This question has 6 down-votes as of now.
Why? It's a perfectly reasonable question.
EDIT
For reference, here is the original version of the question which has since been edited:
PIC time with automation, autopilot, auto throttle, FMS, Autoland
Automation, automation, automation, who gets to log PIC, if the First officer programs the FSM and turns on the autopilot at 1000FT AGL while the Captain calls back for coffee?
There are two parts to any post, and the voting reflects both of them:
The tone of the question and the preparation shown. Even a great question like "Why do jet engines get better fuel efficiency at high altitudes?" can become harder to use, address, or read if this presentation is bad. There are many ways to go wrong here, like:
The question appears to have had a mix of all these issues. The original post doesn't explain what the author already found out about PIC or explain what exactly he found confusing. He doesn't post relevant information about jurisdiciton, what he means by calling for coffee, whether the first officer is making the major decisions, etc. The phrasing came off as a little like the author had an ulterior motive, and finally, the post skimmed over or made assumptions about things that really should have been addressed right out, like "Does the automation affect who is PIC?", "Does the choice of PIC affect who sets the FMS or works the controls?" or "Do some PICs only call back for coffee when they should be doing more as PIC?"
Honestly, yes, it is hard to see a question with good substance but poor wording and preparation get downvoted instead of having comments and edits. Downvoting instead of commenting smacks of obsessing over question quality or overzealous moderation. It means a potentially great question gets held up and ignored because of issues that are very fixable. Constructive comments and helpful edits, as usual, is the best way to make this site better.
However, as much I dislike aggressive downvoting, I think that downvotes on poorly presented questions do have their limited place. If a question improves it'll get several upvotes over the next couple of months. Additionally, downvotes are supposed to be an anonymous way (albeit not always the best way) of setting useful questions apart from unclear ones. Unclear questions tend to get unhelpful answers.
You may find the following meta posts relevant:
Although it could be a legitimate question, opening with "Automation, automation, automation," and the reference to calling back for coffee, makes it read more like a rant than a question. In addition, the question shows no sign of research - it doesn't even say what jurisdiction it's about - and the original version before it was edited was one long run-on, instead of sentences.
I don't think it's surprising at all that at least six regular visitors think this is not a useful starting point for a fact-based answer about logging PIC time, nor for any explanation about the role of automation in the cockpit. It's the kind of post that would look more in place in the comments section of Aviation Herald or of a YouTube video.
I downvoted because it seems to be a question based on the rather dull trope that airline pilots are just computer operators. As the other Dan says, there was no real research, the actual question is quite unclear and doesn't show any real attempt at research.
I don't see a problem with it in any form. I read it simply as, if it's in an autonomous state of flight who should log the hours. Many aircraft not only commercial aircraft have versions of automated flight so it wasn't meant as an insult. I am guessing it differs from military aviation to some degree. Both pilots log the flight time the same unless they stepped out for a smoke mid flight as does the non-pilot flight crew.
