The Imperial Reform Edict (Ottoman Turkish: اصلاحات خط همايونى, Islâhat Hatt-ı Hümâyûnu; Modern Turkish: Islâhat Fermânı) was a February 18, 1856 edict of the Ottoman government and part of the Tanzimat reforms. The decree from Ottoman Sultan Abdulmejid I promised equality in education, government appointments, and administration of justice to all regardless of creed. The decree is often seen as a result of the influence of France and Britain, which assisted the Ottoman Empire against the Russians during the Crimean War (1853–1856) and the Treaty of Paris (1856) which ended the war.
Hatt-ı Hümayun...
@YaakovEllis Take my meta post as an immediate impression of the FAQ meta post, it isn't necessarily accurate, but that is mostly because I can't see the stuff behind the curtain anymore, and because the announcement was kinda odd. The FAQ post without any context or explanation seemed rather off somehow, and the new rule itself is in part overly rigid, and in other aspects entirely unnecessary
(if you intend to work with the mods each case, this rule is entirely superfluous as long as the mods are reasonable)
@YaakovEllis asking for feedback from all users, not only moderators, especially in important things like policy of removing featured tags. True that only mods can add or remove them, but it also have big impact on the whole network.
True, you'll get lots of noise and angry responses, but you might also get good and valuable feedback that you won't get otherwise, and more important - the users will feel like they belong.
what would make people happy would be a community consultation process, e.g structured rounds of public feedback, someone to summarize that feedback and the company then acting on that feedback
ideally with a process that binds the company in some parts to the outcome of the consultation. In essence people want to partake in the governance of this site
@Shadow9 "you'll get lots of noise and angry responses, but…" I think that you underestimate the affect of this on the people in the company who you are expecting to wade through everything in order to get the good and valuable feedback
"ideally with a process that binds the company in some parts to the outcome of the consultation" sorry, but I am pretty sure that that isn't going to happen (that the company would agree apriori to be bound by the decisions of the community, no matter what they are)
the first part, of having more of a dialog with everyone, is something that folks will hopefully be trying to do. and I know that the vitriol can't be stopped completely. But if it is the overwhelming response, it doesn't give us a way back in.
In this particular case I don't think the content of the new rule and the process/perception can be separated. To me the major problem is that the rule seems somewhat nonsensical, in part because it is, and also because SE never explained why this change is necessary
@YaakovEllis I know that, but the power imbalance between company and community is a large crux of the issue. The way these sites work, the people who build and maintain them feel a sense that they should share in their governance and ownership. It means that people who put their scarce and valuable free time in expect to have a say in where it goes
@YaakovEllis I don't, I also hate to get negative feedback. But, that's where a CM should chime in. Someone who is in the middle, and can filter the feedback, finding the good parts.
@YaakovEllis I agree with you, but I also don't see a way out. You, me, everyone who ever visited this chatroom could make a commitment to be friendlier and more receptive (and I advocated that on meta before and got crap for it, vis a vis) but we don't have a way to influence other people who are angry (and lord knows there are many) besides persuasion
even on my post about the subject on meta, the answers I got were overwhelmingly negative. I got accused of being an enabler of abuse, of being in a dynamic akin to an abusive relationship. People even took the time to yell at me off site about it. It convinced preciously few people, even though I used every bit of my meta experience to get the framing right. Whatever happens, if recovery is possible it'll be a long and arduous road.
@Magisch no apology necessary. this is something that anyone from the company who is considering more meta involvement and more communication is aware of. We know that there will always be angry folks. But if that can be balanced out by those who can keep things calm, it goes a long way
gamification works well for incentivizing people to make good answers, why not extend that to civil feedback? This would have the additional benefit of indicating that something was listened to or read
There was an overwhelmingly positive response to putting status tags into subsections of answers, for feature requests. It stands to reason that it'd be a net benefit to have something similar for posts or feedback, if nothing else it makes people more visibly feel listened to
@Magisch "people want to partake in the governance of this site" - honestly, I don't see that happening in a complete way that will satisfy everyone. The community is not going to own the product and make all decisions for it, decide on its roadmap. However, I am really optimistic that there will be open commitments made from the company to bring the community back into the fold in terms of responsiveness, open communication and respect.
And that includes listening to ideas, treating the community as subject-matter-experts on the things that they know best, surfacing ideas before they are worked on for feedback
a recent example is the retiring of the two badges. That had been brought up 4 times on meta before. I bet the reaction would have been better if that was brought forth more in framing.
In my own meta posts I use this (it's not really a trick but it works like a charm) to call to previous efforts and supply justifications for my arguments from previous rounds of feedback. It's a way of using the anticipated arguments of the opposition to justify your own. If you can make your case using the arguments and language of the people you strive to convince, it works infinitely better
You probably have a count somewhere of the number of features/bugs I completed that were from a few years ago that I completed only after someone pinged me on it, referred to it in a chat, or bountied it
it's a lot of work. That kind of thing takes a lot of prep and finding. Even for someone who has a frankly unhealthy obsession with reading up on meta history like me
let me put something else out there: in the past six months, I have proxied comments/answers on MSE/MSO for at least 5 SO employees (probably more even) who wanted to interact, but were afraid to because of community reactions and/or previous experiences where they got badly burned from community interactions
@YaakovEllis I'm sorry to hear that and apologize. Do know that I do appreciate feedback on my blunt communication skills and adjust accordingly. I'm not here to have or make fun at the expense of others, whether they are paid of not.
@rene I am not implying that you are at fault. Not about anyone in particular. Just responding to the general comment above (and I have seen others in the past) of "ignore all of the flaming and negativity, and just pick out the good stuff". It is easy to say, harder when you are the target. Now, of course some of the anger is due to reactions to decisions of the company. (And some will be present anywhere because…Internet). But regardless of the cause, it is a very important factor.
When you see an employee (especially one who has been negatively received in the past) posting on MSE/MSO about something that might be controversial, if you can, please consider that it is something that might not be so easy for the person
problem is that from the user perspective it is far simpler to single out and remember abrasive answers posted from employees than it is to notice all the rants from anonymous users on the site.
@BlueSoul understood. another reason why some employees posts look like they have been edited very carefully. because they have. because there is an expectation that things will be taken by some people the wrong way, and thus one has to be super diplomatic and deliberate with each word (not normally successful anyway)
As you can see, I go a different route, but it is not for most people
It takes a lot of "effort" to become "infamous enough" to be remembered for continuously posting undeserved insults at the staff (I, for one, can really remember just one user here on meta)
Most manage to be noticed only for a short time (unless you are a mod of course, in which case I totally expect you to start to memorize names)
@rene yeah. So now in the context of that thoughts, consider how people take the invitation of "please communicate with us more, and more often, about everything, and listen to everything, and respond to everything". Not saying that it doesn't need to be done. Just that this is why it is hard to achieve. And especially why it is hard to restart things when they have gone wrong
- even for meta veterans, the past 3 months have been insanely tricky and the faces and people have churned a bit, so some work needs to be re-factored
- I really want staff to be able to turn up, talk about stuff and not get treated like the enemy at least for less controversial stuff but its a little like herding porcupines.
seriously though, I think there are better willing candidates then me, but I wouldn't say no (because doing that would be rather hypocritical considering I keep advocating for meta to control itself)
any kind of moderation action is going to draw ire, but if done properly (justifying yourself exhaustively when challenged) you can actively work towards making the tone better
it's a lot more work then I would expect 3 people to handle, but you can use the same technique (reminding people of previous iterations and citing examples) to get buy-in for culture change that people would be otherwise angry about
and then there's the broken windows problem. When there's a lot of unsavory stuff up it starts being seen as acceptable. To break that cycle someone needs to put in the time of making it go away and then explaining why and how
ideally with some cooperation from the company (which seems to be possible, given what yaakov is attempting)
convincing everyone isn't necessary (some people argue just for fun and like to play devils advocate) but making the raw effort will convince enough people that it'll get easier over time, because the self-moderation will kick back in
especially considering a lot of the issues are well, stemming from a certain degree of tone deafness. We can try to deal with the worst of it, but trying to wipe out anything that's borderline is.... tilting at windmills
On MSE I need to deal with 1) employees who have good intentions, good actions and users who are a pain 2) employees I personally don't like but damned if I don't protect them cause they're my users too 3) 3-5 different user factions ...
4) various inscrutable forces from within and without the company
@BlueSoul well, the obscurity part was more of a thing just a bit earlier, now they're starting to become less obscure and publish their internal rules more frequently
when we said "stop shooting yourself in the foot" and "be more open" we didn't mean "be more open about how you're shooting yourself in the foot", but this seems like how they read it :p
if the company want to interface with the community, but not directly, they have to want to trust the "interfacing staff" (CMs or other trusted employees like developers maybe)
we can't make management want to trust anyone, this is not a problem we can solve
on Workplace if you post a question about "how do I make my company want to do X" what responses do you get?
find a place that already wants it because it's going to understand all the things your current place doesn't, and it's just going to be better and faster
hence alternative Q&A initiatives
as a developer I'm already used to using the best current thing, and if the old thing breaks, I'll move over to a new better working one if it takes less effort
at some point you have to remember the sunk cost fallacy and reevaluate things
@YaakovEllis what is in the list of reactions? Is there a public FAQ explaining what they're for? Are there specific reactions like "high quality" or "(dis)agree" or "needs citations" or "nice illustractions"?
last time I saw a screenshot of "clap/pray/full metal alchemist spellcasting" and "red semibold italicized 100 twice underlined" and didn't think those were particularly useful and more of a visual noise
A recent Tweet from @StackOverflow on Twitter said:
Announcing our new reactions feature, available today on Stack Overflow for Teams for Basic and Business tiers, and coming to Enterprise in 2020.
New ways of saying 'thanks' will be coming to the Stack Exchange network next year, too. ...
@user1306322 TBD what will be in. Could start small, be expanded later. Will have guidance. Yes, specific reactions. At least that is how I understand it, but I am not personally involved in the project.
PNL (French pronunciation: [pe ɛn ɛl]; acronym for Peace N' Lovés, translated to Peace and Money) is a French rap group formed in 2014 by Ademo ( and N.O.S (born Nabil Andrieu, French: [nabil ɑ̃dʁijø]), from Corbeil-Essonnes, a city in the southern suburbs of Paris. Due to their success, the two brothers are seen by many as the Rap Kings of French rap and Cloud rap..
== Biography ==
=== Early life ===
Tarik and Nabil Andrieu grew up in the difficult neighbourhood of Les Tarterêts in Corbeil-Essonnes, in the southern suburbs of Paris. Tarik was born in 1986, and Nabil in 1989. Their father, René...
The accepted answer says:
Do not feature posts singling out users by username (or real name) without their express consent. Take special care with question titles. Posts that are about or name someone and don't have that person's prior consent will be unfeatured by Mods or CMs when the mods d...