Skip to main content

Timeline for answer to Site policy for very heavily-trolled topics by TheHonRose

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

Post Revisions

8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 14, 2022 at 11:37 comment added LаngLаngС In your first example it is noteworthy that the user writing a 'very basic stuff' answer to it was the very same person that kicked off the 'swiftly put on hold' cascade. Posting an answer of trivia to a question that's off-topic as it 'asked for trivia', as answer writer confirmed to have written as the first person evaluating it so via voting on question closure. That's really bad on so many levels.
Feb 22, 2018 at 15:06 comment added yannis That said, if you feel you have the energy to take on the "requests for trivia or basic historical facts are off-topic ..." policy, please go for it. It's been around for as long as I remember, it might be a very good time to revisit it and see if the reasons for it still apply - or if we are losing good questions because of it.
Feb 22, 2018 at 15:01 comment added yannis Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, it's unfortunate that "bad faith" questions often steal the focus from far deserving questions. I'm not sure we can do much about it though, it's only natural that people get excited by the controversy and drama following "bad faith" questions.
Feb 22, 2018 at 14:25 comment added TheHonRose @yannis I'm sorry, I was irritated last night and certainly didn't mean to imply that the Normandy question was a "bad faith" one. I was merely pointing out that, as I said, we closed a (bad?) but genuine question, but spent hours trying to "rescue" a "probable" bad faith one! Surely this is the wrong way round?
Feb 22, 2018 at 14:21 comment added TheHonRose @MarkCWallace I agree - I tried to respond last night but having IT problems. I just worry that we spend more time on a probable "bad faith" question than on a naive but genuine one!
Feb 22, 2018 at 11:23 comment added yannis I voted to close the Normandy question as "requests for trivia or basic historical facts are off-topic ...". If you believe we should revisit our policy on ill-researched questions, I'm all for it - and will probably be on the side of becoming a bit more welcoming. That said, I never assumed it wasn't a genuine question or that the OP had a hidden agenda, and I'm a bit surprised to see it used as an example on this discussion.
Feb 22, 2018 at 0:42 comment added MCW Mod Agree. Worth noting that first question was closed by community; second question closed by mod intervention. Different procedures, different implications. My personal preference would have been for different outcomes.
Feb 21, 2018 at 23:30 history answered TheHonRose CC BY-SA 3.0