OK, so I replied to a rather inflammatory post in a manner which I thought was respectful, non-demeaning, and constructive...while at the same time not mincing words about what is actually at issue. I pointed out that someone who denies climate science could still find cause to reduce carbon emissions in an effort to keep ocean acidification from getting out of control.
The OP made a raft of rambling and loaded comments which could have been grounds for landing in the probation bin from the get-go. Starting a conversation by labeling a well-supported and evidence-based theory a "scam" is not a very productive way to have a discussion on the merits of a fuel source, and it would have been easy to flag it for the mods. But instead of going there, I thought it may be more productive to use consensus principles and see if there was a common point on which we could engage. Judging by the five upvotes and two apples, it looks like some other readers may have seen the value of this approach.
In short, I know that my responses pushed the buttons of a handful of climate deniers. I don't doubt that there are more. I would just point out that the OP met probationary criteria as well. My guess is that some folk who cling to ideological positions are a little too easily threatened when confronted with evidence. In particular, I am disappointed that one of the individuals who piled on after the fact labeled my comments as naysaying when I was genuinely attempting to engage someone who had no qualms about being negative and demeaning in the first instance.
So yes, by all means, chuck what I said (and this as well, since it amounts to meta discussion) into the cider press. But please consider the provocation to which I responded, not to mention the tone.
We have a shiny report button that we would love you to press in this kind of situation. Press away. It brings a swarm of moderators to the post in question and we pick it apart to see if it meets publishing standards.
You can also use the report button to draw our attention to good posts too. Maybe a post is amazing but doesn't have an apple yet. We love that too.
There is a very good reason why we have the cider press. Only a few people (beautiful, amazing, nice people like you) have the privilege to post there. You've earned that privilege.
Increasingly, we've had trouble with an issue which confining certain topics to the cider press does a lot of good to solve. Plus the reasons you mention. If you see cider press conversation outside the press, please report it as soon as you can.
I think I know the thread you are talking about. It took over 8 hours of VOLUNTEER moderator time to clean up that thread and there's still more work to be done - volunteers that would rather spend that time out in the garden growing lovely things, but instead, care about this place so much they worked hard to keep things nice. If someone had used the report button at the start, it would take 10 minutes to solve the problem. We love it when you use the report button.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the cider press is a sin bin. I like keeping things in the original context. I also like consensus methods as a tool for dialogue and wanted to engage the OP in a manner that took the discussion away from his sticking point (the scam) in into an area where we're more likely to find agreement (seafood).
I also get the volunteer hours that go into mucking out threads like that one. I'm a volunteer too.
A wop bop a lu bob a womp bam boom. Tutti frutti ad:
Whom would you place at Level 9 on the Wheaton Eco Scale?