What is considered acceptable feedback?

Question

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.

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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!

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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.

Answer 7

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.