Timeline for Removal of answer content by moderator --- edit detracts from the answer
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2021 at 8:34 | comment | added | Ben | @cag51: I haven't flagged your answer because I think the bulk of it is polite and reasonable. It is the insinuation that I consider SE to be my personal blog that I consider to be ad hominum. Like I said, just one little thing in an otherwise polite answer (and honestly not a big deal), but if you are looking to purge ad hominum there is plenty of it around in the comments here. To be clear, I think your answer is reasonable, and I probably would upvote it if not for the slight ad hominum, which detracts from it. | |
| Jun 30, 2021 at 6:45 | comment | added | cag51 Mod | I am not sure what comments you are referring to, and am baffled as to which of my sentence fragments could have offended you. In any case, you can always flag ad hominum attacks (such flags are usually reviewed by multiple moderators before being declined, if they end up being declined); that said, we try not to delete comments on meta unless they are truly abusive or unacceptable (we do not want to be in the position of censoring discussions about censorship). | |
| Jun 30, 2021 at 6:31 | comment | added | Ben | @cag51: Based on visible comments, it seems there are pretty liberal rules re ad hominum against OP (i.e., me). Perhaps review some of those comments too, including a certain sentence fragment in your own (otherwise polite) answer. | |
| Jun 30, 2021 at 5:26 | comment | added | cag51 Mod | I'm removing the comments (and ensuing discussion) that are basically an ad hominum attack against one of the moderators. We debate ideas/decisons, not the people who write them (per our code of conduct). As for the demand for details of internal moderator discussions and tasking: sorry, no, we do not comment publicly on these. | |
| Jun 28, 2021 at 1:06 | answer | added | cag51Mod | timeline score: 17 | |
| Jun 27, 2021 at 15:24 | comment | added | Ben | If we are going to take that line (of selectively ignoring voting totals when they tell us something we don't like) then really we can never invoke vote totals as relevant to anything. Even if it is true that the post was upvoted on HNQ, those are upvotes from users who apparently appreciated the answer; counterfactual downvotes of people who don't have that privilege is completely speculative. As stated, the moderator in this case specifically invoked the justification that a post should not be heavily edited after it has accrued its votes; that militates in favour of the original post. | |
| Jun 27, 2021 at 15:20 | comment | added | user96809 | @Ben Most readers were unable to downvote it, however much they may have wanted to. HNQ reaches people who are not already members of Academia. These people are trusted to upvote, but not downvote when they come here. | |
| Jun 27, 2021 at 15:15 | comment | added | Ben | Voters did vote accordingly, and overwhlemingly found the answer to be useful (hence its large net-upvote total). | |
| Jun 27, 2021 at 13:26 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | I think it’s long past time to block all questions touching on gender or race from the HNQ. In the former case there’s already a highly upvoted meta answer saying to do this! | |
| Jun 27, 2021 at 10:58 | answer | added | Massimo OrtolanoMod | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 27, 2021 at 10:25 | history | edited | Massimo OrtolanoMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 21 characters in body
|
| Jun 27, 2021 at 9:53 | comment | added | user96809 | Some answers are only highly upvoted because they've hit the Hydron accelerator HNQ. Here they are available to tens of thousands of drive-by readers who are only able to upvote, and not downvote them Anything vaguely contentious, however off-topic and unhelpful, will always accrue upvotes on a HNQ. It's a well-understood design flaw of the HNQ system, and one of the reasons why certain sites have sought to be removed from the HNQ list. | |
| Jun 27, 2021 at 9:00 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | Moderation on this site has always had a substantial arbitrary component. It's time you accept that. Also, I strongly suggest you learn to be more concise; excessively long posts are not useful and voters should vote accordingly. | |
| Jun 27, 2021 at 5:17 | history | asked | Ben | CC BY-SA 4.0 |