Boojatta
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-12-09 07:45 PM
Original message |
While a thread can be rated, why isn't it enough either to see <5 or to see >4? |
|
Edited on Wed Aug-12-09 07:46 PM by Boojatta
|
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-12-09 07:46 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Well the unrec whining has *almost* stopped. I guess it's sort of like theoretical exponential decay |
|
It never *quite* goes away, just gets closer and closer.
|
Boojatta
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-12-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Why would you be unsatisfied if you could just see either... |
|
Edited on Wed Aug-12-09 07:48 PM by Boojatta
a rating of <5 or a rating of >4?
|
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-12-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. It doesn't matter if I agree with the "substantive" point or not. Unrec whining... |
Boojatta
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
10. The rules for un-rec remain unwritten. |
|
For example, I could say (note the word "could", indicating a hypothetical about to begin) that you just violated a personal rule that I have. I could say that I will respond by giving an un-rec to every thread started by you that I happen to notice in time, regardless of what "substantive" point (I'm borrowing your words and format when I write it like that) it contains.
What's interesting about that hypothetical is that I don't even know whether or not that would count as "abuse" of the un-rec system.
Is it okay to un-rec any thread, regardless of content, if it is on a topic that violates your own personal rule that the topic isn't to be discussed on DU? You already announced that you are doing that. Perhaps that's itself an abuse. I don't know that either.
One of the best things about DU is that there are written rules. I can't recall seeing any cases where a DU thread was locked on the grounds that it violates some rule that doesn't officially exist and isn't even described as a general rule but is only described in its application to the specific thread that is being locked. That kind of thing happens routinely on other message boards.
|
Obamanaut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-12-09 07:51 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Wed Aug-12-09 07:52 PM by Obamanaut
|
xultar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-12-09 07:52 PM
Response to Original message |
abumbyanyothername
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-12-09 07:53 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Is this ever going to end? |
|
I mean can we go back and debate the Federal Reserve Act too?
(That is my one bump to an unrec thread this month.)
|
smalll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-12-09 07:55 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I'm honestly confused. Can we actually see negatives, or just "less than zero"? |
|
Edited on Wed Aug-12-09 08:01 PM by smalll
I can't see negatives. I think unrec has, in the end, turned out to do the job it was set to do without causing other problems. It would be a lot worse if we could see the level of negatives. Where do we see that on a thread? (Like say, on this one.)
|
TexasObserver
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-12-09 08:38 PM
Response to Original message |
8. The best part of having Unrecommend is ... |
|
... finally being able to vote against these threads you start that always seem to be about nothing, and done badly.
Why isn't it enough to be able to see the actual number of net recommends or an indication that it is in the negative? Why can't you accept that the DU owners, admins and membership are happy with this system?
|
Boojatta
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-12-09 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. "Why isn't it enough to be able to see the actual number of net recommends or an indication... |
|
that it is in the negative?"
It is enough. It may be more than enough, and the surplus may have unexpected consequences.
|
DevonRex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 07:12 PM
Response to Original message |
Boojatta
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
Edited on Thu Aug-13-09 07:24 PM by Boojatta
thoughts prompt that sigh?
No --> Thank you for your comment. At Boojatta Word Generation Corporation, we care about our readers, and appreciate that you were able to take the time to express your emotions.
Yes --> Please express some of those thoughts in words, preferably including not just interjections, but verbs and nouns.
|
loyalkydem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
pointed to me in my medicare thread. There are Republicans on here pretending to be democrats. Imagine how they feel if we went over Freerepublic.com pretending to be Republicans. Although the thought of that makes me want to vomit.
|
DevonRex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. Hold up right there. Apologize and delete your post. nt |
Boojatta
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Aug-13-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
15. Have you ever heard the expression "don't cast pearls unto swine"? |
|
Edited on Thu Aug-13-09 07:32 PM by Boojatta
Now tell me, can you classify everyone? Given some person, do you either know without a doubt that the person is a swine, or know without a doubt that the person isn't a swine?
If there is doubt, then the only way to obey the rule is to avoid casting pearls unto someone who might be a swine.
Now, the poster above didn't claim to know that you are a swine, so what's your complaint?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:21 PM
Response to Original message |