Skip to main content

Timeline for answer to Site policy for very heavily-trolled topics by T.E.D.

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

Post Revisions

9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 5, 2018 at 23:18 comment added T.E.D. Mod @NeMo - Having seen a couple of answers treated this way now, I believe you are correct. Another issue is that with a "hold first" policy, people feel compelled to work with even obvious trolls, because they were given no real human consideration before the hold. So I'm now of the opinion that its probably better to let questions earn their holds.
Jun 5, 2018 at 22:12 comment added Ne Mo As the apparent instigator of this policy, I think this is a bad idea. Whatever the supposed intention, 'on-hold' questions almost always get binned.
Feb 27, 2018 at 15:23 comment added T.E.D. Mod @axsvl77 - An interesting idea. But since what you're talking about requires software support from the SE network, that'd be a topic for the other meta.
Feb 27, 2018 at 14:59 comment added Astor Florida @T.E.D. Perhaps instead of calling it "on hold" we can give it its own category, perhaps called something like "Assistance Required." Then give it its own Review Que, and get any user with 1000 or more points can help the new user transform it into a new answer?
Feb 21, 2018 at 23:07 comment added justCal That is true. Very objective.
Feb 21, 2018 at 22:52 comment added T.E.D. Mod @justCal - It seems a bit that way to me too. On the other hand, its the most well-defined and objective of the options so far.
Feb 21, 2018 at 22:33 comment added justCal I have to say the idea of auto-closure of questions just due to being on a 'sensitive' list seems a little totalitarian to me. I have voted to close/flag/ and delete my share of trolls here, but it seems some form of due process should be involved.
S Feb 21, 2018 at 19:47 history answered T.E.D.Mod CC BY-SA 3.0
S Feb 21, 2018 at 19:47 history made wiki Post Made Community Wiki by T.E.D.Mod