Besides, we already have censorship; we just call it consideration. So the question isn't whether we should have censorship, but whether this particular kind of posting should be added to the list of those that may be considered.
The page on consideration says:
In this case, neither of those really covers the problem. The posts aren't offensive in the sense that you wouldn't want your kids to see them, and they're often factually incorrect or misleading, so technically they might fit in the second category. But is it really a factual "error" when you're doing it intentionally even after being corrected multiple times? And isn't it offensive to intentionally waste people's time and try to reduce a site's usefulness?
I'm sure that whoever wrote "factual errors" there meant mistakes made out of ignorance or sloppiness. A week or so ago, I made a mistake in a piece of untested code. Someone pointed it out and I updated my code, so the correction provided a bit more information for the learner. That's how it's supposed to work, and why "factual errors" should be replied to with corrections instead of reaped.
But that doesn't work as intended in this case, because the "errors" are being made intentionally. At what point does that rise to the level of "offensive"? If posting 10 links to porn sites should be reaped because they harm the site's effectiveness, why not 10 nodes saying, "Here, use this bad idea which I'm presenting because I have a personal grudge against some members of this site"?
Aaron B.
Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.
In reply to Re^6: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by aaron_baugher
in thread Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by BrowserUk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |