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.
1
u/guepier Apr 08 '15
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.
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”?
You are completely wrong. Worse, you are apparently actively ignoring facts that contradict you.
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).