both censorship, and protection. (3.66 / 3) (#22)
by coffee17 on Thu Jun 21, 2001 at 07:47:41 PM EST
Yes, it is censorship if it makes it so that
some poeple will never see the comment. However,
as has been pointed out, this protects the system
from parsites. I finally got around to looking
at some of the comments which were zeroed out. I
saw only one which was zeroed which I couldn't see
any reason for (it was short, but it offered some information;
heck, I'd even replied to it before it was zeroed.
But it was only zeroed by one person, so I made it
visible again. I also saw some which while I could
see some people's reason for zeroing them, I didn't
think it should be zeroed and helped vote it up
(however, with a few even 5's wouldn't help). But
my point of saying that I could see why some people
would zero it meaning essentially that I couldn't
give a shit if it was visible or not, but think
that visible should be the default. Also, as has
been mentioned there really are not that many
zero's, Heck, you could make a pro-slashdot post,
and if it actually had content and wasn't "5la5hd0t Rul3ZZZ, you all can suck my dick"
it wouldn't likely be made zero... However, I think
that there might be too many people who can give a zero
score (heck, I don't think that I've demonstrated
ratings and longetivity enough that I'd want me
to be able to zero scores yet.
Perhaps an alternate thing is take the current
score which lets one rate to zero and make that the
threshold to see zero comments (thus you can fight
them if you disagree), and raise the threshold for
actually being able to give a zero.
Lastly, I'm kinda sad to see this article, as it
might make more people aware of zero's and make
them more likely to use it. As I said, I saw some
examples which I thought didn't warrant censoring.
People should remember that a 1 is a really stupid comment,
a 0 is something with no redeeming value that you want to censor. Hopefully
that won't raise the occurance of zeros ;)
[ Parent ]