People need to get some thick skin around here

[LynneSin]

Geez

So someone unrecommends my thread - so what. I'm not changing how I post or what I write. When I read I look for titles that interest me.

And this stifling of free speech - you embarrass yourself saying stuff like that. You want to see your speech stifled go live in North Korea for a week. You'll come back here grateful you can post on a website like DU. Go spend a week in Iran and see what these people are fighting for everyday as their votes are suppressed.

Go ahead unrecommend away at me. That doesn't change who I am or what I have to say. Grow a thick skin. If you can't deal with a few DUers saying "I don't like what you have to say" then how the hell are you going to discuss issues with RL people face-to-face as you try to explain to them why they should vote a certain person or support a certain cause.

[BlooInBloo]

1. What she said ^^^^^^^^^^

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. That's what she said...

:-)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. Free Speech is stifled on DU, by design.

No Conservative are allowed to post here. Hence, no free speech.

[LynneSin]

10. Well you have a valid point

nuff said

[SemiCharmedQuark]

21. My point is, nobody screamed to the high heavens about freedom of speech for all of this time.

But now that some post might not make it to the Greatest Page...all hell has broken loose.

[Pharaoh]

180. The lurking freepers

will be happy to push down popular threads with this method.Thus, less people will see them.

That's the problem

[Egnever]

191. Wow thats a stretch,

[glitch]

11. They're allowed to post. They just aren't allowed to be assholes.

You can see how a problem would arise.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. Actually, they aren't allowed to post. People that come in "I'm a conservative, but I'll play nice"

are tombstoned.

[glitch]

27. Saying you'll play nice and actually playing nice are two different things.

And the "nice" front never seems to last too long. So yeah, they do get tombstoned, eventually. But they definitely do not get tombstoned for simply saying they are conservative.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. I'm pretty sure they do.

We don't allow conservatives here.

From the Rules:
"if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned"

[glitch]

40. "likely" appears to anticipate bad behavior, no doubt based on experience (IMO justified.)

If you can name one current polite "conservative" in the mainstream media I may concede your point. I just don't happen to think they exist.

Has to be current.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

42. Hey, I'm not complaining. I like that feature.

I like that DU is a safe haven from birthers etc.

My point is simply that DU has never claimed to be for free speech.

[glitch]

69. Okay then. I do think DU tries to be as free as it can be within the limits of civility.

I think they do a pretty good job for the most part, which is why this board is far less offensive than unmoderated forums. :scared:

[FedUp_Queer]

127. "Conservative ideals"

Perhaps I'm just thick, but what exactly are those? What do conservatives say they are?

[Tan Gent]

33. Whoa...are "sort of" conservative Democrats not welcome here?

I looked at the rules and didn't see any requirement to be ultra-liberal...
??
It isn't a mirror site for Liberalunderground.com, is it?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

37. Here's the rule:

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned. "

[Tan Gent]

47. Thanks, I saw the 'generally supportive' part but took that to mean

'mostly'. Maybe it means 'any at all'...if it does I may have wandered into unwelcome territory because I do
agree with a (very) few conservative positions...Second Amendment issues to mention one...but in my reading I have seen a lot of folks here are very much in favor of the right to keep and bear arms. It's a little confusing.

[LynneSin]

49. There are conservative democrats that post here and are welcomed

However if they, like anyone else, starts recommeding non-democrat candidates that is a no-no. I mean conservative dems like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe but we support their opponents here at DU. Just like we don't support Ralph Nadar here either

[kestrel91316]

118. I thought Collins and Snowe were REPUBLICANS who leaned left,

not Dems who leaned right, lol.

[Ken Burch]

135. I think the sentence meant that there were some Democrats who LIKED Snowe and Collins

Not that the Maine Moderate Twins had crossed over.

[kestrel91316]

139. Oops. Need more coffee.

[Ken Burch]

140. Here you go:

[kestrel91316]

141. KTHX!

[Ken Burch]

144. You're on your own for the donuts, though.

n/t.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

51. Nope, Dems of all stripes are welcome here and we have quite a few DUers who work for RTKBA

[LynneSin]

52. I've someone who is very anti-choice

but still a democrat in every other way

[kenfrequed]

94. Actually

Guns are something I think Democrats need to stop obsessing over. Strategically its bad and practically it is of little use.

We need to deal with the socio-economic roots of crime and violence if we want to effect change. Merely going after and eliminating guns or, conversely, arming all bears is not going to have any real impact on crime. Nor will building a thousand more privately run prisons.

Sorry. Got a bit distracted.

[kestrel91316]

119. Most Dems I know aren't obsessed about guns.

As a matter of fact, they seem pretty lackadaisical about them.

[misanthrope]

137. No, its just like Washington DC...

...party first and ideals be damned.

Which would mean George Wallace and Lester Maddox are more welcome than Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders.

[misanthrope]

138. That's not totally honest, though...

...in a position of choosing between progressive ideals or party loyalty, DU is about the party first.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

50. Free speech may be guaranteed, but the repercussions are not.

I have every right to call my boss a douche bag, cocksucker, but I don't have a right to still have my job afterward. The same applies here.

[Caliman73]

104. Free speech only applies to what the Government can not restrict

Private entities can trample you right to speak all they want.

[sarcasmo]

58. Post a Kennedy story or a 9/11 story and watch how much free speech you get.

Off to the dungeon, free speech at D/U, MY ASS!

[MrMickeysMom]

178. Uh oh, sarcasmo...

5...4...3....2..1... "quit hijacking the thread!"

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Within the broad frame of progressive Democratic ideals, discussion is encouraged.

DU is being inexorably balkanized. Those that find themselves to be outliers are cast out.

