I just had a thought about the rec/unrec feature:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

To keep out the trolls and other trouble-makers, from sites that can't be named...

Wouldn't the simplest solution be:

Make it so only members can use it?

You would still get unrecs, of course, but the swarms of trolls couldn't do it.

Just my 2 cents.

[onehandle]

1. Only members can use it. Do you mean contributors? nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Ah, I did not realize that.

Well then, perhaps only contributors...

That seems awfully restrictive, though.

But it would help.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

38. Republican hit teams would donate?

[enlightenment]

2. There is nothing to prevent the people you

disapprove of from paying money to DU and getting a star . . . it's entirely possible that they are also liberals and Democrats.

[WolverineDG]

5. but at least they have to kick in & support DU nt

[havocmom]

10. There you go again, being realistic and honest

Good point. :thumbsup:

If rec/unrec is some sort of litmus test, we would be admitting to not being a discussion community of Democrats but a chorus.

[txlibdem]

14. Restrictive litmus tests

That's the stock and trade of the other side. We may want to be a little more tolerant than they are.

Big tent is the best way, even with all its flaws.

[havocmom]

17. Agree. Making the tent ever smaller assures self-made minority status

We need to teach more math in America, don't we? ;)

[malaise]

3. I suggested that but added the caveat that

members who are here less than two years who do not contribute should not be allowed to rec or unrec. I think we need the years of membership clause because many good and great long-standing DUers are feeling the economic pinch and may not be contributing, but we'd still welcome their recs and unrecs.

[SidDithers]

6. I'm thinking it should be restricted to donors...

who've been here since 2002, and have more than 10,000 posts. :hi:

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

7. Seriously?

:wow:

[SidDithers]

9. No, not seriously...

you need to get out more.

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

11. Ha you got me

:silly: carry on then...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. Oh, GOOD idea!

:rofl:

:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

12. and with user names that do not begin with 'S'.

[scarletwoman]

33. Hey, just a gol-darned minute there, buster!

[Warren Stupidity]

35. your name begins with 's' not 'S'

so you are safe with my Great New Rule.

[scarletwoman]

50. Oh. Well that's alright then. Carry on.

[Mimosa]

20. That doesn't sound fair.

I've been here since 2003 and am sometimes a donor.

Right now, because of the economy, a lot of people cannot afford to donate. It would be horribly unfair to discriminate against good people who can't afford to donate!

[Forkboy]

25. Sounds good!

;)

[Dr.Phool]

26. How about just wealthy, white, male landowners?

It's the American way!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. just wealthy ones

LOL!

[Seneca]

41. Wealthy, with lots and lots of free time

Way too much free time.

[NoPasaran]

49. Non-donors could get 3/5 of a rec/unrec!

It's in the Constitution!

[Seneca]

52. Perfect reply

[MoonRiver]

13. It just needs to go.

Everything here was much better before unrec reared its ugly head.

[WillyT]

28. + 1,000,000,000

What you said!

:applause::applause::applause:

:yourock:

:hi:

:kick:

[AngryOldDem]

45. This thread proves your point. n/t

[DevonRex]

15. Why do we need rec/unrec at all? If the post is good it's good. If it's not, it's not.

Does anybody really read the greatest page?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. Well, the admins thought we needed it.

And of course I read the Greatest Page!

Especially when I'm on it, or a friend!

:P


Honestly, I think the Greatest Page is a good idea. It does make it a lot easier to find the best threads.

[azmouse]

22. I never look at the Greatest Page.

It's a waste of time.

I'd do away with both rec and unrec. They are nothing but trouble.

[SoCalDem]

31. AMEN

If a thread is important, contribute to it by replying.. a sneaky drive-by torpedo or an autopilot R does nothing to add to the thread..

Views show whether people are reading it, and responses should drive the discussion..

Like you, I never go to those pages either.

[DevonRex]

64. In short, rec/unrec doesn't add to the discussion, increases divisiveness,

and we all know which threads are great anyway.

And it gets worse, really, since trolls can sign up and use this divisive tool to manipulate DU.

[Gormy Cuss]

18. Just add a feature that displays the recs/unrecs with user names.

Transparency is a good thing.

[The Straight Story]

21. I am for that, in the thread it will show a kick with username and their vote

:)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

42. could be interesting!

[scarletwoman]

59. Sorry, but it could be horrible! Can you imagine wading through a thread that had a hundred recs

as well as dozens or more unrecs?

OP - yadda yadda yadda
#1 - username, unrec
#2 - username, unrec
#3 - username, rec
#4 - username, rec: actual comment
#5 - username, rec
#6 - username, unrec: actual comment
#7 - username, rec
#8 - username, rec
#9 - username, rec
#10 - username, unrec: actual comment
#11 - username, rec: actual comment
#12 - username, unrec
#13 - username, rec
#14 - usernmae, rec
#15 - username, unrec
#16 - username, rec
#17 - username, rec: actual comment
#18 - username, rec: actual comment
#19 - username, unrec
#20 - username, rec

See what I mean? Who would want to read a thread that looked like that?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

60. could have a little drop down menu at the top of the original op post

you wouln't have to look if you didn't want to?

[scarletwoman]

63. That might be a reasonable solution. I'm just not sure I agree about showing usernames at all.

I don't quite get why people are so hung up about unrecs. As near as I can tell, a good post pretty much always gets enough recs to easily outstrip the number of unrecs.

I argued vehemently against the unrec feature when it was first introduced. Since those of us who didn't want it didn't prevail, I figured all I could do was learn to live with it. And after a time, it didn't seem as bad as what I had originally feared.

I'd still prefer no unrec, if for no other reason than to stop people complaining about it all the time. :P

sw

[Gormy Cuss]

68. Unrec is the problem.

I'd really rather get rid of it and have the old, simple, anonymous rec system. Sure, sometimes weird stuff got on the greatest page but it wasn't that big a deal.

[scarletwoman]

69. That would clearly be the simplest solution.

I never wanted the unrec feature to begin with, I certainly wouldn't mourn its loss.

sw

[Mimosa]

19. I've never had a problem with un-rec

I use it rarely. But there are people who seem to use it frequently and automatically.

[EFerrari]

24. I thought and argued that it would keep minority opiions off the GP

and I was wrong about everything.

lol

[LoZoccolo]

23. I like recs/unrecs; they make DU the best online game EVAR! n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. then you could have a meter that would ding when it reached the top

(sorry Skinner, getting carried away here!)

[AnArmyVeteran]

27. How about charging 10 cents per Unrec? Recs would still be free.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

44. The opposition would gladly pay for that

[Boojatta]

70. How about one dollar per unrec?

[Desertrose]

29. Can't have it both ways....

or what's the point if it limits voices?

[NJmaverick]

30. Three options

1- make it donor only
2- check logs for obvious abuses
3- don't allow daily recs and unrecs to exceed the number of posts

[CaliforniaPeggy]

32. I like your options...

Especially donor only.

#2 and 3 are also worthy of consideration...

Thank you...

[XemaSab]

71. With the economy the way it is

a lot of people can't afford to donate. :(

[Seneca]

36. jesus christ on meth

How... un-democratic and Nixonian. Check that enemies list! Let's restrict based on number of posts, years of membership, star/no star! First letter of the member's name. Whether he or she is kind to puppies and small children.

Fuck that, I happily unrec this piece of shit thread with my non-star, <2000 posts, 8 year membership. And fascist-wannabes like you can't do jack shit.

Just what DU needs: more and more arcane rules and regulations.

[scarletwoman]

65. Thank you for cutting straight through the crap. Well said.

Here's a new rule: those who most fervently supported the unrec feature in the first place don't get to propose new ways to restrict its use.

sw

[NJmaverick]

77. Do you have a logical reason to oppose the ideas?

[scarletwoman]

81. Here you go:

#1 - I reject this one out of hand because lack of donor status in no way should reflect the worthiness of any DUer to fully participate on DU. Economic discrimination is not a liberal value.

#2 - The Admins have assured us that they are capable of tracking abusers of the unrec feature. If you want to take on that job, then take it up with them.

#3 - Not all of us post daily, or even weekly. The daily post count of any particular DUer is no measure of their worthiness or of the actual quality of their contributions. It just means they like to post a lot. Why should those of us who prefer to read more than post not have the same right as any other DUer to recommend or unrecommend what others are saying?

I think that about covers it.

sw

[NJmaverick]

83. OK

1) $5- $10 is not discrimination it's showing a commitment to DU

2) They may have the capability but that's not to say it's being done

3) DU is not a video game of recs and unrecs. It's not unreasonable to limit one's recs and unrecs to the number of posts contributed. It would all be on a daily basis. So if you post 6 posts in a day you get 6 recs that day. They don't carry over, in my idea.

[scarletwoman]

84. Again:

#1 - Have you ever been so broke that you're searching under the floor mats of your barely running old car in hopes of finding a nickle so you'll have the price of a quart of milk for your toddler? $5.00 IS a lot of money when a person is living on the bare edge.

Real community means that no one is left out. Real community means that those of us who are able to give money are willing to carry the weight for those who aren't.

#2 - If you're so concerned about this you ought to take it up with the Admins. I'm not interested in DU turning into old East Germany, with everyone keeping tabs on their neighbors for signs of disloyalty.

#3 - Why should number of posts per day increase anyone's privileges? There are already more than enough posts piling up everywhere 24 hours a day.

Do you really want someone with verbal diarrhea and an ego as big as a house who craves constant attention to have more votes than a thoughtful poster who writes a single carefully crafted essay twice a month? Do you really want a set up where some people will feel compelled to post any kind of crap that pops into their head just so they get more rec/unrec privileges?

How many rec/unrec votes will a string of "K&R nt" posts buy for someone? Or maybe you'd like to dole out rec/unrec votes by word count?

sw

[NJmaverick]

76. Do you have a logical reason to oppose the ideas?

[Seneca]

86. Yes

They are antithetical to democratic ideals, fascist.

[scarletwoman]

87. I hope you read his response to my answer to the same question.

Only a special elite should be allowed to wield the awesome powers of rec/unrec.

sw

[Seneca]

88. Truth be told

I try to keep my reading of his posts to the barest minimum possible.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

46. slight problem

1. Republicans and others will gladly pay to come here.
2. Good ( a lot of work for admins)
3. Trouble is sometimes people like to recommend when they haven't got time to post a comment?
4. HOw do other bulletin boards do it?

[CreekDog]

72. you think "trolls" don't buy stars?

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

78. It can be done but it becomes expensive and DU makes money on the deal

[TheKentuckian]

34. Hitting you an unrec for poll tax tactics, Peggy

Just make it public and the sunshine will cure ails. Even better would be a public comment required either way then folks will not only have to stand by their actions but take the time to say why they voted.which should slow the hit and run crap.

I know you don't support a poll tax really and just want to reduce acrimony but it rubs me way the wrong way.

I also feel certain folks are always trying to manipulate the system for message control purposes because the same crew that wanted seems to always be most vocal about adjusting it because they don't get the results they'd like.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

48. publishing handles who are unrec and reccing

it would show the same people. I've noticed that the same crew turn up on certain issues!

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. I've suggested this before

It should be only donors.

I've believed all along the majority of unrecs are coming from trolls.

[Seneca]

40. You have no evidence of your paranoid assertion

They come from people who do not think a thread is worthy of the Greatest Page.

"OH no!! Someone is being mean to me!! They UNRECCED ME! Make it stop! Only star-bellied sneetches can vote!"

Fuck, it's like they said in 'The Godfather', "It's not personal, it's business."

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. Au contraire. There is tons of evidence.

Surf on over to one of the sites that can't be named. You'll see it. They have entire threads dedicated to congratulating each other for how many unrecs they have made here. And they keep count. If we restricted this to donors only, the trolls would have to find another means of entertainment. I doubt very seriously many of them would donate.

[Seneca]

54. How do you know?

EVERY one of those trolls could have a star. So you're back to square one.

I don't waste my time on those sites. Why do you?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

57. Republicans and other non Dem groups will donate just to come here

[proud2BlibKansan]

61. Why would a troll donate money here?

That makes zero sense.

Lots of us waste our time in ways others would not choose to waste their time. The problem is when some choose to be judgmental. :hi:

[Gormy Cuss]

62. Why not? Spend a few bucks and you have instant credibility.

I'm sure there are a few dozen trolls with stars after their names. There's also the fact that gifting donor stars is very common and in that process some trolls get stars for free.

Beyond that though it stuns me that fellow Democrats are proposing what amounts to a poll tax. If that's such a good idea, why not close the boards to anyone but donors?

[LostinVA]

67. I just posted this same thing -- exactly

I think people need to quit worrying about TSed liberal DUers and worry about the RW troll disruptors, who are organized and brag about it. There are actually DU "names" who are passed around from Freeper and CCer, posters who have been here for years. They brag about how they donate. Some have even been made Mods before, which the Admin does now know about. I personally don't raed any of those sites, but know good DUers who do, just to see who ahs been TSed and what people are up to.

[LostinVA]

66. Most of the Organized CC Trolls donate

And rack up the 1K posts ASAP, so they look "legit."

Lots of DUers are unemployed right now, so I think saying only a donor can rec is a bad, bad idea.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

79. yes

[CreekDog]

74. because stars are cheap

not that i think they shouldn't be!

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

80. $1 buys credibility

[UTUSN]

53. A portion is legitimate rating. Another portion is chronically malicious.

And, to use your words, this is not personal WITH ME, not about *my* getting them.


It is clear that the most legitimate topics for discussion on a Democratic board, topics Democrats are interested in-----------get Unrecced for NO discernible reason.

A prof said about the American Revolution that there is a Rule of Thirds---that a third of the colonists were Royalist, a third were revolutionist, and a third were undecided, and that this is what goes on on most any issue. Obviously I have no concrete quantification of the Unrec use, but there is a definite corps---who knows, maybe only a half dozen---of MALICIOUS utilizers of it.

To repeat to be perfectly clear: Most of the users are honest raters. But there are some that are deliberately and maliciously abusers, for who knows what reasons, but GUESSES would be: 1) Outright wingnut trolls/disrupters. 2) Personal vendettas. 3) Just plain wreckers, they Unrec EVERYTHING, running around in secret going Hee-hee-hee.

And for the umpteenth time, I don't care about MY getting them. I believe I've seen the Greatest Page maybe twice, and it was a peek just to know what it looked like. I believe it is mainly useful for visitors, especially from the media, who don't have the time to get deep into the website forums and just skim for gist.

The malicious Unreccers are just the irritating gnats.

[UTUSN]

89. Highlighting n/t

[CreekDog]

73. I unrec threads that misinform or ones that I strongly disagree with

I may be annoying, but I'm not a troll. :D

[TZ]

51. This is a form of bigotry agaisnt those

Who can't donate. Many of whom are of low income. But what the hell poor people and those that donate money elsewhere clearly are unworthy to express opinion. Very Randian of the OP.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. I don't like the donate option

because it could exclude poor DUers but wealthy Repubs could donate just to get on to unrec.

Best if their user names were published.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

55. an example of more unrecs than recs on a Democratic DU board

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x418211

40% recs 60% unrecs - the post shows that the DNC has raised more than the RNC. You would think DU would support that fact?

[Brickbat]

58. I think the whole rec/unrec should be thrown out, because it encourages OPs full of popular rhetoric

and clogs useful threads with subthreads about "unrec crew."

[CTyankee]

85. Why do we have them? I don't even Rec or Unrec. Why should ANYBODY?

This is a discussion board, not a popularity contest based on god knows what. Really, we are wasting time and energy on something that does not add ONE thing to the issues of the day. It's a stupid enterprise, a waste of time for good progressives.

Folks, let's get down to business here and stop this nonsense...

[CreekDog]

75. the only thing i care about is misinformation and misrepresentation

1) there are threads that are just outright false and i like unrec because it's often a tip off of that. imperfect, of course --everything is.

2) i dislike that some people may have a different agenda than is the one they've stated. in practice, the egregious ones tend to end up losing the unrec game --like people who were minimizing the oil spill. the ones who chronically do so can never get into positive rec territory.

[LostInAnomie]

82. I like it how it is.

Works great.