Timeline for Why are moderators/high rep users focused on narrowing the scope of SF?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 21, 2013 at 20:10 | comment | added | Andrew B | @ChrisS I agree strongly. In most of the debates involving the vested interests of the vocal minority, vote trend can be summarized like this: answers that align with the stated mission goal of SF are upvoted and seldom downvoted, while those complain about unfair treatment and ignoring the mission statement receive both significant downvoting and upvoting. While this certainly represents the desires of those who don't "get" SF but want answers anyway (<125 rep users with a bad experience), that representation is bunk if the votes are toward SF being about answering anything and everything. | |
| Aug 20, 2013 at 15:02 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | I disagree, I do not believe the problem you think exists actually does. I believe that "vocal minority" which you speak of does not accurate represent SF, the site's mission, or those guiding its direction. I do not believe that vocal minority to includes any moderators. Further, I believe several of that vocal minority to be relatively low reputation users. | |
| Aug 20, 2013 at 14:03 | comment | added | JamesRyan | Yet the problem still exists. I took onboard people's opinions from those discussions and if you read it properly you will note that my question comes at the issue from a different angle. The fact that a vocal minority are ready to shoot down any discussion of the issue is in fact a big part of it. | |
| Aug 20, 2013 at 13:40 | history | answered | Chris SMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |