Re: unequal treatment
by marto (Cardinal) on Oct 26, 2019 at 11:03 UTC
|
3. marto sends me a message my post was deleted.
4. I message marto whether he's going to delete the originating post.
5. He replies with a suggestion to "flag it appropriately".
I considered your node, which was just abuse, the system itself sends a message if reaped, not me. You replied asking "and you're not going to delete the flamebait parent?". Firstly nodes don't get 'deleted' via this mechanism, simply hidden behind another click, with the moderation reason displayed beforehand. I asked if you have flagged it, at the time you hadn't. Flagging such nodes or just ignoring posts/users you consider to be trolling is a better approach than an abusive response. You've been here a long time, I'm surprised you'r not familiar with this common approach here.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: unequal treatment
by haukex (Archbishop) on Oct 26, 2019 at 09:18 UTC
|
jdporter posts an indignity directed at me.
I understand how you took his post. But I think both parties should consider:
IMHO, jdporter could have been more clear in what he meant, and you could consider that maybe he didn't mean it as an insult.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: unequal treatment
by Corion (Patriarch) on Oct 26, 2019 at 08:47 UTC
|
Your perception of "in kind" is certainly not what I would consider "in kind". It looks to me much more directed at the other person.
I don't find jdporters original reply that eloquent, but it certainly is not a direct insult. I consider your post a direct insult.
Your consideration of the post did not contain an action (edit or delete). I don't see who closed the consideration and when, but if a consideration receives enough "keep" votes, it gets removed from the node.
I think a better way forward would be for jdporter to edit his post and direct it towards a more constructive critique of your original post. For example, I could see that suggesting to introduce an unapproved machine into a network is not really sound advice to somebody who wants to keep being gainfully employed.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
I don't see who closed the consideration and when, but if a consideration receives enough "keep" votes, it gets removed from the node.
I did, earlier today. I don’t remember the exact tally, but I think the node had 6 “keep” votes, well above the 2 required to prevent reaping.
daxim: I’m sorry my action caused you offence. But the Consideration votes were such that the node could not be reaped under the guidelines, so I saw no point in leaving the node in Nodes to Consider.
I hope you understand that this is all standard procedure; also, that jdporter was not involved in the process.
Update: Please see What is Reaping?
Cheers,
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: unequal treatment
by LanX (Saint) on Oct 26, 2019 at 09:21 UTC
|
Relax, your reply is still there; it's only one click further away.
Isn't it LOL? ;)
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: unequal treatment
by trippledubs (Deacon) on Oct 27, 2019 at 04:36 UTC
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
Daxim didn't suggest a change of the board's policy.
he kind of did -> Either restore my post or delete jdporter's.
Which of those two options is consistent with policy?
I didn't mean to add "fuel to the fire", just pointing out that daxim proved jdporter's original point.
It's no big deal.
Updated
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
|
Re: unequal treatment
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 26, 2019 at 10:57 UTC
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |