Timeline for Can we please correct the "bad words" mistake in policy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22, 2018 at 10:55 | comment | added | doppelgreener Mod | FWIW I never intended for my meta Q asking for more accessible phrasing options to get interpreted as policy. You can see that's just a [support] request, making a case explaining the problem I feel exists, asking for some solutions. I feel strongly about it but it's a personal recommendation at most. I even included “this isn't a diamond moderator thing” at the end to try to avoid scenarios like what you bumped into there. I'm relieved to see the answers below affirming it's not generally seen as policy. We ought to correct people who do mistake it for policy. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 21:36 | comment | added | Rubiksmoose | I'm upvoting this not because I agree with its sentiment necessarily, but because I really appreciate the fact that you brought your objection (and my mistake) to my and others' attention. Thank you. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 5:00 | answer | added | Rubiksmoose | timeline score: 8 | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 3:23 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie Mod | That's appreciated. Since judicious censorship is literally part of our jobs (users and mods), it's often difficult to engage with objections in which avoiding censorship is presented as an ends in itself. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 3:06 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | And given the over reaction by at least one mod to the term censorship in the past, I have removed that term as well. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 3:01 | history | edited | KorvinStarmast | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 4 characters in body |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 2:59 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | @SevenSidedDie I dumped the thought police line, OK, that was a bit OTT. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 2:58 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie Mod | A little less catastrophising and invoking totalitarian dystopia might be a better foot to start a discussion on. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 2:54 | answer | added | SevenSidedDieMod | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 2:49 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | @nitsua60 OK. I changed the title. Bad policy is bad policy even if a lot of people vote for it. Case in point: Prohibition. I do not believe that "let's make another rule" is a good attitude to start with, and as I saw that policy take shape, that is what appeared to me to be the dynamic involved. There wasn't anything broken to fix in the first place. I believe that the user in question was set up by Bad Policy, and I thought I made that clear in the text. Maybe not. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 2:49 | comment | added | nitsua60 Mod | (Although maybe this has been happening a lot and I haven't noticed it? Iif there are a half-dozen similar examples then "censorship" would strike me as a more-apt descriptor.) | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 2:49 | history | edited | KorvinStarmast | CC BY-SA 3.0 | edited title |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 2:48 | comment | added | nitsua60 Mod | I suggest a less-inflammatory title like "was this edit necessary" or something that captures your concern without connoting bad intentions on the editor's part. I interpret Be Nice as including Assume Good Faith; in this case I assume the editor, who is fairly new, believes that meta answers with double-digit upvotes are policy rather than looking at them with the more-nuanced view that we may share. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 2:43 | history | edited | KorvinStarmast | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 61 characters in body |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 2:37 | history | asked | KorvinStarmast | CC BY-SA 3.0 |