The UNrec discussion misses the point completely.

[lumberjack_jeff]

On the one hand, there have been several OPs suggesting that this is a mechanism to suppress the poster's opinions.
On the other, there have been MANY suggesting that discomfort with the idea is simply the whining of losers who can't write.

This isn't about anyone individually. I write OP's infrequently. I visit here because I like to read a broad range of intelligent and articulate viewpoints within the broad frame of progressivism. When I do write an OP, I don't do it for the purposes of trolling for recommends, I do it because it's a topic about which I think is important and under-discussed. If I get some recommends, it's a pleasant surprise.

With all due respect to some of the very good writers here, the formula for getting on the greatest page isn't mysterious. The current top OP is a great example. Everyone in the tribe loved Andy, of course it's on the top of the list... the fact that it's also about ambiguously-defined healthcare reform is a bonus. Specificity ("Mandatory"? When you said universal, I didn't know you meant me!!") would not help in this regard.

The fact that it's less than 30 words gives it superstar status.

I dislike this feature (It's not a feature, it's a bug :D ) because it reinforces the prevailing groupthink, contributes to a toolset and architecture which encourages the creation of our own reality bubbles and rewards ambiguous, benign, harmless and pandering OPs.

The moat constructed around the consensus view is already deep enough. It isn't about you or me, it's about us.

[Laelth]

1. Hear, hear. n/t k&r

:dem:

-Laelth

[masuki bance]

2. I have a feeling that people think an unrec lowers their post on the

forum for some reason.

[scheming daemons]

4. I think you are right....

[scheming daemons]

3. I disagree... but I RECOMMEND.... because your post is thought-provoking and serious

[PretzelWarrior]

5. dude....I'm still going back to this. how long does a post stay on greatest page?

second, out of ALLLL the pages associated with DU, everyone is harpin on Greatest Page like it is some magical formula.

Yes, there are people in love with their names and threads landing on the greatest page. They strive to preach to the crowd to get just that.

But there are also plenty of people like you or me who just post something we feel strongly about. I see a huge diversity of ideas in that way.

The only thing I didn't like was when I crafted a post that I put a lot of thought in and it sank to the bottom like a stone. DU came up with a help for me in that regard too because I can send it to my journal where it is there for me to appreciate, copy and paste in future if need be, etc.

[BlooInBloo]

6. I like everyone getting the same amount of say what goes up there.

[Fumesucker]

11. I wasn't aware that there were posters who had less say..

I thought everyone was allowed one rec per OP, is that not so?

Edited for punctuation..

[Egnever]

30. with no way to vote it down

when the only choice is yes you dont have a say.

[OhioChick]

7. Agreed. n/t

[Xipe Totec]

8. Explain how you can argue "it reinforces the prevailing groupthink"

and then go on to say:

"It isn't about you or me, it's about us."

If it's about us, then it's about consensus.

Explain how you can argue for consensus, and against groupthink?

:shrug:

[redqueen]

9. ...

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Excellent practical demonstration of the problem.

Consensus = us.

Therefore

contrary views <> us

[Xipe Totec]

12. And yet, your OP is an appeal for consensus

Consensus on the idea that consensus should not be necessary.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. No, my OP is an appeal to tolerate some level of discord.

And in fact to encourage an architecture which promotes vigorous discussion.

[zeemike]

20. I don't think a lot of people get that point.

They think they need to sanitize things so that there own op is not challenged in any meaningfully way.
Some people would be happy and content in a world where everyone agreed with everything posted.
Just think of all the key strokes saved in such a world.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. well said. n/t

[Egnever]

31. Tolerate is not the same as glorifying

Theres plenty of tolerance for discord posts can still rise or fall in the forums based on their merit. The only change is that posts with general consensus will make it to the greatest and those without wont.

Hardly intolerant.

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. The change is that posts with any degree of controversy won't be on the greatest.

Is that what we really want? Only articles with which no one could find any fault, or even inspire enough interest to get people to unrec it out of tomfoolery or malice toward the poster?

Would Matt Taibbi get on the greatest page? Thom Hartmann? Seymour Hirsch?

Articles are less likely to rise on their merit.

[Egnever]

38. I don't see why any of those authors would be kept off the greatest

The front page should be a representation of the consensus of the site in my opinion. It shouldn't be a place for the most controversial or outlandish threads.

No one is keeping those threads from being kicked to the top for all to see who venture inside. They just wont be the first thing someone sees when the first visit the site. Nor should they be.

I don't think it comes close to approaching intolerance.

[Peacetrain]

54. Tolerating discord is a two way street..If all you have is a button to agree with..then

how where do the people who disagree with you get to vote?

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. By commenting?

:shrug:

Just an idea.

[Peacetrain]

59. Okay..same thing.. commenting if you agree or disagree..

but you have only one button to vote with..we are back to square one..

[truedelphi]

60. Thank you. You are embodying my thoughts on this

new tool.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. What I don't get is how unrecs enforce groupthink and recs don't. I think recs may in fact

be far worse in terms of groupthink.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. Recs allow strongly held minority viewpoints broader visibility.

Once they are on the greatest page, they attract the debate the topic merits. Five recommends is all that is required to give those topics that visibility. Five UNrecs, on the other hand...

"Suppress" is such a loaded word in this topic, but it's the only one available that describes what UNrec does; it reduces the visibility of controversial minority viewpoints. I don't think this helps the DU community.

In my experience, those who disagree with that, believe that rhetorical purity helps DU and that every tombstone is cause for celebration.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Except that the Greatest page is not the only place to see the posts. I almost never go there myself

When I vote is generally less about getting a vote to a page than it is shorthand for my agreement with the OP, which I may or may not choose to elaborate upon in a reply.

[truedelphi]

61. I think so also. n/t

[DevonRex]

13. So only the group thinkers who recommend a post get a voice? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. No, but they get a louder one as a reward for being in the majority. n/t

[lindisfarne]

16. Unrec - can't figure out your point or position. Unclear writing.n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Damn. Should have kept it to 30 words or less, and thrown in a LOLcat or two. n/t

[pyoom]

27. It's because you're contradicting yourself conceptually

in a number of different ways. Some of them have been pointed out upthread.

[omega minimo]

39. bullshit

:evilfrown:

[bigwillq]

19. Man, do I miss the Michael Jackson threads (nt)

[Forkboy]

21. LOL

:thumbsup:

[omega minimo]

25. It's not about us.

It's about "Us vs. Them."

Your posts on this have been excellent. I comment you for trying to OP on it. How come you have LessThanZero Recs? Does anyone know what that means? No. The tally? No. It means that however many people recced your OP -- if they bothered to and have not lost confidence in the process -- were NOT allowed their endorsement and encouragement of the OP. Whatever number of endorsements that was, have been NEGATED for unknown, unstated and arbitrary reasons by anyone who comes along and feels like :nuke: pushing the button.

This is a solution to a problem that many of us didn't know existed. If it had been more common knowledge, it would have been MENTIONED somewhere along the line. Perhaps some of us weren't privy to discussions where others carped over what was on Greatest.

The problem is not defined, as to what the offending OPs were. In reading various threads, the only clues that came up were "Obama bashing" and "fringe topics." Oh, and someone mentioned nuclear power and some other damn thing I've never seen on the Greatest Page.

So those of us surprised by the perceived NEED for the change -- let alone the change itself -- with no solid explanation, plus all the drooling excitement of all those who couldn't wait to :nuke: push the button on whatever poster or topic they personally had it in for.............

Us vs. Them. They think they are "Us" and "most everyone on DU agrees with Us and you whiners just don't like it....." :wow: Excuse me? What the fuck is that; where does that ignorant assurance come from? Is it true?

You said it quite clearly, but those posters I can't see are going to try to argue, because they are the REAL Democrats, the REAL progressives, the REAL ones worthy to decide what gets on Greatest or not. Interesting to notice how few of them actually ever offer anything THEMSELVES in OPs, well done or otherwise.

And they are in love with the "toolset and architecture" because it fills some need they have to stick it to somebody else and call it "democracy."

Even they haven't figured out that no one knows the real tallies and where all those disappearing Recs end up, in a pile, in another dungeon.

It's not an UnRec button, it's an "Us vs. Them" button. Give a hundred monkeys a typewriter and a Greatest OP might result but by gawd they can still :nuke: on the work of others.

[omega minimo]

26. kRec

[pyoom]

28. Omega, the only people thinking in "Us vs. Them" terms are those

who, post after post, can do nothing but bicker in a personal manner. Those who, every time you see them on the board, are fighting with someone.

For those people, it's only about their own sense of themselves. They've lost the bigger picture.

[omega minimo]

29. Those are the people all excited about this new way to detract

[earth mom]

32. This is the best post of this thread! It should be an OP but...

I'd hate for you to be trashed all to hell because that's probably what will happen.

Btw, Your posts on this subject have been absolutely stellar. :applause:


p.s. I just recommended this thread and it's now at ZERO, not negative Zero- should we be jumping for joy? :sarcasm:

[omega minimo]

34. Foolishness

Foolishness to think that people wouldn't enjoy pissing on each other so much.

Thanks for you feedback. :pals:

[earth mom]

35. ...

:hug:

[pecwae]

40. What are you talking about?

It has 8 votes. It's on the Greatest. I disagree with the OP, but not to the point of Unreccing it. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it just as posters are entitled to Rec it or not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Thank you for not unrecing it

It was at <0 for quite awhile.

[omega minimo]

48. It was when I posted that. And now it's at +7

Since that's the only thing the poster picked up from my post and their dense reply was

"What are you talking about?!!!!1" ................


This chilling effect continues.

[abumbyanyothername]

56. Who cares? I guess I do enough to write.

There needs to be someway to kick Michael Jackson threads and 98.9% of the Palin threads off the greatest page.

This is DU, not People magazine.

Obama bashing (cf Is Geithner part of the problem, or whatever +79 at last glance) is tolerated. Inanity and National Enquirer voyeurism is not.

[scubadude]

33. Very nicely put.

Very nice indeed! But you should look at some of the detractors posts. I'm sure you will find some using almost the same logic you have.

Scuba

[BlueIris]

37. Well said. My problem with the unrecommend thing is

simpler--its inherent meanness, but I think it can create some of the other issues you've alluded to as well.

[Arkana]

42. People are getting huffy over a feature

on an INTERNET FORUM.

ON THE INTERNET.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. You have a point.

I spend too much time here. You spend too much time here.

Maybe this is for the best. If the architecture is made less useful, perhaps we'll rediscover real life.

[omega minimo]

50. Where people are getting excited over a feature

that negates positive reinforcement of others' comments. :evilfrown: Kinda twisted, isn't it?

[BlooInBloo]

43. Trying to sell books, are ya?

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. In the words of John Luc Picard, "I find you a pitiable man".

How much fulfillment can a person get from ridiculing people to every passer-by? If you would channel your capacity for malicious snark to something productive, you could make your community (and this one) a better place.

Being antisocial doesn't necessarily make you one of the cool kids.

[BlooInBloo]

46. (a) It's "Jean", (b) He doesn't exist, (c) I don't have a big problem with ppl trying to monetize DU

It's more when they do it under the cloak of "principle" that I take issue.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Then "take issue with it" to him. n/t

[omega minimo]

51. Now it does

"Being antisocial doesn't necessarily make you one of the cool kids." :shrug:

[inna]

55. you should change your name to BooInBlue, really.

but probably you've been told that before. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

49. It was the four year anniversary of Andy's passing. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Yes. I miss him too.

That doesn't change the basic observation; the benign, moderate and uncontroversial is the only thing we will see on "the greatest" page.

[EFerrari]

53. I'm not a fan of the new thingy myself but, I think that DU

is more to the left that the majority of vocal active posters here.

[greytdemocrat]

58. LOL!!!

Boy, I haven't been logged on in quite a while and this new
unrec thingy took me by surprise.

I haven't decided if I like it yet or not. I can see where
this feature could be used to strike at people but I
don't know...

If it causes more trouble than it's worth I'm sure the
Admins will deep-six it.

Change is good!