>Could we possibly, as a community, just agree that a blacklist of Gruber posts is good for us? How would we begin such a discussion?
This submittal is #1 on the front page with 110 net points. I think the community has spoken.
This submittal is #1 on the front page with 110 net points. I think the community has spoken.
However, one possible solution would be to enable downvotes, but only on controversial posts such as Gruber's. That would enable both sides of the community to speak.
How would you feel about such a measure?
EDIT: Controversial might be defined objectively as the ratio of upvotes to flags, or similar. People regularly comment on the fact that they have flagged Gruber's posts, but I presume that moderators currently just ignore such flags because the content isn't offensive, against the rules, and so on. For that matter, it would be interesting to know how many flags are currently on this post.
You do realize that, by definition, "controversial" is a subjective notion, right?
I see hundreds of posts here every day that I don't click on, some in the top 5. I don't start campaigns to censor these posts, I assume people upvote them because they find value in them. Obviously people find value in Gruber's posts if they are being upvoted.
So here's the suggestion again: don't click on it bro. Problem solved.
It's funny how someone can hate a certain type of article so badly that they will read it and comment about how badly they hate it. I mean, why go to all the effort?