What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 128 Stack Exchange communities.

This answer strikes me as offensive and largely off-topic to the extent that it spends more time disparaging Mormons than it does contributing anything.

I am not Mormon, but it doesn't really matter IMO. I was offended by the answer and would only be more offended if I was Mormon.

So I suggested an edit to the answer - to drop the religion-related noise and keep the actual technical contribution it offered: rejected.

I also flagged the answer as offensive - first time I have flagged an answer as such. I am guessing that the offensive flag was not accepted since the answer still stands full of more about Mormonism than how to normalize relational data.

What's funny is that if answers are supposed to be fact-based, generalizing Mormons as polygamists is anything but fact-based.

I found a couple other MSO posts (here and here) regarding religiously offensive posts - mod flags for them specifically, condemning (and I would argue mocking) being a reasonable criterion for offense, and the standard of "whether a reasonable person would find [something] offensive".

My question is, how does this answer fly as it stands?

UPDATE:
So it appears that (nearly) concurrent with my question here, the answer in question was deleted - by the poster or through the mod flag I don't know.

For the record, here is what I was talking about - from other tabs I had open:

Answer in Question

Suggested Edit

I really would have preferred the suggested-edit route, as there was some technical value in the answer; but my higher priority was removal of the offensive noise.

share|improve this question
3  
The answer has been deleted now. –  Mysticial Apr 26 '13 at 6:14
    
Indeed. Answer with any more details you may be able to provide, and I will mark your answer accepted. –  J0e3gan Apr 26 '13 at 6:31
1  
There isn't much more I can say. A moderator saw it and deleted it. End of story. –  Mysticial Apr 26 '13 at 6:32
    
That's the detail that interested me. :) –  J0e3gan Apr 26 '13 at 6:33
1  
The formulation of the answer may have been a bit dubious, but it makes a valid point: It is possible to have multiple spouses, either at different times due to divorce(common) or in some countries even at the same time (rare). Since the question has technical merit and matched the question, I disagree with the deletion. Editing it would have been fine. –  CodesInChaos Apr 26 '13 at 10:13

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

In the future, when you see stuff like this, just flag it.

Don't even bother to edit it. It's just a waste of time. (Both your time and that of the reviewers.)

Occasionally, you might be able to extract some entertainment value out of stuff like this. But don't count on it. :)


In this case, it seems that your edit was rejected because it altered too much of the post. But a moderator eventually saw your flag and nuked the answer completely.

share|improve this answer
    
Cool. Roger that. I was just trying to see past the offense I took to acknowledge the technical merit of the answer, but I hear ya. –  J0e3gan Apr 26 '13 at 6:37
    
Entertainment value extracted. :) LOL –  J0e3gan Apr 26 '13 at 6:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .