-
Yes We Cannon!
Join the Movement and Spread the Word
Recent Articles
- The Benefits of Urban Chicken and Bee Pilot Projects at Community Gardensby Joseph Sneep, published May 18, 2013 in Commentary (6 comments)
- Public Works Committee Rejects Bus Lane Pilot Projectby Ryan McGreal, published May 16, 2013 in Special Report: Light Rail (31 comments)
- Focus on Cycling Infrastructure Before Enforcementby Ryan McGreal, published May 16, 2013 in Special Report: Cycling (5 comments)
- Baranga's On the Beach: This Ain't No Beach-Side Hutby Margaret Lindsay Holton, published May 16, 2013 in Reviews (11 comments)
- NYC Redesigns its Streets for Safety, Vitality and Diverse Useby Ryan McGreal, published May 13, 2013 in Special Report: Walkable Streets (19 comments)
- Ghost Crosswalks Haunt Hamilton Intersectionsby Undustrial, published May 12, 2013 in Special Report: Walkable Streets (19 comments)
- Public Meeting with New Horizon Regarding City Square Phase 3by Kelly Foyle and Simon Kiss, published May 12, 2013 in Commentary (9 comments)
- Yes We Cannon - Bike Lanes 2015by Justin Jones, published May 10, 2013 in Special Report: Cycling (29 comments)
- City Crackdown on Tactical Urbanismby Ryan McGreal, published May 09, 2013 in Special Report (121 comments)
- Invigorating Tactical Urbanism Talk Inspires Actionby Ryan McGreal, published May 08, 2013 in Events (17 comments)
- Durand Neighbourhood 'Betrayed' By New Horizon Rezoning Applicationby Nicholas Kevlahan, published May 08, 2013 in Commentary (41 comments)
- No One at City Hall is Responding to LRT Criticismby Nicholas Kevlahan, published May 07, 2013 in Special Report: Light Rail (32 comments)
Article Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
Recent Blog Entries
- 83-Year-Old Pedestrian Struck at Upper Gage and Mohawkby Ryan McGreal, published May 16, 2013 in Transportation (6 comments)
- Still Struggling to Make Sense of City Policy on Crosswalksby Nicholas Kevlahan, published May 14, 2013 in Transportation (13 comments)
- Tactical Urbanism and the Judgment of Hart Solomonby Nicholas Kevlahan, published May 13, 2013 in Transportation (8 comments)
- A Poem in Julyby Shekar Chandrashekar, published May 12, 2013 in Arts (1 comment)
- Tactical Urbanism Crackdown in Spacingby Ryan McGreal, published May 10, 2013 in Activism (1 comment)
- Hamilton Sustainability Professionals Network Launch Eventby Justin Jones, published May 09, 2013 in Sustainability (0 comments)
- 20 Jackson Demolition Rumour is Just a Rumour - For Nowby Ryan McGreal, published May 09, 2013 in Revitalization (11 comments)
- Staircase Minor Variance Application to Waive Parking Requirementby RTH Staff, published May 08, 2013 in Activism (4 comments)
- Merulla Motion Calls for Integrity Commissioner to Investigate Mayor Bratinaby Ryan McGreal, published May 07, 2013 in Politics (8 comments)
- Letter: In Defence of Ontario Port Landsby Letter to the Editor, published May 07, 2013 in Revitalization (0 comments)
- Mayor Bratina Recuses Himself from Mayors' Vote on Big Move Revenue Toolsby Ryan McGreal, published May 07, 2013 in Light Rail (4 comments)
- Councillor Merulla's Notice of Motion Respecting the Police Services Boardby RTH Staff, published May 03, 2013 in Politics (1 comment)
Blog Archives
By Ryan (registered) - website
Posted February 18, 2011 at 20:27:09 in reply to Comment 59974
In your comments, you insisted against any reasonable definition of "censorship" that a voting system that never denies any visitor the ability to read any comment somehow constitutes censorship.
Then, after deciding that downvoting equals censorship rather than censure, you determined that the voting system doesn't work because some comments attract more than the minimum number of comments required to hide a comment under the default settings, meaning that some people read the comment after it had already been downvoted.
Your conclusion is cute "gotcha" reasoning from faulty premises about both the intent and the effect of comment voting.
The purpose of comment voting is not to deny anyone the ability to read a comment; it is to allow the members of the RTH community to establish a shared awareness that a comment is inappropriate so people feel less obliged to reply to it.
In no way does it prevent anyone from reading any comment - and nor is that its intent. After all, it's pretty hard to establish shared awareness about a comment if people can't read it.
Of course, you're welcome to claim and to try and argue that not preventing people from reading comments somehow constitutes censorship. Likewise, others are welcome to argue that your claim doesn't make sense. And anyone who chooses to register an account is welcome to flag your respective comments as fair or inappropriate.
Now, after having made a claim about censorship to which several people responded specifically, you seem to be lamenting a lost opportunity to discuss the matter of censorship. A discussion is what you invited, and a discussion is exactly what you got - but you seem unwilling to acknowledge the fact, pointed out by several people, that the premise of your argument is faulty.
Instead of responding to this, you decided to post a passive-aggressive comment with a full paragraph dedicated to a personal attack against one of the people who replied to you. That, I suspect, is why your third comment was significantly downvoted when your first two were not.
Incidentally, being downvoted for a given comment does not mean you are being labelled a troll. It simply means some people thought that particular comment was inappropriate.
A troll is someone who persistently posts inappropriate and offensive comments and actively seeks to drag down the general level of civility and productiveness. The voting system applies case-by-case specifically so as not to write people off as trolls just because of a few inappropriate comments.
Reply | Permalink | Context
Common sense is that which tells us the world is flat.
-- Stuart Chase