When QL removes (censors) a Question, why doesn't it also remove the associated Reputation scoring? That's less than fair practice. for Questionland Seattle

In Questionland FAQs

Questionland Topics

Reputation: 342

Follow 0

Follow 1

When QL removes (censors) a Question, why doesn't it also remove the associated Reputation scoring? That's less than fair practice.

mister_fusspot asked in Feedback 11 months ago | Report

Answer this question or share it with a smart friend:

Type your answer here…

Asker's Favorite

Reputation: 1090

Expert: 1 topic

Moderator

Follow 4

9 1

We rarely have to censor anything and only do it when the contribution is offensive, spam, obviously useless or some combination thereof.

The reason we don't remove the associated reputation score is because the votes on the contribution are a reflection of people's view of that person's contribution to the community. If we removed the negative scores then we would be giving an inaccurate view of that the way that person is perceived.

It's not hard to negate a negative score by asking good questions and giving good answers. People are generally loathe to down-vote other people.

We monitor the voting to ensure that no one is arbitrarily voting down people they disagree with and will remove those if they occur. Otherwise a vote is a contribution just like an answer and we don't remove content unless it is necessary.

Thanks for asking. Hope that makes sense.

Charles B answered in Feedback 11 months ago | Report

1 comment by mister_fusspot…

1 5

Thanks for your reply.

"the votes on the contribution are a reflection of people's view of that person's contribution to the community"

...but only until the point at which you take the post down. Who is to say that future comments might not have differed. In my view, that is essentially unfair. If YOU alone get to decide what is allowable, then you should also be willing to wipe the slate clean.

mister_fusspot commented 11 months ago | Report

Enter your comment or ask a new question

Share this answer with a friend:

1 Other Answer

Reputation: 2266

Follow 2

6 1

Isn't that kind of like complaining when you get thrown out of a bar for fighting and they won't let you back in?

"But you already threw me out! Why would you remember that I was a disruptive asshole?"

Basil answered in Feedback 11 months ago | Report

5 comments by mister_fusspot, RacerX, and Black Beetles in Amber…

1 1

Not such a good analogy, actually; I wasn't kicked out of QL, nor did I defend or complain for reinstatement of my original post.

What I did do was ask a reasonable question about QL policy so that I would better understand. For that, three people have dinged me with a thumbs down. So much for trying to understand the community standards.

Charles B wrote me a respectful answer, which I thanked him for and replied politely with my differing opinion. For that I got four more thumbs down. Thanks everyone.

And now I have your comment, which kind of proves my point. I'm guessing that you didn't see the original post that was removed, which means that you're only commenting on the comments. That may feel good to you, but it's not helpful to me.

Here's my point again: If the Reputation score is intended to reflect community feedback, then it should only be used for posts that are available for the entire community to comment on.

So, for example, I would be perfectly fine with the moderator leaving my post up, even if it draws 100 thumbs down to every one thumbs up. That's fair. Alternately, if the moderator is going to act on behalf of the community and deprive the entire community from leaving feedback, well fine, but all feedback should therefore be removed. That's also fair.

I'm simply trying to make a considered point about the feedback mechanism.

Now, go ahead, click the thumbs down button if you really think my intention is to be a disruptive asshole.

mister_fusspot commented 11 months ago | Report

0 2

disruptive assholes are part of the real community too. I keep getting the impression more and more that Questionland mods would like to pretend this isn't truth

RacerX commented 5 months ago | Report

0 0

"disruptive assholes are part of the real community too."

What a silly statement. "Disruptive" people have no interest in the betterment of any community or social grouping. Otherwise, they wouldn't be "disruptive".

Smug, snarky, sarcastic, sure. But "disruptive" has a very specific meaning, that someone is not capable of being constructive and useful in any possible way.

Black Beetles in Amber commented 5 months ago | Report

0 0

Or am I misunderstanding you here?

Black Beetles in Amber commented 5 months ago | Report

1 0

Ultimately, I read a comment questioning whether it really adds to the discussion, poses a valuable alternative, or just perhaps is it an opportunity for the individual to hear themselves talk. Often when the comment is dismissive, snarky, or sarcastic the intent is fairly clear - especially when it doesn't relate strongly to the original question or is added on to a question/answer from 6 months ago.

I guess we could all be judged as falling into that category here.

Russ Campbell, NWEBS commented 5 months ago | Report

Enter your comment or ask a new question