note
FoxtrotUniform
<ul>
<i>Let's give a person who asked a question right
to "reject", hide or even delete an answer that he thinks
does nothing good to add!</i>
</ul>
<p>No.</p>
<p>First, this sort of arbitrary re-writing of the
Monastery's history is at best ethically questionable.
Your suggestion would bypass the consideration system
entirely, giving everyone the (somewhat limited, I'll
admit) power to silence nodes they don't like, with no
accountability. IMHO, that's a very bad idea.</p>
<p>Second, if someone replies to a question with a bad
answer, [merlyn|there's] [Abigail-II|always]
[crazyinsomniac|someone] willing and able to call them
on it. The "bad" answer is flagged, and useful discussion
(in the vein of [Dominus]' Red Flags articles) follows.</p>
<p>Third, not all replies that seem like bad answers to the
questioner really are. For instance, the best answer to
"how do I parse XML with regexes?" is usually "you don't,
use [cpan://XML::Parser|a] [cpan://XML::Simple|module]
instead", which isn't what the questioner wants to hear. I
can also imagine situations where the questioner doesn't
really know enough about the problem to differentiate good
answers from bad.</p>
<p><tt>-- <br>
The hell with [paco], vote for [Erudil]!<br>
:wq</tt></p>
184559
184559