Meta Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
In the comments on @Wil's answer in this Super User question, moderator @Diago threatens @Wil and any other user with more than 3,000 reputation with suspension if they answer "not correctly formatted or ambigous" questions or questions that "should be closed".
This is bullshit. It was a good answer to a poorly constructed but well-intentioned question. Is this official SO trilogy policy, or is @Diago overstepping his authority here?
As have been pointed out by the community and my peers my actions in this case were wrong. I had apologized to Will as this was in no way a reflection on him and it was also the reason for me deleting my comments, both on the original question and here.
The comments have been deleted so I'll repost them here:
Anyways, Diago, not only the FAQ doesn't say that questions need to be well formatted (or that you can't ask multiple questions at once), but it does say:
What is reputation?
Reputation is completely optional.
This means that a high rep user isn't forced to use their powers.
I see both sides of this. For one thing, as Diago has mentioned, Super User is indeed a bit of a wild west zone. A lot of users there do, in fact, seem to be rep-whoring instead of taking the time to clean the site. This is extremely bad and likely very frustrating.
That said, I do think threatening users with suspension because they don't vote to close questions that they don't think should be closed is ... well ... overstepping. Like "jumping the shark" overstepping. (I think we can all agree that reasonable people may disagree about what should and should not be closed.)
I should note that Diago himself did not want to take this step initially. His earlier posts on that thread were very much against boxing high-rep users as a means of behavior modification. However, as of yesterday, it looks like he changed his mind.
I understand and respect the frustration mods on Super User are likely experiencing, but it is a completely different beast, and it's (honestly) never going to be as tight as Stack Overflow is. That's the nature of the game with "general computing" sites.
I think that this is the wrong way to approach the problem. I do agree there is a problem, and it needs some kind of approach, but I think this technique is going to cause a lot of Meta butthurt. In fact, it already is!
To put some perspective on my expletive comment to the top of the question:
I've never interacted with Diago before (as far as I remember) and I have nothing against him, and I can see that his situation on SU is somewhat difficult and frustrating.
Still, the threat of suspension for answering a question and/or not formatting it correctly is bound to get people up in arms, and rightly so. Like most SO members, I'm here to ask and answer questions. I'm happy to fix some spelling and formatting as I go along. I do so, not as much as others, but still plenty.
However, if answering questions imposes on me the obligation to clean up others' posts, and not doing so gets me reprimanded in some way, I will not feel motivated to stay around.
Jeff does not seem to agree that there's a problem:
I think we have to accept that SuperUser is a different beast than SO or SF, and as such more is expected from those that have the ability to guide it.
I don't think this is going to work. SU should try to make it easier to do the right thing (close bad questions), not punish people for doing what comes naturally (answering questions).
Remember, SU is young - SO had single-vote closing/opening when it was young, and a lot of people made use of it. SO also had Jeff leading by example, while SU doesn't really have anyone with that same level of visibility and respect doing the same.
In our previous discussion, the problem was duplicate questions getting answers they shouldn't get.
This is a bad question getting an answer it (probably) shouldn't get.
I do not think these are the same thing.
I guess my question is, what is the harm in allowing these answers to bad questions? So what if a few people get a little extra rep trying to answer people's questions in good faith? I really can't see a problem there.
Now if the answering is not done in good faith (as with some of the duplicates, where it appears that users may know about the dupes but answer anyway with almost straight copy/paste) then that is an entirely different matter.
This is why I am not a fan of the idea of mixing suspension with question/answer practices outside of spam/crap posts. It is just too extreme of an action to be used to "attempt to solve" overall content and appropriate question/answer issues. I stated similar concern and commented on an answer in the SU high rep users discussion.
Though Diago's intentions were known, this was not a good way to approach this and this is a perfect example.
Rep-Whoring answer like posts are extremely hard to prove. It is similar to trying to prove people's "intentions" behind posts on any of the sites. Look at any of the legal and moral question/answer discussions on meta.
We need to try every positive enforcement before any negative enforcement, let alone suspension. On the other side though, it would be nice to see more involvement from any high rep user on SU (and this could go for any of the sites) to help maintain and improve a site they love so much. I want to believe that they would like to help improve a site they visit often. It is not explicitly stated that you have to use your rep level earned abilities though, so we can't always expect it.
He may be tired of closing all questions himself.
I'm not a SU user, but I hear it's a no man's land, full of duplicated questions and rep hungry users.
(Original comments here - http://i50.tinypic.com/2chuky8.jpg)
Whilst this doesn't exactly answer the question, it is far too much to write in comments and as I am mentioned in the question, I hope no one minds.
I just want to add in a few things here... I wrote them as a comment to Diago's answer, but it seems to have been deleted.
I love working with a computer and go to Superuser.com to help people and answer questions. I find it a good outlet between phone calls and emails etc. I really dislike Diago's comments about me having to vote - The FAQ says:
Amass enough reputation points and Super User will allow you to go beyond simply asking and answering questions:
...
10000 Delete closed questions, access to moderation tools
† you can always comment on your questions and answers, and any answers to questions you've asked, even with 1 rep.
At the high end of this reputation spectrum there is little difference between users with high reputation and moderators. That is very much intentional. We don't run Super User. The community does.
At no point does it say that I have to "moderate", I do not want to sound bad or unappreciative for the tools - I do flag and delete/close from time to time, but at no time did I ever say I want to be a moderator - I am happy to do this when it comes up, but I am here to help people and answer questions.
I don't mean any disrespect moderators, but if you don't want to do it either (or it is starting to annoy you), perhaps you shouldn't be moderators?... And more importantly, if it became required to moderate at over 3k, I would probably create a new account every time I reached 2,999!
(I cannot say enough, in the last two paragraphs, I do not mean to be unappreciative, disrespectful or offensive in any way. I love this site - but it is a bit hard to write the above without sounding like an a$$.)
As for duplicates, I have flagged quite a few, BUT If you are the first, it becomes really hard to try and find them. In the question that Diago linked to, I was responsible for one question that was a CW and another which I voted to close then answered.
In the first - I had no idea it was a duplicate, I didn't post any questions in the original. In the second - I voted to close and I am sorry, but, I did not see any harm in giving someone an answer that can help them. If that was wrong, I am very sorry.
Anyway - I like Jeff's answer. I have voted to close questions when they are so bad, you can't read - this one however, it just sounded like he was overexcited and asking a lot of related questions, which I was happy to help with. (Maybe his Enter/Return key was broken!). Also, look at all my - and ..., I am not the best at punctuation!
Lastly, on the subject of duplicates, do I really have to search the entire site for a duplicate before I answer any question? Once I posted an answer and then someone voted as duplicate to something I answered - I just don't remember even posting it... It can be hard enough to remember items I have posted, let alone other users!
(I had a bit more I wanted to say, or change slightly, but I need to go out... I will either edit or respond to comments when I get back ~2-3 hours.)
I believe that users should not be punished for attempting to answer poorly worded questions, even if they may be closed. The whole point of the site is to give answer to people who have questions, and even if the question is closed a useful bit of information may have been given that the OP can use.
Generally, though, if you believe a question is going to be closed, it's highly recommended that you wiki your post, or put a shorter answer as a comment so you do not appear to be rep-whoring for a question which obviously doe not fit the site requirements.
Keep in mind that if you don't, and the question is eventually deleted, you will lose the rep you gained when your rep is recalculated. If you do this frequently then you may be in for a shock when you find out how much of your rep was founded on poor questions.
