I actively disagree. You don’t have to read those threads, but polite and measured responses to dumb ideas is one of the best ways to get yourself out of those ideas. We literally have dumb question threads for exactly that purpose. I also think it’s good to encourage people to be patient and explain things. What “damage” was caused? A couple hundred posts about something that you don’t have to read, but which could very well be useful to other people.
You want to take a community of people that try to help others understand and instead silence all conversation along lines you disapprove of.
You don’t have to read those threads, but polite and measured responses to dumb ideas is one of the best ways to get yourself out of those ideas.
In the example I gave, this clearly didn’t apply.
We literally have dumb question threads for exactly that purpose.
There are important details that distinguish the conversations happening in stupid questions threads. These details also cause those threads to not be downvoted.
You want to take a community of people that try to help others understand and instead silence all conversation along lines you disapprove of.
You are throwing out relevant details again and distorting other details in the direction of your argument. The qualifier “all conversation” is inaccurate, for example. Alternatively, if disapproval is taken to be referring to a (value assignment) decision (rather than unreflective emotional response, say), it’s tautological that I’d be trying to get rid of things I disapprove of.
I don’t understand this point. Not punishing people in those cases would use the same information, so the amount of available information doesn’t characterize any given choice of the effect.
(Edited the grandparent. My point is that lack of blanket downvotes for replies to negative posts is equally insensitive to details about those posts. This consideration doesn’t help with the question of punish vs. not-punish.)
I actively disagree. You don’t have to read those threads, but polite and measured responses to dumb ideas is one of the best ways to get yourself out of those ideas. We literally have dumb question threads for exactly that purpose. I also think it’s good to encourage people to be patient and explain things. What “damage” was caused? A couple hundred posts about something that you don’t have to read, but which could very well be useful to other people.
You want to take a community of people that try to help others understand and instead silence all conversation along lines you disapprove of.
In the example I gave, this clearly didn’t apply.
There are important details that distinguish the conversations happening in stupid questions threads. These details also cause those threads to not be downvoted.
You are throwing out relevant details again and distorting other details in the direction of your argument. The qualifier “all conversation” is inaccurate, for example. Alternatively, if disapproval is taken to be referring to a (value assignment) decision (rather than unreflective emotional response, say), it’s tautological that I’d be trying to get rid of things I disapprove of.
Hi! I just want to test the new system.
And you are throwing out relevant details whenever you punish people for responding to downvoted comments.
I don’t understand this point. Not punishing people in those cases would use the same information, so the amount of available information doesn’t characterize any given choice of the effect.
Individual downvotes for bad posts are sensitive to details about those posts. Blanket downvotes for replies to negative posts are not.
(Edited the grandparent. My point is that lack of blanket downvotes for replies to negative posts is equally insensitive to details about those posts. This consideration doesn’t help with the question of punish vs. not-punish.)