Timeline for Do you think it's right to stymie opinions on important topics? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 31, 2019 at 14:00 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Oct 31, 2019 at 14:47 | |||||
| Oct 18, 2019 at 10:37 | history | closed |
user310756 Ward - Trying Codidact user351483 PolyGeo tchrist |
Opinion-based | |
| Oct 18, 2019 at 6:00 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 18, 2019 at 10:37 | |||||
| Oct 17, 2019 at 15:24 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | @soxroxr Legitimate users are able to participate, and they can share their opinions. All you need to do is put in a couple of minutes of effort to get above a tinchy teeney weeny rep threshold. That's really not too much to ask. Beyond that, well, this isn't a guaranteed platform for your opinions so there's always your blog/Twitter/Facebook/local community centre | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 13:31 | comment | added | Vatev | +1 from me. With a little luck you will get enough rep from this question to be able to participate. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:44 | history | edited | soxroxr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 359 characters in body
|
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:36 | history | edited | GlorfindelMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body; edited tags
|
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:36 | answer | added | GlorfindelMod | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:34 | comment | added | soxroxr | I didn't say that the company manually decided that "lowly" people shouldn't be allowed to participate - the "how" isn't so important. The "what" however is that legitimate users are unable to participate and I don't find that to be the right way to do things, automated system or not. I understand why the system is in place, but it's absolutely not perfect. @Raedwald - I don't believe that wanting to participate is kind; I didn't say that the only reason something becomes protected is due to malice, but as I clarified above, it is protected and legitimate opinions cannot be shared. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:24 | answer | added | Shadow Wizard | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:22 | comment | added | Magisch | The protection is automatic when answers by low reputation users get deleted. Various users have removed it before, but it keeps coming back. I've removed it again, but it may be back soon. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:21 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | As yannis said, the FAQ question got protected after several answers there were deleted. They were not deleted merely because dissenting opinions were posted, there are still plenty of dissenting answers left on that question. But when answers attract lots of downright malicious comments, even after multiple comment cleanups are performed, then it may be necessary to remove those answers to try & limit further damage. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:21 | answer | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | timeline score: 9 | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:20 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:30 | |||||
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:19 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | "if you're new comments tend to be a better way to help" They're a great way to end up with information in the wrong place. I routinely see "posting this as an answer because I don't have enough rep to comment" and it baffles me as to why people think that logic makes sense | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:19 | answer | added | Mari-Lou A Слава Україні | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:17 | answer | added | Cerbrus | timeline score: 13 | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:14 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | FWIW, there have been proposals that MSE privileges should be based on a user's highest rep on the main Q&A sites, eg meta.stackexchange.com/questions/153414/… | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:03 | comment | added | Raedwald | Your post is unkind, by assuming that the only reason to protect that post is to "stymie opinions". That is not why questions are protected. Further more, that question has numerous opinions posted already, some of which are near duplicates. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 12:00 | comment | added | Raedwald | Possible duplicate of What is a “protected” question? | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 11:58 | comment | added | yannis | As for disallowing the association bonus, you may have a point for Meta Stack Exchange. But not for any of the normal sites. There are very good reasons to not allow people without even a minimal contribution to the site answer questions that have already proven troublesome. But Meta Stack Exchange is indeed a special case, and perhaps should be an exception to that rule. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 11:57 | comment | added | soxroxr | I know, I've been around a long time. I'm more appalled by the fact that rep from other parts of the site doesn't count at all for the meta, which is a sort of central hub for the platform. I understand discouraging people from making a new account and posting whatever foul thing they want, but the topic is getting so much (negative) attention because it's really important to people, people who have probably used the Q/A parts of the site but not the meta. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 11:56 | comment | added | Lundin | I believe it's some left-over from bad anti-spam protection. Same as "protecting" a post. | |
| Oct 17, 2019 at 11:54 | comment | added | yannis | Just to offer some perspective: The "10 reputation on this site" requirement is not the norm. It's a protection measure, applied (either automatically or by moderators) only when needed. In the specific instance, it was applied automatically after a number (3?) of low quality answers were removed. | |
| S Oct 17, 2019 at 11:54 | history | suggested | Kromster | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added the link
|
| Oct 17, 2019 at 11:53 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 17, 2019 at 11:54 | |||||
| Oct 17, 2019 at 11:45 | history | asked | soxroxr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |