So I at least need to know I've done the best prep I possibly could before I apply anywhere. Also I've been in the workforce for 16 years and I've never applied for a job before, done an interview, anything, weirdly. Up to now everything has sort of fallen into my lap. So it's a little intimidating.
Reading the Workplace site doesn't help. It's like binge watching air crash documentaries before I get on a plane.
Random thought: would a meta post (on Stack Overflow) on narrowing the scope of Too Broad do anything? e.g. allowing questions with more than one "correct" answer (no effort questions basically)
@Jason congrats for the new room, but there is a chance that it will get auto frozen if the whole activity will be moving messages from here. Think a room needs "real" activity to stay alive, i.e. people posting actual messages in it.
@ShadowWizard I found this SEDE from way back when. It has some false positives, and the meta thread advises not to start a witch hunt based on it, which is why I'm going through the results by hand to find the ones who are truly socking
This is one of the flag texts: Looks like Sockpuppeting / Voting Fraud. On Dec1'14, Obtained 14 votes evenly spread across their answers in 3 minutes total, on Dec2'14 obtained 16 votes in batches of 2 evenly spread across their answers within 2 minutes, on Dec12'14 obtained 6 votes across different answers within 2 minutes, On Nov30'14 Obtained 12 votes evenly spread across their answers within 5 minutes.
3/9 total flags raised have already been marked helpful and the reputation on these users reverted, the remaining 6 are still pending. Got 4 more typed out and ready to flag, will flag these when the others clear.
I have a feeling I'll be at this for some time to come
Sometimes if someone did some obvious low socking like 3 years ago but has been normal since or has normal contributions since I don't bother and sort of let it go. Not quite sure if the mods would, but alas.
I can flag myself, I got 100 flags on SO a day, I just want to do in batches so as to avoid dumping like 50 flags on the mods in a day that all need CM handling
@Shog9 Do you prefer if I flag the Vote fraud I find in this batch as single-post flags (e.g flag a post for every user who'se frauding) or compile it all into a document and hand it over to a CM instead?
Let them burn, let them burn Can't hold it back anymore Let them burn, let them buuuuuuurn Ban away and slam the door I don't care what they're going to say Let the Shog rage on. The smoke never bothered me anyway
@Magisch Can't we burn some? Just a few?
I still have my Inquisitor costume from the UO days...
Haha, glad I never got into that then. For OW it seems to go well the first 2 weeks or so of the season. And then it's just abusive users, derankers, quitters, etc.
@Bart There are legendary items in Pve, every class has about 7-9 different ones. Only 2-3 of those are actually any good for you, but they're all decent. With the proper legendary, your characters performance raises 15-20%. Now, getting these is 100% RNG, so everyone who plays alot and didn't get one yet (most people) are consumed in an everexpanding vortex of salt. Additionally, there was a droprate bug that means people who got one had a vastly higher chance to get more, thus expanding
I love the Stackexchange network and generally prefer it over Quora, Yahoo Answers and other Q&A sites. Occasionally I may have a question that won't correspond subject areas of any of the existing Stackexchange network sites. Is there a Stackexchange site for questions like that?
I don't remember, I barely remember the abstract. I do, however, remember the question.
If I had asked the question without the paper backing up my premises, the question would have been closed as a matter of opinion and only inviting discussion.
The problem I see is indeed summarized by the comment you quote. If the questions you ask - while admitting to only reading the abstract - are answered within the paper ... just read the paper. Otherwise all you're really doing is asking people to quote/reproduce the paper.
The question would be different to me if you were saying "The paper states X" or "The paper comes to conclusion Y" which you find to be wrong/up for debate/unfounded, whatever. If you want to test your interpretation, that may form a decent question.
Lack of research. Just read the paper. The answers are in it. "Here's a paper; what does it say?" is a perfectly on-topic question, but really not useful and doesn't show much effort.
If you're basing your question on the paper, I'd say so. Or at least don't make it sound like "I could only be bothered to read the abstract ... let's discuss"
Perhaps to provide the most excellent of answers, one should read and cogently deliver ideas from a paper, but the "best" questions our sites have are general questions that actually don't reflect a lot of research at all.
But I don't see any reason for that question to be closed, and it looks like it's open now, so I'm not sure what the problem is or why it was worth bringing up.
"It appears that they are saying ..." and "After a reread of the abstract" to me gives the impression that you didn't read the paper and only read the abstract. However, that impression may well be wrong.
That impression however makes the whole read like "tell me what the paper says". I'd say that at the very least gives your question a problematic start.
Then again, just my opinion. Overall it seems to have done reasonably well
^ Yeah that. It doesn't seem to be poorly received.
@AaronHall Here's how I think you could have improved it: If you had stated that you read the whole paper, pointed out some sections and quotes that covered some of the questions you asked, and stated why you were unclear about them / what was missing, that could have made an improvement.
@AaronHall "It appears that they are saying" <-- seems that would be contained within the body of the paper. So are they, or aren't they? Or do you mean they leave it up to interpretation in the body? "What is the "ninja performance gap?"" <-- surely that is explained in the body. And I assume the other questions would be answered there as well. But that's without reading the paper, as I said.
I have the paper. If you wish I can read it ... looking at it, it seems very familiar to me. I think I reviewed something similar by the same group of authors.
@AaronHall the issue with reading an abstract ... is that it's an abstract. You can only get so much information from it. You need the body for the content.
This conversation is stupid. Your question is fine, it was not poorly received, and it is open. I would have downvoted it and that's my choice. And I would not think less of you as a person. Digging deeper just goes in circles. Let's talk about cats.
Actually as a whole it's an example of successful user moderation, since the question was reopened. You'll always have noise, and the community as a whole ultimately filters it out.
Not everybody is going to have the exact same opinion of a question. So just let silly comments exist, and have faith that it will end well.
@AaronHall They decided to shut down SO. There was a huge debate in here. It all got deleted because it went out of control. They're just going to make a blog post about it instead. It only took 15 minutes, somehow.
If we make smokey an ro maybe it could be made to auto move its messages after some time? @hichris123 @ProgramFOX Is that possible through the chat api?
I wouldn't have a problem with bot ro
As long as that's all it could do
I think to avoid all the "moved" messages the logic could be something like: every 30 minutes, make a list of posts older than 30 minutes. If there are more than, say, 10 of them, move them all. Should keep it to a minimum. Or even 60 minutes.
@JasonC We could do that, but I don't mind all that much. And I haven't been moving all of the messages, just the ones that are on my screen when I show up.
I dont mind contributing the logic if somebody writes a base move messages api for me and clues me in on the easiest way to get timestamps of smokeys past mesaages.
Yeah I dont mind either. It'd be useful if maybe it was active only during off hours though, when the message to convo ratio is high and neither of us are around.
If there's an active back-and-forth with one side trying to settle things and redirect the user to the right place, deleting their comments serves nothing.
Once the situation has died down, the comments can be purged indiscriminately :)
@AdamLear If a diamond moderator sees rude comments and hasn't deleted them, I'd say that it's the job of a normal user to flag them and see them deleted. We don't allow rudeness, we shouldn't allow it to stay around longer.
@AdamLear I kinda doubt that responding to rude comments will help anything. But shrug. They're going to be mad no matter what; I don't think it's a normal user's fault for using the tools at their disposal.
@hichris123 Eh, you'd be surprised. That's what CMs do all day - turn grumpy users into at least sort of content users. You do that by responding reasonably to some rude comments.
Also, to be clear, I'm not blaming @rene for anything. :) Just dropping in here to chime in that I'm "on it" as it were, more out of "hey, I know you're trying to do the right thing, but just give me a minute here" sense than anything :)
@AdamLear I suppose, but there are some cases where you just have to say "let's take a step back here". e.g. in chat timeouts or short suspensions. Can't do that too easily on main, but the situation won't diffuse until time has passed since whatever occurred occurred.
This issue should be corrected at this point. I have tested this within the following major desktop browsers:
Chrome 47.0.2526.80 (OSX & Windows 8.1)
Firefox 42.0 (OSX & Windows 8.1)
IE 11.0.9600.18125
OSX Safari 9.0.1
They all looked like this:
The answer is wrong, the bug is not fixed, as numerous comments say. (plus a custom flag I raised long months ago, still pending like most of my flags.)
any way to remove the wrong status-completed tag from the bug report and put it back in some TODO list?
@hichris123 Yeah, that's true. All I'm saying is that if there's an active exchange (literally back-and-forth comments in this case), deleting the mad user's comments isn't going to help them be less mad and is likely going to impede any effort the mod is putting in to trying to calm them down. Especially if the mod is a dev/former CM who's pretty good at having a thick skin about this sort of thing. ;)
I'm just confused at telling a user not to flag rudeness. We don't tolerate it, we don't allow it in any form. Why should it stay up for longer than necessary? Why should users have to see rudeness for longer than necessary? Perhaps it might help in diffusing the situation, but I'd much rather have a clean comment section and a mad OP vs. a calm OP and a comment section full of rudeness.
@hichris123 Sure, but trust me that I'm planning to delete them once I get an "Okay, I guess that's fine" or a "nope, go fuck yourself" (which is where it all landed)
(Chrome latest, exactly the same as originally reported so no point editing it)
@Adam regarding comments, as a side note, can't you lock the question in such a case, preventing both new comments and deleting of existing comments, while letting you post new comments?
@AdamLear oh. Well, if you believe they're just confused/misguided there's also the option for a chat room... while not private, probably better than comments. :)
Context matters more than you think. Enough people are pissed off about being transferred between departments whenever they call customer service at a company that punting them to different modes of communication can create unnecessary friction.
Nothing you're suggesting is wrong. I just don't think any of it was necessary in this case considering that I was there actively vs "leave a comment, come back 3 hours later to see if there's a response"
@ShadowWizard I'm not promising that that [status-completed] won't be changed to [status-declined], but I'll see what I can do. :)
@AdamLear better than leaving it as completed, those things, even not important or vital (heck, it's just a small design issue ;)), just drive me crazy for some odd reason....
This issue should be corrected at this point. I have tested this within the following major desktop browsers:
Chrome 47.0.2526.80 (OSX & Windows 8.1)
Firefox 42.0 (OSX & Windows 8.1)
IE 11.0.9600.18125
OSX Safari 9.0.1
They all looked like this:
