Timeline for answer to Why is this comment not unfriendly/unkind? by rene
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 28, 2024 at 9:41 | comment | added | Stefan | @Zoeisonstrike in what context can calling s.o. stupid not be an insult? Consider: "you're weird" -> "you're strange" vs. "you're an idiot" -> "you're a stupid person". "Stupid person" sounds unfriendly, even abusive to me. So I don't think it makes the argument you want it to. Call me weird, I'd be ok with that (I'd probably agree). But call me an idiot or stupid person, I'd be offended. But, I never claimed it not to be unfriendly, just not abusive. I think there is a huge difference. Unfriendly is so subjective, I'd rather get rid of that flag, but that's another discussion. | |
| Apr 27, 2024 at 14:04 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump Mod | is what makes it unfriendly | |
| Apr 27, 2024 at 14:04 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump Mod | @Stefan Not everything unfriendly is explicitly listed as such in the dictionary. If you want a prime example of this, consider "idiot", defined as "a stupid person or someone who is behaving in a stupid way". It's not abusive in the right context (for example, you can call a decision idiotic without that being an attack on the person making it), but if you call someone else an idiot, that's still unfriendly. "weird" is similar; the word itself isn't necessarily unfriendly, but as is the case here, the context in which it was used | |
| Apr 26, 2024 at 11:35 | comment | added | rene | @Stefan that is a very strange and unusual, unexpected, or not natural comment. | |
| Apr 26, 2024 at 9:21 | comment | added | Stefan | "weird" is definitely not abusive. According to different dictionaries it means something like "very strange and unusual, unexpected, or not natural". (this is from dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/weird). | |
| Apr 25, 2024 at 7:03 | comment | added | Abdul Aziz Barkat | @TheMaster "abuse" has different meanings in different contexts, in the context of comment flags it means a comment that uses abusive language targeting a person or a group, etc. in the context that E_net4 is speaking about abuse means abuse of the platform (i.e. using the platform / site in a way considered bad) which is described further in the abusive behavior policy. | |
| Apr 25, 2024 at 3:36 | comment | added | TheMaster | @E_net4 If you truly believed it was abusive, why didn't you use the "abuse" flag, but rather chose the "unfriendly" flag? | |
| Apr 25, 2024 at 3:32 | comment | added | TheMaster | @AzorAhai-him- I didn't say I believe it. Did I? I'm inside Meta. That quote was "Outside of Meta, no one believes just voting without commenting is rational,". I know how users interact outside Meta. And that's not a incorrect belief(that comments should accompany downvotes) in and of itself. If you were never exposed to Meta's beliefs and opinions, it wasn't a irrational thought process. Even in meta, users still argue for commenting, when downvoting. I've been outside meta, inside meta, for meta and against meta.. | |
| Apr 24, 2024 at 15:27 | comment | added | Æzor Æhai -him- | @TheMaster "no one believes just voting without commenting is rational," This implies that voting without commenting is irrational, and I assume you don't do things you believe are irrational. | |
| Apr 24, 2024 at 15:20 | comment | added | TheMaster | @KarlKnechtel OP needed direction to improve quality of the post. There seems to be at least one negative reaction to the post. But apparently the current system is not designed to show the reasoning for that reaction, which OP thinks would greatly help him to increase the quality of that post. I believe comments are temporary and can be used as a temporary bridge to address that deficiency. But it could've been done in a friendly manner. | |
| Apr 24, 2024 at 15:09 | comment | added | Karl Knechtel | @TheMaster reluctance to remove such content historically had a huge amount to do with the common negative off-site perception of Stack Overflow. A professional environment demands avoidance of anything that could be construed as an attack on a personal level, whether actually directed personally or aimed at a class of people or a vague referent like "whoever downvoted my question". | |
| Apr 24, 2024 at 15:09 | comment | added | TheMaster | @AzorAhai-him- When did I say I do that? I said it is rational to think "Adding a comment, when downvoting helps to improve the quality of the post".For the OP of that question to react the way they reacted, they must have valued the quality of the question they posted, they must have took the time and effort(T&E) to post.If it was just a garbage post, that OP didn't take T&E to make up, they wouldn't have cared at all. Also reading between the lines of mod Dalija, I believe they felt the vote was unjustified and therefore was able to empathize with the OP so much that they declined the flag. | |
| Apr 24, 2024 at 14:28 | comment | added | Æzor Æhai -him- | @TheMaster You leave a comment with each and every one of your votes? I find that hard to believe. | |
| Apr 24, 2024 at 8:37 | comment | added | E_net4 | @TheMaster It is abusive per application of the Abusive behavior policy. It would be bullying and harassment should it continue with follow-up comments. Hostile comments in any case, check. Denigration is also present. Moreover, your second statement is highly contestable. Where exactly is that decent and unbiased voting system where people are forced to comment alongside their vote? | |
| Apr 24, 2024 at 6:09 | comment | added | TheMaster | Unfriendly? Yes. But not abusive. It isn't targeted at a known user. Weird just means out of the ordinary and unusual behavior and OP explained their reasoning for calling such behavior "weird" or unusual. Outside of Meta, no one believes just voting without commenting is rational and I don't think expressing such belief at a incognito voter is abusive by any stretch of standards. | |
| Apr 23, 2024 at 22:57 | comment | added | Karl Knechtel | I understand that "not kindergarten" should mean that we allow bluntness (especially when it's telling people to do things that are in line with policy), but still not anything that insinuates bad motives, lack of cooperativeness etc. | |
| Apr 23, 2024 at 14:47 | comment | added | rene | @DalijaPrasnikar I would keep the high tolerance because this is not kinder garten but when it comes to comment flags I would err on the side of the flagger. Specially when the comment needs to go anyway for other moderation reasons. | |
| Apr 23, 2024 at 14:41 | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | I will keep your insights in mind for the future. I am sometimes wondering whether I personally have too high tolerance, which then may get in a way of handling flags appropriately. | |
| Apr 23, 2024 at 14:38 | history | answered | rene | CC BY-SA 4.0 |