A sample of posts that have been unrec'd this morning.

[Wilms]

Election-Related Violence Tops Headlines in Guatemala dipsydoodle Mon Jun-20-11 05:40 AM 0 0 24

Germans Protest US Blockade against Cuba dipsydoodle Mon Jun-20-11 05:34 AM 0 0 13

Dave Zweifel's Madison: Colombian journalist wishes his countrymen could protest without fear Judi Lynn Mon Jun-20-11 03:11 AM 0 0 31

Colombia Central Bank May Ignore Pressure by President and Increase Rates Judi Lynn Mon Jun-20-11 02:54 AM 0 0 25

Cultural Exchange: Colombian authors consider their country's violence Judi Lynn Mon Jun-20-11 02:08 AM 0 0 28

Administration wants to send trade pacts to Congress before recess Judi Lynn Mon Jun-20-11 01:16 AM 0 0 29

Colombia: Anti-union violent disproves gov't rhetoric Judi Lynn Mon Jun-20-11 01:09 AM 0 0 30



Now why would a member of DU unrec these stories if they're interested in democracy? :shrug:

[Bacchus39]

1. don't know, maybe conduct a poll here

ask Billy for help creating one.

I find unrecommended option quite democratic. there is a choice then rec or unrec, or thirdly don't vote.

p.s. I haven't recommended or unrecommended any posts today, yet.

[Wilms]

2. Voting for the Tea Party is "quite democratic" too. n/t

[Bacchus39]

3. that's your choice, nobody is stopping you n/t

s

[Wilms]

4. I'm crushed.

:eyes:

[Billy Burnett]

57. Don't mix me in w/the rec/unrec thing.

I think the DU unrec feature is bogus. Did from the beginning.

If you don't like it then don't rec it, was my position all along.

[naaman fletcher]

5. i have something for everyone who gets upset about un-reccing

""

[Wilms]

6. I see I smoked them out.

No surprise.

:hi:

[naaman fletcher]

8. Yeah

You smoked me out... I confess... I get annoyed at the whining about unrecs.

[Bacchus39]

9. agreed n/t

s

[Wilms]

10. It's not the "annoyed at the whining about unrecs" that seems to most annoy you.

It's the content of the posts you unrec that obviously rubs you the wrong way.

Unrecing posts about abuse in LA suggests an agenda to me. Am I missing something?

[Bacchus39]

11. quite alot acutally n/t

s

[naaman fletcher]

17. you are missing plenty,

I don't just randomly unrec stuff. I unrec some things, and I rec others. I generally don't even unrec based on political agenda, but rather than on the quality of a source. So, for example, I unrec things that are in essence a blog post quoting a blog post, and things of that nature. That being said, other people obviously rec things as part of an agenda. What is wrong with an agenda anyway? I do have an agenda. My agenda is a better life for the people of Latin America. Some of us disagree on how to achieve that.

[Bacchus39]

20. I unrecommend whiny threads alot myself.

I think the thread's content should reflect the board's theme. in this instance, Latin America. complaints and suggestions should be directed towards the moderator.

[The Doctor.]

33. Your "Agenda is a better life for the people of Latin America"

That's wonderful.

Is there any reason you can think of for people to have unrecced the examples in the OP, here, on a Democratic message board?

Obviously, the people who unrecced them had a very good reason. I'm sure you agree that they did. Care to enlighten us as Wilms clearly would appreciate?

Specifics would be nice too.

Thanks!

:hi:

[joshcryer]

36. Well, Colombia has a bad rap here on these forums, and some may not like it.

The Guatemala story could've been unrec'd simply because it was a crappy article. The Amnesty story about Guatemala a few days back was much better, but a more politically charged sounding article was chosen for posting for some reason.

Unreccing a post about Cuba's "blockaide" of course can be either way, and we can have all sorts of arguments about Cuba's Baby-Stalinist "Democracy" and whether or not reccing such an article could be "pro" or "anti" democracy.

Of course, the main point that Wilms was making is that anyone who dares question the spurious implications of his post (that anyone who would unrec those posts must not be interested in democracy) is themselves complicit. Indeed, he takes it to the logical conclusion by "calling out" those here who dared question it to begin with! It's a very common tactic and I expect to be called out on it though I gave a reasoned reply. (I didn't bite last time when Billy made his call out post but then he didn't try to provide "evidence").

[The Doctor.]

46. Wow. An explanation rather than blind ridicule.

I'm sure that comes a lot closer to addressing the OP's curiosity. Mine too.

Obviously, some of those points did not occur to him, therefore his attitude about those who were unreccing such posts was perfectly justified. Having learned more, he will perhaps have gained an understanding. On the other hand, there may still be reasons to believe that people are not acting out of the reasons you describe, but rather in a troll-like capacity. Such is not unusual around here. Again still; Wilms may have good reason to disagree with your examples on a point-for-point basis.

His was not a 'tactic', but a legitimate concern over the motives here.

If people cannot put their reasons down for unreccing, then suspicion isn't unjustified. When they do, it enlightens people who may use more discretion when posting from that point forward.

[Billy Burnett]

58. Josh points out how unhelpful the unrec feature.

DU should use something sorta like Facebook and the "like" feature. Of course, like FB, you could "unlike" your own "like" if you change your mind.

Still recs and unrecs and likes and unlikes sometimes are Hobson's choices.

[naaman fletcher]

40. I don't know

I can't speak for other people. And again, who cares? No post from LA forum will ever make the greatest page.

[The Doctor.]

44. Of course not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x53269#53328

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x53255

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x53265

[naaman fletcher]

45. huh? nt

[The Doctor.]

47. It's a few of the current Latin America threads on TGP....

;)

[Bacchus39]

48. so unrecomme ding doesn't keep them off the Greatest then does it?

as some try to blame. I agree with the poster who thinks these are nothing but callout posts.

not that I care, I will use the rec and unrec as I see fit, and ignore the whiners.

[The Doctor.]

52. Really? Did you just say that?

Yes, unreccing keeps things off the greatest page. How many more of any given LA posts would be there if people didn't keep them below the 5 rec threshold?

I don't know, neither do you.

The occurrence of snow does not disprove climate change.

[Bacchus39]

53. yet, there is an unrec option and threads still make it to the greatest page

I don't see the problem. unrec is an option for members, I'll use it as I please. if the mods want to modify that feature, I don't think I would lose any sleep either.

[The Doctor.]

56. Wow. I really don't know how to get through that kind of obliviousness.

I'll try again, slowly;

Threads.... are... prevented.... from... making it... to.... The Greatest Page.... by... unrecs.

I'm not sure how you can argue with that and be considered sober.


I'm amazed that you can believe that a few threads making it to TGP means others are not stopped. It's just like the deniers that think climate change means it can't snow.

I'm really done here. I think I'll go bring my IQ back up by watching paint dry now.

[Wilms]

60. It's par for the intellectually dishonest approach. n/t

[naaman fletcher]

49. pardon my ignorance

Where does it show that they are on the greatest? I just see them in the LA forum, although i confess that obviously i might not understand how it works. Looking at the front page I thought that you typically needed like 100 recs to make the greatest page.

[Bacchus39]

50. yeah, I find that page to be pretty incomprehensible, you have to scroll way down

it looks like it has a running total and those with even several recommendations may be displayed way down. its too much work for me. I'd rather go directly to subject specific forums and LBN.

[naaman fletcher]

51. thanks, I have figured it out, and I stand corrected.

I was wrong about the greatests page.

[joshcryer]

35. I very rarely unrec, the mods can attest to it.

I almost always rec or leave a post alone. What's telling is that people so consumed with reccing appear to believe that unreccing is a tool for suppression and are clearly (for many posts that you and Bacchus39 post) pro-unreccing. I'm just glad neither you or Bacchus39 or anyone else (changeloa) bitch about it constantly.

Now I will unrect obvious flamebait or posts that are just stupid, but usually they aren't even on my radar.

[Judi Lynn]

12. It devastates people when you're upset. Don't let it annoy you.

http://img814.imageshack.us.nyud.net:8090/img814/7456/tinyviolin.jpg
Let a smile be your umbrella. On second thought, never mind.

[naaman fletcher]

19. keep that photo

For next time you get upset about an unrec, which seemingly happens every day. Don't worry about me though, I don't let internet chatter get me worked up like it does some people.

[The Doctor.]

26. What whining?

Sounds like earnest curiosity about the motives of some DUers. I would really like to know why supposedly 'Democratic' people don't want to read or hear about how Democracy is under attack around the world.

I suppose it just feels good to engage in some misdirected condescension now and again. Unfortunately, those with comprehension see what you do for what it is.

Now, If you have a relevant explanation for why those posts should be buried and unread on DemocraticUnderground™, I'm sure that's really what Wilms is looking for.

Until then, you really just appear to be trying to find reasons to look down on someone. Reasons that aren't there.

[joshcryer]

38. Really, "earnest curiosity"? You can't think of reasons why those threads could be honestly unrec'd?

Clearly any negative thread about Colombia should never be unrec'd even if people from these forums is living in Colombia and finds the articles themselves contrived?

You live in a different place. We do have Colombians and people who live and work in Colombia posting here. And when Colombia bashing posts are posted almost daily, it wouldn't even surprise me if a pro-democratic person who goes out and canvases every other day were to "unrec" such posts.

Humans are not these static robots that so many people think of them to be.

[naaman fletcher]

41. if you haven't seen the whinging, that is not my problem.

And, I can't speak for anyone else. Also, who is burying posts? they are right where they always are.

[Sirveri]

27. You could do what I do and unrec if one of the first 3 replies is about unrecs.

And why the heck is this in Latin America...

[The Doctor.]

29. How entirely petty and arbitrary.

Please, actually think about this;

This may not occur or even matter to you, but that approach is the very opposite of being either deliberate or thoughtful. I hope you can get this; but doing so makes you and anyone who thinks the same way a tool for those who wish to sink an otherwise thoughtful or important OP.

I could just jump into an OP, decry the unfairness of the unreccers, and you and/or a handful like you will unthinkingly unrec it simply for that?

Please, don't be a tool. Actually read and measure an OP rather than letting someone's response to it control your actions.

[Sirveri]

31. why does it matter?

Good posts will still make it to the greatest page. All it will do is filter out the more mediocre posts that barely rack up +5. Actually I haven't done this lately, but I've been thinking about bringing it back. This of course assumes that people only use greatest instead of trolling the actual forum. Also sometimes it's funny to see people whine and get all butt hurt. It's a freaking internet forum, nothing of consequence will arise from anything discussed here, it's at best a news source, and at worst an echo chamber. So I say meh to the entire thing.

[The Doctor.]

32. NTSBOTC.

Please try reading the post you responded to again. If you'd rather not, I'll try again; I pretty clearly stated that you are allowing your decisions and actions to not only be based upon something that may be totally irrelevant to the OP, thereby excluding any thought of your own from the process, but it easily puts you under the control of someone else who may or may not have a good reason for mentioning the unrecs.

You give away your will to a petty impulse.

If I were to guess, I might think that any person who would do such a thing is someone who likely has a history of posting very few OPs that were met with much recognition or appreciation, and likely posts very little out of some concern that they may not 'be appreciated'. Such a person might therefore actually see indifference or rejection as somehow 'arbitrary' at a basal level. This is because it is easier to believe such a thing than it is to think that one might have little of value to contribute.

That's just how I look at it. It's not like I know some sort of 'behaviorism' at all.

I do not for one moment believe you are necessarily such a person, but you must understand that a willingness to be so arbitrary and dismissive probably means something about anyone who would remove their will and attention from their own actions.

I do hope you understand where I'm coming from.

[Judi Lynn]

7. It's the right's way of being heard in a leftist forum, no doubt! Recommending. n/t

[dipsydoodle]

13. Soon as I read Wilms' post earlier

I recc'd it and it showed as +1. I'd done so to see what would subsequently happen. You recc'd it and it currently shows as NIL which means at least 2 unrecc's.

Yes - we know who does it.

:hi:

edited to move the apostrophe........lol.

[rabs]

14. This is who does it

Our resident enanitos malditos. :rofl:

Enanito = midget
Maldito = evil

Fyi the enanito maldito is a famous caricature that became very popular in Chile years ago.

What did the apostrophe do to you that you had to move it ?

:hi:

[dipsydoodle]

15. The apostrophe !

I'd written Wilm as in singular. I then remembered it was Wilms so moved the apostrophe to the end.

I suppose I could've changed it to Wilms's. :shrug:

Whatever - I changed it out of respect. :)

When I translated that it came out as "damned dwarfs" :rofl:

:hi:

[Peace Patriot]

16. Rec/unrec is undemocratic because there is no tally. An unrec shouldn't cancel a rec.

It should say "Rec 1, Unrec 1" or whatever. The "0" that results from one person recommending and another unrecommending hides information--the information that there is a controversy. "0" implies that there is no interest in the topic, when in fact there is sufficient interest to prompt rec's and unrec's. An unrec is certainly "interested" enough in a topic to anonymously and covertly say 'don't read this.' At the very least, the existence of a controversy should be made apparent in the rec/unrec function.

Also, this is a discussion forum not an election, so rec/unrec should not be anonymous and DU should encourage, and possibly even require, that the rec/unreccer give a reason, especially the unreccer. I would like to see those who use the unrec function justify unreccing news and info posts. i have seen that many times in the LatAm forum--a post that merely provides info, with no comment and no opinion, gets unrecced. Why? I rec such posts when I feel that the news/info needs wider circulation and discussion. I am often appalled by the ignorance of my fellow and sister U.S. citizens on Latin American events and issues, and am mindboggled by the ignorance of our own party activists and leaders, so it is very important to me that people GET INFORMED, and I cannot fathom anybody but a rightwinger/Tea Party type acting to PREVENT people from becoming informed.

The rec/unrec function does have a wider impact. It is used to determine which posts make it to the "Greatest" page. The unrec function should not be allowed to suppress information or discussion. If somebody doesn't like the news or comment that is posted, fine, they can say so. But to anonymously cancel a rec of the post--to keep it from wider circulation--is not only repressive, it should not be allowed.

I never use the unrec and ignore functions. I'm interested in wide open, free, democratic discussion--even at the risk of covert operatives playing games. I often use the rec function, however, to boost what I consider to be important news (and sometimes comment), and I think it's unfair that someone can anonymously turn my rec into a "0."

Thank you for this post, Wilms! It is very telling that the person in the LatAm forum who is the BEST informed about LatAm events--who provides numerous news articles, often accompanied with photos, as well as historical, background and context information, to us all--Judi Lynn--should be the most oppressed LatAm forum DUer, by those using the unrec function. It is, in truth, a gage of her enormous value to this forum, to DU and to the wide world, that these rightwing operatives are trying to keep her posts from the Greatest page.

I salute you, Judi Lynn, with all my heart!

:applause: :bounce: :thumbsup: :loveya: :yourock: TO JUDI LYNN :yourock: :loveya: :thumbsup: :bounce: :applause:

From Peace :patriot:

[naaman fletcher]

18. "the most oppressed". lol

There are lots of oppressed people in the world, it does no good to trivialize their plight by suggesting that some is "oppressed" because someone unrecc's her posts sometimes.

[Wilms]

21. Re-read the part of Peace's post that you are lambasting.

It is information being repressed that's referred to. Though, what kind of person represses either?

[dipsydoodle]

23. I must confess

I have been known to unrec simply because a subject has either become boring or the posts artificially contrived. Most things to do with Libya for example.

[joshcryer]

37. Yeah, the weekly thread hasn't had 5+ recs in awhile.

Despite that they merely aggregate general information. Oh well.

[dipsydoodle]

39. Oddly enough

I stopped unreccing that a long time ago so its not me influencing it.

[joshcryer]

42. I do wish there was a tally, though.

I saw it at +10 one day and it wound up at +2. I know that every week at around the time the post is made the Libya threads fire up and I think there's a concerted effort to bait me and the others into discussion as to cause GD to be pissed off at us for making Friday Libya Day. This is why I haven't posted much at all this week on that subject, and I it's confirmed my suspicion.

As far as this thread I do think it is because of the heavy anti-Colombia sentiment spread here and I think there's at least one lurking pro-Colombia poster who dislikes the stories.

[dipsydoodle]

43. As has been mentioned elsewhere here

it would be better to show reccs and unreccs as individual totals. The combined total has always been an absurdity.

[The Doctor.]

28. Bravo! My sentiments exactly.

I rarely use either the ignore or unrec features. I have ignored people, but it's usually just to make sure I'm not tempted to respond to someone in a way that might be 'unpleasant'. I usually take them back off after a week or so. The ignore function is really about ignorance. Either you wish to remain ignorant of what someone might have to say, which is, I believe, the reason the vast majority of people who have me on ignore have put me there. Or it is because you have tried very hard to get through to someone, but their ignorance is impenetrable and you do not wish to have another pointless discussion with them.

So I have used it, but very rarely.

The unrec feature is (and I say this not to single anyone out or suggest that only these such people use it) a 'troll's delight'. The mountain of tombstones, most of which are on top of people who were proven to be deliberately disruptive is the simple silent proof that DU has been and will likely continue to be populated with members who despise open discussion of topics they would rather not ever saw the light of day.

There are a few good reasons to have such a feature, but, in my opinion, it is regularly abused by people that have very little real justification for using it, but love the small indulgence of exercising their will over what they believe others should or should not see. Then, when anyone dares to ask 'why', they respond as demonstrated very nicely in this thread.

I absolutely agree that those that believe a post should not reach a wider audience should have a very good reason that they wish to express. I have seen many come forward and post that explanation. Those I respect whether I agree with their reasons or not. But those who cannot come forward are either acting out of some petty impulse, or in accord with an agenda that is inconsistent with democratic principles or the values of DU.

I would be 'all in' on requiring some restriction, whether a limited number of unrecs per poster per day/week/month (so that they might be rationed among only posts they truly believed should be sunk), or a requirement that unreccers give both their name and their reason for unreccing so as to weed out those without reason or with an agenda.

I know there are pros and cons to those, but right now the con is bigger than the pros; the unrec feature is a troll's dream-come-true for quashing messages that are otherwise worthy of attention.

Solidarinosc!

[roody]

22. Do other forums suffer from these anti-dems?

[naaman fletcher]

24. by anti-dems,

do you mean people who have a different position that the democratic party? Do you mean people who support autocratic governments like Cuba?

[The Doctor.]

25. I'm amazed at how deliberately some people miss the point around here.

The OP isn't "upset" about anyone unreccing posts. Anyone who thinks so based on the OP is in serious need of remedial reading comprehension.

The point was to bring attention to the kind of posts that so-called 'Democrats' would be unreccing.

Every single person that claims this is somehow 'whining' is either congenitally oblivious, or someone who really doesn't want attention brought to these topics for whatever reason. Some people just have to indulge in misdirected condescension I guess.

K+R

[sabrina 1]

30. Rec'd for Judy Lynn, one of the best and most informed

people on DU regarding Latin American issues.

[joshcryer]

34. Second call out post in a week. With dubious methods.

Unreccing most of those posts could not be necessarily "anti-democracy" but "pro-Colombia." Unreccing a post referring to Cuba's blockade is no more "pro-democracy" than not. Unreccing the Guatemala story that only has one hit on the entire internet is not particularly controversial, I thought that the Amnesty story from a few days back conveyed more information on the political violence.

[rabs]

54. This tread has made it to Greatest Page

with 13 recs, despite all the unrec hits when it was first posted.

[Bacchus39]

55. exactly, no reason to fear choice n/t

s

[Billy Burnett]

59. Or unchoice.

:rofl: