arbat
in
suggestions
No comments from new journals
Title
No comments from new journals
Short, concise description of the idea
I want to block new journals from commenting in mine.
Full description of the ideaOn many occasions people create empty journals just for spam. This way, when that one-time-empty-journal is banned, they can create another ( Read more... )
Reply
Why? I mean - those features will not be harder to implement than the others. And, if you do not want to use them - you do not need to.
On the other hand, they may be quite useful, - I have been on quite a few occasions spammed by bots that were already banned by many of my friends, - that could have been prevented with any of those features.
The first 10, or 20, or 30 targets will ban a bot, - and make it easy for the rest of us.
Reply
People get banned for all sorts of reasons, including having unpopular opinions. If I've turned on "no comments from users banned by X people", my friends might suddenly lose the ability to comment to me, if they post something controversial. But if a lot of my friends ban someone, I'm much more likely to agree that that person needs to be banned.
Also, as I said, I'd be much happier with screening comments from $criteria-X; a spammer or someone posting offensive comments wants attention. If they don't even get seen by the public, in my experience they just vanish.
Reply
You can make them your "friends" and override the block. In any case, I am not saying - "let's turn it on for everyone by default!" If you do not want the feature - you need not use it :-)
"People get banned for all sorts of reasons, including having unpopular opinions"
True. I trust my friends though.
In any case, - what if I want to ban the unpopular opinion? Why deprive me of the possibility? Ok, I am an ass who wants only popular slogans and bumpers stickers! Fine. Why not let me be one?
Over and over you argue along the lines of "I do not want to use those features". This is fine. But this is a reason of why you should not use them - not why they should not exist.
Reply
I'm not saying "I wouldn't like to use these features," I'm saying "I see some potential problems with these features, here's a suggestion to mitigate the problems I'm seeing."
Reply
I wish you can quote any statement of mine that seem to indicate this.
Consider analogy. Imagine someone says, - "vodka is a vile beverage and some stupid people may abuse it and it will be bad for them. So, let's ban vodka!"
My objection is: yes, people may abuse it, but it is their problem. I want it, - and it should be good enough reason to make it.
Reply
I think we're done; you seem to be ignoring the bits where I'm trying to have a discussion about the implications of what you're suggesting, and seem to be taking any thing I say (and to a lesser extent other commenters) as attacks. Maybe it's a language problem, maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly enough, but whatever the reason, it seems to me like I'm discussing and you're fighting, and I'm done.
Reply
- The word "abuse" means (among other things) "to use wrongly or improperly; misuse".
- Nowhere did I attack you. I merely tried to tell you that your argument "some people will misuse the features" is not a good argument when deciding whether a feature should be implemented or not.
- You, on the other hand, did attack me. Just now, when you refused to read what I have written, refused to accept the argument at its face value, - and turned to accusations instead.
Anyways, I think I am done. I have nothing further to add.This is exactly what you say - some people will misuse those features. They will not think it through, they will not see ramifications, they will wouldn't think the implications through and so on.
This perfectly matches the analogy I offered.
Same as in my analogy, - an argument that "some people will not be able to think through the implications of their alcohol consumption" is not an argument to ban said alcohol.
Reply
Leave a comment