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

This is probably true but I think it is not a problem as long as the nonsense is confronted. It is the knowledgeable people's (and BrowserUk is one of them) burden to make the world a better place by pointing out where less knowledgeable spread nonsense - again and again and again.

This is exactly what the trolls build on: To waste other people's time. Your argument appears to support the trolls in this effort. You said below "I don't vote at all when at least I should have downvoted some postings", and your posting history shows that you've replied to the monk who we are talking about only three times so far. My suggestion to you is that you try the policing and technical refuting that you are advertising, and maybe then you will get an idea of why several monks are supporting a more efficient way to go about it.

I can understand that BrowserUk is getting tired of it but everything else would amount to censorship....

Sorry, but that's complete nonsense, as it usually is when the word "censorship" is uttered on the internet (except in China). You said below you live in a country where holocaust denial is illegal. No matter whether it's morally supportable, that's censorship. The current suggestion above is not censorship, and here's why: First, the current suggestion is to simply hide or label such posts - everyone is still free to read them. Second, the individuals are still perfectly free to post their opinion in other places where everyone can read them.

Comment on Re^4: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts. by Anonymous Monk on May 31, 2015 at 11:12 UTC
You said below you live in a country where holocaust denial is illegal. No matter whether it's morally supportable, that's censorship. P.S. Before anyone misunderstands this statement: Being a supporter of free speech does not mean that you support any of the truly idiotic and wrong opinions that it allows people to express. The point was more generally that whenever a government says "it is illegal to express opinion X", that's censorship (unfortunately no matter how upsetting you may find X). On the internet, except in a few places, everyone is free to start their own website and post whatever opinion they want, so the "censorship" argument is almost always complete junk. It's the equivalent of someone whining they didn't get let into some club by the bouncer - they're free to make that decision not to let you in, and you're still free to go party somewhere else.	[reply]
Re^6: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts. by aaron_baugher (Curate) on May 31, 2015 at 13:09 UTC
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: You may consider nodes which are "highly offensive" (in terms of being not-safe-for-work). You should NOT consider nodes for having factual errors. 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.	[reply]
Re^7: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts. by Anonymous Monk on May 31, 2015 at 20:32 UTC
When a node is reaped, Anonymous Monks can't see its original contents. The way I understand Eily's suggestion is that posts labeled "this post has a low reputation" would be hidden by default, like `<spoiler>` tags, but still revealable to anyone (including Anonymous Monk visitors) who wants to read them anyway. If it were implemented like that, it wouldn't even be censorship at all!	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Can I please have multiple downvotes per (certain monk's) posts. by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 31, 2015 at 10:29 UTC
Second, the individuals are still perfectly free to post their opinion in other places where everyone can read them. Hoo-rar! To pretty much everything in your post; but especially that. 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]


Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
	PerlMonks