-2

I've been actively using SE for half a decade or so and have consistently had problems with moderators. I understand that SE is not a democracy and I have to follow certain rules and when I break the rules I usually shut up and take responsibility. This is only my second time (I think) ever posting on one of the meta sites for clarification.

I was recently suspended from one of the other sites for my "tone." Which seemed strange because people have disagreeable tones all the time on SE. I appealed and lost. Fine. I understand "Everyone else is doing it" is not a valid counterargument.

Lately, and especially on Parenting and especially with a certain mod whom I won't name at this time, I've been getting chastised for the content of my answers. I would like clarification for this one example, please:

I posted an answer here, and included three bullet points. The last one was removed by a mod for containing a lot of information that was not necessary, I edited it and put back only the relevant parts. The mod who edited it agreed the parts i put back "seemed ok", then the mod who I've been having trouble with comes along and removed it again and locked the question so I can't even rebuttal. So far no one has given me a satisfactory answer as to why this is not relevant to the question.

Summary of Q & A:

Q: How do I help this kid to stop being a bigot?

A: (several bullet points, including...) A lot of the race riots we're seeing in the news are paid for. There are people who want this kind of contention in the world and are willing to pay good money for it. If you explain this to the kid her natural teenage rebellious spirit might kick in and persuade her not to follow suit.

The answer was effectively suggesting a reverse psychology tactic. I understand that there are people who deny that the riots are paid for (these people are wrong, there is empirical proof, but that is besides the point).

Obviously no one is openly going to say "That mod was in the wrong" I don't expect anyone here to agree with me, after all, you're the same people that use the parenting site, but I would like some clarification, or at least to hear your justifications for why my answer was so obnoxiously edited.

| |
  • Please re-read Rory's comment: "The bit I have left seems fine" does not mean the bit you edited back in, it means your first two bullet points. The rollback and lock were placed based on that. – Acire Aug 15 '17 at 20:23
  • 1
    @Erica - I agree that's misleading isn't it.. look at the timestamp on that.. he said that after i edited it back in. He left it after seeing that I edited the irrelevant parts out. If that's why you locked me out then you should pay more attention. - Besides, there was already a moderator on the case, why did you feel the need to intervene? is Rory not a competent moderator? – I wrestled a bear once. Aug 15 '17 at 20:33
  • 1
    I think (in addition to problems with moderators) you might have some self-moderation problems. Your attitude is uncalled for. Roll-backs and edit wars usually need to involve more than one moderator. It was handled correctly. – anongoodnurse Aug 15 '17 at 20:37
  • 1
    To the OP. No, I didn't say that after you edited it back in. I commented that your first two bullet points were fine, the rest was irrelevant to the question. You commented that it was relevant to the answer. I then was driving for some time so have only just got back on. And as anon commented, it is useful to have more than one mod view, specifically so to avoid the accusation that a particular mod is out of order. – Rory Alsop♦ Aug 15 '17 at 20:42
  • 1
    This may not be pertinent, but getting away from the negativity, as I read what you've written, I really like your answer the way it is. It may not answer the OP's question very well, but I like it anyway. – anongoodnurse Aug 15 '17 at 22:01
  • @RoryAlsop you may be right Rory but I didn't see or get the notification for that comment until several seconds after I posted the edit. Id be interested to see what those timestamps actually looked like. – I wrestled a bear once. Aug 15 '17 at 22:11
  • @anongoodnurse thanks for the positive comment. Most of the time I have no intention of being negative that is just how I come accross. The world needs disagreement and contention. Pleasure only exists in contrast to pain. All things in moderation. – I wrestled a bear once. Aug 15 '17 at 22:15
  • 2
    To anyone I might have offended coughericacouch I am sorry. I was frustrated but I didn't mean for anyone to take it personally. – I wrestled a bear once. Aug 15 '17 at 22:18
  • 1
    I hope you believe me when I say I do not moderate personally, too. I understand how easy it is for misunderstandings to multiply in online interactions, though. I appreciate the apology. – Acire Aug 16 '17 at 2:00
  • 1
    Why are mods editing answers? Despite the content, mods should not be editing answers and having a rollback war. Rude/abusive, spam, and completely off-topic answers get deleted, not cleaned up. Bad answers get downvoted. That's how StackExchange works. – SomeShinyObject Aug 16 '17 at 7:35
  • 1
    Someshinyobject - yes, mods do clean up posts, same as anyone on any site on SE. This is how Stack Exchange works. Editing is far preferable to deletion. I would encourage you to revisit your understanding of this. Mods especially edit when there are flags against a post but there is salvageable content. – Rory Alsop♦ Aug 16 '17 at 7:47
  • 2
    I have read and understood here meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11474/…. Notice the first reply from Jeff Atwood. "You edit to make things better, clearer, more effective -- never to change meaning." Clearly stated and when you modified the answer you clearly changed meaning. Perhaps on this occasion, it should be taken to a higher authority since a portion of the community and the moderators don't agree. – SomeShinyObject Aug 16 '17 at 14:05
  • 2
    Also, on the same note, we don't delete misguided answers we disagree with, we downvote and comment as to why we downvoted. Social pressures/the quest for fake internet points will either encourage or deter bad answers. Reputation is the extrinsic goal for delivering quality content. Negative answers go to the bottom. Good answers go to the top. This is the way StackExchange works. – SomeShinyObject Aug 16 '17 at 14:16
  • @RoryAlsop I am incorrect and the method in which the problem was corrected was the appropriate way. – SomeShinyObject Aug 17 '17 at 14:55
  • 1
    @anongoodnurse - again - i disagree with you, but i respect your & the other mods' opinion and i accept the outcome. – I wrestled a bear once. Aug 19 '17 at 18:24
11

I didn't even see your answer until this meta post.

My major problem with your answer is that you mostly didn't. The question was:

I'm wondering if there are some kid-friendly videos I can show her that won't make her feel like she's in school? Or just anything else to teach her about what non-white people have been through. She's knowledgeable about the Nazis and Hitler and thinks he's horrible. Maybe I can expand on that?

Instead of an answer, you delivered a lecture on the first amendment and a bit of advice on kindness and respect. But the third bullet point had nothing whatsoever to do with the question ("Riots are paid for.") It's a conspiracy-theory-like addendum which has no place in an answer.

Your position is that your answer was valid.

My position (and I speak for myself as a user and a moderator) is that it was not valid. It disagreed with the premise for the most part, and it was controversial and provocative. It's odd that you see the mod's actions as provocative but not your own.

Please allow me a comparison.

Q: How do I help this kid to stop being a bigot?

A: Charter schools in Nevada are often faced with developing curriculum and instructional strategies within a short time frame.

That's roughly analogous to your example. It has nothing to do with the question, even if you're correct.

Proving a negative ("why is my answer not relevant") is difficult.

I hope this answers your question; if not, I'll edit by comments.

| |
  • i disagree with you about 60% of the time but you are (obviously) not the moderator I was referring to. Obnoxious means annoying. It's descriptive of my reaction, not her action. I could clarify that. Sorry. You're not following my question though, your comparison is not relevant. Suggesting that people are paying for the riots is relevant because it might trigger a reaction from the kid. Please respond to the part in bold. – I wrestled a bear once. Aug 15 '17 at 20:06
  • @Iwrestledabearonce. - OK, comment first. A riot might trigger a reaction in a kid. Riots are paid for. Therefore "non-white people have been through" alot that you don't know about? Therefore they're like "Nazis and Hitler... (are) horrible" and so bigotry is wrong? There's no connection that I see. – anongoodnurse Aug 15 '17 at 20:34
  • If you genuinely are not following me then i apologize but I can't imagine it's that difficult to follow. Kids rebel. That's what kids do. If you tell a kid she is expected to hate someone she is going to do the opposite. I used the term reverse psychology. Social engineering. – I wrestled a bear once. Aug 15 '17 at 20:37
  • @Iwrestledabearonce. - OK, I get it now. So, I apologize. But I still think it's too tangential to the question unless you removed the conspiracy part, which would break that answer. – anongoodnurse Aug 15 '17 at 22:06
  • are you social engineering me ;) – I wrestled a bear once. Aug 15 '17 at 22:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .