Verified answer

-------------------

A. The person posting the question can delete any answer. This should help remove annoying and dumb answers.

-------------------

I would vote No. This would allow one to censor opposing views.

And, the power could allow one to create a false impression too: "Evolutionists, how can you possibly believe that whales evolved from land mammals?". 10 evolutionists reply with reasons, but the question asker deletes all 10 posts.

---------------------

B. The person posting the question can create a blacklist of people who cannot answer any of their questions or give a thumbs up/down response.

---------------------

I would vote no. All people who are allowed to post at the site should be allowed to post an answer to any question.

If someone continually makes improper posts, they should be reported somehow.

---------------------

C. Create a list of keywords/phrases for subjects you are interested in. When a question is asked with those keywords/phrases, you get a notification by email, so that you can post an answer.

---------------------

That sounds good.

A) The dumb answers give the question some comical relief. That, and even if the answer is dumb, you have plenty of others to choose from.

B) This is called the 'ignore' option. Putting someone on your ignored list doesn't even let them enter your question, let alone answer it.

C) This could actually be useful, though I wouldn't want an email. "Inbox (832482234)" Every single day doesn't appeal to me in the slightest

I like C. Send in C.

I think C is reasonable.

A. would be difficult to achieve and problematic considering the interconnections with user profiles etc.

Also it could be used to delete all differing opinions and give a distorted view of the diversity of beliefs and knowledge.

B. Would be annoying to users and prevent new users(who cant vote) from participation.

And how do you know who can or cannot answer your questions?

I think, especially with religious questions, the asker should be able to select the best answer. It is after all for their benefit.

Voting for best answer only serves to uphold the common belief and reward the most indoctrinated sheep.

But then we all know that's the whole idea. Right?

A. No, if that were the case than half the answers given would be removed simply because the asker disagrees with them.

B. You can already do that. You simply block the person.

C. that's not a bad idea, but I think that would block up people's emails. Why not just have it as a list on the welcome page after you log in?

A - I suppose, another idea would to have a stupid answerer as well as top contributor status thing :)

B- i thought you could do that if you add them as a contact?

C- suppose, but you'd probably still end up with stupid questions with those words in

have something to stop people posting the same question in every section, every day.

monitor people who keep deleting questions and remove there account if there's no good reason for it

B and C are good. A would be okay if the person gets to keep their points. People would be deleting just because they don't agree with the answer not because it is not valid. I don't think that would be fair.

i admire each and every of the above, incredibly, heavily, i think of they ought to all be on there. additionally the type of questions and solutions you have reported that would specific provide up alot of the substitute reporting if no longer provide up all of it mutually. I say make Yahoo do the artwork for the reason that they're people who made the regulations

D. Make Y!A team get their lazy *sses up and start reading my Appeals for my reported questions.

option C is good.

A and B give too much censorship power to the asker.

ban atheists right off the bat send them to another department