Timeline for Policy: Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) is banned
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2023 at 16:58 | history | edited | cottontail | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 10, 2023 at 22:42 | comment | added | gnat | @KevinB FWIW proposed prerequisite reading was supposed to kick in long before anything absurd happens - at less than 10 answers (ideally, 5 or 6). That's because it was supposed to help folks like me who read all prior answers prior to posting anyway. Primary purpose was to make things more convenient for myself and you can think of taming the issue of piling thoughtless repeats more like as kind of a beneficial side effect | |
| Feb 10, 2023 at 21:38 | comment | added | user400654 | @gnat I'd prefer, action be taken when posts receive more than n answers by users with the power to do so to prevent them from reaching the point where it's absurd to expect people to read several dozen answers to avoid repeating one. I won't sit here and blame users like this one from answering when there's 80 answers. It's not their fault | |
| Feb 10, 2023 at 21:36 | comment | added | gnat | @KevinB once upon a time I proposed reading prior answers as a prerequisite for posting when question already has many answers | |
| Feb 3, 2023 at 22:08 | comment | added | user400654 | it's easier to just post another answer rather than read 76 others | |
| Feb 3, 2023 at 21:50 | comment | added | starball Mod | I don't disagree with your position, but... what did this really add to the discussion here on top of YungDeiza's answer and cottontail's answer? Reading and voting are just as valid ways to voice yourself than writing an answer post, and I'd say preferable in the case that nothing new is added to existing discussion. | |
| Feb 3, 2023 at 20:58 | history | answered | user17949142 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |