2 added 224 characters in body
source | link

No, it's not.

Cranks, nuts, newbies, PSQ-askers, PSQ-answerers, rep-farmers, donut-eaters, people making wrong assertions. How can we make them stop doing those things, or get them to leave?

A self-appointed panel of inquisitors should do the trick. If you are unjustly mentioned as a person of interest in the court transcript, post here in meta.SE to clear your name, simple as that. We know the difference between a good poster with proper motivations and one of those other types.

So, yeah, no healthy community works like that. Maybe that's old-fashioned and SE is now just a repository of canonical answers and not a community at all. In that case, do we really want to antagonize unique contributors like OP with naming-and-shaming? If he leaves we might be left with only PSQ-askers.

What gets me is that SE already implements a technological solution, ranking by votes. If you don't like something, downvote it, and it loses visibility. But for some reason wrongthink requires organized extermination.

No, it's not.

Cranks, nuts, newbies, PSQ-askers, PSQ-answerers, rep-farmers, donut-eaters, people making wrong assertions. How can we make them stop doing those things, or get them to leave?

A self-appointed panel of inquisitors should do the trick. If you are unjustly mentioned as a person of interest in the court transcript, post here in meta.SE to clear your name, simple as that. We know the difference between a good poster with proper motivations and one of those other types.

So, yeah, no healthy community works like that. Maybe that's old-fashioned and SE is now just a repository of canonical answers and not a community at all. In that case, do we really want to antagonize unique contributors like OP with naming-and-shaming? If he leaves we might be left with only PSQ-askers.

No, it's not.

Cranks, nuts, newbies, PSQ-askers, PSQ-answerers, rep-farmers, donut-eaters, people making wrong assertions. How can we make them stop doing those things, or get them to leave?

A self-appointed panel of inquisitors should do the trick. If you are unjustly mentioned as a person of interest in the court transcript, post here in meta.SE to clear your name, simple as that. We know the difference between a good poster with proper motivations and one of those other types.

So, yeah, no healthy community works like that. Maybe that's old-fashioned and SE is now just a repository of canonical answers and not a community at all. In that case, do we really want to antagonize unique contributors like OP with naming-and-shaming? If he leaves we might be left with only PSQ-askers.

What gets me is that SE already implements a technological solution, ranking by votes. If you don't like something, downvote it, and it loses visibility. But for some reason wrongthink requires organized extermination.

1
source | link

No, it's not.

Cranks, nuts, newbies, PSQ-askers, PSQ-answerers, rep-farmers, donut-eaters, people making wrong assertions. How can we make them stop doing those things, or get them to leave?

A self-appointed panel of inquisitors should do the trick. If you are unjustly mentioned as a person of interest in the court transcript, post here in meta.SE to clear your name, simple as that. We know the difference between a good poster with proper motivations and one of those other types.

So, yeah, no healthy community works like that. Maybe that's old-fashioned and SE is now just a repository of canonical answers and not a community at all. In that case, do we really want to antagonize unique contributors like OP with naming-and-shaming? If he leaves we might be left with only PSQ-askers.