-19

According to the comment policy, comments should only be for:

  • Asking for clarification

  • Suggest improvements

  • Add relevant but minor or transient information to a post (e.g. a link to a related question, or an alert to the author that the question has been updated).

Note: I didn't use the FAQ phrasing for the first two points because people should be polite and requesting something sounds more like an order than asking for something.


Those rules are very nice and, as someone on the autism spectrum with anxiety issues, I'm really happy that they are here. However, I have heard numerous times that, regarding comments, "meta is different" (eg: more lenient).

This "more lenient" is a bit hard to quantify for me, which lead me to this question:

If someone posts a comment (under an answer of mine) basically saying:

I disagree with your answer, here is why...

Is it okay for me to flag it as "no longer needed" ("NLN") and ask other people to do so (so that the comment will disappear)?

I feel like, if you disagree with me, you should use your votes and write your own answer. Furthermore, those kinds of comments tend to bring heated discussion who can turn badly very quickly (which isn't good for anyone).

So, to my eyes, if a comment just says "I disagree/you are wrong", it's better to remove the comment (as "no longer needed"), than wait for a debate to start and not nice words to fuss, leading to a flood of rude/abusive comments.


Also, if you feel like an answer is full of outright lies, I understand your urge to point it out (to warn other people). However, as I said (and in my opinion), a debate won't lead to anything. That's why, instead of saying:

This is completely false!!!

I urge you to ask instead:

What makes you think that? Do you have a source?

A very relevant link explains it better than I do over here: Why were comments pointing out potential bad advice in an answer deleted?


Question

So, again, if a comment is basically saying:

I disagree/this is wrong/etc...

Is it fine for me to flag as "NLN" and ask other people (for example, on meta chat) to take a look and flag it too if they think I'm right?


Note: For people thinking that this is not good because it will bloc people for having contradicting views, this isn't what it is. You will still be able to disagree with something and you will be able to make it known in another answer (instead of a thread of comment leading mostly nowhere). (Just don't target the user, please. Target the bad advises instead).


Another related discussion can be found here: How can we help and support users with anxiety in the context of Stack Exchange?


With what is currently going one, I know moderate are overworked and can't possibly deal with "no longer needed" flags. That's why I'm not asking for them to delete it. Instead, I'm asking if it's okay for the community to join forces in order to do so.

17

First of all, there's nothing wrong with disagreement, and explaining why.

This suggestion would just move disagreement from comments to answers.

If someone answers with a bad piece of code, or an answer on meta has some glaring holes, it's not productive to address that answer in another answer. The author of the (in your opinion) "wrong" answer may not ever see it, and as such, will not learn from the mistake they apparently made.

Answers are more permanent. Comments can eventually be cleared.

So no, I don't think "I disagree with your answer, here is why..." is flaggable at all. It's constructive criticism.

"This is completely false!!!", with no explanation, on the other hand, simply isn't constructive.


and ask other people to do so (so that the comment will disappear)

Voting rings are strictly forbidden on SE.
I imagine the same thing goes for flagging.

On the other case, if there's obvious harassment, swearing, namecalling and the likes going on, sure, get someone else to flag it too. The sooner it's gone, the better.

But flagging disagreement is dubious at best, and getting other people to flag along with you on that can be interpreted as "silencing the opposition"

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .