-13
$\begingroup$

Here is the threads that got blocked because the moderator question, entered "Ragequit mode: On".

https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/70656/destroy-tyranny-from-within

The Hive returns: stop robot from attaining godhood in a pure deterministic universe

The reason he raged is because i switched the accepted answer to another that was better. He then used his friends to block my perfectly valid questions.

Also every question i start, he is there to block them. No matter what i ask, i followed every rule exactly as stated in FAQ. Yet the moderator nazi keeps closing them without justification.

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ What are you talking about? I don't see any moderator participation on either question. Not a single diamond in evidence anywhere. I didn't read all the comments, but I don't see any obvious "raging" either. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Feb 8 '17 at 17:31
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The community is, as much as possible, self-moderated through consensus. Your questions got locked because most people believe they do not fit the requirements of the site. There is no personal vendetta here. Maybe we should better explain our decisions though. $\endgroup$ – PatJ Feb 8 '17 at 17:48
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @MonicaCellio I really think we need to make those on-hold markers friendlier, let people understand it's in no way punitive. $\endgroup$ – PatJ Feb 8 '17 at 17:49
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ There were a total of eight people who voted to close those two questions, and those two are the only questions of yours on hold. If you disagree with the closure, this is the right place to bring it up, but please don't just assume you're right and being unfairly persecuted, it makes people much less likely to take you seriously. $\endgroup$ – DaaaahWhoosh Feb 8 '17 at 17:53
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Oh wait, I missed one. 3 of your 5 questions are on hold, over a period of two days. Which means you had one question out of three on hold before this 'raging moderator' incident started. $\endgroup$ – DaaaahWhoosh Feb 8 '17 at 18:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Only one person wrote answers to either of those questions voted to put a question of yours on hold, and that close vote was only on one of the questions. Please consider that you may be in the wrong before throwing accusations around. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Feb 8 '17 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ i am quitting this site, it is obviously, the situation will never get fixed, this questions are already marked for deletion by the moderators, nothing can change that. The past doesn't reflect the present situation, the second question was open for 2 days, and they decided to close it down once i changed the accepted question. The new question is even blocked for more obsece reasons, blocked because it refers to a period where christianity started. If i didn't mention the word Jesus, the question will have passed with flying colours. It is clear censorship. $\endgroup$ – user2186597 Feb 8 '17 at 18:21
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ @user2186597 your questions have not been deleted, they have been put on hold so they can be improved. Just because you think your questions are good doesn't mean they're a good fit for this site, and that decision comes down to the people who've been here longer than you. If you'd like to know what kinds of questions are acceptable here, and why your questions were closed, please ask, but don't just assume we're persecuting you for petty reasons. $\endgroup$ – DaaaahWhoosh Feb 8 '17 at 18:32
  • $\begingroup$ "Your questions have not been deleted". 5 days later... "Oh, yeah, my mistake, yes they have been deleted". $\endgroup$ – user2186597 Feb 13 '17 at 15:30
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @user2186597 one of your questions was automatically deleted as abandoned. Putting a question on hold is to allow time for editing and reopening; that didn't happen in this case, so eventually the question was auto-deleted. But the goal of putting a question on hold is unchanged: we want to get them improved and reopened. If the author doesn't want to help, though, then often there's not much the community can do. If you have questions about what's needed please ask; people here are willing to help. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Feb 13 '17 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ you reversed the conclusion. If the community doesn't want the answer opened, there is not much the author can do. In this case, gathering the 5 votes to counter the trolls were not gathered. I don't have any more questions, there are other websites without those problems. $\endgroup$ – user2186597 Feb 13 '17 at 19:17
26
$\begingroup$

Your comments and behavior pretty clearly indicate you do not understand how this site functions. That is not a dig or insult merely the reality, and we were all in your shoes and one point, and can agree that the learning process can be frustrating.

First thing: Moderators are denoted by a little diamond next to their name. As mentioned in the comments no moderators were involved in the closing of your questions.

Second: A question being closed is not punitive. Closing a question puts it on hold so that it can be improved or better adhere to the standards of the site. If you are not comfortable with those standards you are of course welcome to find assistance elsewhere.

Third: While Stack Exchange sites do have moderators, they exist to handle rare situations where people are clearly out of line. In the main, and as is the case with your question, the site is moderated by the users of the site. All of the people that voted to close are simply users like you. They have been around for a while and earned enough reputation through the site's mechanics to have the privilege/responsibility of some moderation acts.

If you have questions always ask, people around here are certainly willing to assist, but the attitude demonstrated in this post and in the comments on your questions will not be well accepted by this, or any, Stack Exchange community.

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 1) i cannot close a question, so clearly the were moderators, your terminology doesn't alter the fact, that they did block it. 2a) Of course it is punitive, no matter what question i ask it is gonna get closed. 2b) What are those standards? the question was blocked even thought it followed all the rules. 2c) Speaks about a specific world, asks specific solution to come a way to stop tyranny. 3) "like you": neglecting to mention that requires a specific amount of reputation, clearly not like me. $\endgroup$ – user2186597 Feb 9 '17 at 16:05
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ @user2186597 "Moderator" on the Stack Exchange network means specific users either elected by the community (there is currently a moderator election underway on Worldbuilding, actually), or (for beta sites, no longer the case for Worldbuilding) appointed by Stack Exchange employees. Any user with reasonably high reputation can vote to close or reopen a question; those are users with a reasonably well-established presence on the site, but that does not make them "moderators" in the sense understood here. Compare worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/help/site-moderators in the help center. $\endgroup$ – a CVn Feb 9 '17 at 16:19
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @user2186597 If you want to rage go ahead. If you want to have a conversation let me know. $\endgroup$ – James Feb 9 '17 at 16:26
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/help/privileges lists the privileges earned at various reputation scores. At 49 reputation you can't close questions, however anyone with 3000 or more rep has hopefully learned how the site works well enough to correctly use their votes. It's not a perfect system but overall it works pretty well. $\endgroup$ – Tim B Feb 12 '17 at 0:52
16
$\begingroup$

As someone who participated in closing, and actually started the process of closing at least two of your questions, I feel I should answer. Existing answer is comprehensive, and good, but you know, you accused me and "my friends".

First thing first, I'm no personal friend of any one else that participated in closing your questions. Or, if I am, I have no idea and can't figure out any connection between nick names and people I know. And no one asked me to do so. Your assumption here is wrong.

Second thing, about who did it. Users did it. In a way, we all are moderators with various levels of power. But no one that voted is a diamond, official moderator. I posted 148 answers and reached ~305k people. In the process of getting there, I was told many, many times when I was wrong. And when I was, I tried to improve, and other users rewarded me for this. That's how I got some privileges, including privilege to vote to close. But my vote would be totally meaningless if it was solitary. Four other experienced users needed to agree with me for it to matter. You believe your questions are OK. People who spent long hours asking and answering hundreds of questions think otherwise. That's it. It wasn't any coordinated effort to punish you. It is a collective effort to keep this site high quality.

We are here to help you. To help anyone who needs help. That's why we answer a lot (other voters are also good answerers, possibly better than me, but who I am to judge?). Closing questions that doesn't meet standards has only one purpose: to keep noise down. To keep quality high. Ultimately, to keep people with passion, patience and knowledge here, answering. Because if such people will go away, no one will get good answers and site will fail. Voting is no fun. But we do it, in our own free time. Stop and think about it, please.

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I think it's worth mentioning that there are a few people with those privileges that are terrible in general at judging to close things, but it has nothing to do with them disliking a particular individual... They seem to just like to close things... I also don't find the 5 vote system good because lots of people could vote to leave it alone and 5 people vote to close and it closes from my understanding so it's one of the system that need to be revamped imo. $\endgroup$ – Durakken Feb 13 '17 at 0:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Durakken The 5 vote expectation is the standard across the entirety of the SE network...its not going anywhere. $\endgroup$ – James Feb 13 '17 at 6:35
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Durakken in such situations, question gets reopened by another 5 users very soon, no problem. And you can't vote twice on one question, so in the end of the day, majority wins. $\endgroup$ – Mołot Feb 13 '17 at 7:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Mołot No it doesn't. Firstly it's the only system on SE that promotes the negative to win, secondly, because holding a question keeps it from being updated and the high turn over of WB, once a question gets put on hold less people see it and less of a chance to get their vote also the people who closed it can just close it again because they don't need to vote to keep it closed, just wait to for it to open, then close it again. So, Majority doesn't win. It's an easily abusable system that should change, but probably won't. $\endgroup$ – Durakken Feb 13 '17 at 13:17
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Durakken where did you take the "holding a question keeps it from being updated" from?! It can be edited all right, all the time. And between posting and putting on hold usually question is no longer on the first page anyway - except for really, really obvious cases. And if 5 people votes "keep open", question disappears from close review queue, and other people can only vote on it if they will stumble on it on their own. $\endgroup$ – Mołot Feb 13 '17 at 13:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Durakken is right, once a question is put on hold, there is no way to answer to it. Even if the question comes back after 2 day, few will answer it. Those who wanted to answer it in the first place, got blocked from answering it. Instead they were forced to write a 2 line text as a comment for their answer. They got no reputation too for their answer. Then left, never to come back again. You are better off deleting the entire question yourself, and spam the same question repeatedly, until the same 5 people get bored from closing it. [Edited slightly by a moderator.] $\endgroup$ – user2186597 Feb 13 '17 at 15:27
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @user2186597 It is clear you're upset, but it is also clear that users like Molot are acting in good faith to help you understand why these questions were closed. Instead of raging please take a breath and reflect on what people are telling you. [Edited by a moderator] $\endgroup$ – Erik Feb 13 '17 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ @Mołot By update I mean, getting it kept on the front page to get recognition of it, and that's especially an issue on WB where there is constantly new questions. $\endgroup$ – Durakken Feb 14 '17 at 3:09
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ This whole thread further convinces me that WB should, unlike all other Exchanges, have questions start on hold, have an hour wherein they can get fixed, then go for answers an hour later. $\endgroup$ – SRM Feb 16 '17 at 19:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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