Timeline for What topics can be discussed here?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2011 at 20:35 | comment | added | sbi | @Adam: I disagree, but since there's no argument I haven't already provided to you, and since you seem to ignore most of them, I think we should end the discussion here. | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 20:33 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @sbi I could write a long comment explaining how your statements must lead to that conclusion, but I think we're straying from the point here. 1) The discussion was unproductive, and was actively making people angry who may have otherwise felt ambivalent about the issue, 2) the good points that discussion raised are now being addressed in other questions, therefore there is no point in keeping it around. It is logical and rational to remove such a incendiary discussion and encourage the participants to address their concerns in follow up discussions. | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 19:55 | comment | added | sbi | @Adam: Were do I conclude that?? On more time: If those comments don't get substantially upvoted, they will be drowned in such a debate. And if they do get upvoted considerably, you've just managed to alienate a lot of users and should ask yourself what you did wrong, rather than bashing your users. A heated discussion needs two heated parties. As Grace has just shown us impressively, if at least one party stays calm and argues rationally, chances are pretty high it won't heat up. | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 13:33 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @sbi You conclude that merely nuking the comments would have been sufficient? That's part of the content on the page, and its largely the comments that were fueling the conflagration. The question was no longer simply a benign discussion of feature requests. Further, the same feature requests that you point out can be found in other threads that are much more civil and productive. What was lost? Nothing, except a thread full of bad feelings. I still don't see how removing it is more damaging than leaving it. I suppose, however, that we'll simply have to disagree. | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 12:47 | comment | added | sbi | @Adam: But it's not that 90% on that page was "bickering and whining", and repeating this unfounded accusation over and over won't make it any more true. The most upvoted answers were all making constructive suggestions (many of which have since been implemented), and some even said that they hated the envelop icon and are glad to see it gone. Please read my comment to Jeff under ire_and_curses' answer analyzing the answers to the deleted question. | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 5:19 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @Nikita If User B posts a great comment in a thread where the other 90% is actively hurting the community, then user B's comments are casualty of the operation to remove the festering wound so the injury can heal. User B is invited, nay, encouraged, to re-post their excellent contribution in a new thread which does not share the infected nature of the old thread. Closing and locking would not have allowed the wound to heal. | |
| Mar 16, 2011 at 22:32 | comment | added | Nikita Rybak | @Grace The availability of object A can not be a reason to destroy object B (even if they are equivalent). Unless SO is trying to join the ranks of China and North Korea. That said, I agree that Jeff's famous "shut up or leave" argument is valid since he's in power in the company. But all this cleanup and pretending nothing happend leaves bad taste. | |
| Mar 16, 2011 at 22:20 | comment | added | Nikita Rybak | @Adam 1) If user A posts bad content, it's not the reason to kill thread B. 2) Even if you wanted to stop bad content by dealing with question itself, closing/locking would've accomplished this. (I believe, I'm not the first one to say those simple things) | |
| Mar 16, 2011 at 15:39 | comment | added | Grace Note StaffMod | @Nikita Just to tack onto Adam's note, keep in mind what has already been suggested thus far. Consider upvoting the ones you support, and even contributing other support or feedback you can think of. | |
| Mar 16, 2011 at 15:37 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @Lance You are right, I've modified my answer to indicate that extremes aren't allowed. | |
| Mar 16, 2011 at 15:36 | history | edited | Pollyanna | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 150 characters in body
|
| Mar 16, 2011 at 15:34 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @Nikita Go ahead and start a discussion on the new feature. Go ahead and start a feature request asking that the old feature be returned. As long as the discussions remain objective and reasonable they will remain. There is probably a LOT of stuff in that discussion that was valuable and useful. However, there was too much subjective arguing, and if that weren't enough, it continued to pull more and more users into its vortex of extreme dissatisfaction. In other words lots of people are unhappy about the change, but by reading the inflammatory posts they became more than just unhappy. | |
| Mar 16, 2011 at 15:26 | comment | added | Lance Roberts | Actually, Subjective and Argumentative discussion is supposed to be permitted (and has been) on Meta. | |
| Mar 16, 2011 at 8:11 | comment | added | Nikita Rybak | I saw lots of valid feedback in that thread: why new "not feature complete" is unusable and how to make it usable. If that's offtopic, this comment is offtopic too. | |
| Mar 16, 2011 at 8:09 | comment | added | Nikita Rybak | Are you saying that feature which is still being implemented can not be discussed? I say that feature which cannot be discussed shouldn't be rolled out. | |
| Mar 15, 2011 at 22:52 | comment | added | Pollyanna | @drach It was meant to be a one off joke that went on for too long, and I decided to cast her off into the abyss that lay before me, as an offering in the hopes I won't get swallowed as well. Also, turns out she hated unicorns, and was secretly plotting to create a machine that turnes unicorns into waffles. Sounds great right? But it would cost 52 unicorns per waffle which is a terrible exchange rate. | |
| Mar 15, 2011 at 20:30 | comment | added | jcolebrand | While I see you about, and completely on-topic, why'd you kill Polly? We won't hurt you in the chatroom either. | |
| Mar 15, 2011 at 20:20 | history | answered | Pollyanna | CC BY-SA 2.5 |