The Final Solution to the Rec/Unrec argument

[cherokeeprogressive]

I propose this:

DU should have a page that CONTRIBUTING members can access that shows DU'ers listed by screen names and their Rec/Unrec statistics. NOT which OP's they've rec'd or unrecc'd, but how may recs they have made vs the number of unrecs.

NON-members, and members who don't contribute should be denied access to the page, just as non-members and those members who DON'T contribute are barred from the Search page.

Done.
'

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. Honestly I'd be fine with it if only members who gave 5 or 10 bux could post or rec/unrec.

It would solve a lot of problems IMHO.

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. I don't know that I'd go so far as to limit posts to those who contribute...

But I'd deny those who don't access to the statistics.

That way, DU could shield those members who rec or unrec from lurkers and trolls. At the same time, contributing DU'ers could see statistics relating to how a member recs or unrecs.

[question everything]

2. Why? What is going to be accomplished?

I can tell you that since this U ended the pages of DU, I have recommended more than I have in the past several years.

When I think of this, I search the pages and R every post that has less than 0, regardless of the topic. I may have U a couple.

I think that the U function is a sneaky way to go behind the rules of DU saying that one should not stalk or pick up on another DUer. But this is what many do.

So the ones who dislike the U, instead of just wringing their hands should spend a few minutes to R all the ones that are less than 0.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. "I search the pages and R every post that has less than 0, regardless of the topic."

I'd bet that's a LIE.

You're telling me that if an OP said NUCLEAR ENERGY was the only way toward a future where carbon based fuels ceased to pollute the environment and should be pursued got a hundred UNREC's, you'd rec it just as a matter of principle in the context of rec vs unrec?

[question everything]

14. Yes. Because many of the Us are simply mean

Most of the Us are not about anything that would stir strong reactions. There are cliques on DU. There are DUers who would get a bunch of R for simply sneezing, and there are others who would post a thoughtful idea and immediately would get a U just because.

In most cases there are too many U for my one R to make a difference but just this evening - not many on the board now - I changed several to 0 instead o less than 0.

The most idiotic "rationale" that I've heard was that some did not want a topic to "make" it to the Greatest Page. I don't know that stats, but I am sure that less than 1% of all posts make it to that page. So instead of just ignoring a post and let it sink, someone, anonymously, of course, has to vent his frustration with the world by giving someone else a U. Which, I suppose, is better than fighting with one's spouse - if he is married, or kicking the dog.

I think that each post has to be locked for about 5 minutes before it can get a U. If someone really wants to U it, let him come back after five minutes. I will bet you that the number of posts with "less than 0" will drop precipitously.

P.S. I did R the OP but it obviously did not help much.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. Oh I knew that it would get negative recs just because of the subject line.

Final Solution. Think about how ugly that phrase is.

I used it on purpose, for no other reason than to get people to look. I KNEW it would be controversial. That alone caused it to go negative within a minute of the time it was posted.

I love the unrec feature, and hope it stays. But, what fun it would be to know how many recs vs unrecs those DU'ers we respect the most have made!

[Maru Kitteh]

5. There is already a final solution. People need to just get over themselves already.

[azmouse]

13. +1

[Kahuna]

28. +2

:eyes:

[Toucano]

30. +3

Such vanity and inflated sense of self-importance.

It's like 5 year olds!

[CakeGrrl]

6. Sounds like a way to profile DUers

I'm sure EVERYONE would just keep that information to themselves and not be compelled to comment on it at all.

:sarcasm:

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. It might be.

Have you ever seen a post where one of the responses said "Who unrecc'd this post?"

Have you ever seen a thread where DU'ers use that as a THREAT?

"I hope the mods are keeping track of who unrecc'd this post"

My proposal is merely to have a page where CONTRIBUTORS could see statistics geared to how many recs/unrecs a particular poster has. NOT which threads said poster rec'd or unrecc'd.

[TahitiNut]

7. Yeah ... because it's all about kangaroo courts and not about discussion.

Whyizzit the distinction between "message" and "messenger" is so difficult to grasp?

:eyes:

[LostInAnomie]

8. I'm pretty sure the "Final Solution" was when the admins said it's here to stay as is.

People need to get the fuck over it.

[Vickers]

9. Unrec'ed on principle.

I Unrec every thread that mentions the Unrec function.

BUT, I also, like DUer Question Everything above, Rec everything that is under zero, unless it's something obviously stupid, freeperish, or badmouths one of my heroes *cough* The Ramones *coughcough*.

Frankly I think that change on this site is better realized through direct appeals to TPTB and not through actions such as this, which are doomed to fail by their very nature.

[BlooInBloo]

12. Ditto.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Your one word response is like a feather in my cap. You've posted eleventy billion times

and used fourteen words total.

I feel like Steve Martin telling everyone that he's "somebody" because his name is in the phone book.

You responded to my post with a single word. In the context of a public message board, and the number of posts you've racked up, I hold myself amongst those whose arguments you couldn't refute, and so responded to with nary an argument.

[BlooInBloo]

29. Always happy to please.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. Re: your first paragraph, I DO AS WELL. n/t

[leftstreet]

10. And then we could distribute scarlet Rs and Us!

:eyes:

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. Wrong

[azmouse]

11. Oh geez... just drop it already.

Skinner says it's staying and we should have privacy with how we rate the threads. sheesh... :eyes:


psssst... I didn't rate this one. If it's unrecced it's others doing it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Fuckin' A, this is the FIRST post I've made re rec vs unrec where I haven't made an unqualified

comment SUPPORTING the Unrec feature.

[DRoseDARs]

22. Well, CP, everyone has to step in it at least once eventually...

I hope this post counts as MY "once" ;)

[earth mom]

20. Good idea but the cheerleaders don't want anyone to know how they are gaming the system.

They have been gaming the rec/unrec since day one.

So turn about is fair play. I love to UNREC in GD-P. :evilgrin:

[TexasObserver]

23. Better yet, a brand new Crying Towel Forum for those who hate Unrecommend.

[TheKentuckian]

24. If I unrec ya. I'll tell you why and have no problem with it being on record.

I've used it a handful of times and it's not really about disagreeing on ideas but reality.

I will say that it seems that the people that wanted the feature the most are most resentful and agitated about it's use, which seems kinda cheesy and WEAK but whatever. Unrec, hide thread, and hide user seem to stink of intolerance, thin skin, and general anti-liberalness to me. Of course I'm not even much about flushing the trolls even unless they are actually disruptive rather than just SOP stupid but that's me, I gots to kick it civil libertarian style as much as is possible.

[Kaleva]

25. What would your proposal accomplish?

[Emit]

26. Many DUers cannot contribute for financial reasons

so you want to discriminate against us?

[Faux pas]

27. Unrec b/c whining about the unrec feature is so two months ago.

Get over it, there are much bigger and scarier problems out there in the real world.

PS-I mostly enjoy your posts.

[cwydro]

31. I always say when I have unrecced a post.

Unrec.