@Magisch well much worse things happen to animals/pets all the time. And those who do it never admit it or come out in public, so that's quite a unique case there.
@JohnDvorak boredom? Innate brutality? Being hit by parents? We really can't know.
Heck, just read yesterday about two 12 y/o girls who planned to murder "at least 15 other kids" in their school. They told this to police when found with knives ready to use, i.e. stopped in the last moment. Some people just born... evil?
@rene oh I keep forgetting Travis. But there are tons of those by now, we're too few today, it seems. :(
@AndrasDeak hmm.... Tim's edit to Tim's post (buh) wasn't minor. Though all the rest of the trolling was retagging which indeed leaves no notification.
@ShadowWizard read it about halfway, then dropped at the line "This is the part of the post where I turn optimistic.". After that point, I was no longer willing to read on.
Trad: ponish to human I currently don't care much about the "SE: now with project managers" solution, my ponysh eyes are still waiting to see the thing Monica asked for.
Which, to put it even more directly, equals to "as soon as I understand that the blog post wont contain what I expected, my attention span will be redirected to other, more worthy for me, purposes"
or at least confirmed by absence of mentioning it. What monica is asking for would be one of those quick fixes they talked about the initial thing being, but it hasn't happened. This suggests to me it won't
"It feels empty when you are so eager to say you love us in a post about cheese, but you can't find the strength to say you are sorry after breaking our heart."
@AndrasDeak no, not coincidence. It means all features asked by us in the past that were actually done, were done as "bonus", in the spare time of the developer. e.g. this one:
Now that all sites requires at least two votes to approve or reject a suggested edit, there is chance to get into confusing situations like: (for simplicity using case of only 2, like here on Meta)
Single vote from ordinary user was needed to approve/reject the suggested edit. (example)
One us...
@ShadowWizard That also means that as the community's relationship with staff and devs further deteriorates, as it has and continues to, we might not get such features again
> And indeed, when the goals of the project align to some degree with the community’s goals and when the project is carried to completion (including evaluating the end result and fixing issues) this arrangement can be very successful.
> While it’s new that the voices are coming from outside our community, it wasn’t a good situation when development reacted to voices on meta either. Plus, as I said before, a lot of that was an illusion.
maybe that's true. And keep also in mind that whatever they do, it is their choice, not our. Obviously, that also means that we are also entitled to our feelings too.
Either way, I think that making a choice may be wise at this point
continue with friendship if you actually feel that nourishing your community will make you better, or stop pretending if you feel we are just an annoyance as some comments seems to indicate
@Magisch oh, but I didn't meant to do that, at all. Let me be clear on this. At this point, I am just curiously watching the evolution of this. I don't expect or try to influence a change in either direction. I will just observe what I think will be the predictable result.
@MonicaCellio @StackExchange @spolsky Mods like you DO deserve to feel supported, Monica! But I didn’t see Shane’s tweet as an indictment? It reads to me as him saying we take online harassment seriously, so IF a mod were doing so, we’d likely remove them. Are you reading it differently?
he probably replied without much preparation, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume this wasn't run by several language lawyers to exactly phrase correctly
my issue would be that even ignoring that at least to me the issues were already pretty clear... Monica actually replied to said tweet restating the problems she saw in the original message she was referring to. And then....
but unless I've missed something that's just another item in the bag labelled "official responses not acknowledging that anything wrong has happened or mistakes were made"
I imagine internal pressure to not publicly correct employees on behavior is markedly higher then external pressure from a couple of moderators who will gripe but ultimately stay on and continue to work for free
same with us
for all our complaining, we all continue to work for free here
if a SRE has such burning hatred for the community I could imagine that half the staff thinks we're just a weird kind of trollbase annoying people for our own entertainment
you gotta remember that tweets aren't carefully calculated to inflict maximum damage, people make mistakes all the time and both you and I too have said some regrettable things in a public forum before
if I judged you by the most uncharitable things I saw about you you wouldn't like that
@Magisch Uh, I don't think I have. And if I was confronted with one and thought it's regrettable, I'd apologize and probably delete it.
This might sound like yet another rationalization because people do tend to think they're infallible. But it's more about me being consciously aware of anything we do on SO/SE being fully public.
@Magisch I usually don't assume the worst. Or at least I'm always ready to be proven otherwise. But it's been more than a week. Hard to assume anything else with no evidence to the contrary.
Not that it matters, I'm only as cynical as ever. Just saying.
@AndrasDeak I wouldn't go that far, but yep, that comment on meta about "a part of the staff not liking the community (feedback?)" is something that could need talking about too.
Tim's explaination sounds plausible. He's got a lot on his plate, the community team in general is stretched thin, we might have to wait a little longer
also he has recieved real life threats to him & his family. It's unreasonable to not expect him to prioritize dealing with that
Do you seriously expect to see a public apology weeks after the incident?
@Magisch eh, it's not Tim's job to own up to the mistakes others have made
I mean, it's probably literally his job, but that doesn't make it right
there's nothing stopping the people who seemingly made horrible accusations to introspect based on available data and correct their own actions, at least in gestures
also, don't want to nitpick or sound to harsh here... but wasn't a big point about the issue that "the post came from one personal tweeter account they can't moderate"?
this means they can't also "moderate" a "I am sorry" if anyone wanted to use the personal account to post that.
@AndrasDeak also accepted, but remember this means acknowledging that you don't want to moderate a "rude message" but you are fine to "moderate" an apology
Ah, the joys of being a helpless low-rep user again that I get to experience when visiting SE sites that aren't SO. Will the AGITATED SHOUTING I've put in my edit description this time round be enough to make these reviewers notice that I'm making an edit the OP explicitly asked for and not reject as violating their intent? Probably not, but it's worth a try: askubuntu.com/review/suggested-edits/892118
now that I think about it, the blog post of welcomingness wasn't thrown together in haste, yet there was no official acknowkedgment that suggesting that closing posts is oppressive (was there?)
@MarkAmery can't you just ping Ferrybig? They were active on chat.SO a while back :P
@AndrasDeak I've got a pending mod flag suggesting purging the entire comment thread, so if I ping him now my comment might be nuked before he gets to read it :P
See, the struggle I'm having getting that edit to land is yet another reminder of a point I've made a few times since the "welcoming" drive started: being a low-rep user, or a question asker, frequently is infuriating - the system gives a bunch of capricious people gatekeeping power over your ability to contribute to the site, and that sucks.
It's just that "Use kinder, fluffier, more generic wording when commenting" is completely pointless advice to high-rep users wielding mod powers if you want to solve the problems that are actually frustrating to users on the receiving end of such moderation
But honestly I expect them to focus about going forward. The situation has already been analysed shortly after the fact and adam has already acknowledged the tweet was poor form.
@AndrasDeak I'm not specifically proposing nerfing mod privileges. Just grumbling that the focus on comment tone has obscured the ways in which the site often genuinely is hostile to low-rep users - that have everything to do with the way that others exercise power over them, and little to do with whether they smile while doing it
@AndrasDeak from what I can puzzle together from tim's comments across various threads, a blog post about the new head of marketing and a developing social media policy is (was? maybe they cancelled it) coming
> Marketing is making a lot of hires soon, some of 'em difficult, and that's going to change what ownership looks like. That could, in theory, render everything I just said as moot once we have an actual social media professional owning all of it. And while I was reticent to even post anything since we're in a state of flux and "I don't think I know yet" would have been mocked and flagged as not an answer, I wanted to put something out so you could see that we do have a thought process and plans around this.
@ShadowWizard ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sure, that'd work if I could track him down somewhere in chat. Sounds like a bunch more work than proposing the suggested edit, though.
@ShadowWizard The suggested edit system exists to be used; your "waste of reviewers time" framing seems like a fully general argument against using it. Every edit could conceivably be implemented by finding a random communication channel by which to lobby the post owner to implement it instead - there's nothing special about this one.
@MarkAmery sure, but changing a valid link to short URL with a weird trick is natually very frowned upon. I'll probably reject such as spam/vandalism myself.
So it's a very rare corner case when such edit is valid.
@ShadowWizard That's why there's an edit summary explicitly spelling out why it's being done. The reviewers should read that - and verify it by looking at the revision history.
I've even made it ALL CAPS this time round to draw the eye to it
It will probably increase the odds that I at least notice you, @JohnDvorak. And if we're going to accept the premise that reviewers can't be expected to ordinarily even notice edit summaries, which gets rolled out every now and then in their defence, then helping them notice seems necessary.
The people who'd have read the message anyway won't be affected. The people who wouldn't have read the message might see shouting and reject it even sooner (after not reading it)
I'm part of a MediaWiki site called D&D Wiki. Among others, one of our longstanding issues in the public eye was our failure to label clearly enough that certain pages are categorised 'Homebrew', as opposed to 'Official'.
Consequently, we pushed through a solution wherein all pages that are not ...
wait... think mod can't put edit ban, only review ban. So to stop someone with low rep from suggesting edits, only way is suspension? @Journeyman @OtherModerators
@JohnDvorak nobody there to smell it, it will just go unnoticed.
We all know that the HNQ causes good- or okay-questions to be flooded with activity, especially if they have an abnormal or controversial title. There’s no need to get into the mess which kicked off this latest round of HNQ concern here, so I’ll get straight to my feature request:
Create a new ‘...
> Alternate solution: A question enters the HQN list. Two options: a) It is a good, well written question. It stays here, more people read it, everyone happy. b) it is a poor question, with poor title, questionable content etc. People notice it and fix it. Everyone happy.
or even better:
> Alternate question: why did those poor question do so well to trigger entering HNQ list? Answer: because they were clicked/voted for the wrong reasons Solution: fix the voting culture, the list can come later.
If you are fine that "experience/trust point" are gained because many think that "How to kill my goat" is a funny question title on Arqade (made up title, reference to a gamefaqs post with the same title about Harvest Moon), then don't be surprised when the effects of that show up
But there is nothing to prevent a valid clickbait question such as that on Arqade, unless by adding the game title to the question title to make it... not-so clickbait-y...
Fixing voting culture is impossible for non-meta readers, let's just forget it...
Also, I don't understand why he chose to post a new question instead of posting an answer on the featured HNQ meta post after rage-editing on MSE...
Now that all sites requires at least two votes to approve or reject a suggested edit, there is chance to get into confusing situations like: (for simplicity using case of only 2, like here on Meta)
Single vote from ordinary user was needed to approve/reject the suggested edit. (example)
One us...
