Skinner, can you PLEASE develop an "Unreccommend" function for posts here?

[northernsoul]

I think even most cursory perusual of the mindless, bottom-feeding filth in GDP today will explain the rationale for my request.

Thank you for your consideration.

[Vanje]

1. What shall we call it?

...Suckcommend?

[mike_c]

3. I vote for "shit-can"

eom

[northernsoul]

7. Yeah, I like that.

Skinner, I hereby request that we have a "Shitcan" button!

[slackmaster]

32. How about making a link called "Alert" that flags it for the moderators?

I think that would be terrific.

[lame54]

2. No - I will not "explain the rationale for your request".

:rofl: :sarcasm: :rofl:

[enlightenment]

4. Perhaps just disable the "recommend" function in GD:P?

Not that it will make much difference - the nastiness has infiltrated everywhere, like cockroaches.

[madinmaryland]

5. Can I unrecommend this thread, then?

:hide:

[northernsoul]

8. Sure, knock yerself out!

[TahitiNut]

6. No, please DON'T facilitate such "wars" on DU, Skinner.

Such a mechanism would merely exacerbate the pissing contests.

Thank you for your consideration.

[northernsoul]

11. I respectfully disagree

I think that part of what causes the proliferation of sheer flame-bait posts that when some moron who supports candidate X writes a "Candidate Y Eats Babies" there are enough other morons who K&R that post right onto the greatest page. The only way the morons who support candidate Y can react is by posting a "Candidate X Wipes His Ass with the American Flag," post, which in turn gets K&R'd by that candidate's moron supporters. Now we have two posts on the greatest page which should embarrass the bejeebers out of any self-respecting Democrat.

The ideal solution would be for the non-moron supporters of each candidate to tell the morons on their respective sides to STFU already, but that doesn't appear to be happening.

[DireStrike]

17. Usually there are a handful of thoughtful posts in the moron posts

along the lines of "I support X, but this is just stupid." These are ignored by everyone.

I like the "unrecommend" idea. You can just put it next to the number of recommends. If both numbers are high, you can skip the thread, since it's definitely a pissing contest.

[TahitiNut]

19. The problem isn't the tool. The problem is the emotional & intellectual maturity of those using it.

Hammers and saws in the hand of 2-year-olds. Irresponsible/immature behavior isn't "fixed" by handing out more tools.

[northernsoul]

22. Point taken

I just wish there were better self-policing mechanisms for those of us who actually used to come here for substantive political discussion, who are now finding that our former online refuge has been over-run by puerile imbecility. I appreciate your viewpoint on the matter, however.

[KoKo]

27. HA! It's been so long since I've seen a "substantive political discussion" on DU

I can't remember. Maybe back in 2002?

Only Campaign Ops post here anymore with their "peeps." Been that way for awhile...

[TahitiNut]

31. As long as DU wallows in the "WHO" instead of the "WHAT" ...

... we'll see the adolescent Heroes/Villains game being played. Messenger-oriented instead of message-oriented shows especially in the PERSONAL ATTACKS that are a plague. I'm convinced that a majority of the more "energetic" posters are fundamentally without the mental/emotional acumen to distinguish between an attack of the content of a post and an attack on the person of the poster - as demonstrated by behavior. After all, it's far too often stated that anyone who prefers Obama is a "fucking sexist pig" and anyone who prefers Clinton is a "damned racist scum." The insane ascription of bigotry to someone with an opposing view seems to infect far too many on DU - and, strangely enough, demonstrates a kind of bigotry itself.

[JohnnyLib2]

34. Yes, yes, yes.

Call it what it is. This stuff won't work in real-life canvassing and so forth. I'm thinking that some hard lessons will be learned.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

14. Agreed. Let the GD-P idiocy receive full and fair scrutiny.

The only thing I'd suggest is upping the bar for how many recs land it on the Greatest, but maybe later, when we're less sock puppet infested.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. There's this little thing called Hide Thread ya know. nt

[northernsoul]

16. Sure, I'm talking about threads that I want to be explicitly disassociated from

As a Democrat and as a supporter of one of the primary candidates. It's kind of a "get off my side" thing.

[NightWatcher]

10. in lieu of reccommend, how bout a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down'

that would show how many agree with the post and how many disagree

[northernsoul]

13. That sounds like a better solution

I don't really want to see threads be summarily executed, but today I've found myself really, really wanting to find a way to register my profound disagreement with some posts coming from people who purportedly support the same candidate as me.

[NightWatcher]

23. if you like the idea, send it to Skinner

[DireStrike]

18. Yep, that's the ticket

We don't have to invent a word for that one! Although "unrecommend" sounds awesome, like unsummon.

[L. Coyote]

12. If easy, add sorts by recs and views.

[earth mom]

15. No. The freepers would love nothing better than another way to trash DU. nt

[DireStrike]

21. Hrm I didn't think of that

Yeah, this forum is the target of a lot of outsiders.

I've changed my opinion like 3 times in the course of reading and responding to this thread. Your post makes it easy to see that this is censorship, soft as it may be. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - censorship is sometimes necessary, we shouldn't stigmatize normal words the way the GOP does "Amnesty". But censorship it is.

[northernsoul]

33. It doesn't censor anything - it keeps garbage posts off the Greatest page

n/t

[Greyskye]

26. 'recommend/un-recommend' only available to donors?

That would keep that from happening, unless they were helping to support DU financially. :evilgrin:

[TacticalPeek]

20. Sad, how frustration and impotence lead so often to suppressive, authoritarian actions

Sad, how frustration and impotence lead so often to suppressive, authoritarian actions to not merely limit but eliminate differing views.

[northernsoul]

24. How does an "unreccommmend" feature eliminate differing views?

All it would do is keep posts that a sufficient number of community members find unworthy from appearing on the Greatest page. How is allowing a negative feedback option authoritarian?

I appreciate your concern for DU's relatively laissez-faire ethos, but I think that it is currently being abused and that there should be some mechanism by which DUers can explicitly demonstrate their negative evaluation of posts which offer nothing but human degradation in the name of hyper-partisanship.

[stillrockin]

25. Great idea. Let's suppress one another's opinions.

:sarcasm:

[robcon]

28. The need for some people to censor others is strong.

I ignore most flamebait, and I don't need anyone to tell me to avoid some discussion.

[KoKo]

29. Unrecommend would get hundreds of "peeps" unrecommending the posts they don't like.

It would work in reverse of what you want...

[girl gone mad]

30. Unkicked and unrecommended!

oh, wait..

[IronLionZion]

35. Can you please learn to not click on threads you don't want to click on?

you can block GDP from showing up in the latest and greatest pages for you in preferences. Use it my friend. Censor yourself. Only YOU can decide what to read, what to think, what to believe, and how to feel about it. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Use it or lose it.

[woo me with science]

36. What the hell is wrong with you? nt