The comments below the article evoke my "Read the Sequences" emotions.

But where are those other universes?
Doesn't splitting the universe by making a decision contradict the conservation of energy?

And I feel like: "The conservation of energy is a rule within the universe; it does not apply to splitting universes. Even the notion of 'where' only applies within the universe. And the universe does not split 'when you make a decision'; it keeps splitting all the time regardless of the content of your neurons. Duh! Could we just skip this level of debate and give more space to meaningful comments, please?"

But then I realize that's me, spoiled by reading the Sequences. For most readers those questions probably feel completely relevant, and they would wonder if no one would mention such obvious objections.

Going a bit more meta -- because I really don't care about the quantum physics that much -- this seems like a problem of debates in general. You can't have a debate on different levels of expertise simultaneously. Bad arguments drive out the good ones. The easiest way to protect the good arguments is to forbid the bad ones; but again, to an outsider this will seem like those bad arguments are actually the good ones you don't have an answer to! Or maybe there could be multiple "levels" of the debate where moderators could move individual comments to a "beginner" or "expert" column. (Any question that was already answered on the website and does not bring any new argument is classified as "beginner".)

Also I realize that if I had a blog with discussions below the articles, this (having to answer to the same trivial objections again, and again, and again) might drive me crazy. But that's a fact about me.