112

In the past 48 hours, a question related to the specific wording of the Code of Conduct (archive link) went from being open to deleted, and its author was subject to a 7-day suspension. The topic of the question itself was about a clarification of the standard of "acting in good faith", present in the CoC, but never explained as a standard.

Following this, my question is twofold:

  1. What is and isn't acceptable to ask?
  2. Where should questions like the above be asked, if anywhere?

The Code of Conduct is a covenant that binds the entire community. As a result, clarification is a primary concern, as even in the most basic form of common law, even simple "common sense" rules as, say, commercial sense, are clearly stated and explained so that others can view them as a standard that they can follow and be bound by.

  • 22
    @πάνταῥεῖ That did get a chuckle. The question is serious, though; judging from the example, someone can get silently pruned off meta for asking a clarification on verbiage they need to agree to to participate. – Sébastien Renauld Dec 8 '19 at 15:53
  • 13
    The practical rule for now seems to be that everything that is sensitive or emotion arousing may become offtopic and deleted at any time with added suspension if bad faith is estimated additionally. – Trilarion Dec 8 '19 at 17:30
  • 2
    @House-'ReinstateMonica'-man The linked question (the one about what "good faith" is as a standard) was neither praise nor criticism, though. – Sébastien Renauld Dec 8 '19 at 17:39
  • 11
    The numerous undeleted posts critical of the CoC on MSE clearly shows that criticising the CoC is in general permitted. But that does not mean all forms of criticism are permitted. – Raedwald Dec 8 '19 at 17:53
  • 24
    @Raedwald right and that's what OP is trying to ascertain with his question: 'What is and isn't acceptable to ask?'. – Script47 Dec 8 '19 at 17:58
  • 3
    @Raedwald ah, you never tagged a user hence I thought you were responding to the OP directly. – Script47 Dec 8 '19 at 18:02
  • 23
    @Raedwald There is no obvious logic from the outside of the rules behind what gets and does not get pruned other. The purpose of the question is to ascertain this, and to clarify something which is pretty important, at least in my eyes. Ever since the mass suspensions and silent deletions started I know I have personally been very reluctant to post, even just to answer rust questions on SO. – Sébastien Renauld Dec 8 '19 at 18:02
  • 16
    @Raedwald "The numerous undeleted posts critical of the CoC on MSE clearly shows..." But in the same way the numerous deleted posts critical of the CoC on MSE clearly show that criticising the CoC can in general always be punished. That does not mean that all forms of criticism are forbidden. – Trilarion Dec 8 '19 at 18:54
  • 5
    In th Post for clarifications on the updated pronouns FAQ SE said "note that debating the core of the new rule ("please use stated pronouns") or the validity of people's identities or gender expressions is off-topic for this post, and we won't be entertaining those debates at this point and posts that aren't questions or requests for clarification may be deleted." A point can be reached at which SE says "enough" and further "discussion" is unproductive, repetitive, and only serves to inflame. – Raedwald Dec 8 '19 at 19:15
  • 3
    I like the idea behind this question. I also am wondering where are the limits between what the CMs find acceptable and what they don't. I'm not sure "feedback" is quite what you're looking for. Maybe this could be your title: What currently limits are there for what is and is not acceptable to ask? My impression is that there is a bit more tolerance from on high of answers than of questions. Also, it's generally a good idea to write granular questions. Focusing on questions only seems like a good way to narrow the focus to get useful answers (from management and also user observations). – aparente001 Dec 8 '19 at 20:13
  • 11
    @Raedwald You really think that tight limits of what can be discussed is good for a community? This only leads to conformity and suboptimal solutions. If anything the current state is quite unproductive. But I had forgot about that FAQ item. It's kind of clear. Maybe post that as an answer. – Trilarion Dec 8 '19 at 20:16
  • 39
    It seems like mods and staff can delete your question and suspend you within the hour, but seem to take 6-8 weeks to respond to questions like these. – user245382 Dec 9 '19 at 1:41
  • 13
    @Raedwald "The numerous undeleted posts critical of the CoC on MSE clearly shows [...]" - Not really. It shows that not all posts are deleted. That's like saying that not all buildings collapse during an earthquake and claim earthquakes are safe. – Fermi paradox Dec 9 '19 at 7:51
  • 7
    In a recent comment I suggested asking this exact question. But I considered phrasing it as "Is it against the rules to ask whether something is against the rules?". The ""funny"" part would then have been that the deletion of the question would have been the answer. (I wouldn't be surprised of this one as also deleted soon, by the way...) – Marco13 Dec 10 '19 at 16:44
  • 8
    It seems that "what is and isn't acceptable to ask", and what gets deleted depends only marginally on the question itself and greatly on the behavior of users in the comments and answers. So essentially you may receive a suspension for -other users getting out of hand on your question-. – Meg Dec 10 '19 at 21:34
75
+50

The linked question isn't stellar, but I fail to see how it's "made in bad faith". It looks like an application of Rule Zero, to be frank. The community doesn't like subpar questions, but it likes Rule Zero even less, naturally.

I'm tired of seeing moderators saying they're improving the Meta by doing this. Moderators need to understand one simple thing: by suppressing negativity speech, you become one with the company in the eyes of the community — the company that the community no longer trusts.

"Toxic Meta" became a norm when the company decided to ignore the community. The community trusted the company, waited for miracles, waited for response — and got nothing. So the community gave up. What we see isn't "toxicity", isn't "negativity", isn't "trolling". It's a cry for help of a dying animal that hears steps of an approaching hunter.

It's the company that's being toxic towards community, not the other way around. It's the company that decided to disregard, disrespect the very people that fill their sites with content they earn money from. By silencing "toxic negative trolls", you will never fix the company's attitude. The company chose the course long before Meta became "toxic". The community didn't become "toxic" right away only because it believed. Now it doesn't.

Maybe making the community believe that at least moderators are on their side, not against them, will make this place a bit more positive. I'm not sure though. What I'm sure about is that the current approach isn't working, if votes are any indication. All you're doing is making the community afraid of moderators.

This makes me sad. If we're to get anywhere, we need to support each other, not blame each other. Naturally, this goes from the community to moderators too, it's a two-way street.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 18
    "Maybe making the community believe that at least moderators are on their side, not against them, will make this place a bit more positive." Yes. It's obvious that the company is not listening to us here on meta. I'm only still here because I believe that, if the mods and users work together, we can influence a change. If it ever seems like the mods are no longer on the side of the users, I'm done. – user245382 Dec 10 '19 at 2:19
  • 9
    What's "rule zero"? Is it related to the UD definition? – Peilonrayz Dec 10 '19 at 8:16
  • 11
    @Peilonrayz 0. Admin is always right. 1. If admin is wrong, see rule 0. (And all variations on the theme.) – Athari - Make SE Awesome Again Dec 10 '19 at 16:13
  • 5
    I'm afraid that after the reshuffling of mods, with some leaving and others replacing them, the mods seem much less 'independent' than they were. At least in general, not necessarily every one. I agree that the mods, in theory, are the greatest leverage the community has. – Ask About Monica Dec 10 '19 at 18:08
  • 2
    With the almost cathartic lack of real, two-way discussion and actionable conclusion from the powers above, I guess it does fall down to R0. – Sébastien Renauld Dec 13 '19 at 21:49
52
+200

What is considered acceptable feedback?

For anything other than trivial "CSS is falling apart", first you have to ask yourself do you feel lucky?

It might go right and it might go wrong. This place is a minefield. No matter how careful you are, no matter how good your intentions are, you can still blow yourself up if you make any minor misstep.

1. Good faith and good intent are long dead and buried here.

When I say that, it does not mean that you should no longer assume good intent when reading posts and comments from other people, but that you should not expect you will be given the same treatment and your words will be taken as written in good faith.

2. There are no warnings

Everyone keep saying that you don't have to fear, and if you accidentally do something wrong you will get a warning first. That is not true. I for sure haven't got any.

Considering all of the above, if you still feel confident enough, then go ahead and give your feedback. Ask what you feel is worth asking or saying.


So what was wrong about asking about "good faith"?

Apparently, asking was not the problem (or at least that is what I have been told), rather "trying to sneak in content that's deleted".

For the record, I never tried to sneak anything in. I asked the question in good faith. I never wanted main focus of the question to be particular user suspension. But asking the question without relevant example would weaken the question and invite boilerplate answers. So I added example with relevant links. But then another user came along and commented my example with "Correlation doesn't mean causation". Then I added image of the suspension notice. Few comments later, I added the image of post itself, because users with less than 10K cannot read deleted posts and make their own judgement.

At that moment it never crossed my mind that I am doing something I shouldn't be doing. Images of deleted posts are often included in Stack Overflow Meta posts. Yes, I know this is not SO Meta, still... users with 10K+ reputation can read it all and I didn't think for a millisecond that this is something that should stay hidden and that posting it violates any rules.

Mea culpa.

And then things went into wrong direction.

  1. Deleting post - OK
  2. Suspension without any warning - not OK

It is not the problem in the suspension itself and sitting on the side for a week is not much of an issue. My problem with how things turned out is that my post asking about what is "good faith" wasn't taken as written in "good faith". I am not the kind of person to hold a grudge and I can most certainly appreciate the irony of it, but this chain of events made me lose any faith I had left in "fair treatment" around here.

As someone that appreciates honesty, if this is current reality here, I am glad this all happened as-is, because I actually got the most sincere and trustworthy answer to my question. I am grateful for that part. No hard feelings.

I can understand that moderators and CMs are tired and frustrated, but they are not the only ones feeling like that. At the moment this place is so divided that my left hand is on one side and my right hand on the other.

Probably moderators and CMs would like nothing better than we all just shut up, so there could be some peace and quiet around here. I certainly would not mind having some peace and quiet. But that is not likely to happen until there are unresolved issues hanging over our heads.

Until then we can only give our feedback and hope for the best.


I don't plan to get myself in the trouble again. But theory is one thing, practice another. I surely didn't plan to get myself in the trouble the first time around. So, if something similar happens again, my message to all of you:

Oops! Another mine... or banana peel... Take care!

|improve this answer|||||
13

I always wanted to add a bit more here, and only now got around to doing it.

Two key ideas from other answers are:

Simply - as far as the moderation team is concerned, any constructive feedback is acceptable, and we're not going to shut down constructive critique. (Journeyman Geek)

When things become more cathartic than constructive, we start having problems, and depending on the circumstances, we might ask you to change your strategy or drop something altogether if we've made it clear that we're not going to take the direction that you want us to take. If what you post goes too far (and this is something that's hard to describe other than you know it when you see it), we're going to delete it .. (Tim Post)

and they highlight the problem of defining and deciding on the difference between acceptable constructive feedback and undesired disturbances.

I posted in some of the deleted questions (answers and comments I think) and I remember that they were not that bad. If I were a moderator, which I'm not, I probably wouldn't have done quite a few of the deletions; instead I would probably have just let them run their course and only delete singular (isolated) bad parts of contributions, while preserving the overall discussions as much as possible.

However, simply deleting unwanted content more generously seems like a far easier and, for the moderation team, time-saving solution that also does the trick, and I kept thinking and thinking about arguments why this would be the less desirable thing to do, in the long run, at least, because it felt like it's not really the best solution. Here is what I came up with.

By erring on the side of too many deletions:

  • An atmosphere of apprehension is created (will my contribution survive?).
  • Lots of unwanted collateral damage happens (lots of contributions that were worth keeping have been deleted).
  • Critical voices are suppressed (mostly yes sayers survive).
  • Trolls get a weapon (I don't like this question so let's try and get it deleted)
  • Contributors get demotivated and may decrease activity.
  • Deletions can seem arbitrary. Why deleting this and not that? Users will have no chance to judge for themselves, because the content is not available anymore. With more deletions there could be more of that.

Not sure all this is a good thing in the long run.

My impression is that currently any strong critique of the company is bordering on a taboo, especially if it has to do with the code of conduct in any form.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 3
    Selective editing is much more troublesome than deletion. How do respect the intent of the OP and just pick the "good parts"? It goes from "my content is deleted" to "Mods are editing my stuff!". – Journeyman Geek Jan 4 at 0:02
  • 1
    @JourneymanGeek For example Robert Harvey's question about a simpler CoC without the "we are all adults part", wouldn't that be something worthwhile to discuss? Now it's more like you can't discuss the topic it all, always someone will post something making any controversial topic delete worthy. – Trilarion Jan 4 at 8:46
  • 3
    I generally agree with what you said. But my impression is that the assumption of deletions being a "time saving solution" is a naive fallacy. People will see the post before it is deleted. I mean, this question itself is the reaction to deleted questions, which have been reactions to "questions" that have not been handled properly, and people are asking about "posting screenshots of deleted questions" and such. But I'm not sure whether it is naive to assume that this form of (online) authoritarianism can prevail, or whether it is naive to assume that it will not prevail... – Marco13 Jan 4 at 13:45
  • 7
    @JourneymanGeek Except when a moderator deletes something instead of editing it, it prevents anyone from correcting the problems with it. Editing a post helps people understand what parts were the problem, it doesn’t throw the baby out with the bath water, and it gives the author a chance to demonstrate whether they were asking in good faith, or just trying to start trouble. – ColleenV parted ways Jan 4 at 13:50
  • @Marco13 My money is on the company in this case. You cannot really expect to beat them on their own premises. If they want to delete anything for whatever reason, they can and they will (and they do). The available options here are to convince them (that's what I try here) or to go and make it better elsewhere (that's what I may try next). – Trilarion Jan 4 at 23:10
  • Sure, they can do with the site whatever they want. But I'm somehow expecting that, at some point, meta posts will no longer be deleted, but simply no longer shown directly, but only become visible after moderator approval - *waves hands* safe space and such. We'll see how deep this rabbit hole goes. – Marco13 Jan 5 at 0:05
  • 4
    I can understand the community managers having a skewed moderation style -- skewed toward the official company line -- but what I don't understand is when the Meta SE moderators appear to have a skewed policy or practice. I sometimes get the feeling they are anticipating what they think the CM team's viewpoint and wishes might be, perhaps in a well-intentioned effort to lighten their load. // I think your post hits the nail on the head, as regards the psychological effects of the current Meta moderation style. It really is very stressful. – aparente001 Jan 5 at 22:46
  • 1
    @aparente001 Many thanks for improving my language. – Trilarion Jan 5 at 23:03
-3

Constructive feedback is a newer term for constructive criticism. But if in fact the feedback is too much in a personal rather than factual nature, lacks merit or insights controversy it needs to be unsaid. Too many blogs in web sites start with a question and end in the OP wishing they never asked the question due to the path it took.

|improve this answer|||||
  • I am not sure what you mean by the last sentence. Do you have some examples to illustrate it? – P.Mort. - forgot Clay Shirky_q Dec 14 '19 at 2:53
  • Yes, often the comments get off topic, hostile and inflammatory. – Andrew Harman Dec 14 '19 at 4:17
  • 2
    Yes, that is sometimes true, but I've seen completely constructive comments being removed and a mod saying: "your definition of constructive differs hugely from whoever moderated them". Fortunately my other browser tab hadn't refreshed and I could see them and make sure that indeed most of the comments were constructive. :) – Fermi paradox Dec 19 '19 at 22:39
-7
  1. The good thing about Robert Harveys nCoC post was that it assumed us all being adults. If you have to ask yourself if your post is considered to be acting in good faith/acceptable to ask, I suggest to not post it yet and reconsider your options for 6 to 8 weeks.

  2. If you can't suppress the urge to post, try chat first to get a feel for how loaded your contribution to the site will be. Take the advice to heart.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 8
    @Iamnotthewayyouspeak I'm in that same boat, and this question would have no purpose to exist if this was not the case. – Sébastien Renauld Dec 8 '19 at 16:08
  • 6
    Do not play is always an option. If someone is wrong on the internet you don't need to fix that ... – rene Dec 8 '19 at 16:16
  • 9
    @rene "Do not play ..." –– There is benign wrongness that can be ignored with no consequences and malignant wrongness that must not be ignored because [whatever you think about the past month]. – I am not the way you speak Dec 8 '19 at 17:10
  • 50
    You're implying that people aren't certain whether their own questions are in good faith. Of course they are. Why are you questioning that? They're trying to comprehend the arbitrary standards by which content is deleted and people are banned, since it often has nothing to do with anything stated in the Code of Conduct and it's not even rude or abusive by any stretch of the imagination. References to kindergarten and babysitting, on the other hand, are quite rude and condescending. If you can't write respectfully then perhaps you should refrain from posting. – Scott Hannen Dec 9 '19 at 3:11
  • 34
    Very interesting. We are adults when it comes to arbitrary moderation rules but we aren't adults when it comes to [forbidden_to_speak about] issues. – Fermi paradox Dec 9 '19 at 8:28
  • 2
    Although a user may know if they are themselves acting in good faith, it may be difficult to determine if their motivations will be evident to others (perhaps particularly others that have a preconceived idea that meta users are in general toxic and looking for drama.) – Meg Dec 11 '19 at 20:45
  • 7
    I find your second point to be quite ironic, given the fact how rude the first version of your answer here looked like in my eyes. But hey, lucky you: no deletion, no suspension. You were given time to fix your answer yourself. – GhostCat salutes Monica C. Dec 16 '19 at 13:46
-23

It's not a precise point on a map that anyone could draw. What it comes down to is what you want to accomplish.

I can't go into detail surrounding what you linked, or the events it was referencing. We don't discuss the details of suspensions beyond what the system makes visible.

There needs to be an "and then" component to things that you post. There has to be something in it that helps people draw a picture of the outcome you're trying to achieve, and it's up to you to try and keep a neutral or positive tone as you communicate whatever thoughts you have.

Frustration and anger are, occasionally, okay and very healthy to express as long as you recognize those expressions as something that requires a bit of additional care to articulate. We're not going to come down on someone for occasionally coming off more abrasive than intended, as long as there's evidence that the intent is to take something in a direction that was better than the one it was currently taking.

A little disruption is generally okay, as long as there's a clear point to it. There has to be some concern that could practically be satisfied. It needs to be clear that the need to ask is greater than the desire for sensationalism. That usually means, well, trying hard not to be sensational.

When things become more cathartic than constructive, we start having problems, and depending on the circumstances, we might ask you to change you strategy or drop something altogether if we've made it clear that we're not going to take the direction that you want us to take. If what you post goes too far (and this is something that's hard to describe other than you know it when you see it), we're going to delete it and send you a message. If we find ourselves needing to do this too often, we might have to have a more serious talk.

Remember that what you post is a reflection of all of us, even though each idea proposed is unique to the people that came up with them. It's themes that makes us who we are to the outside world.

Additionally, try not to direct frustration or anger at specific people, speak to the situation more generally when you can, or reach out to us privately where you can't.

Finally, nobody is perfect and we don't expect people to be. If the intent is clearly in the right place you probably don't need to worry (but be receptive to edits or suggestions you might receive).

I hope this answers your question directly. Please understand that I can't elaborate more on things that would take me in the direction of speaking more about specifics of either incident; I simply can't discuss them.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 38
    "drop something altogether if we've made it clear that we're not going to take the direction that you want us to take" Then answer "no [because X]" instead of deleting the request. And if they ask again close as dupe. And if they spam dupes then suspend. We already have SE-tools for this that don't involve silencing. – user-2147482600 Dec 10 '19 at 16:27
  • 23
    "I simply can't discuss them": There may be rules that make sense, regarding privacy, or an accidental faux pas that a user may have made, or something that has escalated behind the scenes and should not be dragged into the public for an awful lot of reasons. Most people will understand that. But on SE, the "you can't discuss this"-rules have become so strict and intimidating that you might have a hard time justifying the claim that you live in "the land of the free and the home of the brave"... – Marco13 Dec 10 '19 at 16:34
  • 5
    @Marco13 I'm free to stick my head out my kitchen window and say whatever is on my mind provided that I don't make threats or partake in conduct that's legally disorderly. That's living in the "land of the free and home of the brave" Also, there's a limit to what I can talk about when it comes to administrative cases at work. I get your analogy, but can we not go that far overboard here? – Tim Post Dec 10 '19 at 16:45
  • 20
    I don't think it's far overboard. There are clear rules about what you can say, and the only things that you may not say is (roughly) something that incites violence. But you know that nowadays, there are far more things that you may not say, and the justification is far too often only that "someone was (or may be, or claimed to be) 'offended'". That's a too low bar, not legally defined, not objectively determinable, and therefore completely arbitrary. (I won't call it "censorship". SE is a company and may set up such arbitrary rules. I just find it wrong to do this). – Marco13 Dec 10 '19 at 16:51
  • 45
    It seems like Robert's post met all your criteria for an allowed post, and I know that you can't discuss it, but the result is that I am confused about what I can and can't post, and scared of getting punished for something vague. – user245382 Dec 10 '19 at 16:56
  • 13
    @TimPost Thanks for the answer. While it seems like what it ought to be, there's (at least, I feel) a significant dissonance between the reality and this. The point of the question wasn't about the suspension, but about the deletion. The suspension, as you said, is a private matter; the deletion, however, comes in a group of deletions that seems out of whack and very heavy-handed. Likewise, there were quite a few comments on Journeyman Geek's answer in this very question that, for some reason, are now gone. – Sébastien Renauld Dec 11 '19 at 11:34
  • 34
    This trend of outright deletion just reinforces the opposite message - that questions, answers and comments may be gone on a whim, without notice, and with extreme prejudice (as two separate mods have mentioned, there is a lot of emphasis being put on a person's past actions, no matter how far back it goes). Overall, I'm sorry to have to say, but the reality is that, at least personally, I thought I'd get suspended for this question, for instance. That's the general feeling right now. – Sébastien Renauld Dec 11 '19 at 11:36
  • 13
    (And it is something that is echoed through quite a few comments on this very page, so I'm definitely not the only one in that boat, and also visible by the amount of attention this question has garnered) – Sébastien Renauld Dec 11 '19 at 11:36
  • 12
    @SébastienRenauld I rewrote my answer many times, cut all corners, and still thought I'd get banned for it. Whatever... Now not only posts of employees are downvoted, but posts of mods too. And it doesn't lool like dozens (and sometimes hundreds) of downvotes are going to convince anyone to reconsider their position. Sigh... Feel free to ignore me, I'm just another Meta troll I guess. – Athari - Make SE Awesome Again Dec 11 '19 at 13:40
  • 11
    @AtharisaysReinstateMonica It honestly feels like the mass deletions bred resentment and fear – Sébastien Renauld Dec 11 '19 at 14:24
  • 25
    "We don't discuss the details of suspensions beyond what the system makes visible." - except to The Register. Then you'll answer whatever asked, right? – mason Dec 11 '19 at 15:11
  • 14
    'Remember that what you post is a reflection of all of us, even though each idea proposed is unique to the people that came up with them. It's themes that makes us who we are to the outside world.' - Oh if only SE would extend this to themselves. 'Finally, nobody is perfect and we don't expect people to be. If the intent is clearly in the right place you probably don't need to worry (but be receptive to edits or suggestions you might receive).' - So why was it deleted as opposed to being edited/suggestions made (this talking about both Rob's post and the one OP is mentioning)? – Script47 Dec 11 '19 at 15:59
  • 11
    To add to the prior comments, you can see around this very question two things: a ton of comments that were directly relevant got deleted, and the situation and the view of the moderation from the community's PoV is so negative that we're all taking offline copies of questions. – Sébastien Renauld Dec 11 '19 at 23:46
  • 1
    Hey @TimPost, I have an example for you. After Adam removed the link to the gofundme on here, I commented stating that it was gone. That comment got removed. What is the reasoning? It feels from the outside as you're just trying to cover up. – Sébastien Renauld Dec 15 '19 at 10:57
  • 4
    This is quite reasonable answer. I truly want to upvote it. But, right now I don't feel like actions actually back up those words. So, I have to say I am sorry don't take this personally (I have never apologized for downvote before), but your words feel kind of empty right now. I hope some day, things will improve here and I will be able to come back and reverse my vote. – Resistance Is Futile Dec 16 '19 at 12:12
-27

Unfortunately, this is precisely the sort of thing that causes rules lawyering.

Simply - as far as the moderation team is concerned, any constructive feedback is acceptable, and we're not going to shut down constructive critique.

Unfortunately, sometimes this is confused with treating MSE as a soapbox, and a constant source of drama. These decisions are hard to make, and yet, they need to be. Folks tell us we need to do something "cause the community says so".

Simply - there's other factors in play. We'd like folks to work with us - and well, folks get creative in trying to work around and against us. It stops being cute after the 2nd or third time someone tries a workaround or being sneaky, or has a go at us cause "we're in authority" or "but the community says so". We're human exception handlers. We're having to deal with a lot of exceptions.

What Rene said is kinda true in that sense.

A lot of the stuff that gets folks suspended is common sense. As adults, we do need to consider, and accept the results of our actions. We try our best to give folks the leeway to discuss things productively. However some lines get crossed, and that's when these things happen.

I'd say, the original post was frustrating but didn't cross the line. It looks like it did later. Unless there's certain specific issues (and I'm not saying it is any of these), not limited to say, personal attacks, trying to sneak in content that's deleted, or that sort of rather frustrating behavior aimed at undermining or attacking the folks helping run the place - we'd rather warn people. Personally, suspension is a sign that other, more peaceful means have failed, and I'd rather ask people nicely.

If you want to know what good faith is? Put your cards on the table. Work towards making meta work. I'd rather be giving the folks who want to kill meta a bloody nose with a productive, useful meta than it being a constant source of drama and venting. Part of this is making these decisions. I believe someone actually said "This is the only place they have to vent" - and meta is a lot more than just that.

So, more or less - If it isn't obviously a trap, and sometimes if it is, you'll get an answer. You might not like that answer, but at the end of the day, its what whoever did felt was the best at the time.

|improve this answer|||||
  • 42
    "If you want to know what good faith is? Put your cards on the table. Work towards making meta work" - so why are we deleting suggestions and banning users simply because the powers-that-be disagree with them? Personally, I'm annoyed that Robert Harvey's question was deleted because I disagreed with his proposal and wanted to clarify explicitly when and why CoCs have value. Such discussions would have been very good "putting cards on the table" and could have helped meta work. – user56reinstatemonica8 Dec 10 '19 at 9:42
  • 23
    It's irritatingly ironic that you seem to depict the fact that Folks tell us we need to do something "cause the community says so" as something that is problematic. References to "Twitter-Driven Development" should not be necessary at this point, but the (in)famous quote "Stack Overflow is an intimidating, unwelcoming place. We know because they tell us" might still fit here. – Marco13 Dec 10 '19 at 16:39
  • 7
    "I'd rather ask people nicely" Then why don't you try? You might get surprised. – Resistance Is Futile Dec 16 '19 at 12:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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