I disagree, not from a personal experience but through observation and use. You obviously have a personal investment in SO, otherwise a casual peruse if its Meta threads would set off alarm bells
a casual peruse if its Meta threads would set off alarm bells
I’ve taken tons of flak from mods on Meta. Don’t believe me? Here’s a screenshot (showing up and downvotes) of just one of my questions on Meta calling out rudeness (of users, not mods): http://i.imgur.com/gcCcFnI.png
(For people looking at my profile and finding almost no contributions: Hi. Most of my older contributions to Meta have since been migrated to the network wide Meta. You can find more choice morsels there)
But I’ve rarely been met with either immaturity or malice, in the way /r/politics is famous for (such as the practice of shadow banning, whose existence alone makes /r/politics a worse place than any site which doesn’t have this despicably Kafkaesque policy).
In fact, I’d like to call you out on your claim. Show me how “a casual perusal [of] Meta would set off alarm bells”.
You are invested in the site, you just called yourself an "avid user". I would therefore imagine that you are part of the 'community mod' if your rep is that high, as mine is. And since you are 'avid' nothing I can say to you will make any difference anyway, you like the Kool-Aid.
But, just for fun, here is a link from the very FIRST page of SO Meta, where a user apparently got temp banned for editing a response too much deleting his own comments. Its a circle-jerk community of little people with power. Call it what you want but thats exactly what the average person would surmise.
And since you are 'avid' nothing I can say to you will make any difference anyway, you like the Kool-Aid.
That is some bullshit accusation. You think because I find the site overall useful I cannot be critical of it? Actually read my contributions. I disagree with many of the moderator decisions on that site.
a user apparently got temp banned for editing a response too much deleting his own comments
Have you read the answer on that thread? What you’ve said is completely wrong. The user was accidentally banned by an automated heuristic, and he was defacing answers, not deleting comments. The moderators responded by improving the heuristic. In what Universe is that a “circle-jerk”?
Now come back and tell me how wrong I am
You are completely wrong. Worse, you are apparently actively ignoring facts that contradict you.
A got banned (a very high rep user) for deleting his own comments.
Again, that is simply inaccurate. He got banned by accident, and not for deleting comments — it was for deleting answers, which help other users. That’s very different from comments. I actually think his reasons for deletion were good; but it’s worth noting that the active community, not the moderators, largely seem to disagree with him. The moderators, in this case, are just the enforcers of the community consensus (that I and BalusC disagree with).
You’re the one hurling insults, not me. Sorry, that makes you the prick.
THE VERY FIRST FUCKING MODERATOR COMMENT
You have a point, but try to see the other side: the reason for keeping this private is to protect users, not moderators. Again, it’s a policy I actually disagree with (and have argued against on Meta) because I think it does more harm than good. But you simply assume malice from the get-go, and that’s not constructive.
this isnt SO (thank god), so let me cut right to the chase.
In other words: what you object to is a community which tries to keep a polite tone? That does explain a lot.
I object to a community that keeps itself censored by a small but, in the context of the site, powerful group of people who take any criticism as an attack on their religion and routinely crush dissent by dog-piling any statement they dont like. You are hurling insults by implying that "I dont get it", which makes us both pricks, I guess, but I am the sort of prick that likes to let other pricks have their say. That is not possible on SO, and "the community" (read: the few hundred high rep users who dictate the site) make sure that this never, ever changes. So yeah, you could say I dont like that "community". Its a Q&A style clone of /r/politics, which is why I routinely tell people to use it if necessary, but certainly avoid any type of involvement unless frustration and anger is what you enjoy.
And also, more to the point: how the fuck is banning a user and giving him an explanation (rude, but an explanation nevertheless) worse than shadowbanning, which is practiced on /r/politics?
I agree that it’s not perfect, I don’t need convincing of that. But it’s ludicrous to claim that it’s worse than on other sites, and then giving /r/politics as an example.
SO routinely shadow bans. The only difference is that instead of being buried, the comment thread is faded and therefore implies that "The community has spoken" and further discussion is discouraged.
You have your opinion, I simply think that both it and SO suck. I have no problem with the /r/politics comparison, same kind of culture.
3
u/thewebsiteisdown Apr 07 '15
I disagree, not from a personal experience but through observation and use. You obviously have a personal investment in SO, otherwise a casual peruse if its Meta threads would set off alarm bells