Timeline for answer to What to do when a high-rep user is willfully breaking site rules/meta consensus? by Fattie
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10, 2015 at 15:57 | comment | added | Félix Adriyel Gagnon-Grenier | @JoeBlow Solid point, thanks. But then your curly brace was unbalanced... | |
| Aug 10, 2015 at 8:40 | history | undeleted | MattMod | ||
| Aug 10, 2015 at 8:40 | history | deleted |
CommunityBot MattMod |
via Vote | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 23:58 | comment | added | Fattie | I don't really follow you, but cheers for now. | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 19:51 | comment | added | Fattie | ...irrelevant here as just "totally irrelevant here". You might as well talk about such issues in relation to social norms that pervade gameplay in popular RPGs. Indeed, you might as well talk about that because it's an identical situation - ! OF COURSE all you have to go on is popular motions and behaviours. If almost every single user felt (unlike yourself) that sign-offs were a good thing, the site owners would (one assumes) go with that, on the basis of supporting the overall (rather comic, really) "make pro-sumption content creators feel they have control!" vibe. What else is there? | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 19:48 | comment | added | Fattie | .... (by a kind of consensus, voting, admin privileges, Verified Purchase Review, or whatever.) The question of whether or not it is actually " GOOD " to add sign-offs on posts, is a kind of third-order question at best. ("Good" in what sense? in the actual purpose of the business, ie, Make Money for the owners? "Good" in the sense of "societal good"? Who knows. We can't even answer questions like 'should it be free to download led zepplin'.) The "democratic fallacy" {as an aside, if you think you've solved all the philosophical issues surrounding that, that's cute) is not so much... | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 19:44 | comment | added | Fattie | Hi Vax. Really neither of those concepts apply here. S.O. is a business started by some people, the owners, to make money to buy diapers and bread. That's all it is. They own it and can do anything they like with it. As it happens, the business model is a "pro-sumption" one, to use the usual Toffleresque term: the "consumers" actually "produce" the content. (Just like many of the large dotcoms of our day.) Given that, pro-sumption sites always offer the users (/producers) a kind of vibe that they! get to make the rules themselves..... | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 15:06 | comment | added | user719662 | I can only add one thing: mixing normative description with normative prescription is why so many people have trouble with the law. While both are normative, they ain't and shouldn't be equal. It's an issue discussed thousands of times by both politicians, philosophers, linguists etc. Just because an error is common doesn't make it less of an error... or maybe those fifty million Frenchmen were right? | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 12:09 | comment | added | Ben | Hi people please stop voting to delete content you disagree with. In fact having dissenting opinions available is valuable. Also, this post directly answers the question - 'nuff said. | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 11:35 | comment | added | Fattie | ..in that example, just as the "law" in the "real" word is a living thing, the example rule in question will eventually be revised (perhaps, let's say, to something more along the lines of "no questions that purely seek product recommendations, although of course it's ok to speak about common packges" .. or whatever works). So while you make it sound "silly" in the way you phrase it, Tiny, it is, quite simply, exactly how the overall system works. | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 11:33 | comment | added | Fattie | Hi Tiny - yes, that's exactly correct. You've made it sound "strange" - but look at it this way: An example is the possibly absurd rule about "not recommending packages". As you probably know on SO, many questions lean through this concept: the rule probably existed to stop tedious product recommendations; but in much of ios/android development it's "all about" which package you use for some problem (ranging from cocoapods to networking libraries - whatever). People flaunt this "silly rule" continually: in time, the silly rule will be revised... | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 0:51 | comment | added | user4639281 | So by this metric, because many users bad off-topic questions every day, we should accept that as the new social norm? Just because people do not follow the rules does not mean that the rules are then invalid. | |
| Aug 9, 2015 at 0:49 | comment | added | Yakk - Adam Nevraumont | Hi. I have read your input, and disagree with it. Hope that helps! | |
| Aug 8, 2015 at 10:06 | comment | added | Félix Adriyel Gagnon-Grenier | "if the site had 2, 3 and then 10 such very-high-rep users who were moving against this social norm" no... not at all actually. They would just get buried under the hundreds of us low rep which have had a critical thought about it, and reflected that saying thanks and please is useless. High rep still have 20 edit reviews per day. They can't really change the way edits remove thanks and please from posts. | |
| Aug 8, 2015 at 9:44 | comment | added | Félix Adriyel Gagnon-Grenier | I'm far from a very high rep user and feel I'm part of the consensus on such rules. | |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 22:51 | comment | added | TigerhawkT3 | 1. People are supposed to follow rules regardless of their opinions about said rules. Their alternatives are to campaign for a change in the rules, or break the rules and deal with the consequences. 2. If consensus were different, this user wouldn't be going against consensus, so that means he's not going against consensus, and therefore his style that no one else follows should be adopted as consensus? What? | |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 20:28 | comment | added | BSMP | From the Help Center: What kind of behavior is expected of users? | |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 20:09 | comment | added | Fattie | Why? One could easily assert that a few weenies discuss things on these "meta" sites.... "so what"? As I mention above: as a thought experiment, imagine if 1, 2 then 20 very high rep users started adding "polite sign-offs" to posts. And say it became a social norm. In that case the existence of anything, one way or another, on the "meta" site would mean ... what? Nothing. | |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 20:06 | history | edited | Fattie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 369 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2015 at 20:05 | comment | added | mbomb007 | The linked meta post has >+650 for the top answer affirming the general consensus. If you don't agree, you have the ability to vote it down. The meta site isn't only for high-rep users. | |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 19:58 | history | answered | Fattie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |