Tavern on the Meta

1:00 PM

@bjb568 How is it constructive? At the very least, it's labeling someone (not constructive), at the furthest it's offensive (which is not helpful at all).

Shadow Wizard

@Bart I am bit lost. That is your comment?

Bart

@ShadowWizard yeah, reposted by bjb apparently.

bjb568

@hichris123 You don't like labels? Good luck understanding the world at all.

Shadow Wizard

Not good idea.

hichris123

@bjb568 If I call you a terrible cat (not a real example by the way), what problem does it solve? Labels don't solve problems. They just make people mad.

bjb568

1:01 PM

SE isn't your safe area. Harsh things happen, and if they are constructive, like a label that describes a class of user no other label effectively does, they should remain and be read and considered.

hichris123

1 min ago, by hichris123

@bjb568 If I call you a terrible cat (not a real example by the way), what problem does it solve? Labels don't solve problems. They just make people mad.

bjb568

@hichris123 That's because you didn't say anything besides that I'm a terrible cat. Hopefully there's a bit more content to that in a meta thread.

An entire question that says "bjb is a terrible cat" is valid and necessary. In this case the value would come in the answers which pose solutions.

Derpy

this is over simplifying IMHO. Maybe the cat was a little harsh, but the post **DOES** point out that the policy isn't just avoiding to call them "rep W..." which is indeed rude and offensive, but instead to avoid any form of calling at all.
In this, the cat is just re-posting the question I asked before without all the "polish and ribbons": are we fine not calling names on people that have shown they don't care about the site purpose and just act on their action after they have done them instead of telling directly to them that we don't want that **before** they act?

bjb568

You need to identify the problem to solve it. Avoiding it doesn't solve it.

hichris123

So why do we need a label for that then? Why do I need to call all bad cats "cat-weirdos"?

Why can't I just talk about the problem?

And attempt to find solutions?

Andy

1:04 PM

@bjb568 No it's not. A valid question would be explaining why your actions (not you as a user) are unnecessary.

bjb568

@Andy So the question needs to elaborate a bit, but the core message can be that I'm a terrible cat (and also that that's a problem that needs to be solved).

Andy

No, it doesn't need to focus on you at all. It needs to focus on the behavior that needs to be fixed.

bjb568

@hichris123 Because you're trying to do so without the help of an unambiguous, well-known, helpful, and inoffensive term.

hichris123

@Derpy But here's the thing: we're trying to focus on behavior. We're not trying to focus on why some user is terrible. Focusing on that doesn't do anything except lead to anger & drama.

@bjb568 That makes no sense. You can just say "users who post answers on poor questions". That describes the problem more effectively.

bjb568

@Andy Me joining the site when I'm not prone to adding value, the system and other people incentivizing my actions, and the lack of mechanisms to keep me in check are the problem. In sort, I am.

Andy

1:07 PM

Instead of saying "bjb is a stupid DevDoodle whore" the better behavior would be a discussion about how to cut down spam in chatrooms for a third party product that competes with SE

bjb568

@hichris123 That's not all rep whore means.

Andy

@bjb568 Please. Explain to us what "whore" means then.

bjb568

@hichris123 No. It leads to productive discussions about users, which form an integral part of the community.

Integral meaning all of it.

hichris123

Sure...

I don't really have time for this right now, but I'll be in the corner, making sure this stays civil.

Derpy

@hichris123 Bingo. The drama. I wonder. Suppose then that we create a perfect meta post that explains all the bad thing the "rep farmer" is associated with (answering OT post, purposely answer dupes with copies from the original and so on). I then find an user that does that. What I do?

bjb568

1:09 PM

@Andy You're trying to prove A is greater than A. They're the same discussion.

Derpy

Because if I "moderate" them, then I am focusing on the user. If I link them to the post, I am name calling them: I just don't use a word.

bjb568

@Andy Users who are here for the wrong reasons. The definition doesn't have anything to do with behavior. Behavior makes the diagnosis, it's not the underlying problem.

Andy

No they aren't. One is singling out a user or group of users. One is focusing on behavior. If I didn't mention DevDoodle, would your first thought have been that I was talking about you?

bjb568

@Derpy That meta post will create several orders of magnitude more drama than a mention of rep whores.

Shadow Wizard

And in that spirit, @Magisch how are you? Better now? :-)

bjb568

1:12 PM

@Andy Yes. Discussions set precedence and generalize.

Even without that, if you're talking about a group that includes me, you're talking about me.

Andy

@bjb568 I doubt you like being called names when being talked about

Derpy

@bjb568 What I meant is that either we admit that we want to avoid the drama of name calling and we as the "good guys" are fine with cleaning up afterward... or if we argue that we want to educate the users that is only possible by telling the user that they did wrong and as such is focusing on mentoring them, not a generic action that "someone but not certainly you because you are good and we wont never ever name call you".

At this point I think that maybe the language barrier is doing me wrong here and I am missing something, but as far as I get it now, calling out an user to point him at a post telling that he did wrong is still name calling, even if I didn't give a name to that behavior.

bjb568

@Andy I don't care about what you call me. Do you communicate not to convey information? The words themselves don't matter, just the meanings and subtext behind them.

Derpy

Dec 5 '14 at 12:25, by SPArchaeologist

►

Hello, Richter...

bjb568

@Derpy Nobody here is proposing telling people they're rep whores.

It's a term to use for discussion about the general problem.

Andy

1:19 PM

@bjb568 That is completely wrong. Words matter, especially in an environment where not everyone is as fluent in the language. If a user goes an looks up "whore" in the dictionary, they don't get your bullshit answer about "user behavior". Language and word choice absolutely matters. The meanings and subtext are not always easy to determine when talking with someone and it's even harder when you are reading text.

bjb568

@Shog Was there something wrong with my second comment here? It's removed while the first and third are there. I can't tell if I said something wrong since I can't see the comment now to reflect on it.

@Andy My "bullshit answer" is about the definition not involving "user behavior".

Andy

"Users who are here for the wrong reasons." - Sounds like a behavior issue to me

Derpy

Even if we were, we are abolishing the term and synonyms too.
That means that one should no longer go around and tell someone that he is a "rep w...." and this is fine, the term was offensive.
This also mean that one shouldn't tell anyone that they seem to do "insert synonym here" and that is ....? At this point, if it is the namecalling that we want to avoid and not the rudeness, I should avoid to tell anyone that they "are practicing this unwanted behavior made of actions we discuss in this post here but not named because names are bad" because this is calling names too?

bjb568

@Andy That's why text should be pointed and exact, rather than beating around the bush. "Rep whore" describes somebody that sells themself (metaphorically) for reputation and are hated by the community. Just knowing what rep and whore mean will give you that. The rich history behind the phrase just augments that understanding.

@Andy No, it'a a mindset issue. Mindsets are orthogonal to behavior.

Derpy

Basically... are we abandoning any attempt at telling the users that they are doing something wrong because they will feel that they are begin picked on and that cause flames (and unpopularity for those that will have to handle the flames) and just be fine with cleaning up the mess afterward?

bjb568

1:26 PM

Yes, that's another issue.

Andy

We're talking past each other right now. Unfortunately, I have to work and can't continue at the moment.

Have a good <time of day>. I'll return later.

bjb568

@Derpy This discussion is mostly about meta discussions which don't involve a the alleged rep whores themselves, but easily generalizes to not telling people when they're wrong due to fear of "offending" them.

@Andy <time of day>!

Derpy

@bjb568 That is precisely what I am asking. Is the policy hinting at "not telling people when they're wrong due to fear of offending them." too or am I just reading something that isn't there? Because if it is, that doesn't sound good at all.

Quill

I see a lot of arguing and not enough cat gifs

2

Jaydles

1:42 PM

@Bart, good call - this is a better venue.

Bart

@Jaydles was it purely me saying "rep-whore" in the comment which caused the offense?

I'd happily edit that out and repost?

Jaydles

The issue with the comment is that it's not talking about the term "rep-whore" like the post (which sort of has to). It's using it in the same way we're saying is problematic - labeling a bunch of imagined users.

Quill

usage vs meta-usage

Jaydles

Without using it (or a replacement label for people) it's fine. I'm NOT trying to shut down debate/disagreement, etc.

Bart

Okay, I see. @bjb568 would you care to delete your copy of it? Then I'll rephrase

It was not my intention to fall into the same trap @Jaydles.

Jaydles

1:46 PM

Thanks, @Bart. Appreciate it. Discourse is good! Which is part of what we're hoping for with all this: Less of "The problem is jerky power users" or "Selfish noobs" and more, "The system is reinforcing something bad" or "failing to convey something important" etc.

bjb568

@Jaydles They aren't imagined.

@Bart No. It represents my opinion too.

Bart

@bjb568 please just let me rephrase it. The gist of what I try to say will remain, without using the offending word in the context

Jaydles

@bjb568 sorry - not suggesting the problem is "imaginary", but rather that you're calling a group you're imagining that name, rather than a bunch of specific people. (Calling a bunch of specific users "whores" would be a pretty egregious violation.)

bjb568

@Bart @Jay I have the phrase there and I uncensored it because it': intentionally used in a discussion about the phrase itself in the way it is supposed to be used. It is completely appropriate and completely constructive.

@Jaydles So the larger policy is that I can't use a negative label on non-specific groups of people?

Bart

Except that I overlooked that the context in which I used it is exactly the context in which we no longer want to and should use it. I messed up. Let me correct it.

Quill

1:50 PM

> It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.

bjb568

@Bart You didn't mess up. It is correct and how I want it.

Bart

@bjb568 we can also do this the hard way. Don't make it this difficult please.

Quill

If a) the group exists, you're insulting specific people b) if the group is "imaginary", you're not insulting a specific group of people

It's irrelevant whether they actually exist outside of the conversation

bjb568

[please wait, switching devices]

Ok, I can type properly now.

Quill

1984 quotes are seemingly always relevant to policy discussions

bjb568

1:55 PM

@Bart You licensed it to me when you published it. I want to use it.

Bart

As you wish.

Jaydles

@bjb568 this feels a little disingenuous: You're making it sound like you're getting hassled for using it to talk ABOUT the banned use, like "what do we say instead of rep-whore". Which would be fine here. What you're doing there isn't that - it's using it exactly as we've made clear isn't okay. Using it explicitly to label users.

Bart

I flagged it

Andy

@bjb568 And now he's asking to be disassociated.

bjb568

@Andy I can't edit the comment, I can only delete it. I'm fine with a mod editing to remove his name.

@Jaydles I for one like the "be nice" policy. It could help me brag about my posts on programming topics without fear that folks looking at the site will find it polluted with rude / snarky comments. What I don't like is that policy doesn't seem to work, "how come that after years of plugging user's mouths and twisting their arms with summers of love and hunting the snark the second top question at MSO is 'Why is Stack Overflow so negative of late?'" — gnat 11 mins ago

Jaydles

1:57 PM

I deleted it. @bjb568 please feel free to repost your thoughts, dissent, disagreement, etc. with the policy. Just do it without using rep-whore to apply to people in the specific way we've made clear won't fly.

Derpy

@Quill Forgive me, but I am really starting to lose the discussion here. Let's forget about the "W" words and focus for a moment on the "nicer" versions (OK, maybe not so nice since most seem to be mocking too). Suppose you come in a common house and don't clean up your shoes when you enter, ending up with a nice trail of dirt all around the floor.

So, is it offensive if I where to call you "Dirty Shoes"? And if it is, it is because I called you with a term that described the fact that you walked around with your dirty shoes disregarding the effort of the others to keep the house clean or just because I called you upon your actions?

bjb568

@Jaydles I will take your answer to this:

> So the larger policy is that I can't use a negative label on non-specific groups of people?

To be:

> I don't want to answer that question. But my answer is sorta…

Bart

@Jaydles my current version is rephrased? Better?

bjb568

> …so, no, that's not the policy, but yes, you can't use rep whore as a negative label on non-specific groups of people because it's offensive.

Jaydles

@Bart totally. Appreciate it.

Bart

1:59 PM

Thanks a bunch

Quill

@Derpy you're asking whether the term is offensive specifically in my context or rather that it's more or less offensive in a larger, potentially unaware context to me?

Jaydles

@bjb568 that felt a little quick to accuse me of a non-answer given everything flying around. Gimme a sec.

bjb568

@Jaydles You just repeatedly deleted a civil, constructive comment on a post about the usage of a term because it used the term on the basis that you didn't like the usage. This is against the free sharing of opinions that Meta is supposed to encapsulate and obviously significantly skews the discussion in your favor.

@Jaydles The point of the discussion is to discuss how you don't want it to fly. Disallowing the phrase in the discussion, even if it's just when you don't like its usage, and saying you're upholding the "be nice" policy is simply disingenuous.

Derpy

@Quill nope. I am still not getting what I asked before. What is the offensive thing in the "rep W..." drama. Because I am fine if it is the "calling users with an offensive name that is meant to mock them" but I am not fine if we want to avoid to call users on their bad action altogether because they may be felling hurt from this.

bjb568

The "be nice" doesn't say anything about this particular label.

Bart

2:03 PM

Nah @bjb568. I done screwed up and used the term in the exact same manner we all agree we shouldn't use it. I wasn't being nice. My bad, deletion deserved.

bjb568

No.

We did not agree.

Bart

That's in fact was all I wanted to know.

Okay, you didn't.

But I didn't ask you to repost my comment in my name.

bjb568

What do you think the meta discussion is for if not for providing a place for an argument against the policy change?

Bart

Absolutely. Go ahead. Still have to be nice though.

Quill

@bjb568 hey hey, let's leave "Meta principles" out of this, this discussion is convoluted enough without leveraging off "the worldly principles of free speech and discussion"

bjb568

2:05 PM

Are we just supposed to shower @Jaydles in admiration for his great work in thinking of this change or something? Meta isn't for yes men. It's for serious discussion. Silencing one side for perceived slights goes against what the site is for and what we do.

@Quill My argument isn't based on the principle, it's based around the Meta community values and norms which are being blatantly broken.

Jaydles

@bjb568 FWIW, I'd suggest that any reasonable reading the policy has clearly not allowed this for some time. It's totally fair to argue that it's been inconsistently applied here. But we're not debating whether name-calling is okay. We're reminding each other that it's not.

Dissent, debate, ^ thoughts on how dumb you think this is? Share them! there are tons of comments there NOT agreeing, and NOT getting deleting, because they're not deliberately violating the policy.

bjb568

@Jaydles Name calling is abusive language or insults. The term "rep whore" is neither. Ignoring that people think that doesn't make them not think that or change the truth.

Equating everything you want to something that's disallowed in policy doesn't change whether they're constructive, good, insulting, or allowed.

Bart

The term is actually both of those imo. You're drawing this out beyond reason. I made a comment, it got deleted. I wondered why (which is really all I wanted to know) and now realize I was wrong. (I didn't recall my literal comment, just what I intended to say). I got to correct that. That should really be the extent of this whole mess.

2

bjb568

If you want to have an actual discussion about policy change you have to acknowledge that there's a con side, and, duh, they see things a bit differently.

Jaydles

@bjb568 okay - this is where we disagree. I think that most people would agree that referring to others as "rep-whores" would qualify as "name-calling."

Quill

2:09 PM

This is the point of the meta question. If you have a disagreement to Jaydles' proposal, post it as answer

If you're discussing the phrase in a situation where people are trying to burninate it, don't use it in the context it's being burninated for

2

That's just asking for trouble even if you disagree with the burnination

bjb568

@Jaydles No, now you're diverting attention away from meaning and back to words. I just gave a canonical definition of name calling and you didn't give any reason (not here, not in the meta post) why it is either used in an insulting way or as abusive language. You just said "I think[weak language] some people[weasel words] would[conditional] agree[with me, not you] that referring to others as {term} would quality as {term}", which doesn't address anything.

Portal

Emergency Town Hall #1... or probably Tavern Brawls #N

Not the first.

There, fixed.

:)

2:12 PM

We're all trolls. It just depends on which side of the Schwartz you're on; the Up side or the Down side.

bjb568

@Quill I don't have enough material for a proper answer, I just left comments instead. Regardless, I gave my input. It was silenced.

Bart

@Mazura I'm sure @Telkitty would disagree and find us mediocre trolls at best.

bjb568

@Quill There is no burninating. That was made clear in the question.

It's a forward policy change, not retroactive.

Quill

@bjb568 Future burnination, not past. close enough

bjb568

Not really burnination. More like just straight-up censorship.

user202362

2:14 PM

@Bart Actually I thanks you guys a lot - without the comparison, no one would notice that I am the pest ... I mean best troll

bjb568

There are so many feature requests which should be prioritized so much higher than this which are getting no attention, and this is, apparently, what Stack Overflow, Inc chooses to pursue. If you can control the language used in the discussion, you can control the discussion, I guess, and it's time to rein in the users a little more. Got to slowly bring the users around to this company's beliefs about words and word usage. DOUBLE PLUS UNGOOD — Adam Davis 13 mins ago

Andy

@bjb568 Welcome to the world of using someone else's platform.

Rumor has it that you've already built your own. Feel free to use it.

Quill

@bjb568 Feel free to beef out your points into an answer

bjb568

@Jaydles Not only do other users share my opinion on the technicalities of the phrase, they also see the policy change in the same light as I do. I see your, as a leader in the community, inability to even see the other opinion in this situation as very dangerous.

Jaydles

@bjb568 ah, we've hit censorship. Let me be clear: We TOTALLY censor stuff. We censor nasty words. And phrases. We censor things like LMGTFY. We censor noobs who abuse punctuation. What we don't censor much is people disagreeing with us in ways that aren't deliberately breaking rules.

Derpy

2:17 PM

@Jaydles Again, please, can this have an answer? Where is the offense and what you mean by "name calling"? Is the fact that "rep W" is offensive, mocking and rude because of the wording and intent to be such or is the act of "calling out an user on what he did wrong" rude regardless of the word used? If I was to say to someone "I think you may be rep farming here and that is against the site purpose. Please see this post here for why we prefer to avoid reposting answers on dupes" is that fine?

Andy

@Jaydles I'd like to throw in a sarcastic "gasp"

Quill

@Derpy The phrase is inappropriate, not the action it repesents

Jaydles

@bjb568 Please feel free to explain WHY you believe you need the right to use the term in an answer. No one will delete it if you say "the reason we need the term 'rep-whores' to be effective". Just don't say "the only way to deal with the scourge of rep-whores..."

bjb568

@Jaydles I'm not deliberately breaking rules if I'm not breaking rules. And if how you think I'm breaking rules is in opposing an expansion in meaning to the very rule you're saying I broke, you are censoring me for disagreeing with you in a way that doesn't deliberately break rules.

Jaydles

(not here) in an answer. ^sorry, this was menat for the line above.

bjb568

2:19 PM

@Jaydles I don't have any problem with a policy of censorship on the internet in general.

Quill

Censorship is only a problem when A) you pretend it never happened or B) you're not warned about it in advance.
To which, this post and visible post revisions cover pretty well

Derpy

@Quill sorry, but maybe this is my mind getting weaker after trying to script a "SharePoint ARM template VM creation", but I don't get it. Can you please elaborate?

Bart

@Telkitty :D

bjb568

@Andy Oh, I added a gasp when I read it in my head too.

Portal

@Derpy The term is offensive, even ELU tries to find "better" alternatives

bjb568

2:21 PM

@Jaydles I don't need the right. I'm not entitled to the use of the phrase. There's nothing objectively morally wrong about denying people the ability to use "rep whore" in productive discussions.

Jaydles

@Derpy yeah, that'd be fine. I'd be careful over-using labels without analysis, but what you're describing there is talking about a behavior in a reasonable way. (there's still a risk in assuming that's the motivation, but in some situations it might be obvious.)

Quill

@Derpy categorising someone because they post low quality things with the intent of farming for rep isn't the problem here. the problem is the specific term

bjb568

@Jaydles What if I need the second quote, in exactly that wording, to adequately and concisely describe a situation in my argument for the use of "rep whore"? This isn't a hypothetical.

Quill

sounds like an example of meta-meta-usage?

Derpy

@Jaydles Then, may I suggest that for what I say all the drama I see here is because probably many user had that meta post interpreted as "Calling out users is bad, avoid doing that" instead, while the original intent was "If you are to calling out an user to explain what he/she did wrong, please avoid offensive or mocking terms in doing so?"

^ correct me if I am wrong @bjb568 , but I think you can agree on the second version here above?

Jaydles

2:26 PM

@bjb568 unless you're going to put that phrase in quotes, like "Can you believe Jaydles won't let me say 'the only way to deal with the scourge of rep-whores'..." then I'd say you're going to need to keep working on other ways to say it, even if they're somewhat less concise.

bjb568

I should be very clear @Jaydles that I think "rep whore" is a sensitive term that needs consideration before its use and should never be used on main sites or in accusing somebody specific. However, I think your problems with lack of nuance and false positive uses are not solved by banning the term and additional costs are felt by banning it, making banning it a net negative decision.

Quill

Oh god, nested quotes. We've hit Argument Bedrock here, folks.

bjb568

@Derpy I agree with both things in quotes.

Jaydles

@Quill truth.

@bjb568 understood! We disagree. But you can totally post that.

bjb568

@Jaydles And why should you tell me how to phrase my argument? I want to make an argument for a term using that term in a way that is constructive and does not accuse any specific user of anything.

I want to use the term in the way that it is normally used in discussion because it conveys a concept exactly how I want it to, has the correct connotations, is easily interpretable by users who have never heard it before, and has a rich history of use where it acquired very specific meaning that is relevant for my post.

What's so wrong with this that not only do I need to be told off about it by a CM, but the entire site policy for meta needs to change for all users who use it in good faith because of this usage?

bluefeet

2:32 PM

@Bart looks like you got clarification, correct?

Jaydles

@Derpy yeah, I agree. I'd still discourage transforming problem-behavior into problem-users whenever possible. Less "people like you (or these) cause this", and more "when users do this thing it causes this." But sometimes a user IS the problem. It's fine to say, "the reason you're getting this response is that YOU keep doing bad things."

bjb568

I don't care how much books have hurt you by falling on your head. Or hypothetically. But not you, someone else. And even if those books fall on each other and know that pain. And even if those books are ashamed of it themselves. You just don't burn the books. You don't. It's wrong.

Mazura

How many DVs are on the question?

bjb568

+59/-19

@Jaydles This is the thing, I don't have any problem with statements that you make like that. I just disagree about what your weasel words like "whenever possible" mean.

tchrist

Is it really possible to discuss the problem of drama queens in good faith?

2

bjb568

2:34 PM

Yes.

Portal

Wonder how many out of 19 users downvoting it because of "No, don't block that term", or "Please focus more on FRs and bug fixes"

user202362

It's all about psychology

bjb568

The problem here is not that we disagree, @Jaydles, or the bad policy, or how you make your arguments, or how meta works, or how official SE posts on meta work, but in how you, as an agent to SE responds to criticism. What I saw was you deleting it for unsubstantial reasons.

Derpy

@Jaydles ok, then I see no problem. I just wanted to be sure that I could still say the "Please, don't answer OT question just for a +1, you are incentivizing them to continue posting noise"

bjb568

At that point, the arguments don't matter, the decision doesn't matter, the exchanges don't matter. When censorship is used in a discussion, it's a broken discussion.

Quill

2:37 PM

I wonder whether people write into the education department of governments complaining about the budget going into roads?

Portal

@Derpy that's really acceptable for me. I don't find anything offensive.

Mazura

What would be worse would be undermining actual dialogue by disallowing accepted industry terms.

Quill

> "Why is a Community Manager trying to defuse hostility when they could be declining my bug reports?"

bjb568

For this reason, I deem the decision and all discussion about it, and by extension all discussions where "rep whore" may have been used if "be nice" wasn't abused to prevent completely void.

Derpy

@Portal again, my issue was that I miss-interpreted the reasoning in the post. And based on the drama it caused, I fear I may be one of many. I assumed they wanted us to stop telling the user they were doing something bad.

Mazura

2:39 PM

What do you call someone who is addicted to a Q&A website?

bjb568

You can censor on main. You can censor bad intention. But if you censor legitimate opposition on meta, you can't claim any kind of moral ground or consensus.

Portal

@Derpy It didn't come to me when I read that post, but understood.

bjb568

I'm sorry SE, you just don't seem as appealing as you once did.

Quill

This was a case of mistaken identity, not censorship of opposition

Portal

cue DevDoodle

Derpy

2:41 PM

@Portal Wasn't just the post. The post plus some of the comment, but yep, probably my bad.

bjb568

@Quill When moderating, especially if you have a lot of power, especially if you represent your company, especially if you're moderating your own thread, and especially if you're trying to encourage productive discussion, you should lean way towards not removing anything that might be legitimate opposition.

But what happened was legitimate opposition was removed for a trivial reason with what looks to be very little consideration.

Quill

That's quite true, and Jaydles is not a) denying it was deleted b) that he did it c) the reasoning behind it

user202362

This is just between you and me, kz. Shog reminds me of the U.S. police, whenever faced with suspicious activities, he takes out the gun and shots. No questions asked.

Quill

Silent cleanup is legitimate oppression

Mazura

@Jaydles - So what are we supposed to call ~~users~~ the actions of users like that, now?

bjb568

2:44 PM

@Quill And communicating the cleanup and trying to explain it and owning responsibility for it doesn't change anything if your reason itself for cleanup is invalid.

Quill

@Mazura Whatever you like that isn't violating be nice

there's a bunch of links to english.stackexchange posts above

bjb568

Be nice is what's being disputed.

Mazura

@Quill I need a list of words that violate that list... yea, I know, that ain't happening.

bjb568

But to be safe I'd be really vague and OP like:

> heavily rep-motivated actions

Quill

@bjb568 Of course there's the element of "Don't do it in a situation that could be taken out of hand", and it probably wasn't the best idea to nerf the comment

but it could've been seen as a blatant troll or a literal "I don't understand because I don't want to" reply

Portal

2:46 PM

As easy as "Those who prioritizes reps"

Mazura

@Portal There's a word for that...

Quill

In any case, being upset because a single comment with a confusing intent was deleted is probably pointless

bjb568

@Mazura Also:

> unknowingly misguided actions committed in good faith but IMHO showing excessive response to gamification elements in the Stack Exchange system, but who I would not like to offend, categorize, label, or otherwise describe without heavy usage of weasel words

@Quill I don't care. Even if it actually is, it should be left alone. But especially if you don't even know.

The problem is when you identify all opposition as trolling: That's just pure stupidity. It doesn't legitimize deletion.

Quill

If he nerfed your clear and perfectly-understandably-meta-usage-of-the-phrase answer, then yeah, be angry. But don't be angry because everybody's stumbling to find footing and a confusing-intent comment was deleted

bjb568

Who cares about intent?

All usage of it is meta because it's on meta and it's in the thread about it.

Portal

2:50 PM

Well, if Voldemort is called "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named", then I prefer "Those who prioritizes reps" than rep-w.

Quill

And that seems like the perfect place to troll, right? What better place to rub salt than in a wound

bjb568

And it's not "everybody's stumbling to find footing", it's @Jaydles. And he didn't know what other people thot. He just acted.

Portal

I'm out for now, trying to find fun...

bjb568

@Quill If you assume I'm a troll, but applying Basian probabilities, I'm not, it's valid, and the relative probability of trolling in a particular thread is irrelevant.

2 hours ago, by bjb568

That whole thread is retarded, and I'm using that word intentionally.

Andy

2 hours ago, by bjb568

@Andy I don't care about what you call me. Do you communicate not to convey information? The words themselves don't matter, just the meanings and subtext behind them.

bjb568

2:52 PM

Intent is not meaning and it isn't really a big part of subtext either.

At least not the subtext I'm talking about.

But I'm just saying intent shouldn't matter in considering which comments to delete. Intent matters a bit in normal discussion.

Andy

Then be more clear. You gave me that advice earlier too

bjb568

There are many parts of written text. There's the words, the words' meanings and connotations, the phrases and their meanings and connotations, the grammar structure with its own implications, the sentence as a whole, perceived intent, perceived meaning to be conveyed, background, author, context…

All these have different weights. My point is that the content, in context, is most important.

What individual words mean doesn't matter.

Quill

It's schrodinger's comment: both a troll and not a troll at the same time. In either case, your usage of the phrase was exactly the usage the post is aimed at removing.

bjb568

I don't care. That's not the point.

Quill

Then what's the problem?

bjb568

2:58 PM

There isn't any with my comment. It shouldn't have been removed.

I have VTC @Jaydles post as "This question does not appear to seek input and discussion from the community." which I think is completely accurate.

Quill

@bjb568 It was exactly the type of usage that the post is aimed at

bjb568

@Quill And the post is exactly what my comment is aimed at. What's your point?

We're on meta.

Transcript for