We occasionally get some non-paleo trolls round here like Freelea of fruitarian fame or those just interested in knocking the paleo diet. These are not curious people who are non-paleo or non-paleos (like WAPFers) interested in paleo subjects, they are explicitly anti-paleo. So, what say ye? Delete, ban, or leave up and just let the votes speak for themselves?
I'd say, SO FAR, they don't seem to be causing much trouble. THey get voted down, they don't come around much, irritation level on my part has been minimal. I'd say use the minimum level of force necesary to maintain order. If the problem becomes worse in the future, you can always revisit the issue and perhaps increase the level of counterforce.
Also, I'd prefer to error on the level of openmindedness than to be overly closeminded. Also, even the most negative comments can serve a purpose like educating me as to what and how others think and what rumors and data (even if false) happen to be circulating in other circles. I don't like to become overly insulated from what is happening and being talked about elsewhere. I think even diehard vegans have much to teach me as far types of mindsets to be wary of as well as what kind of research is out there that might not be fully supportive of my current theories. THe best way to find holes in my theories is to let them out there and let others have at em. If my theories are strong, than I have nothing to fear, and if my theories are weak, then the naysayers are doing me a favor by attacking them and exposing that weakness. Hopefully, I and we are wise enough to tell which is which.
There is no negative to being voted down... Suspend with explanation followed bans if it's not constructive. Anti paleo that's constructive should be left up so that we can learn from it
I think paleo could appreciate some different perspectives. Now I see it seems like high-fat, low-carb is now the standard of the paleo community. Maybe they should consider that wild game and pastured meat has much less fat.
I find that letting non-paleo or anti-paleo people speak is fine because they usually don't have very intelligent arguments or it's the same old same old that has shown repeatedly in "real world" cases NOT to WORK so truthfully, they don't hurt us, they just continue to make the noose around the Food Pyramid's neck a little tighter. As they say the proof is in the pudding...none of us have "pudding" bellies but those on the normal food pyramid diet sure do. We're not obese, sporting diabetes, high blood pressure & every conceivable ailment known, we're the ones finding ourselves freed of most of those, being able to get off medications & treatments due to our diet. They can't say that. Let the votes speak for themselves.
I just think when the top five questions of the day that crowd the top of the list are all vegan related we need to step up.
I believe voting down has a negative effect on one's points rating?
I'm a fan of good judgment over inflexible rules. We'll know if/when they start causing more clutter/problems than are worth dealing with. Until then, I say we can benefit from listening to all opinions.
Melissa, I can not remember the philosopher who said it but I hold with the idea that the mass of society is no more justified to silence one man than if one man had the power to silence the masses. Let them vent, alternative hypothesis are necessary and healthy even when presented by a madman.
I don't think that we're at the point where we need to take any drastic measures. Free debate and exposure to conflicting viewpoints is IMHO preferable to banning vegan/frutarian/concretearian trolls, and kind of runs counter to the site's educational vocation anyhow...
[Meta] Are you addicted to PaleoHacks? 0 Answers