in reply to Re^4: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
in thread Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

he taints us all with his uttering
Why?

I don't think in the least that you (or this forum or whatever) is tainted in any way by allowing nonsensensical posts that then get refuted by people that know better.

As I said I can understand your frustration but nevertheless allowing nonsense to be uttered while unambiguously calling nonsense nonsense is the way to do it.

And just because you mentioned it: I live in a country where holocaust denial is not only censored - it is actually considered a crime.
However that does not bother the so inclined...

But I must admit that I don't vote at all when at least I should have downvoted some postings...

  • Comment on Re^5: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 31, 2015 at 08:31 UTC
    that then get refuted by people that know better

    I'm sick of making that effort.

    I was looking for a solution that doesn't allow this irritant to waste so much of my time; whilst preventing his garbage from wasting that of other people who might be taken in by it.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
[reply]
Re^6: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.
by Anonymous Monk on May 31, 2015 at 08:26 UTC

    morgon: Why? ... unambiguously calling nonsense nonsense is the way to do it.

    Yeah few of us tried that -- a number of such nodes got reaped for trolling

    3809 nodes is a lot of garbage to refute

[reply]
      3809 nodes is a lot of garbage to refute

      Yeah, that's a lot to expect from people who are participating voluntarily because they want to learn new ideas and help people who are open to being helped. I'll admit that I rarely read this irritant's posts anymore, which means I'm not down-voting them either. I use an RSS reader to show me new nodes, so if I see his username, I don't read it because I already know it's nonsense. That's normal human behavior -- if someone's consistently annoying, you learn to avoid him -- but in this case it works in his favor, since if everyone does that he gets to post his nonsense unopposed and un-downvoted.

      I enjoy PerlMonks very much and learn a lot here, but I don't know how much time I'm obligated to spend following one user around correcting his nonsense, just so we can say we haven't "censored" him. I owe the community some of my time, but not an unlimited amount, and I'd like to spend as much of it as possible helping people.

      Aaron B.
      Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion