To interact with this page you must login.
Signup
Is the decision to edit block Christopher Rubin for a month a step too far?
Several months ago, a couple of high profile users were 'penalised' for using fake names. As much as I disliked the action taken, there was no denying that Quora had a long established rule that had been broken.
Christopher Rubin has received numerous warnings for allegedly not posting helpful answers and has now received a month long edit block. Whichever admin(s) made this decision are getting into dangerous territory here, because surely it is the role of the Quora Community to decide what content is helpful through the upvote/downvote mechanism. We should be encouraging people like Christopher, who create unique and compelling content for Quora, rather than trying to nullify creative approaches to answers. Most importantly though, unlike with the real name policy, there is no clear objective benchmark with which to decide what content is useful, so I cannot understand why Quora Admins are allowed to ban someone for such a reason.
I, for one, value Christopher Rubin and his answers immensely and am genuinely flabbergasted at this clear overreaching of Quora Admin powers.
Christopher Rubin has received numerous warnings for allegedly not posting helpful answers and has now received a month long edit block. Whichever admin(s) made this decision are getting into dangerous territory here, because surely it is the role of the Quora Community to decide what content is helpful through the upvote/downvote mechanism. We should be encouraging people like Christopher, who create unique and compelling content for Quora, rather than trying to nullify creative approaches to answers. Most importantly though, unlike with the real name policy, there is no clear objective benchmark with which to decide what content is useful, so I cannot understand why Quora Admins are allowed to ban someone for such a reason.
I, for one, value Christopher Rubin and his answers immensely and am genuinely flabbergasted at this clear overreaching of Quora Admin powers.
society
understand
If it's good enough for Christopher Rubin, then surely it must be good enough for the whole Quora Community as well, and not be enforced asymmetrically or sparingly.
Considering that Erica Friedman is painting him as an aggresive jerk with her catharsis, could she convincingly with enough grounds of sent him anonymous "not helpful" content warnings, if she had the role of Quora Admin, or even better, could someone else do the same in return for her?
Even more fitting, I announce that we should all on Monday the 20th, that we sign a newly updated TOS which subjects all of us to anonymous "not helpful" unfavourable content warnings (that are cryptic in message and span for months).
I ask you this.
When was the last time a Quora Admin or Reviewer themselves - among all other rules here that are applied - received such a warning from Quora about needing to improve their content? ................. Do they even have content with more upvotes than Christopher Rubin or Brian Fey, outside the Quora topic?
Let the upvotes do the talking.
The most insecure and paranoid people, think the most cynical thoughts about others.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
~Benjamin Franklin
PS. Once the 1 month edit ban is over, can anyone guarantee that he won't be banned for 2 months if he continues to post answers?