Timeline for Why "professional capacity"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2014 at 18:09 | comment | added | Dominic Cronin | +1 because this is the elephant in the room. On all the other SE sites, the voting system works fine, and quality surfaces. If people don't want to be the "helpdesk for the intertubes", then they don't have to answer newbie questions, and those will be duped or whatever pretty quickly. I'm not saying admins all have flawed characters, but there's a power that comes from having root, which can corrupt, in the sense that all arguments spiral down to "because I'm the guy with root". This is an observable phenomenon, so I think this answer adds to the debate, if only in airing the issue. | |
| May 27, 2013 at 14:08 | comment | added | Rob Moir | You're entitled to your opinion, the same as all of us, but what you've said has done nothing to move the discussion forward. It's not much short of a personal attack on many of the regulars and now you don't even have the basic respect for others to stick around and back it up? I'm sorry but the way you present your opinon is a open running sewer straight through the middle of the "open, inclusive, explanatory" principles you claimed to be missing in others here in your reply. | |
| May 27, 2013 at 14:03 | comment | added | quux | Guys, I think my statement stands on its own. It's by far not the first time this or similar observations have been made. I saw them when I was more active here and, doing a quick browse of meta and closed questions, I still see them. But in the end, turning it into a big debate is a waste of all our time. It's just one person's opinion, I thought it needed to be said, and I'll butt out now. | |
| May 27, 2013 at 14:00 | comment | added | Rob Moir | Ironically, by defining a group you aspired to see here as "open, inclusive explanatory" then defining what happened here as "instead" without going on to explain why or having the good grace to stick around and discuss the matter, you're essentially shutting those of us who do use this site down because "we just don't get it". I'm not suggesting that myself or anyone else here is perfect but before attending to the splinter in our eyes you might want to do something about the beam in your own. | |
| May 27, 2013 at 13:53 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | @Alex Saying that people active on SF have superiority complexes is pretty insulting. And SvW isn't saying quux should get out of here because he disagrees, he's just pointing out that the answer amounts to "I think you guys do bad stuff, but I'm not going to explain exactly what I mean by bad..." | |
| May 27, 2013 at 13:20 | comment | added | Alex | @SvW Can you point out the insulting part of his statement? By telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about, you are doing exactly what he is stating in his post. "If you don't agree, get out of here...". So that's what more and more users are doing, leaving. Ironically enough, there's quite a lot of discussion in Meta about how to keep users and get new ones to stick around. | |
| May 27, 2013 at 11:12 | comment | added | Sven | So, basically, you are (a) insulting us (b) say that you don't know what you are talking about anyway, as you don't use the site anymore and (c) don't want to subject yourself to a discussion about your post. Way to go! Do you have anything constructive to add - maybe a reason why it's a bad thing to not to answer amateur questions on a site for pros if there is a whole network of sites dedicated to do just that: Answer questions from amateurs? | |
| May 27, 2013 at 7:03 | history | answered | quux | CC BY-SA 3.0 |