[DailyGrind51]

85. It's like putting roads in national parks...

There is so little of it left that when further encroachment is permitted, it is diminished even more. Like allowing Jake Hartford on WCPT. Let's preserve some Progressive space.

[lsewpershad]

131. Really?????

What the jackass is saying is because it's worse some place else the shit we have here we should be proud of and shut the f..k up.

[Confusious]

155. They can post here

As long as they are nice. But they usually aren't, so hence, no posts.

[MNDemNY]

3. K & R !!

Thick and callused, I am.

[madaboutharry]

4. Oh Lynnsin,

You make me wanna

RECOMMEND YOU!

[incapsulated]

5. Why do you assume this is personal?

I just about never start threads, so my opposition to this isn't about someone being mean to me, I could care less, my last thread, the first in about a year was locked. Probably rightly so, I'm not complaining.

[LynneSin]

9. Because we have 2 dozen threads here complaining their speech is stifled

so yeah I take it personally. Why not let the feature work itself out. It's new and I'm sure not finished with it's final design. Instead in 5 hours people are rambling away without even seeing how it will play out. Usually I like to taste a bit of my dinner before I return it back to complain

[incapsulated]

14. I didn't start any but I can see the results of this new unrec already

I even see one poster in particular getting recced down even if she posted a pic of a kitten.

I see threads rec'ed down that are harmless and non-confrontational.

[LynneSin]

20. A couple of things

First, this is a new toy and in a few weeks the thrill will wear off so that kitten pictures don't make the greatest page.

Second, the lounge is a different world. We'll probably use it to goof on people but that stuff never goes to the greatest page.

I'd rather see us use this feature for a few weeks, provide feedback to the admins and the see if it should stay or go.

[noamnety]

44. I am unrecommending anything without real substance.

My best buddy could post a photo of a kitten here and I would vote it down. If others are doing that, you might well see threads that are "harmless and nonconfrontational" voted as not being the "greatest" threads. In my view, the greatest ones are often the ones that are confrontational in some way. Not exclusively, but often - because those are the ones that have potential to shake up what we want to believe about a topic.

[kenfrequed]

95. I am considering doing likewise

I get tired of posts having to do with celebritys, kittens, or stupid internet jokes.

I might also decide to unrecommend any post that includes net-speak (such as WTF, ROFLMAO, etc) or other nonsense in the subject line.

(Kidding on both counts... mostly)

On the flip side I now have to patrol the bloody discussion board to ensure that Healthcare posts aren't unrec'd out of existance for no real reason.

[Confusious]

158. WTF!

ROFLMAO!

[Catherine Vincent]

6. I agree!

And if posters don't like what you have to say just tell them to Flake off and be done with it. :)

[incapsulated]

17. But that is the point, no one has to argue with you at all

Or face you in debate, they just click the "fuck you" button.

[MNDemNY]

24. So?

[incapsulated]

35. So I actually think adding a fuck you button isn't what DU needs

Call me crazy but there is enough hostility here, do we need to encourage the passive aggressives as well?

[MNDemNY]

38. You are one of the targets of this thread.

Maybe you need to change your skin cream.

[omega minimo]

167. Apparently they need a button to push

to make themselves feel empowered.

[moggie]

82. Why is it a "fuck you" button?

Is that the way you're using it? "Unrec" simply means "I don't think this thread belongs on the 'greatest' page", which could be for various reasons: perhaps the unrecommender finds the thread shallow, or thinks the topic has been over-represented in recent "greatest" threads, or that the thread is full of flames which reflect badly on DU. It's not all about the person who started the thread, and surely only someone with a huge ego would equate "this is not the greatest of threads" with "fuck you".

I'm undecided about the new feature, because I think it'll take a few days for the novelty to wear off before we get to see how people are using it. Assuming the admins don't get sick of the prima donnas whining about it and abandon the experiment, of course.

[omega minimo]

168. Consider the fact that the same goal could be achieved by upping the number for Greatest

sans all the drama and extra coding. So why oh why, were the back seat drivers given their own little wheel?

[Uncle Joe]

175. Because they didn't have a thick skin. n/t

[omega minimo]

177. LOL ROFL

:rofl: :rofl: cough hack choke :cry: :spray: :rofl:

Good gawd, Uncle Joe, ya near kilt me!!! :rofl: :evilgrin: Best. Post. Ever. :yourock:


The truth hurts. You cut to the chase. Lumberjack Jeff has got some cogent comments, too. :thumbsup:

[billyoc]

7. People expect free speech to extend to using other people's computers.

Stupidly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. Click me! Click me!

You must click this message! It is mandatory.

Kind of a silly argument, huh?

The technology of the site creates the culture of a site. This site is becoming more and more prone to groupthink, and not necessarily reflective of the broader progressive world.

[omega minimo]

166. another wise and this time wacky gem from LJ

[jobycom]

8. And lose their damned thick skulls. nt

[DireStrike]

12. This changes the character of the top 5 posts

The most heavily viewed posts will be affected by this change.

Controversial posts will have a harder time making it up there.

[LynneSin]

13. What's wrong with making the top 5 posts stuff that has a broad appeal to all DUers?

and overall consensus that the OP wrote something of value that not only should all DUers read it but so should those visiting our website the first time.

[DireStrike]

36. I like to read things I disagree with sometimes, and not just feel-good, generally acceptable mush

I don't want my reality disney-fied, and I don't want to only read prose.

We also won't be capable of evaluating which posts have been kept out of the greatest by unrecs, since we can't see how many recs vs. unrecs a thread has.

[Spazito]

54. How does not making the Greatest page stop you from reading...

things you may disagree with? I think I can safely assume you go beyond the Greatest page as you are posting on GD at the moment and GD will still contain threads with all sides of many issues within in them so I don't see how this affects your ability to read "things you disagree with sometimes"?

[DireStrike]

56. I often go further than the main page, but not always

It does not prevent me from reading anything, but it reduces the chance that I will see a topic that I otherwise would have.

...I'm presuming, anyway. We will see. Or rather the admins will see and we will trust their word on it.

[Liberal In Texas]

23. Good.

[Buns_of_Fire]

122. I dunno. Would I RECOMMEND a thread titled "Sweaty Donkey Balls?"

For God 'n' Everyone to see? Probably not, unless there was a cure for cancer or something like that within.

Would I CLICK on that thread, if for nothing else then out of curiosity?

Well, yeah, probably so.

But I figure that's the difference between farting in your living room and farting on stage at Carnegie Hall.

[gleaner]

156. I would read it for sure....

I would want to know if it were a real donkey or if the word donkey was being used as an endearment for another person. I would want to know what the donkey was sweating, regardless of where he was doing it, and why he was sweating. I would also want to be sure that he was far away from me since donkey sweat stinks wherever you find it.

If I thought it was a good post and amusing, I would recommend it. I would recommend a post on farting on stage at Carnegie Hall too, as it is a rare subject but interesting to imagine and visualize. Would this be accidental or show contained flatulence? ;)

[Confusious]

160. Sweaty Donkey Balls?

+1
ROTFLMAO! <-- See above

[johnnie]

15. Honestly I don't understand why people are pissed

I really never go to the greatest page and I just read what looks interesting. I'm sure some people have their reasons to be bitching about this new feature, but out of all the posts I've read on it, I haven't found the answer. Is it all about getting their threads on the greatest page?

[rcrush]

16. THE UNREC FEATURE DISRESPECTS THE BABY JESUS

Dont you love the baby Jesus?!

[MNDemNY]

25. Really? I guess I love the new feature.

[TahitiNut]

19. It would seem to me that we have some pachyderms already.

:shrug:

pachy·derm
Pronunciation:
\ˈpa-ki-ˌdərm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French pachyderme, from Greek pachydermos thick-skinned, from pachys thick + derma skin; akin to Sanskrit bahu dense, much — more at derm-
Date:
1838

: any of various nonruminant mammals (as an elephant, a rhinoceros, or a hippopotamus) of a former group (Pachydermata) that have hooves or nails resembling hooves and usually thick skin ; especially : elephant

[LynneSin]

22. CAN SOME FOLKS UNREC THIS PLEASE!11

Honestly I don't want this on the home page

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. K&R

[glitch]

32. Hey, you know the risks :) nt

[Number23]

76. Not I! I agree with every word. I never knew the world was so full of whining adolescents

until I joined this site.

You want to see your speech stifled go live in North Korea for a week.

Preach it, sister!! Kicked a big, fat rec too!

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member", you mean?

:D

[DeadEyeDyck]

129. Would that be a K&U?

[RavensChick]

28. I agree totally!

I skim through some threads before I decide to post a comment because dependng on the topic, most of the comments I've noticed lately have been straight up hatin'! We all have the right to say whatever we feel is relevant but attacking other posters is still a big time no-no.

I'm gonna recommend anyway 'cause your viewpoint is well written and very true. Besides, I don't go to RW sites 'cause I know how they act and react--10,000 times worse than anyone can say here.

:hi:

[xchrom]

29. all right, goddam it! un-recommend!

it's an un-recommend throw-down around here.

[HughMoran]

31. Slip me some skin, bro!

:D

[MNDemNY]

34. Sis.

[seabeyond]

39. ya..... wink. n/t

[rustydog]

41. Amen and Hallejuah!

Thank you for speaking clearly and sanely.

Thanks again!

[tigereye]

43. nice post, Lynne!

[Life Long Dem]

71. "I don't like what you have to say"

The best part.

[Riley18]

45. I've been reading the posts here for almost a year, and did not know there even was a greatest page.

I just scan the titles and read what I want.

[Bushknew]

46. "how the hell are you going to discuss issues with RL people face-to-face"

That's why I don't put anyone on ignore.

[LynneSin]

48. I hate ignore because then I see that "Name Hidden"

and wonder what they said.

But I do use the hide thread feature

[Confusious]

163. I never use it

Some threads would have been nice to miss tho.

[omega minimo]

53. The tribe/mob has spoken and stabbed you in the back. Congratulations on your freedom

to be petty and powerful by pushing a button.

[LynneSin]

55. Line forms to the right for stabbing my back

I've got permascars there from it. I also have a thick enough skin to realize that the world doesn't have to agree with everything I write or worship me as some sort of uberposter. Hell I'm not even upset if people don't like me.

[omega minimo]

57. That is a STRAWMAN

That's the new BS false comparison that's showing up now.

"I also have a thick enough skin to realize that the world doesn't have to agree with everything I write or worship me as some sort of uberposter."


As if there isn't opportunity to DISAGREE in the thread. As if knocking down others' Recs is needed to "disagree."

And "worship me as some sort of uberposter"? :wow: The hints that this was about pettiness and jealousy and power and control are really starting to create a stench now..........................

[LynneSin]

59. No it just goes to show I'm realistic

In a week the thrill of this feature will be gone and we'll see how it truly can promote some great writers here at DU.

It's a shame people seem afraid that god forbid someone disagrees with you.

[omega minimo]

62. That's just willful ignorance, ignoring the points. Have at it. A petty pushbutton for those in need

[LynneSin]

65. Whatever makes you feel good

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

70. Yes, I mean it. Enjoy your button.

:hi:

[Liberation Angel]

101. But serious topics can be unrec'd by organized opposition on certain subjects

My posts are living proof.

I would get to the greatest page with most of my OP's because they were interesting and had a lot of support

now a handful of people can derail that SO EASILY.

Because it is a subject of some controversy and is a target.

This makes DU vulnerable to gamin and manipulation

which will continue after the fun wears off

[Egnever]

192. And idiotic topics couls be pushed to the greatest before

with no way to opose it. How is it somehow unfair now? At least there is an oportunity now to counter organized oposition on this site where before a handfull of lurkers could shove absolute tripe to the front page now at least a post will need some merrit or it will never get front page exposer. The idea that trolls/lurkers will outnumber actual dem opinions on this site I find laughable.

[Luminous Animal]

60. What makes you think that people are offended?

Your post is a near perfect example of an appeal to emotion over substance. Most people here are critiquing the unrec button as a device that may serve to limit the breadth of debate within the Democratic Party not a personal insult. You embarrass yourself by suggesting that the freedom of speech can be limited by degrees because some place somewhere else it is worse.

DUers have been dealing with years with other DUers saying, "I don't like what you say." In my opinion, it's best to address your opponents rather than being forced to fade away under a silent click of a button by "anonymous". Discussions are worthless when there is no one with whom to discuss. If, in RL, people could mute you with a click, then that would effectively erase the opportunity for a face-to-face.

[omega minimo]

73. Interesting points.

[Ms. Toad]

123. How is

How is:

(1) saying I "like what you say . . .under a silent click of a button by 'anonyous'" any different from a "freedom of speech" posture?

(2) clicking unrecommend muting anyone?

Clicking unrecommend is, pure and simple, an assertion that the particular thread is not what I want to see at the top of the heap when I enter DU. The thread remains. The discussion in the thread remains. It may even remain at the top of the first page in whatever room it is posted in. All anonymously clicking recommend OR unrecommend does is influence whether it also gets top honors in a second "Best of DU" room. Personally, I think I should be able to vote either way on that issue.

[myrna minx]

61. LynneSin, I have always found you to be a thoughtful, reasoned

as well as a fun person here. I know you don't know me personally, but know that I respect you. I just read a thread that equated the new "unrecommending" to George Orwell and I'm a little stunned. I'm trying to figure out this newest controversy and flamewar. I guess, while being outside gardening while DU implodes is a good thing. :hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. The problem isn't anyone's feelings.

The problem is reinforcing the tribalism and groupthink.

The thin skin is mostly on display by those who love it so much... they need ever more tools to create their own reality bubble, free from any form of challenge.

[omega minimo]

72. This is the second

amazing and wise post on this from you I've seen. :applause:

[Confusious]

170. That what the ignore button is for

Which I never use, personally.

[northzax]

67. I am going to unrecommend this, just on principle

and cause I've been wanting to unrec one of your freaking Delaware threads since, well, before the freaking Iraq war. so I'm doing it now. so there. ha.

:)

[rateyes]

74. Have you noticed how no threads critical of the unrec function

have made it to the greatest page? This isn't about thick or thin skin. It's a demonstration of how the greatest page, IMO, is being diluted of thoughtful discussion.

[omega minimo]

79. A chilling effect

[LynneSin]

83. Or perhaps more people actually like the new feature then you want to believe

last night we had threads supporting Kucinich and McKinney on the home page along with a thread that showed support AGAINST Obama in regards to signing statements.

but we'll believe what we want to believe to make us feel better.

[SidDithers]

91. Perhaps the Greatest Page is now more representative...

of how the majority of DU'ers feel about a topic.

If the majority of DU'ers appear not to be critical of the unrec feature, shouldn't it be that position which appears on the DU Greatest page?

Sid

[rateyes]

92. My point is that unrecs will be made simply because people disagree

with an argument. The thread could make a good point, get 100 recs and unrecs, and still end up with a net of zero votes. I have a thread on this topic right now that serves as a case in point. There have been a lot of votes cast, but the net result is zero. People opened it, read it and bothered to vote on it, but it sank quickly to the bottom of the topic forum, thus ending discussion.

There are people who will unrec a thread simply because of a disagreement rather than on whether or not the topic is really worth discussing. Thus, the GP gets watered down.

[Ken Burch]

142. What does that mean "more representative of how the majority of DU'ers feel"

That's a very suspicious-sounding phrase.

Is there really a need to enforce more intellectual conformity here?

Especially since every left-of-center idea that ever emerged(and all important ideas in history)started as a minority opinion?

[omega minimo]

165. It means that some people think they know what that is.

[Egnever]

193. Irony

Love it!

[chill_wind]

75. Anonymous clicks without comment do nothing to shape or sharpen debates or thicken skins.

[moggie]

88. Which applies equally to the 'recommend' button

There used to be threads on the "greatest" page which consisted of little more than "rec this if you agree with x". So much for stimulating debate!

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. Agreed. Stifling of free speech would be restricting one's ability to post in the first place.

It doesn't have to be on the Greatest page to be debated does it?

[obliviously]

78. Umm! N/T

[Hannah Bell]

81. problem is, they're not *saying* "i don't like what you have to say"

they're just unreccing.

people were discussing *before* the dumb unrec feature.

your spin is just that. it's nothing to do with thick or thin skin. it's to do with keeping unpopular threads off the front page. period.

[druidity33]

84. mostly

i skipped over threads i didn't find worthwhile... without comment. Now if i think the thread is worthless i can unrec before i head back into the waters. It hasn't affected how i post, just enabled me to express displeasure at a topic/poster/idea without having a ridiculous, childish back and forth, where no one's mind has been changed and no consensus has been reached. Not to mention the serious waste of time of said discussion.

I like the new feature. It certainly DOES NOT prohibit me from arguing a position, it just puts another tool in my toolbox. But then again i use the ignore feature liberally... again, just another tool. Do you disapprove of that feature too?

:shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

86. your "toolbox". lol

[a la izquierda]

87. +1

[WolverineDG]

89. No kidding

Just reading some of the responses to this thread makes me shake my head. All this drama over a stupid button? Seriously? (I'm not talking about you, Lynne; thanks for a good post on this)

I don't check the number of rec's a post has before I click on it to read it; I pick & chose the ones that look interesting. If I think it's worthy of getting a rec from me, I give it one. I hadn't realized I was supposed to be showing my support for free speech by rec'ing every damn thread I've read. :eyes:

Not sure how I'll use the unrec, though, probably mostly on flamebait. But some of you need to get a grip. It's just a button feature on DU. No one's forcing you to use it. :eyes:

dg

[Pacifist Patriot]

90. I chalk it up to knee jerk negativity with regard to change.

Some people simply do not adjust well to change. It is neither a bad nor a good trait it is just a part of how they handle their environment. We need mavericks and freight trains in a healthy community. Too many mavericks and you make reckless changes. Too many freight trains and you make no changes at all.

The claims of censorship are not justified when considered rationally, but I understand why someone might make that leap if they are change-adverse.

If a post appeals to someone they can:

a) bookmark it
b) print it
c) note it's topic and search for it later

Just because it does not make the Greatest Page or falls off the Greatest Page does not mean it is being censored.

Here is a basic formula for change.

1. Suggest a change from A to B.

No! We've always done it the A way! We love A!

2. Make a change from A to B.

Ack! This is awful!

3. Persist for a week with B.

The calm before the storm.

4. Suggest a change from B to C.

No! We've always done it the B way! We love B!

Give it a chance. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, I've never met a software code that was chiseled in granite.

[CreekDog]

93. I would respond but I'm busy unrecommending "Indigo" threads

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

96. Re: "When I read I look for titles that interest me."

Me too. K&R. I have little interest in what's popular in the eyes of other people.

:kick:

[zeemike]

97. I would agree that we need thicker skins.

And in some way it seems to me that it was due the thin skin of some that we have the un-R now. They did not like the fact that something or someone they disapproved of made it to the greatest page... so they sought to influence that. It was because some were OFFENDED that we need to have the U.

And I also remember the same argument used to defend the ending of the Fairness doctrine of the media....It does not stifle free speach... Nothing catastrophic is going to happen if we get rid of this fairness doctron....And that was all true too, that we can all agree on, but the question is is it a good thing?

I see it as a tool to take away someone's reward from his fellow posters. And that reward is to encourage people and should not be used to fight with....but it will.

[Beam Me Up]

98. Yep. What you said.

[LynneSin]

105. Wow a rewards for finding 50 people to agree without the worry of those disagreeing having an affect

Nice

:eyes:

The winners are people who post threads that appeal to all DUers and not those who can manipulate the system to get their agenda on the DU home page. That doesn't mean anyone's style of posting has to change, just means that the system finally works the way it was intended to work when we first got it.

[zeemike]

120. Yes and now the other side can manipulate the system.

And keep others from getting their agenda on the home page...And was that the intent of the system to make opinions democratic? And perhaps weed out those that did not appeal to the majority?

[LynneSin]

121. Did you ever think those 2 sides will collide and out will come ideas

that are well accepted by everyone at DU.

God forbid that happens.

[zeemike]

124. Well when all ideas are well accepted on DU

I am out of here.
But those two sides collide right now because to oppose an idea you have to post it...but with this new button your disapproval can be expressed by a click....no need to trouble yourself with formulating any counter to it.

[LynneSin]

128. This is the problem - we're having hissy fits over what shows up on the DU homepage

the rest of it - who cares?

Most of us don't even bother with the rec count when deciding which articles to read. Ther are other factors to consider such as the title of the thread, the poster and how many replies it has received so far. There are countless ways that I decide which threads I'll read and none of them have anything to do with how many times it's recommend. And you'll find most DUers feel the same exact way.

What this all boils down too is a few DUers afraid their thread might get hit with a <0 and find out that not everyone agrees with them. For that - get a thicker skin. Seriously! I learned that ages ago and try not to take the whole thing so personally.

[zeemike]

164. I don't think you get my point.

It has nothing to do with the greatest page.
So what if there are people that try very hard to get the recs and get some pleasure in knowing there posts made it to the home page.
so what if only 5 people in the old system could make them feel better, wanted and respected, and yes even loved for a little while?
Are these people not deserving of that attention?

Everyone knows about the carrot and stick...but we tend to forget that the carrot is much preferred when dealing with humans. And that is because they take the stick personally.

The Rec function was a carrot and the more recs you got the bigger the carrot. and those carrots made people feel good and hurt no one.
Now we introduce the stick...the Un Rec to punish them (if only in their mind) if they do not meet the approval of all. And it makes the board safe for vendettas and all sorts of social gaming which in the long run will make a lot of people have negative feelings. And negativity has a way of taking over.

[Liberation Angel]

189. See LynneSin, DU's homepage and GP have influence- so killing threads

is a way to keep some ideas and discussions from getting much exposure.

The reality is that DU has influence both on its members, but also on people who browse it for info and ideas AND for people in the media who take info here and spread it around. Politicl sorts post here and observe. Trends by political analysts can be spotted here.

i worked on the Hill and I know how these things work.

Corporations spend many millions of dollars figuring out how to manipualte the internet to pomote their products or issues. They do this surreptiiously.

People are paid to talk about products, for example, on discussion boards.

But when it comes to political issues, especially pressing ones, public opinion cn be influenced to some degree by DU. Folks who are well informed and who are seeking info come here. But they do not have unlimited time. They go to the home page and the latest threads and LBN and the greatest (that's whaat I do when I am not posting or following threads.

DU is a political activism site. So mainstreaming the agenda serves a center-right agenda IMHO and by permitting small factions to kill threads (or marginalize them, making them less visible) with the unrec function, keeps us weaker and less effective at bringing about change.

Now in most instances I support a broad consensus. But when a small minority can kill the visibility of an issue or an idea using the unrec function, DU becomes hobbled.

Free speech is designed to protect even the most repugnant ideas. Robust debate guarantees that bad ideas get put down via DEBATE. This simply enables censorship by minorities who may not at all reflect the mainstream but have hidden agendas.

I am sorry you can't see that this is more than ego drven hissy fit.

This is a battle for hearts and minds.

And the center is winning drawing us farther to the right IMHO.

[TexasObserver]

99. Yep. Look at the SCOREBOARD.

The truth that detractors cannot accept is simple: A lot of threads will get more disapproval than approval, and to some serial thread starters, this is shocking news.

[Liberation Angel]

102. and thus the system can get gamed by disruptors

it is like having an election where you get as many votes as you can organize to defeat a candidate for the greatest thread.

I would argue that in general the unrec function isn't THAT horrible an idea. If it were possible to prevent gaming it.

But there isn't a way to prevent persons with agendas to disrupt from disrupting using the unrec feature. And it can be very subtle and hard to prove or even catch.

Wonderful non controversial FLUFF will be the norm

as will things that there is a HUGE consensus on

This feature will marginalize MANY posters

and that is the problem with it

[TexasObserver]

106. That's 100% wrong, and completely lacking in logic.

Under the old system, any five posters could send a thread to the Greatest page. Now, it takes a majority of respondents to do so.

Just as you cannot accept that your point of view is not logical or fact based, you cannot accept that your threads are rejected. Not by disruptors, but by ordinary DUers who don't think your threads are worthy of recommending.

[Liberation Angel]

147. Your opinion is 100% wrong nd neglects the facts that organized disruptors

or even just lobbying contingents for certain viewpoints, can skew the results via stealth organizing

I have no problme with a straight up vote.

But this is like Florida 2000 election. The votes can be rigged by NONordinary DUers.

[TexasObserver]

152. You are delusional if you think disruptors and trolls are the reason for Unrecommends.

It's just ordinary DU members voting their opinions.

You are paranoid, and you should think about that, instead of accusing those who disagree with you of being political dirty tricksters.

[Liberation Angel]

186. I never said that - but this is an ad hominem attack so cut it out

Calling me delusional and paranoid is simply name-calling and disparagement.

Unseemly and nt very powerful argument.

Gaming the system via unrc's by unscrupulous disruptors is made easier with the unrec feature.

I NEVER said it is the REASON for unrecs.

Get a grip!

[earth mom]

108. But see, that's exactly why the OP of this thread likes the unrec feature.

:puke:

[scheming daemons]

111. "persons with agendas" were gaming the old system by sending shit threads to the GP

This is a counterbalance to that.

[Liberation Angel]

148. Nobody was gaming anythng - it was just positive support for an idea

with ONLY a rec feature the support for certain ideas can show how much support there is for it..

In my case if I post an antiNuke thread I can get support without it being amed.

Pronukers can post their threads without them being gamed.

But since they are a huge minority, they won't get much support.

The only way to see how much support for any idea is to see how many hands are raised.

But if you can game the sytem and negate the raised hands (and negate ALL the raised hands via numerous usernames and ISPs, you can control what DU stands for in its public face.

I gues maybe we could just go to all polls (which is kind of what is happening) altho they can be gamed to.

The only way to avoid the gaming is to allow each idea to see how MANY people support it and NOT how many people can derail it with the unrec feature

[Egnever]

194. So you think we should have to rec threads

just to keep crap off the greatest page? As oposed to just unrecing it. So if say 20 "disrupters" were reccing all the OMG WTF OBAMA SUXORS we would have to outrec them to push that crap off the greatest not just equal but out rec them.

I personaly think thats rediculous.

If theres a thumbs up button there should be a thumbs down button. Let the chips fall where they may.

[KatyMan]

100. I can honestly say

that the rec/unrec function has nothing to do with my use of and enjoyment of DU. I've never even noticed how many recs something has, and hardly ever rec a post to begin with. My bookmark takes me straight to the GD page, I never even see the front page or the greatest page. This to me seems like an immense tempest in a tiny teapot. I can't believe people have quit DU because of it (and another thing--if you decide to quit DU, just fucking quit don't post some big farewell thing. You make yourself look like an idiot, you make the rest of us glad you're gone, and nobody cares anyway).
So that's my 2 cents.

[scubadude]

103. More herdspeak

Yeah, I'll say it. Water down the board, who cares.

Scuba

[gkhouston]

107. Oh, bullshit.

You say "water down the board, who cares" but then contradict yourself by deriding the OP's argument as "herdspeak". Why is it herdspeak when the OP defends the use of the unrecommend feature? Are you also opposed to the use of the recommend button? They're two side of the same coin, one saying, "give this post a miss" and the other saying, "hey, check it out" and both features can potentially be misused by the "herd". The "watering down", so to speak, has already happened, and if it bothers you, then give the Greatest Page a miss. Eschew the herd altogether and find the good posts by yourself.

[scubadude]

113. No contradiction at all.

Yes, I believe the unrecommend button drives posts towards the "center" of the boards collective acceptance. It therefore promotes "herdspeak". Sometimes a small but passionate group deserves to have a point made. This move encourages generic thought.

Scuba

[gkhouston]

117. So, you find yourself to be part of a "small but passionate" group and you would

like to make points with the mainstream. You begin by characterizing them as a herd engaging in generic thought. Yeah, I can see why you might have a problem with posts getting unrecommended.

[scubadude]

125. My thoughts and contributions range the spectrum.

I guess it all gets down to how our country as a group has been herded by the Republicans. There has been a concerted effort post Nixon by the Republicans to move the political conversation to the right. A part of this is their effort to demonized the word "Liberal". Unfortunately to a fair degree the plan has worked. I no longer feel that the centrists are indeed where the center should be. This shows up on DU too. How could it not?

Therefore anything that hinders free thought and expression, including any effort to diminish recognition, is in my opinion a bad move. I believe we need to drag the conversation back to the left, even leftward of the generic DU position. We have been manipulated and need to recover. Until we do, we will have to put up with Blue Dogs, who really are just left leaning Republicans in many respects.

Scuba

[dionysus]

109. there's really not enough of them to un-rec this lynne, that's why they are so mad.

[scheming daemons]

112. Bingo! The disruptors now have less power than before

Before... they could send shit threads to the GP.

Now they can't.

[dionysus]

114. but this makes them

ANGRY!!!!!11!11!!1!!11!!

[scubadude]

115. Everyone has less power than before. That's the point. nt

[Liberation Angel]

151. Not really - they can keep excellent threads OUT of the GP too

This is a godsend for disruptors in my opinion because now they can hide behind the unrec button and never even peep while they disrupt.

[Egnever]

195. Clearly they cant as this thread made it no problem

The viewpoints most representative of the DU readership will now be much more acurately reflected on the greatest. This thread and the counters to it are a shining example of exactly how it will work.

[guitar man]

110. exactly

:thumbsup:

Of course, there are always some big crybabies in every crowd :eyes:

[onehandle]

116. Recommended. nt

[bridgit]

126. Until they came for my thread ~

[Flying Dream Blues]

130. Exactly! nt

[Odin2005]

132. The fact that in-recs kept my rant thread off the greatest means it's working properly.

:)

[OhioChick]

133. Tired eyes...Thought the title was "People need to show some skin around here." n/t

[Forkboy]

136. Now THAT I'll rec.

:P

[Ken Burch]

143. Depending on the people, of course.

:eyes:

Some could probably do with showing less(myself probably included).

[misanthrope]

134. Thin skin has been a chief attribute of DU for a looooooong time**nm

**

[Life Long Dem]

145. I didn't do it.

[JitterbugPerfume]

146. free speech is protection from government interference

on a website it is whatever the owner of said site says it is

[Liberation Angel]

149. Free really isn't free I guess but the sad thing is

disruptors could disrupt freely now if they want to.

And you know they will.

And they won't have to do anything but hit a button

[LynneSin]

159. They were already disrupting

trust me - they could just as easily taking some batshit crazy poster with a crazy idea and get that pushed under the old system.

It works both ways. Perhaps instead of us blaming everyone else for "why don't they like my post" - why not look at the content and question if it has limited appeal or the type of appeal that reaches out to all DUers.

The only thing it changes is the greatest page - geez!

[Life Long Dem]

172. And you blame them?

[Life Long Dem]

174. No, you just pretend to blame someone,

but don't know what your talking about.

[Martin Eden]

150. I took your advice ...

... and un-recommended your post.

Qwitcher complainin & grow some thick skin yerself. Casting one's vote up or down does not stifle free speech -- it merely guages the popularity/perceived importance of a thread in the DU community. The option to un-recommend a thread is no less valuable a guage of this community's reaction to it than the number of positive recommendations -- moreso perhaps, because it enables members who disagree to participate in the quantitative "Greatest" assessment.

[LynneSin]

161. OMG you made me cry

:cry:

:eyes:

[Martin Eden]

173. That wasn't my intention ...

... but your response (though meant as sarcasm) does suggest an emotional rather than logical understanding of the issue(s) you raised.

It saddens :cry: me that you chose not to offer a substantive response to my thoughts on the un-recommend function. :P

[scubadude]

182. Gauges popularity.... Yeah, it's all a popularity contest afer all.

I always look for variety in my information, but it looks like some prefer their info to have a generic quality.

Our liberal message has been diluted by over 40 years of Republican/Big-Business manipulation. Why should DU be any different? I guess some of the folks here like group-speak. I don't mind being in the minority, I'm a Democrat after all. Not a middle of the road Democrat, but a far left one, and I see this as just one more move to dilute this forum. Too bad.

Scuba

[Martin Eden]

184. ... and perceived importance.

Some things ARE important, and some things less so. Some threads (like this one) that rise towards the top of the Greatest Page are IMO inflated relative to more important information. That's just my opinion of course, just like everyone else who hits the recommend or un-recommend button. Call it "popularity" or opinion, I think the "Greatest" function has value in an online community that has grown as large as this one because otherwise some very good threads would sink below the attention of members who don't have the time to thoroughly review all the forums.

Sure, some people here engage in groupthink, but if the heated exchanges are any indication there are plenty of divergent views as well in this left side of the spectrum. DU can be disappointing and aggravating at times, but it's still worthwhile (for me, anyway) to keep popping my head back in here after YOU turned me on to it more than 7 years ago.

So ultimately, it's all your fault :evilgrin:

[scubadude]

198. Fault yeah, it became an affliction for me.

Thousands of hours pouring over this board, at first contributing some news myself, but then eventually using it almost exclusively as a news source. You can't beat a site that has thousands of liberals combing the world for news, as long as it's not driven to be generic!

I agree there are many important things brought up here. I hope it stays vibrant and doesn't end up as one more middle of the road sites where alternate views are ridiculed and marginalized, which I see happening at an increasing pace here. That is why anything that messes with the format disturbs me.

Scuba

[gleaner]

153. Beautiful post...

As a lowly newcomer, I still think that your words are very meaningful. I won't recommend your post because you asked later in the thread to have some one un recommend it, but if you change your mind, I'll be happy to recommend it.

You make some necessary points about free speech. I come here to read what other people are saying, and to express my own thoughts on subjects of interest to me. It doesn't matter to me where I find the threads I respond to, I look for them and respond wherever they are. Recognition is fine when you can get it, but that's not the reason I post here. I post here to share thoughts with the others who post here whatever their ideology is. Who knows? Maybe someone will even think about what I post and take something away from reading it. Or maybe not. Either way I have said what I think and sometimes that is all a person can do.

[Autonomy]

154. How dare you! How dare you, I say!

JK. So, are ppl up in arms over the unrecommend thing or something? WHATEV.

[GinaMaria]

157. Private Property

One of the many limits to free speech is that there is no right to free speech on private property. This is the reason your crazy neighbor cannot post a Palin/McCain sign in your yard. He has no right to free speech on your private property. DU is private property. It is not publically funded and therefore can limit the content of the site. You should have no expectation of free speech here or on any private property. (btw...I learned this on DU)

Instead of growing thicker skin, it's important to understand our rights our not unlimited. It may be worthwhile for those with legal backgrounds to start posts discussing the limits to our rights. I know I could always learn more.

[Jennicut]

162. Agreed. We have the ability to yell at each other on message boards

Look at Iran...censorship left and right.

[omega minimo]

169. Cowhide.

:hi:

[eppur_se_muova]

171. One suggested configuration ...

Thick skin is nice, but I'd like to have that thing on the tail. :D

[Wetzelbill]

176. I just unrec'd this thread for the fun of it

But really, I agree. :)

[MrMickeysMom]

179. So, I see your "unrecommend" and raise you one "recommend"

Too bad I don't have no more chips at the table.... :-(

[Wetzelbill]

183. I tip my hat to you

Nice move.

[chill_wind]

181. Under the old format, it was a LONG WAY from 5 stagnant recs to ideas getting traction

and garnering LOTS of recs and discussion. I submit that many that favor this new feature didn't care about what actually (but often barely) made it to the GP nearly as much as what continued to generate visible support, accumulated recs and attention and often reached the top hotspots. The simplistic "tyranny of 5" is a bogus objection. Once on the GP, stuff of interest and merit had its own way of self-selecting, and stuff that died at the bottom stayed at the bottom.

The object of this new game seems to seek to keep a lot of that more controversial stuff from igniting at all, by keeping it off the GP completely.

[Liberation Angel]

187. Absolutely correct AND it is easily manipulable by bad actors: so marginalization is inevitable

whike mainstream good ideas which are relatively harmless will get lots of love. the edges will get marginalized.

Good ideas that are either not mainstream or which are anathema to the right will get dumped forever under this system.

I suspect the admins will figure this out.

[PatSeg]

185. I had no problem with the new feature at first

until I realized that freeper trolls could be using the feature to sink certain threads. Personally, I would prefer that a thread would show the "recs" and "unrecs" as separate numbers. A lot of sites have such a feature.

Overall, I don't think it is major issue and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[Liberation Angel]

188. Unrecs will result in bland oatmeal and marginalization of our rough edges

cool ideas which draw flies and trolls will get killed with the click of a button.

At least with a rec button only people have to EXPRESS why they think an idea sucks.

Now they just point and shoot to kill a thread and with a little tag team on some issues any idea NOT mainstream oatmeal will get killed off.

Befpre trolls needed to turn something into a flamefest to get it locked or sunk or would bait folks to kil a thread.

Now they can just play with their unrec button 24/7.

Anything which is slightly fringey will eat dust.

[Liberation Angel]

190. Lynnesin: This is Mainstreaming and marginalizing the left at DU

See LynneSin, DU's homepage and GP have influence- so killing threads

is a way to keep some ideas and discussions from getting much exposure.

The reality is that DU has influence both on its members, but also on people who browse it for info and ideas AND for people in the media who take info here and spread it around. Politicl sorts post here and observe. Trends by political analysts can be spotted here.

i worked on the Hill and I know how these things work.

Corporations spend many millions of dollars figuring out how to manipualte the internet to pomote their products or issues. They do this surreptiiously.

People are paid to talk about products, for example, on discussion boards.

But when it comes to political issues, especially pressing ones, public opinion cn be influenced to some degree by DU. Folks who are well informed and who are seeking info come here. But they do not have unlimited time. They go to the home page and the latest threads and LBN and the greatest (that's whaat I do when I am not posting or following threads.

DU is a political activism site. So mainstreaming the agenda serves a center-right agenda IMHO and by permitting small factions to kill threads (or marginalize them, making them less visible) with the unrec function, keeps us weaker and less effective at bringing about change.

Now in most instances I support a broad consensus. But when a small minority can kill the visibility of an issue or an idea using the unrec function, DU becomes hobbled.

Free speech is designed to protect even the most repugnant ideas. Robust debate guarantees that bad ideas get put down via DEBATE. This simply enables censorship by minorities who may not at all reflect the mainstream but have hidden agendas.

I am sorry you can't see that this is more than ego drven hissy fit.

This is a battle for hearts and minds.

And the center is winning drawing us farther to the right IMHO.

[jeff30997]

196. I totally agree.

Very well said. :thumbsup:

[Liberation Angel]

197. Appreciated

thx

[Rex]

199. Thick skin at DU?

When did that start?