About unrecommend...

[Deja Q]

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. I would add...

[ret5hd]

2. unrec'd for whining

[Rowdyboy]

3. I must be really dense but I fail to get the problem....Skinner throws a party and invites us all

He has a system he wants to use. Its his ballgame, we're just guests (many of us voluntary paying guests, but guests nonetheless). DU has experienced many changes over the years. Some people were pissed EVERY TIME. Yet they still come back.

If you don't like it, start a new board with no "unrec" function. Otherwise, suck it up. Whats so hard to understand :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

6. We're all paying for the party . . . I think you know that????

[Rowdyboy]

7. If you're not satisfied with what you get for your money, find a better party....

Otherwise incessant bitching quickly becomes whining and that's just boring

[defendandprotect]

16. "Incessant bitching" . . .and "whining" . . . is really good debate . ..

You're having quite a party here, evidently!

This website has to be about turning our country from fascism --

if you think it's about making insults -- and acting like you have something

to do with the running of the website -- then my advice to you is to grow up.

And it has to be about small "d" democracy.

If you think it's about anything else, you're completely confused.

[Kaleva]

15. Paying a cover charge doesn't give us the right to run the party.

[defendandprotect]

17. The website is supported by all of us --

and we are here for a reason -- concern for our nation.

Trying to dislodge corporatism, trying to win back a "people's" government.

That also means that we are all here to get as much information as possible --

to work for small "d" democracy's return.

As many of us have made clear the "UN" and the "UN's" are disruptive to that

purpose. Those of us who check "recommend" are saying to our fellow DU'ers,

"You should read this" -- "You should know about this" -- it doesn't matter if

it's good news or bad news, but that it's something we should all be aware of.

What does the "UN" say? What we have seen is people who do not make themselves

know, "UN" a thread which they'd like to make sure no one sees. The object of

the "UN" is to drop the thread and to prevent it from reaching the front page,

or staying on the front page. I don't know what could be a clearer explanation

of censorship. We've also seen that too frequently articles about human rights -

women's rights, abortion, racism and homosexuality are subjected to "UN" votes.

It's astonishing and it should be shameful, but as long as it can be done in the

dark, it will be done.

[pipi_k]

25. Just as many people who "pay for the party" think the unrec option is just fine

so what do we wanna do here...have some sort of lottery system? He who gives the largest donation gets to choose how the site is run?

ai-chee-wa-wa...

:eyes:

[Texasgal]

8. Goodness I am with you

I have no clue why people are so freaking upset with it!

[Rowdyboy]

10. DU can be a lot like middle school...cliques form and its easy to get 5 people to "rec" anything

The beauty of democracy (and the "unrec" option) is that it allows everyone a voice. If your thread is so negative that you can't get a plus 5 majority vote on a strongly Democratic board then why the hell should it represent Democratic opinion on DU's Greatest Page?

Even more than that, why would anyone care? Its the "Greatest Page" of an internet message board-its all forgotten in 24 hours. Why the hissy fits over something so meaningless?

[Texasgal]

12. I agree... i honestly

don't get it... :shrug:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

4. What the hell. Kick and unrec.

I have no idea what this thread is about, but it's as deserving of an unrec as any other.

[lordsummerisle]

5. Sorry

but this was my first unrec, had to start somewhere...

[TexasObserver]

9. unrecommend

[Stinky The Clown]

20. At least you're consistent

I notice you never start threads. Only piss on others.

[TexasObserver]

21. Yes, if only more posters would refrain from thread starting.

You should try it.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Yeah ..... ?

Why?

You're like that Free Credit Report kid ...... meaningless, wrong at the core, and annoying.

[TexasObserver]

23. Yeah, because not every thought should start a thread.

For example, let's suppose you're mad about Joe Wilson. Instead of starting the 27th thread on the topic, only to scream I HATE JOE WILSON, you might simply add your thought in one of the many threads already in existence. You see, just because you form a thought doesn't mean you have to start a thread about it. Control that impulse and spend 15 seconds looking at the screen to find those other two dozen threads on the same topic.

[johnaries]

11. I have to say, I like you because of the Q signature, as well as the

"fishies". I also love the Double-Facepalm and I am SO going to use it in the future. Thank you!

But as far as your opinion on the un-rec function, I'll let my friend Og explain:

"Un-rec good. Rec with no un-rec, bad. If have rec, then must have un-rec. Only fair."

See, so simple even a Cave-man understands it!

[G_j]

13. imagine elections where you could un-vote

:shrug:

[Kaleva]

14. Imagine where one can only vote "yes" on ballot proposals

[skip fox]

19. Imagine the case. Many people vote "unrecommend" for emotion or unconsidered reasons.

They like to put dow others for some reason . . . perhaps it make them feel better about themselves.

Others use the feature resonsibly. The question might be does it do more harm than good in practice?

[TexasObserver]

24. Imagine there's no recommend in heaven ....

You are investing "unrecommend" with far greater powers than it has. It's a thumbs up or thumbs down vote on the OP. That's all. It's some feedback, so if it's reader feedback you want, that's reader feedback. If the readers actually address the OP and comment, that's even better feedback, but it is never to be expected.

Those who give an author feedback are always a very tiny percentage of the readership.

[pipi_k]

26. Many more people vote in national elections for the same reasons

In comparison, how does voting on a thread that will disappear within a week even compare to the seriousness of people voting with their emotions in a national election?

Not even close, IMO, and yet the argument goes on and on and on like it's the most earth shattering thing in the world not to see this or that thread on the damned "Greatest Page".

good lord

:eyes: