Disagreed. −16 vote is sufficient to inform readers of how worthy the content is of their attention. If Vladimir doesn’t heed the warning, it’s his problem.
What’s the downside? The problem is that you have to vote it down first, and some people won’t stop posting, thus adding more and more noise to sort out, furthermore some people will answer, etc. It’s more robust this way, in uncontroversial cases.
Maybe there should be a more general rule: people have to stop posting (at least for a few days) on a topic if their comments on these topics receive consistent significant negative votes.
Why no discussing creationism/ID on relevant topics? Do you have a justification for this policy like “politics is the mind-killer” or are there some ideas we just don’t want to have to argue? Is it really enough noise to kill the channel?
“Agreed. I’ll leave the original main comment, but after this, creationism (called ID or otherwise) is cause for comment removal.”
I never argued for ID or creationism (the closest I have come is arguing for a more complete understanding of the topic before bashing it), I have been merely pointing out that Evolution has some serious holes. If you believe it so blindly that you can’t see the holes then you haven’t done your homework. If Darwin was alive today many speculate he would have never bothered to formulate evolution since the unfortunate discovery that cells are more the blobs of protoplasm. I am actually arguing for a re-working of the entire idea of a naturalistic explanation of the world.
But whatever, I give up… you guys win, your bonehead comments have won… I need not waste more time here...
En effet la règle ignorante ici (how’s your french?)
Could we please NOT have this discussion on the forum?
Agreed. I’ll leave the original main comment, but after this, creationism (called ID or otherwise) is cause for comment removal.
Disagreed. −16 vote is sufficient to inform readers of how worthy the content is of their attention. If Vladimir doesn’t heed the warning, it’s his problem.
What’s the downside? The problem is that you have to vote it down first, and some people won’t stop posting, thus adding more and more noise to sort out, furthermore some people will answer, etc. It’s more robust this way, in uncontroversial cases.
Maybe there should be a more general rule: people have to stop posting (at least for a few days) on a topic if their comments on these topics receive consistent significant negative votes.
Voting down the root comment of the offending comment tree is enough to hide it entirely regardless how big it is.
Mind you, repeatedly posting out of context top level comments to subvert the tree structure would constitute spam which is another matter entirely.
It doesn’t work like this in the comment feed.
Why no discussing creationism/ID on relevant topics? Do you have a justification for this policy like “politics is the mind-killer” or are there some ideas we just don’t want to have to argue? Is it really enough noise to kill the channel?
“Agreed. I’ll leave the original main comment, but after this, creationism (called ID or otherwise) is cause for comment removal.”
I never argued for ID or creationism (the closest I have come is arguing for a more complete understanding of the topic before bashing it), I have been merely pointing out that Evolution has some serious holes. If you believe it so blindly that you can’t see the holes then you haven’t done your homework. If Darwin was alive today many speculate he would have never bothered to formulate evolution since the unfortunate discovery that cells are more the blobs of protoplasm. I am actually arguing for a re-working of the entire idea of a naturalistic explanation of the world.
But whatever, I give up… you guys win, your bonehead comments have won… I need not waste more time here...
En effet la règle ignorante ici (how’s your french?)
Before you leave, could you confirm that you did go to CMU for graduate school?