A Modest DU Proposal

[Techn0Girl]

And unlike Mark Twain's (edit - oops - make that Swift! per a kindly DUer here) proposal I'm actually serious about mine :)

So here's the thing: A very great many of us complain about the endless trolling of certain people and/or groups on DU and how they negatively impact the discussion .

Recently we have seen a http://current.com/1u0rq4c">very interesting article along with an interesting DU discussion that confirms what a lot of us already know - that special interest groups pay people to post on boards such as ours in order to either influence or disrupt opinion.

I'd like to propose something that would minimize the impact of either paid-for posters, "in-house" groups working together to rec/unrec certain posts, or just plain nut cases with too much time on their hands.

I would like to propose that we limit either:

1. The number of posts a given poster can make in a day
and/or
2. The number of replies that a poster can make in a given thread
and or
3. The total number of rec/unrec votes a poster can make in a given day.

I believe that by limiting one or more of the above we can limit the ability for either groups of people (or one very ambitious person) desiring to drive discourse in a certain direction.

What is the "magic number" for these limits?
I don't know and I suggest that we table that for the future.

I do feel that if we impose reasonable limits on posts or votes in a given day then we can limit the ability of special interests to drive discussion in a given direction - or at least make it less cost-effective. One paid-for poster (or nutcase) will not be able to unrec all anti-war posts they come across; one paid-for poster will not be able to rec all the "We love Obama" posts that they come across and one nutcase will not be able to derail a discussion with 30 posts claiming that Obama is an Alien from Tau Ceti.

What do you think?


The Question:

Should we impose agreed upon limits upon the number of :
1. Total posts someone can make in a day?

2. Total posts someone can make in a given thread?

3. Total number of recs/unrecs someone can make in a day?

[MercutioATC]

1. I voted #5....but, then, maybe I'm a paid troll

:eyes:

[mamaleah]

3. Are you? Where ever did you get that sweet job?

Paid to unrec? Really? The ultimate home based job! :P

Limits are not needed.

[icee2]

13. But, but yours has been a very progressive voice re 9/11. wink. nt

[MercutioATC]

20. My dungeon-crawling days come back to haunt me AGAIN!

No, I was no more "progressive" there than I am anywhere else (or in real life).

If there's a paycheck to be had here, somebody has to hook me up.

[icee2]

24. You really meant all that stuff (support of bushco 911 tale)? nt

[MercutioATC]

I support logical analysis.

There were plenty of mistakes made on 9/11, but I haven't seen any logical evidence of the fabled "MIHOP".

I have, however, seen a lot of conspiracy theorists who have no understanding of the pertinent issues and/or are just batshit crazy.

[icee2]

36. Some people believe JFK was murdered in a conspiracy, but they...

buy the BUSHCO 9/11 story hook, line, and sinker - yet YOU would call them conspiracy theorists? I think you need to do a little
logical analysis of your positions.

[MercutioATC]

70. I don't believe the entire story as told, but suggesting that 9/11 was somehow engineered

by the government is pure fantasy.

[SidDithers]

30. Heads-up. You're dealing with a video fakery, no-planer...nt

Sid

[MercutioATC]

32. Thanks for the warning.

:)

[A HERETIC I AM]

2. edited. No limits on anything and an unrec because this sort of thing...

does not pass my test for a greatest thread.

[DrDan]

4. this forum has been around for 9 years or so

so we have survived at least 2 Presidential elections and 2 off-year elections.

We are still here - surviving. (though I must admit that GDP took its toll with me during the primaries last year.)

[Cleita]

5. I don't think any of the above is necessary

except maybe for the unrecs. I personally hardly ever use that option. The post has to be really offensive to me to earn it, however, there seem to be people who do recreational unrec'ing for the hell of it. I propose that unrecs be treated like alerts. The unrec'er needs to explain the reason he thinks the post deserves an unrec before it is put through.

[A HERETIC I AM]

How often do you rec a thread? n/t

[Cleita]

37. I rec several a day, any where from one to ten. n/t

[A HERETIC I AM]

43. And do you explain, on every single one, why you did so?

"I propose that unrecs be treated like alerts. The unrec'er needs to explain the reason he thinks the post deserves an unrec before it is put through."

Don't you think a recommend should have the same requirement?

A rec is a vote to place a thread on the greatest page. If you vote yay, why shouldn't you have to say why you voted that way?

[Cleita]

57. As I said in my post #39. It would eliminate the need for an unrec.

However, it's done, I don't give a fig. It's just that something needs to be done. If I remember correctly the unrec feature was introduced to counter the frivolous recs on asinine posts making it to the Greatest page. However, now those frivolous abuses of a function has turned to the unrecs.

[Ms. Toad]

31. Only if you put the same requirement on recs. n/t

[Cleita]

39. If we did that, we wouldn't need the unrec function :). n/t

[Ms. Toad]

63. Huh???

I'm not following your reasoning at all.

Unless I misread, you suggested that the unrecs should be required to explain why they are unreccing something. Why should people voting "No this shouldn't be on the front page of DU" be required to explain their reasoning if those voting "Yes, this should be on the front page of DU" aren't also required to explain their reasoning?

And what on earth does also requiring the recs to explain their vote have to do with whether the unrec feature is needed

[Ikonoklast]

6. Start your own discussion board if you don't like the rules here.

Or, better yet, contact the admins directly with your concerns.


Not being here that long, and you already are trying to control what other posters can do to conform to your ideas as to how this board should be run.


Good luck with that.

[SidDithers]

26. +1...

that's exactly how I feel too.

Sid

[Ikonoklast]

7. Delete dupe n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

8. 6. Limit number of user accounts.

1 Du'er = 1 Account
You would think this would be a given....but this act alone would go a long way in addressing the problem.

[Mist]

14. I didn't know a DUer could have more than one account. Keeping each DUer

to one account would help, I agree.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. No shit.

It's exhausting, arguing with these all day.

[Echo In Light]

9. I voted "no limits," but would like to see the unrecs actually numbered like the recs

[EFerrari]

10. That was Jonathan Swift, not Twain. fyi.

[Mist]

12. Beat me to it! I'd never heard of Twain's "modest proposal." nt

[Posteritatis]

40. It was too modest; it never allowed itself into the public eye. (nt)

[Techn0Girl]

23. Geea - oops - Thank you !

Too long away from college - thanks :)

[kirby]

11. Unreccing...

Yet another poster whining about the unrec feature.

[Quantess]

15. Nice thread, Hitler.

:thumbsdown:

[Morning Dew]

16. unrec for complaining about unrec

[TexasObserver]

17. We need a HIDE RECOMMENDS feature, so you can use it.

It ain't broke and it don't need fixin'!

[MercutioATC]

25. How about just ignoring the "recs/unrecs"?

I've been doing it for years. No "feature" needed.

[TexasObserver]

45. That's the way for people who don't overreact to things they see.

My proposal is for those who are so upset by having the information they need to hide it to get through the day without hyperventilating over some thread being Unrecommended.

Either that or open a WHINERS FORUM for those who can't stop complaining about the Unrecommend feature.

[DonCoquixote]

18. Unrecs are a bad idea

We might as well have dipped this board in Troll Sauce and said "here trolls."

[Quantess]

21. Not true. I unrec threads all the time.

This one, included.

[Va Lefty]

19. I think we have more than enough rules here already

[SidDithers]

22. It ain't broke, it doesn't need to be fixed...

and a hearty unrec.

Sid

[endless october]

27. i like it as is. nt

[NightWatcher]

28. or we could scuttle the whole damned thing. Problem solved... I say fuck the rec unrec BS

WHO CARES if people give something an unrec or a rec?

I think it's time for us to put on our big boy (or big girl) underwear and act like adults.

Or as my fav prof used to say
Let's climb down off our cross, use the wood to build a bridge, and GET OVER IT

[Ikonoklast]

29. Looks like more DU'ers like the free-for-all aspect of this place,

based on the voting so far.

Either that, or we're all a bunch of closet Anarchists that thrive on chaos.

[Quantess]

33. What "free-for-all"? There are rules here.

We have Mods to tombstone disruptors and delete posts. Where is the "chaos"? :eyes:

[Confusious]

34. So right now

Unlimited Regular users = Unlimited Paid Trolls ( Or so you say )

your proposal, lets say 10 posts

10 Regular User = 10 paid Trolls

That's suppose to fix things How?

Unless of course, your asking for the power to decide who is a paid troll ( if they exist ) and who is a regular user.

I think some people should get over themselves, they are just not that important, and I put myself in the "not important" category.

Unrec, 'cause I don't believe in the paid troll fairy.

[RoccoR5955]

35. There needs to be a "none of the above" choice. n/t

[Techn0Girl]

42. There is . If you actually read the poll...

You will find that to be the last choice.

[Posteritatis]

38. I propose a limit on the number of threads whining about unrecs.

(Also, unrec, because I unrec any thread that's about that damn function.)

[Warpy]

41. I'm a major DU blatherskyte

and would greatly miss being able to post.

As for the rec/unrec, I already do that most days because I'm such an inveterate snob.

[Lyric]

46. I don't get why people assume that most UnRec'ers are trolls.

Or disruptors, for that matter. It seems pretty damned arrogant to claim that your post is sooooo special and sooooo wonderful that only a troll or a disruptor would UnRec it. Mostly I UnRec things that I don't want to see on the front page of the site, but I also occasionally UnRec OPs that I dislike. My reasons for dislike usually have something to do with my perception that the OP is aimed at other DU'ers in a rude, hostile, or passive-aggressive way.

The point is that lots of people have lots of reasons for using UnRec. If we just blithely assume that they're all trolls, then we risk mistaking genuine widespread shifts in opinion with "trolling". How will we know when there's a movement going on within our own ranks if we assume that anything rubbing against the mainstream is the result of "trolling" rather than genuine anger and resentment? It's a bit like the "No Real Scotsman" fallacy in which we keep changing what the definition of "troll" is until very few people are left who fall outside of that category.

Seems like inserting our heads into the sand, to me.

[Techn0Girl]

48. I tend to agree...

I think that both up and down voting are very legitimate forms. My only concern is that people tend to organize behind the scenes and up or down vote certain subjects , presumably because they have nothing better to do - or perhaps because they are being paid to do so.

In any case my belief is that putting limits on the number of posts and/or votes gives everyone an equal say. Not everyone stays home and monitors DU and posts all day. Most of us, the sanest among us, have jobs and lives outside the internet and have natural limits on us in the amount of time that we can devote to posting. The most extreme among us have no such limits and spend literally all day here. It is those types of people that I would hope that limits would be effective upon.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[PeaceNikki]

49. Thankfully it's not really "a very great many" who complain.

Especially about rec/unrec.

And those of you who do need to stop taking the internet, DU and yourselves so god-damn seriously.

[branders seine]

50. lobbyists and special interests also play people to vote

in online polls

[pipi_k]

51. We also need to set a limit on

the numbers of adjectives people are allowed to use.


Because I think people use way too many unnecessary, unneeded, obnoxious, foolish adjectives here.

[NoPasaran]

52. Rahm Emanuel give me a handfull of magic beans to Unrec this

[Caliman73]

53. I also voted #5. No limits.

It is annoying when certain people seem to exist only to inject "noise" into the discussion, but I think that we can ignore that behavior sufficiently to continue the site as a good place to have reasonable arguments. I think that we also need to be able to call people on their "troll-like" behavior without getting too caught up in the situation and thus putting ourselves at risk of getting in trouble. The moderators need our help to be made aware of people who continuously violate the board policies. I know the recent person who was TS'd was on the forum for years, but I still think that if there is someone who routinely makes trouble, the moderators should hear from us.

I don't think that there should be limitations put up that limit people's ability to post because the majority of people who post here tend to be respectful if not always, then much of the time. Limits on those who do not usually violate the rules should not be put up just because some people do. Violators should be dealt with as they are discovered.

[Techn0Girl]

54. Interestig Stats....

750 people view the thread
only 11% of people who view the thread take the poll.
Of those people who do take the poll over 80% want no posting or voting limits.

Difficult to know what to make of the pattern.
Why do almost 90% of people choose not to state a preference?

[A HERETIC I AM]

56. You've stumbled on the question of the ages.

Why do almost 90% of people choose not to state a preference?

Because most people just don't give a shit.

And that, quite frankly, is a good thing.

[SidDithers]

64. That's 750 views, not 750 unique people...

many people view a thread multiple times when they've posted a reply in it.

Sid

[Quantess]

65. Some of them are unregistered lurkers.

They can't vote if they wanted to.

[aikoaiko]

69. Why do almost 90% of people choose not to state a preference?

Answer: Most people are unconcerned with the rec/unrec issue and think it is a waste of time to even vote in a poll about it. Mostly everyone else thinks restraints on rec/unrec/posts are a bad idea.

In other words, there is virtually no interest or support for changing things. The tribe has spoken.

[trotsky]

55. I love, love, love how your little poll has turned out.

You've actually strengthened my "faith" in DU. Way to go! :rofl:

[Prometheuspan]

58. Failed systems theory

i fail to see how any of these things aid a troll or hurt him any more than the rest of us.

And suppose some people want to chat all day and they ain't trolls? Should they be kicked out due to your limit?


http://issues.ni4d.us/index.php?title=Formal_Conversational_Logic

Thats what you need to solve the problem.


Using that, all of the trolling just becomes the guys who are doing you the favor of playing devils advocate so that you can
pound that position so far down its unearthing in china.

:)

"Why do almost 90% of people choose not to state a preference?"

how much can it matter, its such a ridiculous idea it will gain no traction, thus i need do nothing, because the obvious negative input against the idea is more than enough; i can identify the idea has been shot down by others, why bother shooting down?

[ohheckyeah]

59. This isn't a life or death thing.

It's a damn internet message board. Who gives a shit how many recs/unrecs a thread gets?

[Confusious]

66. But....But.....

It tells me how REALLY unimportant I am and hurts my feelings :cry:

[stlsaxman]

60. Nope. We're doing fine as it is.

Thanks for the well thought out OP but- No.

[MilesColtrane]

61. What a control freak.

I'm glad you're not running things.

[scarletwoman]

62. Voted #5, and gave your OP an urec to boot -- too damn ridiculous.

I don't give a shit if there ARE paid disruptors here, those of us who know what we believe and hold to our principles are in no way ever going to affected by them.

The best way to counteract negative speech is through MORE free speech, not less.

I've been on DU for over 8 years, I'm not afraid of some fucking lame-ass trolls. Sheesh! :eyes:

What I DO really dislike are posts pushing paranoid bullshit.

sw

[bigwillq]

67. No limits on any of the above proposals (nt)

[Texasgal]

68. What is this? Red China?

Geez louize! It's a freaking message board!