Timeline for Remove nag screen for moderators when closing a question with a bounty on it
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 2012 at 22:58 | comment | added | Michael Mrozek | @casperOne Irreversible doesn't mean "it's impossible to fix", it means "it's impossible for the mod to undo". You can't start bounties owned by arbitrary users, so removing one is irreversible | |
| Feb 5, 2012 at 22:50 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | @DavidZaslavsky That's based on the premise that it's irreversible, which I believe is flawed. The user can post the same question (or a better one), and apply the bounty to that. Semantically, they are identical. Something like destroying a user account, now I would say that is much closer to irreversible. | |
| Feb 5, 2012 at 22:47 | comment | added | David Z | I think the point Robert is making is that when you're performing an action that is outright irreversible, it's good to have an extra step that gets in the way to make you think one more time, "do I really need to do this?" That's what it means for a close decision not to be black-and-white: the initial decision is not guaranteed to be the correct one (as opposed to purely logical questions which have single fixed answers that don't change no matter how many times you do them). | |
| Feb 5, 2012 at 22:40 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | The proposal is not to do it silently, it's to automate the steps. There's a difference. There's no request for a loss of information. Additionally, there's no mention that a close decision is black-or-white, this is about a hindrance that occurs after that decision has been made. It's not about making the decision, it's about enabling the moderator when they've made a commitment to a course of action. | |
| Feb 5, 2012 at 22:36 | history | edited | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Feb 5, 2012 at 22:31 | history | answered | user102937 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |