digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

DALT I Treaty Proposal -- Digg "Arms" Limitation Treaty

thelittlelog.blogspot.com — OK Political Diggers. It looks like we're going to have to solve this one on our own. I hereby propose DALT I, the "Digg 'Arms' Limitation Treaty." If we want the debate to continue, we must unilaterally remove our fingers from "the [bury] button." Sign below.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17Signed.
    -- LittleByLittle
    • MohammedAlDura, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32Sure, I can pledge to not use the bury button but what about the other guy. In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan, we must be able to "Trust but Verify":

      http://digg.com/politics/Dear_Kevin_Rose_Please_Create_a_Who_Buried_This_Tab

      B.T.W., littlebylittle, Charles Johnson at LGF just said "Here’s a good post I can recommend digging" and posted a link to your post on the "DALT I Treaty Proposal":

      http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24598_Diggbats_Enforcing_the_Groupthink&only
    • elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21It stands to reason that if Digg is going to use an "algorithm" to prevent gaming digg to get certain stories to the front page they should also apply an algorithm to the "bury" function to prevent gaming of digg to prevent certain stories from reaching the front page by certain interest groups.
    • sparks2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18The bury button is the equal opposite of the digg button. One without the other creates unbalance.

      The whole point of digg is people choose what they want to be on the front page. That means digging up stories they want on the front page and burying stories they do NOT want on the front page. The idea of digg is not that everyone gets the story they want on the front page its that the COMMUNITY decides what's on the front page.
    • skewh, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6Sonofabitch, I guess I type too slow. Thusly, the main point of my comment has already been stated and the text I'm typing now is effectively pointless. Digg me down, please!
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -19/+14I Bury stuff because it's inaccurate, spam and sometimes lame. Here's why:

      If it has to do with Chuck Norris or WILL IT BLEND>!?! I will mark it as Lame,
      If it's the second time I've seen the same headline, it's spam,
      and if it's titled "religion of peace at it again!" I mark it as inaccurate. This is mainly LFG and MM stories, if they want to spread prejudice and hate, UNFOUNDED hate, then they can happily, I'll just bury it because it's false.
    • humperdeath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I often see unpopular but true stories dugg down and that is a shame, because one does need to see all sides of the issues. Digg down if inappropriate of obviously false, but DIGG should not be a popularity contest. OK, nuff said. Signed and dugg!
    • blackolive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2The bury button keeps this website controlled by users - it's not perfect but it beats letting a minority hijack the site & spam us with propoganda. Yes some good people are quieted but usually it's just spammers.
    • blackolive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"articles submitted using terms like "diggbats, mud people, Armageddadinejad, libtards, religion of peace™ will be buried accordingly. They maybe using facts, but the moment you put in opinions such as those and submit in political / world news, it becomes what it is, an opinion. "

      (Posted by aeon53 below.)
    • Dogness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"If it has to do with Chuck Norris or WILL IT BLEND>!?! I will mark it as Lame,
      If it's the second time I've seen the same headline, it's spam,
      and if it's titled "religion of peace at it again!" I mark it as inaccurate. This is mainly LFG and MM stories, if they want to spread prejudice and hate, UNFOUNDED hate, then they can happily, I'll just bury it because it's false."

      How is the title "religion of peace at it again!" inaccurate? Do you object to the title "religion of peace"?

      Also, I have missed the LGF posts that spread prejudice and unfounded hate. Maybe you can only see those if you are a registered member? Would you care to share some links to these posts?

      Using your own rules, I should mark your post as "inaccurate" because it seems to be spreading prejudice and unfounded hate against LFG and MM.
    • MrEguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The "bury" choice effectively throws the article to the bottom of the heap, which is not a good way to gauge an article's popularity. AT MOST, the "bury" choice should count as minus one Digg (it's like...voting! Wow, what a concept.)
  • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Signed.
    -- Keach
    • MooHamHead, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Will this do?

      "After 9/11 airplanes isn't a transport where imams or muslims should be allowed in ... Riding on donkey backs across the world may give them some time to think and maybe realize how stupid and dangerous this religion is !"

      ...er, no it won't do. True it is bigoted and ignorant. But not racist. From the US OED that comes with my Mac:

      "he belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

      I dislike fascism, communism and islam (Sufi and Ahmadiyyan strands excepted). Neither of those is a race. Abu Hamza is the same race as Walid Shoebat, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys is the same race as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dhiren Barot is the same race as Ghandi, Richard Reid is the same race as Bob Marley, Ibrahim Hooper is the same race as George Bush and Khalid Kelly is the same race as me.

      Clear now?
  • Aeon53, on 10/12/2007, -25/+19If you want to debate and be taken seriously, both parties need to be civil and post information in 1) an accurate manner 2) without name calling 3) combination of both to dehumanize the other group 4) in the proper catergory (i notice a lot of opinions being put forth in Political/ World News instead of Political Opinion)

    This means articles submitted using terms like "diggbats, mud people, Armageddadinejad, libtards, religion of peace™ will be buried accordingly. They maybe using facts, but the moment you put in opinions such as those and submit in political news/ world news, it becomes what it is, an opinion. Therefore, inaccurate/ spam/ this is lame.

    Don't like it? Then post stories with the actual news and news only, and let the diggers form their own opinions on the events.

    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15How 'bout not? How 'bout letting Diggers Digg what they want to Digg and let the story move based on that (the number of Diggs)?
    • karmic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5So you won't sign it. When you commit unconditionally, I will.
    • MooHamHead, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24"This means articles submitted using terms like "diggbats, mud people, Armageddadinejad, libtards, religion of peace™ will be buried accordingly"

      ...interesting...the stuff that offends you and your side should be banned but not the stuff that offends LGFers. You should get a job with Google China!

      Nice try slipping 'mud people' in. That sort of racist language is never used by LGFers. I challenge you to find proof if you think otherwise. The people who do use that sort of phrase are stormfront, david duke, etc people who are on your side on this issue (though I concede probably not on others!).
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Unconditional Permanent Commitment: Signed ......
      -- LittleByLittle
    • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11aeon- sorry you're getting buried, i wholeheartedly agree with your comment. if people kept their opinions out of the headline and kept "news" in the "news" section and "opinion" in the "opinion" section, digg would be a better place
    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9"How 'bout not? How 'bout letting Diggers Digg what they want to Digg and let the story move based on that (the number of Diggs)?"

      And how about letting diggers bury stories they want to bury and let the story be buried based on that?

      LGF:

      Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10@MooHamHead

      "That sort of racist language is never used by LGFers. I challenge you to find proof if you think otherwise."

      Will this do?

      "After 9/11 airplanes isn't a transport where imams or muslims should be allowed in ... Riding on donkey backs across the world may give them some time to think and maybe realize how stupid and dangerous this religion is !"

      - Now-banned user 'littlegreendigg'

      http://digg.com/politics/Video_Mineapolis_flying_imams_passengers_witnesses_speaks_out

      Notice he has been dugg up for that.
    • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@littlebylittle
      "How 'bout not? How 'bout letting Diggers Digg what they want to Digg and let the story move based on that (the number of Diggs)?"

      You're proposing an outright removal of the bury option? Is this just on articles or comments as well? What is your recommended use for the bury options?:

      Duplicate Story - Obvious

      Spam - Just Viagra ads or does this include lots of similar posts by single users (e.g., 30 anti-Muslim/anti-Semitic ads in a day, or week)?

      Wrong Topic - Obvious

      Inaccurate - How literally should this be interpreted? Lots of hateful article have inaccurate titles or are blatantly misleading.

      Ok, This is Lame - What's lame to me isn't lame to others. For instance an articles titled 'J00s Stole My Pennies' or 'M00slums R 3vil' are pretty lame sounding to me, but there's a certain element that would disagree with me.


      I'm up for open minded debate, but I've seen plenty of articles that are out to paint an ethnic group (or religious group) in the worst possible light. When the title is lame and all the posts are self-congratulations by hateful people, is it wrong to bury it as lame or inaccurate? Maybe we just need a 'Hate' tag so we can opt to filter out hateful articles.
    • Aeon53, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@MooHamHead

      “...interesting...the stuff that offends you and your side should be banned but not the stuff that offends LGFers”

      Pray tell what “my side” is. Please, I’m dying to know. BTW, What are the specifically coined terms that offend LGFers? (aside from regular terms such as muslim, islam, france, french, middle east, liberals, democrats, immigrants, mexico). I would really like to know so I can be aware of them so I can also bury extremely biased stories from which is apparently “my side”. Only one that I can think of right now is “Dumbya” in referring to Bush.

      Nice try slipping 'mud people' in. That sort of racist language is never used by LGFers.

      This is classic. Notice how in my original post I had never even MENTIONED LGFers. Not even once. I don’t mention them; I don’t refer to them or anything. Yet you come to this insane conclusion that the group of people I am talking about is them. Now, why would you assume that? Why did the word ‘mud people’ automatically make you think of LGFers? Surely, there must be a logical and clear reason why you would think that…

      Btw, great username, clearly shows you are someone worth having an intellengent conversation with.
    • Aeon53, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Three new names I came across today on LGF submissions which I haven't seen before/ missed:
      Diggerals
      Diggocrats
      Moonbat

      I really don't understand why they resort to childish name calling. I mean, diggerals? Come on...

      Dehumanizing and mocking seems to be the new way to converse. How unfortunate.
    • Aeon53, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3And it begins:

      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Little_Green_Footballs_Meets_the_Diggocrats
      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Diggbats_Controlling_What_you_See_on_Digg_com_One_Bury_at_a_Time

      Expect more name calling on digg and then hear those same people complain cause the 'libtards/diggbats/diggocrats/insert new insults to come" continue to bury them down for 'NO REASON WHATSOEVER' Waa!

      Ridiculous.
  • DarulHarb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Game theory suggests that your voluntary proposal won't be very effective.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

    This is something that needs to be implemented at the level of Digg's underlying software, as you suggested earlier.

    http://www.digg.com/politics/Dear_Kevin_Rose_Please_Create_a_Who_Buried_This_Tab
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Oops....
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Maybe the Gamers on Digg should come in and advise. My Commitment stands.
    • DarulHarb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4littlebylittle writes...

      > Maybe the Gamer's on Digg should come in and advise. My Commitment stands.

      With all due respect, asking a typical gamer about game theory makes about as much sense as asking a typical television watcher about NTSC and ATSC standards.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5lol. Yeah, that was my sarcasm again (to a point). There's a lot of gamers on Digg. We need to make peace with them too.
  • LilianD, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Good idea, I hadn't used the 'bury' button until I came across the stupid joke about women over 40 covering up (see iran clothing crackdown). I do think that we (people with concerns about islam) need to take Robert Spencer and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as our examples: polite and accurate at all times. We have a message, so let's just make it as clear as possible, in a way rational people will read rather than automatically reject because of nasty language or name-calling. Hey, aren't we all Diggbats now, anyway? Some of us are Lizardoid Diggbats??

    So, I'm for more talk, not more 'burying'. I won't use 'bury' again, and I hope nobody will bury my posts, because I am just voicing my genuine concerns here.
    • DarulHarb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5canwediggit writes...

      > lgf did not expose anything about digg. everyone already knew about the groupthink and mob mentality here. > only the lgfers think that it's something new or something that hasn't been discussed ad naseum.

      Well, we're new here. And if Digg is supposed to be a neutral forum (or was at least designed to be) the LGF "invasion" might actually result in Digg improving (even for non-political parts of the site), if sufficient pressure can be brought on the management to end the abuse of the community ratings system.
    • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"the LGF 'invasion' might actually result in Digg improving"

      If you guys can figure out that confounded [reply] link...
    • saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"end the abuse of the community ratings system"

      You must be joking. That's what digg IS, a community site to promote stories by rating them good or bad.
  • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8i refuse to give up my right to bury. buries are just as important as diggs. however, this whole digg/lgf thing is getting extremely annoying so i applaud your efforts at attempting a solution.

    perhaps an alternative may be to ban political blogs all together? left and right, kos and lgf. if they link to news stories, just post the original source. i would hope it doesn't have to come to something like that, but for someone that spends their time on the "upcoming spy" while on digg, the last week has become seriously painful and if it continues my digg time is done, or severely limited.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Personally, I rarely post from KOS or Think Progress. The Blogs have their place, but for me news stories with my commentary are what I like. The MSM needs competition wherever it can get it, left or right. It's become far too censored and polarized. That's not to say I think political blogs s/b censored on Digg. I don't think they should.

      I also get the feeling that the Techies think politics may ruin Digg.

      Techies: Once again you have created something bigger than yourselves. Take pride in that and let it be free.
    • MohammedAlDura, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9The blogs add important value-added information and synthesis to the original story. They string bits and pieces of other stories together. Comments on the story at the blog itself are also important.

      Many times the blogs come up with newsworthy information on their own. LGF was instrumental in exposing Rathergate, the Reuters Fauxtography scandal, ... and many more. In the past week, exposing the fascistic groupthink here on Digg is another newsworthy scoop for LGF.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7"exposing the fascistic groupthink here on Digg is another newsworthy scoop for LGF [and LittleByLittle]."
    • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4i'll give them credit for the reuters thing, but lgf did not expose anything about digg. everyone already knew about the groupthink and mob mentality here. only the lgfers think that it's something new or something that hasn't been discussed ad naseum.
  • LilianD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hm, but what makes it a political blog? That the original news item comes via kos or lgf, with a few comments?
    • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3the news item rarely comes from there. from what i've seen, 9 times out of 10, it's a link to a story posted somewhere else. as i said, i don't want it to come to something like that, as i love a good political discussion. but it may better serve digg to just post the original link, and we can discuss it and form our own opinions.

      if you need kos/lgf to feed you the "right" opinion, you're just a sheep anyways

      and i'd like to second aeon's sentiments above
  • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I would sign it, but I won't commit to not burying the stories of those who are all to happy to bury my own. I don't bury littlebylittle's posts and if others here indicate they don't bury other people's posts (or at least my own), then I won't bury their submissions either. Just let me know.
    • THX1212, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I've got the following people on my "Do Not Bury" list so far:

      0STAR
      bledbetter
      blogagog
      gerbil
      heidikrist
      keach
      LilianD
      littlebylittle
      mohammedaldura
      pierrelegrand
      shanimal1918
      Yashmak
    • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3buried
    • mrharvey518, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I will be signing on, but it is meaningless, because I have never buried a story because I disagreed with the opinion of the writer / submitter. I have buried a hand full of stories that actually were spam (airline deals I think). I do feel that political submissions will continue to be buried by a hand full of children who don't want to hear other people's opinions (or even see them posted on the front page). I hope that this will be resolved shortly by either: people stopping the burying, getting a "who buried this" button, or the elimination of the bury button all together.
  • Gerbil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Signed.
  • Equalizer, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Is anyone here seriously trusting a lib to keep their word?!?!?!?! C'mon people...fool me once, etc...
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"fool me once, etc..."

      eh.......em........see, you can't fool me twice!

      GW Bush.
  • bledbetter, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5A fantastic idea, indeed.
  • buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Banning political blogs would turn Digg in to Slashdot 2; excluding any group would cause turmoil, perhaps just an automatic label to all political posts ...like the surgeon general's... Warning: Reading this post may disturb your belief system, please proceed with caution.
  • shanimal1918, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I'm a techie and a LGF'er and I have the utmost respect for both Kevin Rose and Charles Johnson.

    This is a no brainer for me!

    Signed: shanimal1918
  • skrowl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12This will do NOTHING to keep 99.99% of political diggers from automatically burying DailyKos / MichelleMalkin (depending on their stance) as spam without even reading the story.
    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4That might have something to do with the fact that 99.99% of stories from DailyKos / Michelle Malkin ARE spam.
  • 0star, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Signed. Trust but verify.
  • Billiam627, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Um, how about the nonstop 9/11 conspiracy theories? What we need is a nuclear bury button.

    Edit: although I do strongly support a "who buried this" button
    • DarulHarb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So long as there are still "burys" I'd bury those posts, just as much as I'd bury Holocaust denial and "white nationalist" garbage.
  • DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I will sign on the same day that all of the MichelleMalkin submits are no longer buried.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It has to be unconditional or it won't work.
    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8I'll stop burying Malkin's stories the day she repudiates her racist, abhorrent mindset.
  • DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Daily Kos [then try the Include Buried Stories option]
    http://digg.com/search?s=dailykos&submit=Search§ion=news&type=url&area=all&age=7&sort=new
    Michelle Malkin [then try the Include Buried Stories option]
    http://digg.com/search?s=michellemalkin&submit=Search§ion=news&type=url&area=all&age=7&sort=new

    My point remains relevant. We can check back tomorrow.
  • Yashmak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I just can't imagine how infantile the mindset must be, of someone who would actively search out all comments/articles contrary to their views, and then try to bury them. I single out no particular group, I'm sure there are folks on the right doing it, as well as on the left. But to those guilty on either side, how can you ever expect to be listened to when you engage in such mindless, childish behavior? Are you happy that you're engaging in censorship? Or is it that you must bury what you can't out-argue?

    I don't honestly think it has a major impact on readership of the articles, because most KOS'ers read them at KOS, not here, and same goes for LGF . . .or whatever 'blog is in question. I
  • heidikrist, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Come on folks! As a proud Republican, I have better things to do with my time than hunting for and burying lefty posts (although I do admit I will bury comments within posts I'm reading if they are stupid/offensive--this doesn't affect ratings but improves my reading experience). I think it would be wonderful if the Left would show the same respect and Digg their favorite posts rather than burying that with which they don't agree; however, such an admission/realization/shift is unlikely from a group that relies on rhetoric and propaganda/information blackouts for its continued survival. It's also telling that Digg's editors have made no move to improve the transparency of the site, which would result in clear tracking of the stifling of non-leftist voices. The editors should commit to "Digg" as the site's ethos, rather than the inherently negative "Bury."
  • blogagog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I'll agree not to bury posts, but I'm still burying silly comments. Is that ok? If so, consider me signed up.
  • pierrelegrand, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Signed
  • novaculus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I find the whole brouhaha to be mildly amusing.

    Initially, it appears that Charles at LGF began to include a "digg" button on his posts. Readers there began referring those posts to digg.

    Some digg users then took it upon themselves to "bury" any article from LGF, and also from any other conservative site. Interestingly, they were not as diligent when it came to the original sources, although there was apparently some effort to do that as well. The circumstances suggest therefore that these folks have strong enmity to certain conservative voices (no matter what they say) and also would like to prevent the dissemination of news which doesn't fit their take on reality. As if the truth of a matter depends on who speaks it and who hears it, or who writes it and reads it. Positively Orwellian. 1984 anyone?

    Then it seems some of the conservative members of the digg community recognized what was happening, and began to turn the tables on the first group, hitting the bury button on articles originating from KOS, Huffington, etc. and giving thumbs down to left-wing commenters. The LGF haters and left of center folks, now getting a taste of their own medicine, are complaining about the unfairness of it all! (Many of the comments seem to suggest they believe they and their fellow travelers own digg.)

    I say let 'er rip, and let's see what happens. I do think it would be most interesting (and revealing) to require the members of the burial details to identify themselves.

    • Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I find this uproar of LGF sad and pathetic. I've been on Digg for a while now and I've seen long runs of posts from such 'left' places as DailyKos and MoveOn, as well as conspiracy sites like LooseChange. There was no banning of THEM.

      LGF starts getting things on here and NOW we have a problem? C'mon folks, tuning out one side of an issue is no way to towards progress.

      I've often heard, and truly believe, that if you don't understand the OTHER side of the issue then you don't understand your own.

      Remember, the best indicator of a fine mind is being able to have contradictory arguments on the same subject.
  • heidikrist, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6CORRECTION: Digg editors have created http://digg.com/spy/queue, but they don't push that information to each post, which would be nice.

    And, if you like to think that the Left and Right are equally guilty (you relativists out there), take a look at http://digg.com/spy/queue and see if you feel quite as proud of your political affiliation. Hint: those on the right are not as afraid of opposing ideas as those on the left.
  • yiddishsteel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6The best solution is for Digg to start highlighting just "WHO" burried the post. That way we can determine if the diggbats are coluding and conspiring.
    • HectorsRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9And what does one do if one finds collusion?
    • 1389, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7@HectorsRevenge,
      Report them as gaming Digg.
  • HectorsRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9The wonderful quality of LGF is that it is in the business of resurrecting stories that have already been buried by the MSM - news items that are, relevant, poignant, profound, and vital. I'm considering boycotting Digg.com for the very fact that it will bury, often without warrant, credible, legitimate news items, especially those that present information from a particular political perspective. I'm seriously considering just burying Digg.com itself. That is the best solution, until someone constructs an alternative news-filtering site that doesn't put rational decision making in the hands of puerile, post-pubescent, short-sighted teenagers. If the advertisers that sponsor or partner with Digg.com want my business, they'll need to 'persuade' Digg to consider a new paradigm.
    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Oh noes, HectorsRevenge is gunna boycott digg!

      Prediction: your boycott would be exactly as effective as Bill O'Reilly's boycott on France.
    • mjazzguitar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The thing is, that a lot of stuff from LGF isn't from any political persuasion whatsoever. It's just facts, mostly about the Middle East. People see it's from LgF and just bury it. I guess the palestinians are sacrosanct here.
  • nqi42, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Signed and Dugg. I want voices to be heard, not silenced. If I don't like someone, I just don't Digg them.
  • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6***** you

    for someone talking about freedom, you sure do sound like you're trying to oppress me
    • kooft, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4"Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?"
  • topace3000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'll bury whatever I feel deserves to be buried, and don't see any need for some silly "treaty"...
  • HectorsRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5The wonderful quality of LGF is that it is in the business of resurrecting or reinvigorating stories that have already been buried by the MSM - news items that are, relevant, poignant, profound, and vital. I'm considering boycotting Digg.com for the very fact that it will bury, often without warrant, credible, legitimate news items, especially those that present information from a particular political perspective. I'm seriously considering just burying Digg.com itself. That is the best solution, until someone constructs an alternative news-filtering site that doesn't put rational decision making in the hands of puerile, post-pubescent, short-sighted teenagers. If the advertisers that sponsor or partner with Digg.com want my business, they'll need to 'persuade' Digg to consider a new paradigm.
  • tatersw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It seems as though the system should have 2 types of digg and bury functions, or at least 2 weightings of digg and bury. A very strong weight for the way information is displayed TO YOURSELF, and a less weighty version for how it affects the visibility of information to others (along with a "who" for buries).

    In that way, if you just don;t want to see anything by LGF, regardless of content, your personal "bury" history would filter what you see, but it would have far less weight in terms of the "rating" of the post in general. Likewise, you can digg something, and while it would have a small effect on the position relative to the community at large, it would have a large effect on placing such a story within your own page.

    Giving simple veto power to everyone will result in no new content. Seems like a no brainer to rethink the way "bury" works.
  • nonsequitor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Lame, Buried!

    The bury button is there for a reason. If a story is not interesting to me, I will bury it. If I find it offensive, I will bury it. If a story is a dupe, I will bury it. If the story is a spam blog trying to generate traffic, I will bury it. I do not bury stories based on the submitter, and I will continue to Digg or Bury stories as I please.
  • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5BURIED, after 10 min. What's a Digger to do? Signing off.
    • captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Get the ***** out whiny bitch.
    • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Look out little. Internet tough guy.

      captaineuphoria, are you abusing prison computer hours again? Am I going to have to call the warden again?
  • HectorsRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3nazuraki spewed,
    "Oh noes, HectorsRevenge is gunna boycott digg!
    Prediction: your boycott would be exactly as effective as Bill O'Reilly's boycott on France."

    Myopic observation noted and quoted.

    It will be personally efficacious...and self-gratifying.

    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Know how many uniques Digg gets every day? A lot. So don't be surprised if your boycott fails to bring the giant to it's knees.

      And, by the way, using polysyllabic words never hides stupidity.

      Keep that in mind next time.
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Wow, Nazuki's right.

      He just used polysyllabic and you could still tell he is an idiot.
  • mklopez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Personally, I'm not going to stop burying content that is inaccurate/duplicated/etc, but I'm willing to use (even less) the spam/lame tag.
    On the other hand, for this to work, we REALLY need:
    - To have a "buried" section in our profiles that displays stories that we have dugg but were later buried
    - A label next to the story indicating WHY it was buried (spam? lame? inaccurate?)... if that included the NUMBER of people who buried it, it would be even more useful.
    - As for the "who buried this" suggestion above, that sounds to me like like something that would only conduce to even more flame wars ("you buried my cat dancing video? I'm going to bury all your stories!!"). But if the community wants it, then let's have it
  • RightMom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I will not bury stories however I will bury idiot comments, otherwise what is the point of digg? I rarely use it anymore just because of the stories being buried that I have dugg from Malkin and LGF so ergo if that continues I will just not show up on digg anylonger either. The left will have an echo-chamber for themselves, which apparently they prefer.
  • tredglx, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6The leftards won't abide by their agreement even if they do make one.

    Kinda like Muslims...
    • nazuraki, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7So. I notice you're pretty stupid.
    • chickentonight, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Jesus Christ tredglx you're a piece of work. This is exactly why digg doesn't want you here; you have an agenda and your sole contribution is to push that agenda. Your account history makes that clear.

    • JAVandiver, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It looks like chickentonight is proving tredglx's point...
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Even if he's right?

      Or perhaps you have a plethora of examples of the Muslim adherence to their promises?

      Doubt it.
  • JAVandiver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What I can never understand is why so many Diggers block people for having a dissenting point of view. If you disagree with someone start a dialog or digg them down but why block them? Does that not eliminate the purpose of the comment system even more?
  • HectorsRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4The wonderful quality of LGF is that it is in the business of resurrecting or reinvigorating stories that have already been buried by the MSM - news items that are, relevant, poignant, profound, and vital. I'm considering boycotting Digg.com for the very fact that it will bury, often without warrant, credible, legitimate news items, especially those that present information from a particular political perspective. I'm seriously considering just burying Digg.com itself. That is the best solution, until someone constructs an alternative news-filtering site that doesn't put rational decision making in the hands of puerile, post-pubescent, short-sighted teenagers. If the advertisers that sponsor or partner with Digg.com want my business, they'll need to 'persuade' Digg to consider a new paradigm.
  • DerProfi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I think littlebylittle's original suggestion of a "Who Buried This?" tab is best. Shine some light on the anonymous groupthinking weasels who bury en masse without fear of exposure. Another idea, but less effective I think, would be to limit the daily number of submits/diggs/buries that each account can perform. Once you've reached your limit, you're done digging until tomorrow.
  • HectorsRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3nazuraki ranted
    "And, by the way, using polysyllabic words never hides stupidity.
    Keep that in mind next time."

    The inability to fully apprehend what I have written reveals stupidity.

    Keep that in mind next time.
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Use the reply button, dickweed.
    • bcismar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Dickweed??

      Oh, That's your signature! I had wondered what your screen name stood for.
      Thanks
  • Globby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sorry -- the DIGG war cannot be solved this way. It can only be solved by digg.com, i.e., fixing their moronic algorithm. There is no incentive to stop burying until each side can be sure the other has stopped -- See first sentence.
  • HectorsRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1dshPls vomited:
    "Use the reply button, [expletive deleted for the kiddie]."

    I will when it's available and when I'm so disposed.

    Bye now.
    • captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I will when it's available"

      How do you think he replied to your post, witchcraft?

      You ate a lot of paint chips as a child didn't you.
    • HectorsRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Oh, reply like this? Maybe I just wasn't so disposed. Genius isn't the hallmark of this forum, is it?

      Adieu, my Liberal "confabulists."
  • BabytheCat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1chickenwhatever:
    O, I see! but you don't have an anti-Christian agenda....
    of course not, the name of the Messiah just pours outta yer mouth w/no reflection.

    Lying is part of the koran...it even has its own name...it is Their agenda!!
    • chickentonight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2No I don't try to push any agenda on digg. I don't want digg to become a battleground for our minds, and until recently it hasn't been.

      However a quick look at the profile of tredglx shows that his only contribution is to push an agenda. I'm noticing more of this lately and I don't like it.

      As for the name of the Messiah falling out of my mouth.. seriously dude. wtf?
  • HectorsRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The wonderful quality of LGF is that it is in the business of resurrecting or reinvigorating stories that have already been buried by the MSM - news items that are, relevant, poignant, profound, factual, and vital. I'm considering boycotting Digg.com for the very fact that it will bury, often without warrant, credible, legitimate news items, especially those that present information from a particular political perspective. I'm seriously considering just burying Digg.com itself. That is the best solution, until someone constructs an alternative news-filtering site that doesn't put rational decision making in the hands of puerile, post-pubescent, short-sighted teenagers. If the advertisers that sponsor or partner with Digg.com want my business, they'll need to 'persuade' Digg to consider a new paradigm.
    • DarulHarb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Spamming the same comment multiple times.
      Buried accordingly.
    • saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No one is asking you to stay on Digg. If you feel you want leave, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
  • LilianD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I can't believe people are burying posts even on this item! Pretty sad. 'Bury' would be fine if it only affected your own screen (as someone above says 'items that don't interest me'), but your burying affects *my* screen, which isn't fair.

    As another poster said: if you don't like it, just don't digg it.

    • novaculus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It is indeed sad, but I do not find it hard to believe at all. Such is the mindset of "true believers". Fairness does not enter into the equation when one is so insecure that opposing views must be banished before the threatening possibility of error is conceivable. It is this same insecurity that leads to the ugly vulgarity and ad hominem attacks on those who hold opposing views.
  • Ultramontane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4No more burrying liberal crap for me. Too bad the Diggbats won't comply.
  • CosmoAgain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Signed. Never have buried. Never will. Who else is in?

    Let the cream rise because it's cream, not because it's only competition is higher-density feces.
  • HectorsRevenge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"and if it's titled "religion of peace at it again!" I mark it as inaccurate. This is mainly LFG and MM stories,"

    If a piece is titled "religion of peace at it again!" it is simply sardonic and facetious. It is not "hateful."

    Semantical honesty will never be an indelible trait of progressive rhetoric.
  • SgtSlappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4A noble endeavor, Littlebylittle. It won't work though. There are simply too many dishonest Digg members willing to Spambury anything they are prejudiced against, sadly it seems only due to the source of the information.

    I absolutely do like they idea of a "Who Buried" function. Spamburying should be considered gaming the system too.

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.