Timeline for Moderators should not be allowed to moderate questions they have participated in answering
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
49 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 8, 2013 at 16:51 | history | edited | casperOneMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 14, 2012 at 1:37 | comment | added | jmort253 | @StingyJack - With that logic, should we lock out employees too? What about Joel Spolsky and Jeff Atwood? If they answer a question should we lock them out as well? Moderators are trusted users for a reason, and if they can't be trusted to use the tools provided to them, then they should be replaced, plain and simple. "As a moderator, your actions now represent the community, so you will be held to a higher standard of behavior. You are an ambassador of trust, with the same sorts of rights that the official development team and community coordinators have." | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 17:21 | comment | added | StingyJack | @jmort - I've been here a while. You have no idea if they are concerned with rep or not. People will abuse whatever and whenever they feel like, if they have the ability. I'm not saying that was the actions here, just that it seems like a reasonable feature to have added to block that unsavory potential. Instead of dealing with that, everyone is hung up on the specifics of this situation. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 15:02 | comment | added | jmort253 | @StingyJack - We have a great team of moderators, and they do a good job of self regulating. There's really no need to limit this excellent group of trusted users. Besides, they aren't worried about rep. Rep is a concern only for those below 10k, the people who are still starry-eyed with the thought of what it would be like to gain all the privileges. Once you hit that mark, you really don't care much anymore about that, and you begin to appreciate the Q&A part of the experience much more. Good luck! :) | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 14:54 | comment | added | StingyJack | @jmort253 - Thank you. And I dont need 10K rep to see it (stupid limit). I still stand by the original request. | |
| Nov 13, 2012 at 8:45 | history | edited | gnat |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 13, 2012 at 4:58 | comment | added | jmort253 | Just want to point out to you that you -- and anyone else for that matter -- can see who deleted and undeleted your post by looking at the revision history. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 20:19 | comment | added | random Mod | Your request is being weighed down by a completely false sequence of events. Chop it off and provide a better standing | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 19:12 | answer | added | Daniel Fischer | timeline score: 14 | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 19:04 | answer | added | McCannot | timeline score: 3 | |
| S Nov 12, 2012 at 18:53 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| S Nov 12, 2012 at 18:53 | history | unlocked | CommunityBot | ||
| S Nov 12, 2012 at 17:52 | history | notice added | user50049 | Comments only | |
| S Nov 12, 2012 at 17:52 | history | locked | user50049 | ||
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:52 | comment | added | user50049 | I'm locking this for an hour so all interested can have a moment to have a moment. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:39 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | @Ben: curses! Damn you, MSO! | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:39 | comment | added | JNK | @StingyJack And I am saying that the problem you want to solve does not exist, as exhibited by the fact that your example was based on a misunderstanding of events. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:35 | comment | added | StingyJack | @JNK and GEOCHET - I suggest you just drop it. I am asking for a feature, and you two arguing are solving nothing to help my feature request. Go fight elsewhere. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:34 | comment | added | StingyJack | Someone deletes the "Thanks for turning this feature request into a pissing match" comment but not the off-topic comments I am pointing out. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:33 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @Shog9: I edited that stuff into casper's answer a few minutes ago. Now it looks like I'm risking an edit war.... which is getting back into the meta discussion | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:30 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | I tend to agree with @Ben that this question isn't really answered until someone notes that there's no way to prevent someone with access to the machine and determination from patching in a rogue library. But that discussion belongs on the question itself; please limit this to discussion of the link-only answer's deletion. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:21 | history | edited | StingyJack | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 292 characters in body
|
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:14 | comment | added | McCannot | N.B. - It does, in fact, show which moderator removed the post. I assume this requires 10k privileges, of course. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 17:05 | history | edited | StingyJack | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 40 characters in body
|
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:51 | comment | added | AakashM | Vaguely related: Add a way for moderators to cast a normal, non binding vote | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:50 | answer | added | Brad LarsonMod | timeline score: 13 | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:49 | comment | added | Rachel | @StingyJack Perhaps you could update your answer with a summary of why Strong Named Assemblies are the answer, and flag your answer to be undeleted? Personally I don't think it should be deleted in the first place as its just a little bit more than just a link-only answer, but if you make an edit to expand your answer a bit, there's no reason why it should stay deleted. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:46 | answer | added | user50049 | timeline score: 23 | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:45 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | @BenVoigt That's the thing, you're reading past the question asked more so than I am. This is where we'll have to disagree (and that's ok). Clearly, further clarification on the question is required (which the OP should see). However, currently, based on those voicing opinions around this question (and not the meta question around it), yours is the minority opinion. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:41 | answer | added | Bill the LizardMod | timeline score: 35 | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:41 | comment | added | Dave Newton | I'm not convinced the "reward" for a moderator gaming an answer is worth any sort of malevolent effort to get it. I'm also opposed to spoon-feeding, and the lack of votes, the occasional downvote, and occasional deletion, when I answer in a less-than-handholding way are my reward, just like yours. It's a difference in philosophy, and it's okay. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:39 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @casperOne: Both are about preventing the user from substituting modified code (in one case without license check, in one case with a fake score computation -- these details are irrelevant to the security task). But if you read the answers and comments I linked to, you'd already know that. Along with the fact that code signing isn't a solution. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:37 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | @BenVoigt Um, that's not a duplicate, one is about licensing, the other is about spoofing, two very different things. I've commented more on the question itself @ you as to why this isn't the case. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:34 | comment | added | yannis | @BenVoigt Good enough for me. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:34 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @Yannis: I had already voted to close as a duplication of the question where the correct answers already exist. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:33 | comment | added | yannis | @BenVoigt How about you post a correct answer then? | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:32 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @casperOne: The irony of it all is that both answers are wrong! | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:32 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | @amanaPlanaCAnalPAnaMA Wait, so providing a link which says "do something", and then saying "it addresses your concern" without saying why or how is an answer? I'm sorry, but in my eyes, that's way below the bar of quality here on Stack Overflow, to the point where it's even absurd that we're even considering that an answer. If that link goes down, then the next question is "how do I strong name my assemblies" and possibly "how does this solve my problem". | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:27 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @casperOne: It wasn't a link-only answer. It contained the correct name of the technology being suggested, which was the missing link needed by the OP. Would have been good to identify the shortcomings of assembly signing, but your answer didn't do that either. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:26 | comment | added | Naftali | @casperOne I would understand if the answer was just a link. but the answer was a link stating what to do. We do not really need to "spoonfeed" people now do we? | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:25 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | @amanaPlanaCAnalPAnaMA Link only answers are not good answers. And while it looks like I took his answer, this is not the case, as I was in the process of writing that while this answer was posted. Note, it's not unreasonable to think that it took me ~1.5 minutes to write what you see in the first revision. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:22 | answer | added | Ben Voigt | timeline score: -18 | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:21 | comment | added | Naftali | @casperOne all you did was copy the OPs answer and expand on it. I do not see how your answer was anything new. you could have just edited the original answer with your extension. The OPs answer was fully correct, noone had to flag as not an answer. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:20 | comment | added | casperOne Mod | Here is the answer in question. Note: I was the one who he claims deleted it, I answered the question and commented, but I did not delete it. I flagged it as not an answer, and I was not the only one. Another moderator, whom I had zero communication with on this post, acted on both flags. I don't disagree with the premise that moderators shouldn't moderate questions they are acting as a user on, but what you're claiming didn't happen here. I only acted as a user here (answering, voting, and flagging for another moderator's attention). | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:18 | comment | added | Adam Lear StaffMod | @StingyJack Unfortunately, this is a bit of a grey area - while I agree that there is potential for a conflict of interest, there are also legitimate cases for a moderator to act on a question they answered (i.e. someone posts spam). It'd be helpful to see an example. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:18 | history | edited | animusonStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:17 | comment | added | StingyJack | I would prefer not to call anyone out directly and cause them bad feelings, and just deal with the concern as described. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:15 | comment | added | Bart | Link to the question? | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 16:13 | history | asked | StingyJack | CC BY-SA 3.0 |