@AlwaysConfused I asked you back in august to not advertise your own question here in this room. Any reason you happily ignored that?

→ 1 message moved to Sandbox/Trash Bin/Something

@AlwaysConfused I moved it for you. We're all good now.

hmm

techcrunch.com/2021/11/05/iab-europe-tcf-gdpr-breach-belgium IIRC this is the framework SE uses for whether advertising is acceptable .-.

@Glo NAA, yet you voted not to delete; now it's re-entered the queue:

meta.stackexchange.com/review/low-quality-posts/79938

It's a poor answer, but it is an answer, or at least an attempt to.

The reason it's not an answer is that it copies from comments with no proof that it's the reason, and it's not the solution to the problem: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/371583/…

Comments are temporary; if all comments were removed, the answer has (not very much, but still) value

@Glo, agreed; too borderline to link only (image only, and no explanation) so it could slide away from an NAA designation - pardon the ping. References: meta.stackexchange.com/help/review-low-quality "Delete answers that do not address the question at all, are link-only, or are incomprehensible.".

Yeah, it's a gray area and I understand why it has 1 pending delete vote.

Do users have to submit some documents after winning the election?

@Wolgwang they have to sign the moderator agreement

Have you signed it seven times?

XD

Okay I have deleted that post now @Rob @Glorfindel

@Glorfindel It doesn't mention anything about age..?

@JitendraSingh Thank you. My complaint (issue with that being an "answer") is that the question is a Bug report, while your answer may or may not "explain" why the bug occurred it doesn't "answer" how to fix the problem (as the comment I linked suggests what needs to be done) or is it a reply from a developer saying that they fixed it.

The score was 3 for and 3 against (the two initial flags are hidden in the history, so you need to add two to the delete votes).

@Wolgwang It was thought that they are 18, source: meta.stackexchange.com/q/357379/282094 now there's a couple of checkboxes to confirm that they are 18: meta.stackexchange.com/a/357378/282094 - the checkbox isn't "in" the agreement, it's below it, and present in the nomination form.

@Wolgwang even more, it has been revised and we had to re-sign...

@JitendraSingh thank you. Another option was to edit it to add more explanation; in general, (too) short answers are discouraged and lead to downvotes (as you experienced).

"So What Are You Charging For Your Signature?" An ECCC Report.

→ 29 messages moved to Chimney

@Rob ...still annoyed about that...