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.
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.