« first day (4962 days earlier)      last day (48 days later) » 

7:32 AM
8 messages moved to Chimney
 
 
4 hours later…
11:07 AM
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact The prior closure of the question was enough to temporarily remove it from the network community bulletin.
 
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact No. I can tell you right now that any such attempt would be futile, I would reopen it.
 
@Tinkeringbell To be fair, I would agree more with Dan
 
@SPArcheon Well, counterpoint to Dan then: the blog may have comments but the meta post allows for more interaction (answers, voting, comments on answers...).
That's the point: It can be featured networkwide and anyone that reads the blog and has an opinion about it or (preferably) questions can respond to the MSE post.
 
@Tinkeringbell which have been mostly ignored with the sole exclusion of some cherry-picked answers that were less of a bee-hive than the rest.
that I think is the usual source of resentment that then comes to close votes requests
 
11:23 AM
Which is another problem, that still doesn't mean the post needs to be closed.
"Resentment" is not a close vote reason.
Neither is 'I have loads of questions after reading the blog post so I now say this announcement of the blog post lacks details or clarity'
 
@Tinkeringbell oh, I know, I was not advocating the closure, I was just saying I can see why users want to close it.
@Tinkeringbell oh, to be fair on that... the questions mostly come from the post and tangentially the blog being just smoke without much content past the buzzwords.
So, it does lacks clarity... or to be more specific... actual informations.
 
Meh. The only information that's necessary for such an announcement is there: "We did this, here's the blog post about it".
That it has buzzwords to pad the entire thing out, I don't care much about.
I'm not saying 'don't eat that post alive for being buzzwords and doing not much more than raising questions'. I'm saying 'when you close it I will reopen it'.
Do with that what you want.
 
@Tinkeringbell What did they do exactly? They’ve “announced a partnership” sure, but what does this mean?
 
@ElementsInSpace That's a question for the comments/answers.
As usually with announcements.
 
If they wanted to tell us, they would have.
 
11:37 AM
@Tinkeringbell The post is unclear. It does lack details. Everybody that responded in any way to it, is confused. If the company wants the post to stay visible, it's their repsonsibility to fix it, by adding clarity and details.
@Tinkeringbell So post a comment on the blog with a link to the MSE post. Problem solved.
 
If users close the post, that takes away the possibility of interaction by new answers. That's not 'problem solved'.
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact As far as I can see, the confusion is not about 'hey, announcing our partnership, see also our blog post'. Which is pretty much all that needs to be there for an announcement. The confusion seems to revolve around what that partnership is going to mean for the future, or what specific parts of the blog are supposed to mean.
Which isn't that unusual for announcements, but which also has never been a reason to close them.
 
11:53 AM
@Tinkeringbell Clearly loads of people disagree with you on that.
@ElementsInSpace It's not like they really gave any answers to the questions posted, either. The post doesn't serve any purpose beyond marketing.
 
12:11 PM
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact I'm fine with disagreeing with seven people, when there are also five agreeing.
That's not 'loads' to me.
at some point, close-reopen wars need to be stopped.
 
I have an idea: why not just start a discussion, so the community can discuss whether the question should be open or closed and put forth their arguments?
@Tinkeringbell More accurately, ten people, not seven, since three other users voted to leave closed in review after it got closed.
 
@Tinkeringbell There are 10 people agreeing it should be closed, not 7.
 
@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog Three also voted to 'leave open' when it was in the close vote queue, so I'm not counting those. Or it's 10-8, also fine with me.
 
That can not be true.
 
And at least two of those 10 were Sonic, so.
 
12:24 PM
At most 2 can have voted to reopen in the queue.
 
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact close vote queue, not reopen queue.
 
@Tinkeringbell One of those three overlap with the later reopen voters and are therefore counted twice. The count is thus 10-7.
That said, since it is contentious, I recommend a discussion so arguments can be put forth properly, rather than in a chat conversation that isn't going much places.
 
@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog And you voted to both leave it closed and have close voted now, so then we're at 9-7... Hence me leaving those numbers out entirely because I have no wish at all to go cross-referencing.
Honestly the darn numbers mean nothing to me. And it doesn't need a meta discussion. It just needs users to not take out their resentment by close voting.
 
It's not resentment, and your labelling of it as such, unqualifies you to judge the quality ouf our arguments.
 
It's happened before, it will happen again, and the outcome will always be the same: company announcement posts will not end up closed. No matter how unpopular they are.
 
12:27 PM
@Tinkeringbell Ah, sorry, I didn't realize that it was including my vote. I saw the numbers here and didn't double check there.
I've removed my close vote.
 
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact I need a writing course.
 
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact That's fine with me btw, as I wasn't going to do anything with them anyways in this case.
 
@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog Why?
 
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact I scrolled down the question and saw many thoughtful answers posted, and after some consideration I decided I don't want to stifle people from posting those.
 
@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog Well, they've already been posted, and just like before, no useful responses to them. :)
Would you like more people to waste their time?
 
12:33 PM
Doesn't matter if you'd like them to, they should be allowed to if they want to themselves.
(in this case).
 
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact They'd end up still anyway writing them and then posting them as new questions. Time will still be wasted. At least by leaving the question open the feedback will be directly on the staff post rather than on a separate post that's even less likely to be read.
 
meta.stackexchange.com/q/391347/369802 < it's not the first time this problem arises. It won't be the last. Mods will roll their eyes, sigh and reopen, as Geek put it in the comments there.
Also in the comments there:
Closing or deleting just because of disagreement, is an abuse of the privileges. The moderators should interfere (unless they’re on strike). — Andreas moved to Codidact Jul 18, 2023 at 0:49
Which is an interesting point of view, especially since apparently those same mods are incapable of differentiating 'disagreement' and 'abuse of privileges' from 'supervalid votes'.
 
Well, as good as the answers may be, they don't repair the question in any way.
 
@Tinkeringbell To be fair, however, @AndreasmovedtoCodidact did put forth an argument as to why they believe the post meets the close reason guidelines otherwise, rather than just pure disagreement.
 
The question still does not meet the requirements on the site.
 
12:38 PM
@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog In chat, after the fact. Does not help me differentiate at all unless you propose I go chatting with every user.
And then develop some kind of extra-sensory ability to detect lying, obfuscation or whatever else may be used to mask a 'true reason, which is disagreement'.
 
@Tinkeringbell You're the one that said you'd just reopen it... in chat...
 
@Tinkeringbell Okay, fair enough. A comment on the question explaining the close vote would have been helpful, as well as putting it in the original message here requesting closure.
 
@Tinkeringbell What?
 
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact chat.meta.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9784641#9784641. I basically have no way of determining whether a user is being honest or not, whether they're casting a 'supervalid vote' or just masking disagreement behind reasoning. Yet there was once a user who argued that when close votes are used on unpopular posts to express disagreement, mods should interfere.
The outcome of that discussion was basically that the community can do what it wants with close votes, and mods will roll their eyes, sigh, and reopen things.
I don't think we ever have - and certainly not retroactively. I think the general response is to sigh in exasperation and reopen. They're clearly not roboreviewing - just reviewing and voting strategically — Journeyman Geek Jul 18, 2023 at 1:36
 
It's true that I've stopped curating these sites beyond certain posts (like this one). That doesn't mean that I'm misusing my abilities, or being dishonest, when I do choose to do so. Sure, I might be annoyed at SE, which is why I choose to use my votes in these cases, but I don't use them incorrectly.
 
12:42 PM
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact And I have no means to determine whether the above is true or not. And it doesn't really matter, anyways.
It's just an interesting side-track, seeing that comment.
 
@Tinkeringbell Then stop making assumptions about my intentions.
Nor the intentions of the other close voters.
 
8 mins ago, by Tinkeringbell
Closing or deleting just because of disagreement, is an abuse of the privileges. The moderators should interfere (unless they’re on strike). — Andreas moved to Codidact Jul 18, 2023 at 0:49
Pot, meet kettle ;-)
 
... Did you skip over half the messages in here?
 
My close vote, as well as my initial review to leave closed, was based on the text of the question and it not having an actual question that it clearly asks. However, after I read the answers, it's clear that the answerers know what exactly the question is referring to, and that defies the intent of the close reason, which is that there isn't enough detail or context to provide an answer, so I removed my vote.
 
12:45 PM
Again, stop making baseless assumptions that I'm closing or deleting just because of disagreement. It is not true. My decision to curate in this case, is because I'm annoyed at SE, yes, but my curation actions are grounded in site requirements.
The post does not meet the requirements.
 
Like I said, it doesn't matter to me why you're doing what you're doing.
 
@AndreasmovedtoCodidact By that logic, you'd not necessarily vote to close if you weren't disagreeing with the post.
 
If it ends up closed, it will be reopened, is all. And now others can decide if they really want to go through the effort of voting to close as well.
 
@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog Not really.
I'd simply not interfere at all.
 
This discussion isn't going anywhere much. I think it's time we put it to rest.
 
12:51 PM
Agree. It should've been a discussion about the post meeting the site guidelines and requirements, not one in which the honesty and intentions of the participants is drawn into doubt.
 
It shouldn't have been a discussion at all, so fine with me too!
 
That sentence is a great example of how not to moderate a conflict.
 
1:13 PM
Right back at ya :)
 
1:30 PM
Go, my loyal subjects. Salon Solitaire, entertain me
 
1:55 PM
peeks in
 
@SonictheAnonymousHedgehog coming from you, I'm impressed. Kudos. (not kidding. :))
I remember times when you were told such things, @Sonic - and I was tempted to chime in as well, but you're right - it's pointless, at least here.
If there'll be separate meta discussion as someone suggested above, I might post a comment.
 
2:17 PM
8 messages moved to Chimney
 
 
4 hours later…
6:38 PM
star troll is back
 
7:02 PM
Yep.
 
7:46 PM
I'm here for my quarterly dose of Stack Exchange hilarity.
 
@SPArcheon I suggest a different name. "star troll" just doesn't make sense. Stars are suns and we know that trolls die from sunlight. Therefore, this is a combination of opposites - an "oxymoron". Which is a bit long and hard to type. The "x" and "y" in particular are way far from the other letters on the keyboard, which makes writing the whole word hard. Thus I propose to shorten it and drop the first three characters. For convenience, you see.
 
 
2 hours later…
9:58 PM
@canon hi!
!!/coffee can do it
 
@ShadowWizardLoveZelda brews a cup of latte for @can
 
BTW, think it's kind of a record that @Cat's farewell message is still on star wall, since October. ;)
 
10:36 PM
@VLAZ They don't really die, they just turn to stone.
 

« first day (4962 days earlier)      last day (48 days later) »