or the top 10 list.

Those discussions between incredibly talented and brainy people continue without any impact whatsoever from the popularity contest.

As for whether it will stay - the admins have said it is here to stay, which is part of why the moaning and groaning in every thread (Oh, woe is me, someone unrec'd my thread before they could possibly even have read it), and at least once every weekend (like this thread) is really annoying.

[CTyankee]

81. Oh, I don't find this thread annoying at all. I like to see how this thing is unfolding.

But if you don't like the "moaning and groaning" as you put it, wouldn't we be better off NOT having the Rec/Unrec features? After all, that way there would be all of the regular discussions just minus what you DON'T like...see what I mean?

[Ms. Toad]

86. Nope. Because the Rec/Unrec solved

a worse problem of being smacked in the face every time I entered DU with some thread saying something along the lines of "Rec this if you think the crybaby gays should STFU." Not only does that thread not belong on the front page, it is offensive - AND it (or something substantially similarly offensive and embarrassing) appeared at least once a week since the election on the front page. Now, most of what is on the front page on most days is at least not directed at slamming some portion of DU - and more often than not is representative of the better discussions on DU.

Push comes to shove, I can hide the rec/unrec threads when they get too annoying and I don't have to see them as I am scrolling through whatever forum I;m in. Unfortunately, even if I hide a thread it still appears on the front page - the only way to keep an offensive thread off the front page is to vote it off.

[CTyankee]

89. I dunno, it sounds like an awful lot of trouble to head off something you don't like.

I just ignore offensive stuff, cuz I figure there's no hope for an intelligent dialog. I have no opinion at all on the Main Page, cuz I don't usually go there...I go to the discussion forums immediately. This may be a difference in our DU experience...mine is obviously different from yours...va bene!

[spoony]

73. I'll sell you mine

Hmm, maybe this could work out :P

[mike_c]

4. in some ways the unrec and rec features expose all the pettiness...

...and meanness that people normally bring to conversations, so the more I think about it, the more I believe the unrec feature is a GOOD thing. I wish there was greater accountability, but the social principle at work here tends not to be as obvious if there is accountability-- and yes, I do realize that's what the OP is seeking.

What the unrec feature is telling me is that the sense of community many of us enjoyed here was false, that at least some of our comrades, and probably LOTS of them, will stab us in the back if there's a subtle, anonymous way to do it without being seen. It's a valuable lesson in community, I think. Just not a comfortable one.

[kirby]

41. So...

So if someone unrecommends your Michael Jackson post, they are stabbing you in the back. I see. I never thought of it that way.

[Thickasabrick]

45. +100 Dead on nt

[scarletwoman]

48. I can see what you're saying, but I also think there's another much less sinister side to it.

I watched a post yesterday that was clearly intended to stir up shit and nothing more. It got dozens of views, absolutely no replies, and held steady at <0 until it finally sank out of sight.

It actually made me proud to observe that none of my fellow DUers took the bait, and that all this trolling poster got for his/her efforts was dead silence and big ol' <0.

While there are certainly plenty of assholes who will use unrec based on personal animus, it seems to me that good, worthwhile posts generally overcome what few unrecs they may get and will end up with plenty of positive recs.

I was vehemently against the urec feature when it was first introduced, but I've come to see that it has both positive and negative uses, and it mostly balances out okay.

sw

[omega minimo]

80. UnRec Nannies!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl:

[MilesColtrane]

5. K & U

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. oh

horse shit.

[onehandle]

9. Only if there's a daily limit of three off-topic pointless posts for all members combined.

Otherwise, no way.

[Catshrink]

10. Oh get over it already.

If someone hurt your feelings by unrecing one of your threads, maybe you need a thicker skin.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Don't make this into something personal

It is possible for us to have differing ideas about what is and is not useful to political discussion here without that difference being the result of a bruised ego.

[kirby]

38. Actually...

I find that the people who bitch about the unrec feature are the ones who take it personally.

As you say different people have differing ideas. That is exactly how the feature works. Perhaps 10 people will unrec it whereas 100 will recommend it. The net effect is +90.

However, I do not know how many times I click a thread to read it and the first or second post is from the original poster saying 'Who the hell was the freeper who unrec'd my post', etc. Not only did they take it personally, but they hijack their own thread with a personal ego thing that detracts from the topic.

[MineralMan]

11. A quick visit to the Greatest Page will demonstrate

that the unrec option has little effect. Good posts end up there as they always have. What don't end up there are the "Rec this" posts that used to dominate the Greatest Page.

Otherwise, I see no effect from this. Posts with lots of activity still rise to the top on the discussion pages and posts with no activity sink like stones. Neither recs nor unrecs have any effect on the position of a post on normal pages.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. the unrecophobes have yet to demonstrate this great harm

that compels them. I have frequently pointed out, with data, all the easier now that the top tens are there, that unrec basically has only a minor effect on the contents of the GP. As you say, its effect, minor as it is, is to keep some of the content free vanity posts off of GP.

unrec censors nothing. If an unrecophobe can show otherwise, please do so.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. Just a quick reply...

I've been through two Presidential Primary Seasons at DU, 2003/2004 and 2007/2008. Both times I was fairly active here. My question/comment derives from those experiences. I also start with an assumption that for at least some visitors to DU (in fact this may be more true for visitors than for hard core members) the Greatest Page has some significance in guiding people toward what to read, which motivates some people to either Rec or UnRec to get threads on or off that page.

I believe you believe that deserving posts are virtually as likely if not more likely to make that page with the current UnRec system as not. I agree with you for the vast mahority of posts. But there are times when DU becomes a team sport, where people consciously organize to promatoe one agenda and to deny others, either through email coordination or by planning at other sites. In that atmosphere others sometimes join in spontaneously, and each side then tends to try to stifle the other. Good posts get trashed as well as bad ones, and with the introduction of the UnRec system, good posts as well as bad ones would repeatedly get UnRecced in that climate. The problem tends to occur most, in my oinion, if issue discussion is eclipsed by loyalty toward one or another specific National Democratic figure

Fortunately for DU we don't face that type of polorizing national primary season here again for some time, but we still feel some of the after effects from the last one.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. Then show me the data.

As I said, I have repeatedly gone out and collected the comparison between 'just recs' and the top ten greatest posts of the moment, and each time there has been very little difference, and in no case did a thread in the top ten by recs only that did not make the top ten recs on the GP fail to show up somewhere on the GP. The voting system for the GP reflects the majority viewpoint - and all the data so far indicates that this is close, very close, to a consensus view as well.

As for primary season flame wars - perhaps I recollect wrong, but didn't the admins kick GDP off the greatest page entirely for the duration of the Clinton/Obama wars? So I am missing your point on that issue.

And once more, as has been repeated ad nauseam, nothing gets stifled. Unreccing, the opposite of reccing, does not suppress any thread or stifle any discussion, and if you think not being on the Greatest Page proper does stifle discussion, then the admins have graciously provided links right there to the Top Tens, wherein various recategorizations of threads by r&u and other factors exist, for you viewing and discussion pleasure.

So what exactly is the problem with 'u' again? And why should a voting system only allow a yes vote?

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. It's not the top of the Greatest Page that is effected

Cream will rise to the top. There always are at least 10 threads that will garnish massive across the board support at DU. So a study of the top ten threads such as the one you did I think would not catch what I talked about in my first reply to you. It would more effect threads that might gather 5 to 20 R's without UnRecs, not the ones that gather 40 or more now. Right now there are over 70 posts on the Greatest Page with less than 10 Recs.

I already commented above on why I have a bias for allowing positive Recs, but a case can be made to do otherwise.

[City Lights]

13. I just don't get the obsession with Rec and Unrec. nt

[CTyankee]

51. I don't do either one (nor do I use Ignore). Life goes on. nt

[scarletwoman]

14. I think most posts that have some value easily rise above any unrecs they might receive.

There appear to be some on this board who do nothing but go around urec'ing every new post that's made, no matter what the content or who made the post. But these few can only unrec a single post one time, and after they've had their little trollish fun, the rest of DU shows up and a worthy post will almost always get the recs it deserves.

I just don't think it's that big of a problem. If a post stays in the negative, it's a community judgement made by many more than just one or two people.

Btw, I've neither rec'd or unrec'd your OP.

sw

[NYC_SKP]

20. Maybe we need an IQ test before we let people post.

eom

:P

[hayu_lol]

26. I'll go along with three unrecs...

so long as 'recs' are also limited to three.

Remember the primaries? Had we had unrecs...the Obama crowd would have used them by the thousands. Post a reason for the unrecs? Nah. Same reference: the primaries. Any reason pro Hillary or any other candidate would have been unrecced to death and the poster immediately Tombstoned.

The Recs, like the UnRecs are merely valid tools. Treat them as such.

[NYC_SKP]

30. I was joking, of course. I'm ambivalent toward the topic of unrecs.

They have one utility, which can be seen in this DU page view that shows the number of unrecs v recs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

[liberal N proud]

24. kick and unrec

[CTyankee]

27. That's good, but I'd love to hear what you have to say!

You may have a reason I hadn't thought of...:hi:

[SheilaT]

31. Personally, I think the entire

system of Recs was a bad idea to begin with, and Unreccs is even worse.

Too often vanity posts solicit recommendations, and nothing useful is being discussed.

You might correctly surmise that I never use either feature. Nor do I Ignore anyone. I have learned to ignore posters or posts I think aren't worth paying attention to.

[CTyankee]

53. Funny how you can do that and still manage, isn't it?

I never "got" any of these features. Ignore just always strikes me as silly. My guess is that Rec is kind of like a high school popularity contest. But that's just my opinion...

[undeterred]

32. Could I sell my unrecs?

[PeaceNikki]

34. Ah yes, a "cap and trade" program.

:thumbsup:

[SoCalDem]

36. CRAP & Trade is more like it..or Carp & Trade n/t

[scarletwoman]

44. Carp & Trade!

:rofl:

[pipi_k]

40. Maybe we can have our own separate category on eBay...

:7

[dysfunctional press]

33. why are so many people so hung up on this rec/unrec thing...?

it's an interent message board for chrissakes...get the fuck OVER yourselves.

[KharmaTrain]

37. Ain't It Somethin...

I guess for some the "rec" and "unrec" is some kind of acceptance thing. Ya know if you get a lot of recs then people must "like me". I gladly unrec any thread that is fishing for recs or makes a bitch about the system. If a post has valid points or information, I rarely see it un-rec'd.

[CTyankee]

54. Oh, I think the discussion on it is interesting, from a sociological point of view.

I like to know what the motivation of DUers to do either one is. Human behavior is sometimes fascinating (and sometimes not!).

[pipi_k]

39. I always wonder where people are when this idea gets explained

for like the 50th time.

Do people not pay attention? Or is there some OCD thing going on?


Threads with minimal recs can stay active for a long time. If activity is the goal, then recs/unrecs shouldn't matter.

If trying to control what gets called "Greatest Threads" and what doesn't is the goal, then yeah...I can see where unrec is going to matter very much. Who gives a rat's ass what a thread gets called or where it ends up on the main page as long as it's active and being discussed? Seems to me that being voted to the "Greatest Page" is mostly about vanity.

so anyway, about the question regarding limiting unrecs to three per poster per day. Fine by me, as long as recs are similarly limited.

Those who don't like unrec can complain all they want about the "hit and run" unrecs where people just do it and don't explain. I see the same thing happen with the recs. People do the K & R thing but don't bother explaining their position or add anything further to the ideas being expressed.

So, yeah...let's make it fair. Three recs and three unrecs per person per day.

[Prometheuspan]

42. just got here day b4 yesterday?

sorry. Where am i supposed to go to get clued? whats a rec? and what good is it?

recomend? unrecomend? might help if you guys didn't turn it into a new contraction DU word and ran with something newbies could decipher.

[pipi_k]

46. Uh, not to be a smart ass or anything, but...

I think people here are intelligent enough to figure out that a newbie who "just got here day b4 yesterday" (or someone with less than a few hundred posts) isn't going to know what's going on and will gladly answer questions if they're asked in a manner that indicates the person asking them really wants information and isn't just trying to start a shitstorm.

[CTyankee]

55. As one who has used the term "hit and run" I agree with you about the Rec.

However, I do enjoy this discussion, even tho personally I don't do either of them.

[HughMoran]

43. So long as "recs" were limited to the same number

Either can be used as a protest, so you can't limit one without limiting the other.

[Posteritatis]

47. Unrec for whining about unrec. (nt)

[mamaleah]

49. Limit Recs too? Or just the things you don't like? How about limiting

the amount of K&R posts a day? "I am sorry, you have reached your limit of one line posts, please try again in 23hours and 15 minutes....".

[havocmom]

52. Bad plan. Unlimited unrecs keeps some un-constructive people off the streets

Seems there are a few who sit monitoring the Latest Page and hit unrec as soon as any new OP comes up. Think of the trouble such negative (or petty unrec campaigners) would get into if they didn't get to sit and hit UNREC on every single post on DU? Hell, they might cause some real trouble if they weren't kept occupied.

I think Skinner provides yet one more public service by keeping such obsessive cranks busy and out of our way in real life. ;)

[Kaleva]

56. Restricting voting to "Yea" only isn't very democratic.

I wouldn't mind your proposal if recs were limited also.

[TexasObserver]

57. Can complainers limit all threads about Unrec to 3 a year?

That would be a good rule.

This is the 547th thread about Unrec making you and others sad.

Do you think that by nagging incessantly on this topic, you'll finally get daddy to let you have this puppy?

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. This was my first, but if you really want me to I can try to post two more this year

Except I don't think I can go along with that nagging part that you suggested.

I'm not lecturing anyone here. The concept of having daily limits is different than arguing for or against having Unrecs at all. DU has experimented with limiting some types of participation in the past. DU experiments with new wrinkles frequently. Some times they work out, some times not, but an open mind to possible tweaking is usually kept. It is one of the many things that I appreciate about DU Administration.

[TexasObserver]

78. I don't doubt that you are reasonable.

But there were many, many suggestions for changes, and the admins addressed those changes openly in threads here the past month, and did make some changes.

I think the system works great. I see no need for a limit of any kind. The limit is one vote per poster, and that's reasonable. None of this tempest in a teapot was seen when there was no Unrecommend feature and one could freely Recommend as many threads as one wished.

The best part of having the feature is that it ended the tyranny of the cliques who pushed their ill conceived threads to the Greatest Page. The second best part? No more posts saying "Off to the Greatest Page with thee!"

[aikoaiko]

60. Can't support that. There are way more than 3 unrec worthy threads started every day.

Mindless unrecs are the perfect anecdote to mindless recs.

[Kaleva]

87. +1

[Warren Stupidity]

61. K&U for YASUT nt

[CTyankee]

65. What is YASUT? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Yet Another Stupid Unrec Thread

I unrec these on principle.

[Iggo]

69. Cool. I'm putting it with "AUFWAU".

[TroglodyteScholar]

62. I'm sure they're able to impose all kinds of arbitrary limitations on user activity

But why?

[Taitertots]

64. Kick and Unrec

[Iggo]

66. Knee-jerk Unrec for you!

:hi:

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. Thanks, but I don't believe you

I suspect you thoughtfully disagree :)

[notesdev]

71. Better to ditch them altogether

What they do is allow people to bury controversial issues that may be important to a significant segment of the board readership. I have noted quite a few times a rec/unrec yoyo effect going on with some topics.

[Iggo]

79. Where do these issues get buried, exactly?

[Ms. Toad]

75. Now that yet another thread has been posted, I'll add my

thoughts since I made two OPs the other day and had a chance to watch the unrecs in action. (I don't typically make many OPs - so if I have made any others since unrec came into existence I didn't pay any attention to what happened to it, and I may not have made any.)

If one thread got any unrecs they were undone by a recs before I saw them. The recs grew slowly all day, one rec at a time.

The other thread got an unrec within a minute, which was canceled within a minute by a rec and stayed there as long as I bothered to watch it - probably about what it deserved.

OMG...someone hates me...I should go curl up in a ball in a corner and die!!!!!

:sarcasm:

Seriously - it was amusing to watch. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't make OPs for the purpose of seeing how high I can get on the Greatest list. I would be hard pressed to say I have even a passing interest in why someone unrec'd it before there were any recs. I watched just because I was curious to see what would happen.

With all the complaining about instantaneous unrecs I actually had more curiosity about whether there might be some software glitch that started all threads at <0 than about why someone would unrec my thread. Since the second thread I started began at "0" I have now satisfied that curiosity.

Please stop whining about unrecs - you get to vote up or down on a thread. You never go into the voting booth and only get the chance to vote yes on an issue - even the stupidest, most illogical, unconstitutional, or incomprehensible issues would pass under that standard - since presumably at least one of the thousands of signatories on the petitions would vote for it, or one of the petition circulators would. I hope anyone who is capable of making an OP that deserves to be part of the front page of DU is mature enough to not be put off by a few people who don't happen to think their OP is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Unrecs serve a valid purpose (keeping those obnoxious "Rec this if ..." popularity contests off the top 5 Greatest, which show up on the front page, and they harm no one. Had recs not been abused, unrecs would probably not exist.

Feel free to vote however you want on any OP I ever make. I am far more interested in generating substantive discussion, or providing information, than I am about winning a popularity contest.

[cherokeeprogressive]

77. What would that do to all the "X" Level donators who, because of their monetary donations get

an unlimited number of recs/unrecs per thread?

That would be like promising all you can eat at the Chinese Buffet, collecting a customer's money, and then telling them they can only have 3 egg rolls per day.

Hardly fair, and for that I'm adding 10 unrecs to this thread.

[Jakes Progress]

84. This suggestion is a reasonable

effort to curb the abuse of this function. It would strike a balance between both factions. It would do more to make the unrec feature do what the admins intended.

Therefore it will not be done.

[Quantess]

85. Here's a thread I'm happy to Unrecommend!

Without hesitation! BTW, yours is the fourth thread I unrec'd today. :D

[SidDithers]

88. Unrec...

It's not broken. Doesn't need to be fixed.

Sid