Timeline for Question banning should work differently on Meta
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2013 at 11:46 | comment | added | Will Ness | bad answer. People have right to propose all kinds of ideas on meta, and votes on meta should not be used as indication of anything other than agree/disagree. | |
| Feb 22, 2012 at 10:18 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | "Some people are extremely passionate about really bad ideas." Sounds like that Jeff guy :P | |
| Feb 22, 2012 at 8:30 | comment | added | user50049 | @razlebe I'm pretty sure the adjustments in progress will guarantee that. There are also people that get quite upset when content is deleted, and lots of other issues that awesome users feel very strongly about. If I understand Jeff correctly (see comments under his answer), the adjustments should make sure those kinds of users never get in the proverbial 'cross hairs', provided their dissent doesn't turn into an outright spectacle. | |
| Feb 22, 2012 at 8:27 | comment | added | razlebe | @Tim I agree with that too & that user isn't the one I was referring to. I'm referring to the guy who thinks outside the box and isn't afraid to go against the tide of community opinion using a reasoned argument, not the guy who is so far off-kilter that his contribution isn't welcome. For example, Kevin Montrose is the prime (vocal, anyway) advocate of the problem title filter, with (from what I've seen) community opinion squarely the other way. Kevin's backed up his reasoning with the math behind it, and so made a valuable, minority, dissenting contribution. That attitude needs protecting. | |
| Feb 22, 2012 at 8:17 | comment | added | user50049 | @razlebe If someone continually lobs intentionally disruptive moon pies at the front page without learning a single thing in the process, they quite frankly need to go away. I completely agree with Jeff in that regard. I really think raising the bar a bit (as they are doing) will keep the ban from hitting extremely dense people that really mean well, which is all I was after :) | |
| Feb 22, 2012 at 8:11 | comment | added | razlebe | @Jeff "Heavily-downvoted" doesn't necessarily mean "bad idea". The "problem" title filter is a great example of a feature that the community largely hates if you measure hate solely on meta votes; but that SE holds as a good idea. It'll be a black day when you start turning away the minority dissenting opinion just because the mob doesn't agree with them. | |
| Feb 21, 2012 at 9:13 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | +1 for "extremely passionate about really bad ideas " because I LOL'ed. But I find that those who are consistently and extremely passionate about really bad ideas.. over and over.. kind of need to, uh, find another place on the Internet to hang their hat. | |
| Feb 19, 2012 at 13:53 | comment | added | user50049 | @Tomas The only benefit I see in having it here is that it would be the system that ultimately kicked a long term troll off the site with it being well known that 'there's nothing anyone can do about it, don't come crying to us, we warned you.' So I think just greatly increasing the threshold required for it to 'fire' would be sufficient. I can't see someone that isn't trolling hitting a ban if the threshold was doubled. | |
| Feb 19, 2012 at 13:30 | comment | added | Tomas | Well, so what you say would suggest that the automatic ban is not needed for Meta (because trolls will get caught by moderators sooner anyway and moderators have their buttons) - quite the opposite, the automatic ban can make false alarms, so it should definitely be changed (or removed?). That's the message I can only agree with. | |
| Feb 19, 2012 at 13:16 | history | answered | user50049 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |