1:42 PM
k, got some more stuff to write that you can read when you get back :D
Could be anything from the horrible "I didn't think it applies to me" to misunderstandings, the name of the code of conduct, I guarantee you some of the chat stuff is a part of it (i.e. chat rooms handling stuff internally, leading to potentially targeting flags at some users to get them banned). Tbh, any kind of "we'll handle it ourselves" culture in chat or elsewhere could be a part of it
the JS room was complained about on Twitter too IIRC
Right, "negative" voting (close, delete, down)
Which, especially to new users, is considered personal (even though the moderation policy states "moderate content, not people")
Unfortunately there's targeted votes, but that's a separate problem (those are personal, but are usually in batches and reverted by the system, and if it's a problem, mods clear it up). But for "regular" votes, it being personal is something I've seen a lot on SO
All though it's especially a problem on questions. On answers, at least NAAs (wrong ones are a separate category), the poster either follows the advice from the reviewers/people who comment (assuming it's constructive), but there are cases where they just get pissed.
I.e. yesterday, there was an NAA where the poster used the "The accepted answer didn't work for me, so that's not an answer, which means I can post new questions here" approach to attempt to justify a NAA
Back to comments, there are some users who get mad when they see LQ posts
It's obviously rude saying stuff like "Don't post this trash", "learn to google", etc. Some of these are even posted by 10k users (you'd expect them to be familiar enough with the site to know how it, and comments, work). New users alone isn't a problem, but there are some users who post comments like that, and kinda making it possible to continue (i.e. if it doesn't get removed, it's "evidence these kinds of comments are allowed")
I'm not sure if there's a connection yet, but I've seen some of that on questions that have been
cv-pls'ed in SOCVR. I've seen it on non.
cv-pls'ed questions and answers too, but it seems higher if it's posted there.
Weirdly though,
javascript is worse when it comes to stuff like that
(it's weird because the JS room has attracted a lot of negative attention due to the room culture, but if it spreads to the main site, it might be a bigger problem)
And absolutely anyone can make mistakes from time to time, even if they're usually helpful and don't do stuff like that on a regular basis. Those that accept it and say "yes, I made a mistake and I deserve <insert response to whatever happened here>", aren't a problem. Assuming they don't end up doing it all the time. Then there are those that get angry because "there's nothing wrong with it", "you're wrong", etc.
I haven't really mentioned R/A posts yet, because they usually get nuked with heavy penalties. Most established users know the difference between comments an answers though, so they post comments instead. It's the <50 rep users that post them as answers (or trolls that only want to disrupt)
Non-R/A trolls might not be important, their anger is usually at downvoters and the system, and is still within the code of conduct.
R/A trolls get post-nuked, banned, and even account-nuked if it's that bad. Still though, that falls under the negative votes category
Speaking of which, I forgot to mention flags and reviewing
specifically duplicate flags/close votes, and anything where the reviewer leaves a comment. These usually piss some people off, for whatever reason the reviewer voted to delete
i.e. posting comments as answers, it's clearly outlined on meta that comments should not be posted as answers, and that you need 50 rep to comment. Some people still post comments as answers, and when it's pointed out, some of the posters go toxic
Though when it comes to comments in general, it's mostly on questions that are a problem. Specifically the "don't post this" as mentioned earlier
I think that's everything?
Oh - that's an easy one: they didn't get immediate answers to their questions, so that is someone's fault. It's yout fault, or some other mod's fault, or some SU curator downvoted and it's their fault, or the Q got dupehammered so it's a gold member's fault. It's the fault of snarky commenters, downvoters, condescending commenters, short commenters, long commenters. Anyone with an identifiable username, (except the OP's), it's your fault. So, you must all be punished by flagging, posting abuse, blogging, tatting etc, and they don't give a toss about any subsequent bans on burner accounts. —
Martin James 2 hours ago
Some people always look for someone or something to blame, so if they get flagged and something gets deleted, or closed, or downvoted, it's "not my fault", "the code of conduct is too strict", there's the people who don't know there is one because of the name, and still complain about the rules. Though that's not just a SE problem, but it's probably more compared to real life laws because "what's the worst that can happen if I break it?". And some people complain the second something doesn't go their way
and don't even think for a second that they might be the actual problem, not the rules or the people enforcing them
TLDR
With so many platforms that provide chat rooms for people that can be made private, why do people persist in complaining about the code of conduct set for this network?
This post is for anyone using or interested in using these sites. Whether they actively participate or passively search...
