Solution to the unrecommended discussion...

[Stuart G]

A neutral choice. It has already been mentioned, but it will work.

The neutral choice would be used by moderators and those who can see that the unrec is being abused in a particular situation.

A few hits at the neutral choice would return the status of the thread to neutral, where many really belong.
Not the best or the worst..just kinda something to look at..
.Thanks for looking at this one.

[Vickers]

1. How is the rec/unrec thing being "abused" ?

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

2. You want to give the moderators the ability to over ride the function?

I don't think so. Moderators are supposed to be as neutral as possible vs getting into it in threads.

[Stuart G]

3. No, of course not, Each moderator has the same vote as all members.

One vote for each poster no matter who he/she is. No, no one would have the right to rule against the majority. This would offer one more option for all to see. Sorry if I gave that impression.

[Ms. Toad]

8. If it isn't a special power, it already exists

just don't vote - not voting has the exact same impact as voting neutral. Rec votes are +1, unrec are -1, neutral would be 0, or the same thing as not voting.

[obliviously]

14. Some times I put a hex on them.

and wish a pox on all those recommending them!

[Ms. Toad]

17. Not a hex!!!!!

Pox doesn't scare me - I'm old enough to be vaccinated against it!

[obliviously]

18. I only do that to really bad posts!! N/T

[uppityperson]

22. Don't they already have the ability to rec? I don't see what the difference would be. Serious here

not snarking but I don't see what the difference would be. If they did a "rec", that would do the same as "A few hits at the neutral choice would return the status of the thread to neutral, where many really belong."

[NightWatcher]

4. who cares about the unrec function

sure, I'll unrec something if I dont agree with it, but aside from that, I dont judge a thread by the number of recs or unrecs.

[elocs]

5. No solution is needed since this has already been decided by Skinner, the owner.

Game over.

[Stuart G]

7. Skinner said he would look at all options, this is an option

that adds another dimension. It should be considered too.

[elocs]

21. No matter what is done, somebody will not like it, somebody will be pissed.

There's no point in constantly tinkering with this because it will be impossible to please everyone or to devise a perfect system. This is what we have now and it is working, but again, somebody will always be pissed or dissatisfied. People do not like change and DUers are people too.

[WeDidIt]

6. Better solution

If you don't like the unrec feature, don't unrec any threads.

[Stuart G]

9. I don't plan to use this feature. but some may abuse it.

My hope is to add another option. Not remove what is already there.

[MADem]

10. There's no problem, why look for a solution?

Get used to it. The feature is here to stay. It's improved the GP no end.

You do know the admins can tell who is rec'ing and un-rec'ing, don't you? They already know who is being "abusive."

They can also tell if you vote for George Bush in the "Greatest President Ever" poll. Every time you click, they can figure out who did the clicking. It's their site, after all. We're just guests here.

[Stuart G]

12. There is a problem, this will not go away, and I have tried to be honest

about it. It is my view. Perhaps you do not see it, but it is there.
.. A week from now this will still be a point of contention. Not by me, but by some. It is there, and as long as the unrec option exists alone, this problem will be there. Thank you

[MADem]

15. Some light reading for you, written by the guy who OWNS this site.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner

But hey, keep it up, if that floats your boat.

Maybe you can start your own forum without the dreaded feature, and that will solve your agita.

[havocmom]

16. The problem seems to be the fact that some here want to be the deciders

The solution is for them to create their own sites where they can be the boss. I just don't see Skinner as being willing to do so much work to make this site operate then give over control to anybody who wants to piss and moan about how it works.

If you want it your way, the internet is big enough for you to start a site and have it your way. What is the problem?

[HughMoran]

11. Neutral already exists - it's called NOT VOTING!

I just don't get the fabrication of a problem where none exists.

[BlooInBloo]

13. There's no problem to solve.

[TexasObserver]

19. So, you have a solution for something that isn't a problem.

The unrecommend votes are exactly the way they're supposed to be. Simply because one would vote differently than the majority have voted does not mean the system is flawed, only your expectations.

[LostInAnomie]

20. Seems to be working great to me.

Good thing it's here to stay.