-20

"OMSO" = old meta.stackoverflow.com
"MSO" = new Meta for SO (the MSO/MSE split)


I agree with the split, it's now more logical, and matches the rest of the Stack network -
The Site -> The Meta for The Site.

And it's logical for rep on MSO to reflect the rep from SO, also matching the other sites' logic.

But I disagree with the privilege loss.
I earned privileges on OMSO when it WAS the Meta for SO, but now following the split I don't have those privileges on MSO.

Privilege Change

On OMSO, I had privileges to assist with matters for the Meta for stackoverflow.com:

  • cast close and reopen votes
  • create tag synonyms
  • edit questions and answers
  • create tags

I gained these privileges because I earned rep while helping out on the Meta site for stackoverflow.com!
But now I'm no longer privileged to do such things, just because it's changed and I haven't earned the privileges on Stack Overflow.
I know this is how other Stack sites do it, but this is not how OMSO did it (it's not what I signed up for dammit :P).

I was trusted a few days ago to do these things, now I am not..?

I know OMSO setup was a jumble of MSO and MSE, from early days, and hence the recent split.
And I agree with the split, but why lose the privileges I've already earned and been told I'm trusted with?

You'd do it for Randolph Scott!

♪♪ Raaaaan-dolph Sco~o~o~o~ott ♪♪

When I helped out on OMSO, it was also the Meta for stackexchange.com, and my privileges have been transferred to MSE to reflect this.

Isn't it therefore logical to state that as my helping out on OMSO also meant I was helping out on the Meta for SO, I should also still have the privileges for MSO too?

Suggestion

Keep MSO a slight "exception to the rule" and reinstate old privileges on MSO to reflect what people earned on OMSO.

15
  • 4
    Helping out at the meta of an SE site was not supposed to earn privileges to begin with; the split removed an unwarranted exception. Also, this question is specific to MSO, and belongs there. Apr 20 '14 at 1:38
  • Maybe it was not supposed to be like that, but it was like that for many years, during which time everyone helped out. I know Stack folks have the right to change it this way, and know why they did, but I disagree with losing rep from a site (MSO) which I gained from the system that was provided to me. I answered MSO questions to help out, I was told I'd get privileges for it, then I lost said privileges because "it was not supposed to be like that"?
    – James
    Apr 20 '14 at 1:43
  • The likely reason for this not being done is because it would either unfairly award rep on MSO for those who used it for more global issues or become a nightmare trying to find how many people used it for the purpose of MSO versus how many used it for MSE. Maybe after the split finishes, there might be a script run on MSO that filters by date or (even better) compares against a snapshot and awards reputation accordingly, but that itself wouldn't be easy to code in any language. Apr 20 '14 at 1:48
  • 1
    @HowAboutaNiceBigCupof "this question is specific to MSO, and belongs there" - This question is about the MSO/MSE split, and isn't anything to do with SO, or MSO specifically. So I put it here on the "Meta for Metas".
    – James
    Apr 20 '14 at 1:50
  • 2
    @HowAboutaNiceBigCupof I disagree about it is entirely specific to MSO. It seems like an unintended consequence of the split of OMSO, which itself makes it better suited to MSE. Apr 20 '14 at 1:51
  • @James You basically beat me to the gun on practically the same thing. Apr 20 '14 at 1:52
  • @impinball If it was too hard/too much dev work, then fine (though compared to what will have been done for the split, I doubt it would have been much more). But I'm discussing it as if it was simply decided this way. "likely reason for this not being done is because it would either unfairly award rep on MSO" - and what about rep being "unfairly" removed, as per my question?
    – James
    Apr 20 '14 at 1:52
  • @James For example, those who used OMSO for global issues, but never really used SO for anything, and thus never had any reason to ask anything that would now belong exclusively on MSO. Apr 20 '14 at 1:55
  • @impinball I understand your logic, but my rep from OMSO came to MSE. If we're being precise (which is hard given the mishmash of the two sites) then surely if helping on OMSO helped MSE and why I got my rep here, then helping on OMSO also helped MSO and should carry the same logic?
    – James
    Apr 20 '14 at 2:02
  • 3
    I sympathize, but the way it was done is the absolutely sanest way, IMO.
    – Pekka
    Apr 20 '14 at 2:52
  • @Pëkka If you mean from a developers point of view, and considering the mammoth amount of decisions, time, and work I'm sure were needed, then I agree. But the reasons behind deciding the best path, nor the choice of path itself, do not always return the best end result for all concerned. I didn't come to gripe, or troll, I just wanted to debate what I think was an unfair outcome, regardless of how much I (from real experience) know how much of a royal pain the split must have been. And one of those where there's obviously no real potential for an "everyone wins" outcome.
    – James
    Apr 20 '14 at 3:01
  • I 2nd @Pëkka's sympathy... heck, I have the same issue, 20K on MSE/Old MSO but only 3K on SO/New MSO. But what was done was absolutely necessary and 100% correct. Apr 20 '14 at 9:42
  • @psubsee2003 "I have the same issue" so you agree there is an issue. And you agree it is what I stated in my question. But you also say "100% correct". This simply means you are willing to accept the "issue". Which is fine. But you cannot state "there is an issue" and "it's 100% correct". It's not, users have lost out. Arguably, the solution was nearest to being fair, and to retain the same structure across all sites. But, an issue it is. I'm not happy with it for reasons I've already outlined. Do I accept it? Of course, I have no choice.
    – James
    Apr 20 '14 at 12:00
  • 1
    There's already a stupid 60-day/3+ rule, no need for another clawing of rep blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/03/…
    – random
    Apr 20 '14 at 12:15
  • @James no, I actually mean that I don't see it as an issue. SE chose to create a new meta site for Stack Overflow and direct traffic to that site, whereas leaving the original site more-or-less intact (minus a few migrations). Nothing changed except the site where SO support is going. It is very similar to a case where SE created a new site that had an overlapping scope with SO. You wouldn't have moderation privileges on the new site simply because you had them on SO, you'd have to earn them on the new site. Apr 20 '14 at 12:16
13

Indeed, it's a bit frustrating when we're empowered to do certain things only to find that we're no longer entitled to perform those same activities. Just ask Super User moderators random and Ivo Flipse, and the Stack Overflow moderators, who up until four days ago could quickly and swiftly take care of exceptional circumstances on Meta Stack Exchange.

One of the things that has always impressed me about Stack Exchange development is how they've made it scale. I'm not talking the more than 6.6 million visits per day on Stack Overflow. Instead, I'm talking about the development team's ability to focus on scalable processes. Jeff Atwood set the tone for this thinking:

We generally don't do preferences, so this is unlikely.

I'd much rather pick a sane default that works for 90% of folks than have a bunch of configuration options.

The takeaway from this is that there are costs to exceptions to the rules. There are maintenance costs, for instance. As a developer myself, I've definitely been in situations where I've had to deploy a bug fix to two separate places because someone decided it would be a good idea to split off from the main goal to support what some thought were necessary. Such exceptions can be paralyzing to development teams as they carefully work their way through huge legacy codebases over and over again so as not to disrupt that one exception.

Instead, the answer to keep the engine the same wasn't intended as a slight against you or your contributions. Your contributions were valued, and you can earn those privileges back on Stack Overflow by investing some time in editing, posting questions, and writing good answers.

Sometimes changes have to happen, and sometimes they won't be popular but are in the best interests of keeping the platform maintainable and manageable. Hope this helps!

2
  • I agree with everything you said except "you can earn those privileges back on Stack Overflow". "Those" privileges were earned on OMSO, which is no longer available, so while I can earn them back through SO, it's different. OMSO was meta based - questions about programming questions, what's a good answer, should I quit the site = politics/ethics. Whereas SO is actual programming questions, code, syntax, markup = technical/skilled. In that sense, it's a bit like losing your Member of Parliament job and therefore income, and someone saying "Well, you can earn income by getting a Web Dev job".
    – James
    Apr 20 '14 at 2:19
  • 4
    @James - I know it's rough, but that's the way it is on all of the child metas. Stack Overflow and Meta Stack Overflow are simply being setup using the same standards as all of the other sites on the network. With that said, I participate on some sites child metas even though I don't participate as much on the main site. So since I don't earn the rep, I am limited to participating using my influence, logic, and reasoning. Also, keep in mind that you do still have all that rep, it's just rep for MSE now. Hope this helps.
    – jmort253
    Apr 20 '14 at 2:31
1

Why? All old Meta StackOverflow privileges are now there (on Meta StackExchange). Consider that new MSO is now child of SO, it is not independent anymore.

You must log in to answer this question.

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