Certain posters I can't stand have disappeared from the greatest page

[Truth2Tell]

I suppose I should be happy about this. But it doesn't quite feel right to celebrate victory via group-imposed censorship. Hmmmm.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Their posts have not been censored

I don't know why so many like you keep perpetuating that red herring.

[Truth2Tell]

3. Censorship doesn't require "removal."

There are many ways to censor something. One of the most common is bury it (and then re-define censorship and claim it's not being done).

[Cronus Protagonist]

30. If somethjing's not great, it's not being buried, it's just not great

And in any case, all posts are still accessible in the main forums... hardly "burying" and once more your whine begs the question as to why do people claim censorship where there clearly is none.

[omega minimo]

46. There is a chiling effect in seeing how meanspirited the response to having the Reckless button was

[apocalypsehow]

4. It's that basic dishonesty that keeps coming through - they keep pretending like the unrec func

erases or "pulls" a thread from DU's GD or other pages. It doesn't - it simply keeps some of the less popular threads from ascending to the greatest page. The tiny minority that's axe-grinding on and on about it have basic troubles with the truth.

[BlooInBloo]

29. That's the only way their persecution complex can be expressed without laughing.

[omega minimo]

48. It's stupid and dishonest to claim that anyone is "pretending" that.

That's a red herring being thrown out by the Reckless Patrol and you're just repeating it.

[apocalypsehow]

49. Calling an irrefutable fact's author "stupid and dishonest" does not make the irrefutable fact any

less true.

Please try again.

[omega minimo]

52. It isn't. I didn't. And it still isn't. It IS REFUTED.

[apocalypsehow]

53. Repeating a falsehood over and over does not mitigate it's essential dishonesty.

Please try again.

[omega minimo]

54. Your mom called. Dinner's ready.

:hi:

[apocalypsehow]

55. Then that resurrection stuff I've heard about all my life must have been real, after all.

:hi:

[LostInAnomie]

2. How have their posts been censored?

Did someone keep them from posting whatever they wanted? Did someone block them from the forums? Did someone delete their posts? Did someone block others from recommending their posts?

[MADem]

5. Censorship? How about having to actually have a consensus of opinion that something is, in fact,

great before it gets put on a page designating it just that?

It's not a question of "victory," it's simply truth in advertising. If something is shit, it only takes five co-conspirators (or five sockpuppet accounts) for a person to plaster that shit up on a page that suggests we ALL think it's "great."

What's fair about that? And it's not "censorship"--it's simply not permitting one person with five pals, or five sockpuppets, the ability to plaster their crap up on a page called "Greatest" without some sort of consensus.

[Truth2Tell]

10. It seems to me that if DU is split 40/60

on a particular issue, well written posts representing both points of view deserve to make the greatest, as they did in the past. Now, only the 60% view makes the greatest.

I seem to be part of the majority so I suppose I should be celebrating with the masses. But it just doesn't feel like the right thing.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

20. That is the shortest, most cogent , best summary I have seen. Thanks. nt.

[MADem]

40. If DU is split 94 to six on an issue, with only six people thinking that a dumbass post is "great"

under the old system that dumbass post would STILL end up on the greatest page.

That won't happen anymore.

The GP now has posts worth reading. It's reflective of the issues that DUers sincerely find important, as opposed to the vanity posts and unrepresentative stuff of the past, which weren't indicative of either community interest and sentiment, and weren't regarded as "great" either.

Let's not lose sight of the purpose of the page. I think if there's a good argument going with both sides represented, intelligent people will vote to put the discussion on the Greatest Page. I have done that, even when I didn't agree with the premise of the first post, IF the discussion was vibrant and encompassed all sides of the issue.

However, we won't be seeing any more of those "Obama Eats Babies For Breakfast" OTT screeds, vanity posts, or outright silliness more suited to the lounge on the GP simply because a clique of five people with no lives and a ringleader toss some crap up there.

Check out the GP....it's worth reading, now.

[Tan Gent]

50. Exactly. It's goofy to let 6 people elevate dreck to caviar status.

:D

[NC_Nurse]

6. Look for them in GD or GD:P if you miss being annoyed.

I'm enjoying having the Greatest page weeded out. I can then go to the other forums for my fill of other topics after I look at the
news and such.

I'm not gettin' the big deal folks are making of this. Meh.

[sandnsea]

7. It was group imposed censorship then too

Because groups of people ganging up to push certain posts up guaranteed other posts wouldn't see the light of day. If you want to call it censorship, then this censorship balances out that censorship.

[patrice]

8. Why do you assume that getting on the GP, before the un-rec change, was a manifestation of merit,

democratic or otherwise?

[Truth2Tell]

12. It was a manifestation of some base of support

for the point of view of the post, even if it was a minority view.

[patrice]

16. Not a rationally valid manifestation since it filtered its opposition.

Everything is contextual anything that claims it's "the greatest" without its context is either seriously mistaken or lying.

[MADem]

41. It could have been a manifestation of one person and five sockpuppets. NT

[cali]

9. wow. more melodrama. color me shocked.

[rfranklin]

11. Yes, I can't understand why Free Republic poster can't....

use Democratic Underground to espouse their views. But, wait...Freepers have always been censored here.

You're right, we should let everyone post here with no restriction because that is Free Speech.

[Truth2Tell]

14. I didn't say that. What a stupid straw man.

I support censorship on DU... of freepers and neocons and plenty of others. I just don't support de facto censorship of the minority views of legitimate progressive DUers. And that has so far been the result of the unrec feature.

[patrice]

18. It is actually possible for that minority view to adapt itself, where possible, and, thus, win those

un-recs over.

In this manner, the wheat can be separated from the chaff in one's own views.

[anigbrowl]

13. Aren't you noble

:puke:

[Fire1]

15. It's beginning to look alot like the DU I joined! n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

17. What in the world makes you believe that DU is in any way a "free speech zone"?

I guess since Skinner owns the servers, software and all else he is the only one that has an unfettered right to spout off.

The amusing flip-side to the OP's premise is group-imposed equality of ideas.

[cwydro]

19. It's not censorship.

They can still be kicked and stay at the top of GD or wherever. I've seen many examples of this; all you have to do is look.

[sendero]

21. I find it laughable..

... that anyone thinks what is on the "greatest" page is important.

I've been here 7 years and I've looked at it about 3 times.

It becomes more and more obvious as this absurd "debate" rolls on that a lot of pathetic souls see DU as their own vanity press. Get over yourselves.

[Shrek]

24. I wish I could recommend a reply

Because yours would merit about a hundred.

:thumbsup:

[TorchTheWitch]

42. +1

and then some.

[SidDithers]

43. +1. I feel the same way...

I know my way around DU well enough to know where to look for posts that interest me. And if I make a post, my disposition for the day doesn't depend on whether 5 people think it's worthy.

That said, I do find the histrionics about unrec to be the funniest thing I've read on DU in a long while.

As Alex Banya would say, "It's gold, Jerry! Gold!"



Sid

[johnaries]

22. How is it censorship? The threads are still there.

The Greatest Page now reflects the threads that a majority of DUer's consider "The Greatest." If they don't make it to the Greatest Page, they aren't censored or deleted. All it means is that a majority of DUer's don't think they're all that "great".

What could be more fair?

[Truth2Tell]

23. See my post #10 for what I think was more fair.

Censorship need not always be the total removal of information. Reducing the visibility of information is also a form of censorship. And some censorship is fine IMO, including most of the censorship on DU. I just disagree with this new version.

[anigbrowl]

25. XD too funny for words!

[johnaries]

26. But if it WERE "well-written" it would get more votes.

I think a lot of posters here take themselves a little too seriously - and take the Greatest Page too seriously. Again, the post is still visible. If it is well-written and provocative it will generate many "kicks" and remain visible in the original forum where it was posted. Which is where it belongs. NOT on the "Greatest Page".

[Truth2Tell]

27. I think more DUers rec and unrec posts

based on their agreement or disagreement with the ideas in the post than do so based on the quality of the writing or the argument. I could be wrong but that's been my observation.

What I see missing from the greatest now are the DLC friendly posts made my our loud "right leaning" minority.

None of this is particularly a big deal. I'm just sharing my thoughts. Apparently saying anything about this constitutes "melodrama" now though.

[johnaries]

28. LOL! "Melodrama" is right!

Definitely a "tempest in a teacup". But it's kinda fun following the discussion and hearing the arguments both for and against. AND it's been fun seeing many getting so "melodramatic" about it.

And, actually, if you notice some of the <0 OPS have gotten some of the most views!

:hi:

[Truth2Tell]

32. I've always found it kinda fun

following the arguments on both sides of an issue. That's why I like to see both sides on the greatest, which I've always used as a starting point at DU. :hi:

[johnaries]

38. Me, too! And to be honest, sometimes I'll open a

<0 just to see what's so "bad" about it. ;)

[blondeatlast]

37. You have a grievance and that's fair--but please, let's not redefine an issue as serious

as censorship for our own ends.

The real thing is far too prevalent in this world for that; let's save our energies for that. No one is preventing anyone from reading those posts if they really want to.

By your loose definition, a post dropping off of the first page of GD is censorship. Except that it isn't, even if it doesn't suit our own agendas.

[SeattleGirl]

31. No one is being censored.

People can post pretty much anything they want on DU. Unrecommend is an option for people to say they don't like something, or disagree with it, or whatever.

It is NOT censorship!

[Truth2Tell]

33. Of course it's censorship.

It's just censorship you agree with.

[TexasObserver]

60. Of course they aren't! And it's absurd for anyone to suggest otherwise.

If their crappy threads were removed by majority vote, that would be censorship.

Showing <0 beside a thread is information, and that's all.

[TexasObserver]

34. Wouldn't it sound silly to say the GOP has been censored by voters?

VOTING is not censorship. It's democracy.

The threads that have "disappeared" have not disappeared at all. There's still right here, and you can read them. But the fiction that they represent what the DU membership thinks should be on the Greatest page has been exposed.

[Joe Chi Minh]

35. Having been found out by other posters, they'll probably adopt new usernames. Or

come back when they think people will have forgotten.

[EFerrari]

36. Yep. And to wonder about others who won't try posting as often.

Hmmm, indeed.

[cornermouse]

39. Unrecommend is a modification of the former "let it sink"

mantra and I suspect is being utilized, for the most part, by the same people.

[Baikonour]

44. An ignore function existed to rid yourself of the posters you can't stand.

But now instead of you just ignoring them, their voice gets silenced across the board.

[fizzgig]

45. what?

how are they being silenced? the posts are not being disappeared, nor are the posters being disappeared, it's just that some posts are not listed on ONE page of this site. last i checked, there were dozens of forums here and every op made can be viewed regardless of whether it's on the greatest page.

by your logic, everyone NOT on the greatest page is being silenced.

[TexasObserver]

59. There is no truth to the statement that anyone has been silenced by Unrecommend.

Please stop saying that. It's inaccurate and dishonest.

The only way anyone has been silenced is by having their thread locked by admins or mods. If you want to call them out, go ahead.

[islandmkl]

47. so...+1 has weight...but -1 should have no voice...

seems like a 'NET SUM + ONLY' atmosphere you espouse and wish to maintain...which does not seem to represent any DEMOCRATIC forum...

[BlooInBloo]

51. Yes, that's precisely what they call "democratic" - only 'yes' votes allowed.

[omega minimo]

56. -1 is for those who refuse to USE THE VOICE THEY HAVE in the posts, to contribute to a thread

that others found value in.

This is not "democratic," it's passive/aggressive pettiness. And no one knows the real tally.

[trotsky]

57. John McCain got almost 60 million votes!

How TOTALITARIAN that the people who voted for McCain have been SILENCED just because Barack Obama got more votes! This is totally unfair - President Obama should resign immediately and let McCain be president! I'M SERIES YOU GUYS!!!1!

[islandmkl]

58. no...no...no....

the tally (old style DU) is Barack Obama 69,456,897 recommends...

no opponent present, apparently....