Timeline for When will CMs or moderators remove the [featured] tag from actively featured meta questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
55 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 7, 2023 at 7:17 | comment | added | cag51 | This policy is no longer being followed by SE staff as of 2023: Why is SE staff violating SE policy by un-featuring posts about the strike on per-site Metas? | |
| S Jul 9, 2020 at 6:03 | history | notice added | CatijaStaffMod | Policy Lock | |
| S Jul 9, 2020 at 6:03 | history | locked | CatijaStaffMod | ||
| Feb 11, 2020 at 21:17 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Cesar MStaffMod | ||
| Feb 11, 2020 at 19:17 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @MarkAmery I think that post would be fine (If it needed to be featured, it should be fine). The post isn't about someone specific, like ChrisW said, makes a crucial difference. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 19:17 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @ScottSeidman disruptive modifies both, so it's disruptive behavior and disruptive discussion. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 19:12 | history | edited | Cesar MStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 17:25 | comment | added | ChrisW |
it essentially makes the whole thing way too complicated to be worth doing I don't see what's complicated -- e.g., you post a "Thank you and good bye" message on Meta ... then I (as moderator) drop a comment like, "Hey can I feature this post?", and you reply "Yes sure" or "No thank you". Or as mod I could superping you or send a mod message or know where to find you in chat or how to send you an email. Ditto, if somebody else starts a new a topic about @Shadow9 -- i.e. a mod should ask you, "Are you alright with this being featured?," before they go and feature it.
|
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 16:21 | comment | added | Scott Seidman | I'm enjoying how "Disruptive Behavior" is lumped with "Discussion" | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 15:57 | comment | added | Wrigglenite | "This policy was implemented after two rounds of feedback with the moderator team" - correct. I'm not seeing how said feedback affected the policy at all, however. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 15:06 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @fbueckert totally agree. But that's a matter for separate discussion. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 15:05 | comment | added | fbueckert | @Shadow9 As suspected, the implication being made is that we support this. However, the vast majority of the feedback questioned the need for this at all. SE would do well to stop dragging mods into attempts to share the blame. Seems somewhat ironic that individuals require explicit consent, but a collective gets none of that protection. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 14:35 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | I downvote because the first rule kills most "Thank you" goodbye messages - asking for consent means someone need to reach out to the person, wait for response, somehow prove they got a response... it essentially makes the whole thing way too complicated to be worth doing. It means such posts will no longer be featured, and yet another barrier is being set between the company and the users. Another cold wall that blocks communication. I'm truly surprised and disappointed that the moderators approved this thing. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 14:35 | history | edited | TylerH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 14:24 | comment | added | wimi | @nvoigt comments and votes on this post are not for "criticizing the actions of a person", as you say. Comments and votes on this post are to talk about this post. Anyway, your comment seems to have been removed, so it does look like it was not an appropriate comment. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 13:08 | comment | added | ChrisW | @MarkAmery I read that page -- its title and content -- as being all about a behaviour and not about a person. And, writing here as a reader who isn't already intimate with that site and its users, I can't even guess which "prolific editor"'s behaviour triggered that topic. Conversely among what SE may to stop or de-feature could include ad hominem (e.g. "So-and-so is a horrible person"), and gossip (e.g. "So-and-so has left the building") which might touch on people's personal or professional lives -- or at least, feature that only with the permission of whoever it is that's being so named. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 12:27 | comment | added | Mark Amery | @ChrisW Part of the trouble is that the answer describes the class of forbidden posts in two ways that clearly mean different things. It does indeed say, at first, that "singling out users by username (or real name)" is what's forbidden in featured posts... but then it describes the class of forbidden posts as those that "are about or name someone", which is clearly a broader class of posts. For example, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/340157/1709587 is about a user, but doesn't name them, making it forbidden to feature it under the second wording but not under the first. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 10:47 | history | undeleted | Journeyman GeekMod | ||
| Feb 11, 2020 at 10:47 | history | deleted | Journeyman GeekMod | via Vote | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 9:54 | comment | added | Tensibai | @ChrisW On the other hand, that's the code of conduct on most pub I know: "The management reserve the right to entry": I.e: we may kick you out at our sole discretion. (Drawback being: if the management of the pub doesn't match your own values, you can walk in another pub) | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 9:37 | comment | added | ChrisW |
@jscs Simple honesty would be greatly preferable here. "We will toggle [featured] on posts at our discretion." (full stop) The second point is equivalent to that, in reality. That's oversimplifying IMO, maybe an extreme view, like a reductio ad absurdum. So for example, equally SE could replace the CoC and all the Help with, "We reserve the right to suspend your user account" -- but that wouldn't be nearly so informative, about what behaviour SE wants and doesn't want of users, behaviour, and content. Also I think it's "we may" not "we will" and the CMs will consult/discuss with mods too.
|
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 9:12 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | Not sure if not featuring controversial posts is a good idea. This looks like the opposite of intense discussions. I like the desire to protect single persons, but not the desire to hide critical posts. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 8:12 | history | edited | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
help ward off more downvotes; the fact that this got feedback and isn't a fait accompli is important to mention
|
| Feb 11, 2020 at 7:38 | comment | added | wimi | This is a sound policy. Users have the right ro be forgotten. SE has the right to unfeature (not even remove) incendiary content from their network. This task is assigned to the mods, but SE will step in if the mods do not do it. All perfectly reasonable. Yet people keep downvoting everything. Did people really expect something like "if the mods go against this policy, we will let them override us"? No corporation/organization works this way. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 3:33 | comment | added | jscs | Simple honesty would be greatly preferable here. "We will toggle [featured] on posts at our discretion." (full stop). Could even throw in a "We reserve the right to..." I suppose. The second point is equivalent to that, in reality. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 2:54 | comment | added | Cody Gray | Can you please let me know if you have obtained consent from all the users whose names and avatars you are currently featuring on your home page and in the reputation leagues? If you have not obtained express consent from these users, then you seem to be in violation of your own policy. Why does the policy for featuring questions on Meta not apply to Stack Exchange's own home page? | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 1:23 | comment | added | Shog9 | My good-faith assumption here is that the more narrow meaning was intended, and this is simply a matter of careless wording, @D.W. - surely no one would wish a blanket prohibition on "thanks for all your hard work, <list of people who earned 100K>". But you are correct in that the current wording does not allow this - hopefully it can be tightened up post haste! | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 1:15 | comment | added | ChrisW | @D.W. I think this new policy (about getting their permission before singling out a user) was meant to mean "any mention" (aka "nominative use"). When something is featured that's a lot of additional publicity -- which whoever it is might be happy for, or, possibly, they wouldn't be -- for personal or other reasons. Also you shouldn't assume (e.g. "sure they'd want this published! and if they don't then they can ask us to unfeature it") -- instead the permission ought to be asked and granted explicitly. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 1:10 | comment | added | D.W. | @Shog9, I'm trying to figure out whether #1 is new or not. It appears to me it is. The post you linked appears to relate only to calling out someone in a negative way or attempting to change someone's behavior, as I read it, whereas #1 here appears to be broader than that. For instance, I don't read the linked post as prohibiting us from posting "congrats to X for winning the site election!" or "congrats to X for hitting 100K rep!" or a moderator from posting a resignation notice about themselves. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 1:06 | comment | added | D.W. | Perhaps you could edit the answer to clarify what is meant by "singling out"? Does any mention of their name or username, no matter the form, count as "singling out"? Or does "singling out" convey an additional connotation that it relates only to attempts to call out someone in a negative way or a way that might bring unwanted attention? | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 1:04 | comment | added | D.W. | When moderators leave, it is not unusual for them to post a resignation notice and then depart from the site, no longer being reachable. Can we feature their resignation notice, if we can't reach them? It appears that this policy says we cannot. That seems overly restrictive to me. If they posted a resignation notice on meta, they are presumably happy with it being visible to the site, so it seems like we ought to be able to presume (in the absence of information to the contrary) that it is fine to feature it. Moreover, it may be important to the community to feature it. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 1:02 | comment | added | ChrisW | @MarkAmery The answer says, "singling out users by username (or real name)" -- i.e. it's using their name or username. Remember that the site is usually meant to be "Focus on the content, not the person". If a topic is about a (named or usernamed) person, policy now is to get that person's explicit permission before the topic is featured.. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 1:02 | comment | added | Shog9 | Worth pointing out here that #1 isn't really new, nor limited to "featured" posts: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/289909/… it does need the nuance that animuson provides in that linked post however: a call-out and a naming are very different things! Some sites note people in community milestones; others memorialize those who have died... These are delicate situations for many reasons and demand commiserate delicacy in how they are treated. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 0:59 | comment | added | D.W. | Can I feature a post on our meta site saying "Congrats to user XX for being the first to hit 100K rep on our site!"? It appears that this policy says I can't do that without their consent. That seems overly restrictive to me. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 0:13 | comment | added | Mark Amery | What counts as a post "singling out" or being "about" a user? Are Meta posts about specific questions, answers, or actions (all of which are necessarily by some user) now forbidden from being featured? Or only posts about patterns of behaviour? Without any examples, I don't really grasp of what this is supposed to forbid. | |
| Feb 11, 2020 at 0:10 | comment | added | Thomas Owens | I want to echo @JourneymanGeek here. This is incredibly broad. There are plenty of reasons to call out a person, and some of them are good. A person's public user name is not private and shouldn't be a problem in a post, title or otherwise. Point 2 is exactly what the job of a moderator is. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:43 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | @CesarM If you trust the MSO and MSE mods, this whole thing wouldn't be necessary. So the existence of this new rule alone implies that SE doesn't trust them. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:35 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | @CesarM I think you've hit the nail on the head there. A lot of people will see this answer, written in a broad way with that tone, and (given the direction things have been going) worry that "This is what senior management will use to order CMs to unilaterally overrule moderators any time they see something they don't like". I hope you're right and this is an incorrect interpretation. It'd go a long way in building trust to see a firm commitment that such overruling really will be rare and exceptional (like commiting to a public explanation any time it's deemed necessary). | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:23 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @user56reinstatemonica8 if something's civil, not devolving into toxic or overly antagonistic stuff, that should be fine. I don't think there's a lot of point on quibbling about phrasing until we see the results of it in action. If we end up trying to work with mods and disagreeing most of the time, and single handly unfeaturing things to the mods disapproval, something's wrong. If we can agree most of the time and work together then that's fine. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:19 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | @CesarM That's just it though... "Disruptive discussion" is where most changes for the better come from. Not just here, but in life in general. I don't mean to quibble about phrasing; it's the spirit of the thing and how it fits a pattern where lively discussion any user can join used to be valued as a source of ideas and valuable challenges to the status quo, but now seems to be something unwelcome to be squashed. P.s. Thanks for the friendly and professional replies as always and I enjoyed the notarized slip joke above :-) | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:15 | comment | added | Andras Deak -- Слава Україні | Unfortunately since Monica was sacked it's been hard to trust that the community's assessment of what a "disruptive discussion" is agrees with that of the company. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:12 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @user56reinstatemonica8 Yes, point 2 is broad, but we'll work with mods first before doing anything. As for the discussion, it's not discussion by itself, meant to be "disruptive discussion". | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:11 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | I'd like to +1 this; point 1 seems sensible e.g. there was some recent drama on Physics about a controversial user and featuring posts about that wouldn't help, whereas in cases like "Woah, shog9 and Robert C got sacked?!?", it should be easy for a mod to ping them for consent? And it's good to see senior staff come here and commit that "CMs will work with Moderators first before unfeaturing". But point 2 worries me. Something about "disruptive behaviour and discussion"... how broad that is (smells like "any disagreement with policy"), and how "discussion" is presented as something negative. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:09 | vote | accept | Cesar MStaffMod | ||
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:07 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @Andy same way, we ask them first. Probably something to take care of before the election. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:05 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @Dharman please have the slip notarized and sent by mail to our office building. Or just leave a comment/tell a mod you're ok with it being featured, if you are. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:04 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @user400654 We'll ask mods, if they say they have authorization from the person, that's it. We'll trust them and in return, they don't lie to our faces. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 23:01 | comment | added | Dharman | If I post a question on Meta where my name is in the title, is this enough for a consent? Do I need to fill out a permission slip agreeing for my post to be featured? | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 22:58 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | And as already alluded in a comment, you're essentially calling the MSE and MSO mods incompetent or malicious. Overly antagonistic or disruptive content is exactly the kind of stuff that moderators deal with and remove. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 22:57 | comment | added | Kevin B | What constitutes as consent in this case? | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 22:51 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | I really don't think obfuscating the issue by making these rules overly generic is useful. This is about the policy change regarding moderator resignation posts, which are certainly about specific users, and as alleged by SE are likely to attract negative behaviour. What exactly changes now compared to the previous edict by SE on removing them after 24 hours? I can't tell if this is an improvement or not, the new policy is rather vague and fuzzy and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 22:43 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | Point 1 is kinda broader than what was originally stated. Considering one or more moderators have to make the decision, and at least in theory, they're trusted to make these decisions, and in some of these cases, those individuals might have chosen, or have been forced into leaving... this seems impractical. Point 2 seems to be something we'd be expected to/need to handle anyway as part of our duties as mods. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 22:41 | comment | added | Andy | How are elections handled, and specifically election results? By necessity those name specific users. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 22:34 | comment | added | Vogel612's Shadow | As outlined multiple times behind closed doors: That SE considers it necessary to state this policy shows a lack of trust in the moderators that were elected to keep their communities clean and in accordance with the CoC (or back before that was a thing "be nice"). The guidance here outlines cases that clearly violate the CoC (and "be nice"). This guidance strongly implies moderators would feature content that goes against one of the core tenets of the network. At this point it's just sad. | |
| Feb 10, 2020 at 22:11 | history | answered | Sara ChippsStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |