Yes, this is an actual thing that I'm having to post.
Reading a number of the recent opinion wars on meta, I really feel like it should be necessary to complete the following mental checklist before participating in a debate over how the topic matter can be better applied, unfair treatment of new users, or ego on the part of high rep users/moderators.
- Have I recently refreshed myself on the first paragraph of about?
- Do I agree with this?
- Have I clicked on the professionalism link on the about page, and read that too?
- Do I have feedback on how this definition can be improved, or how it can be better applied? (note that this allows for disagreement with the proposals of others)
If the answer is no to any of these questions, then there isn't much that can be constructively added to discussions about how this site can operate more effectively within the scope of the topic matter. Bluntly, that person isn't even participating in the same discussion. (and it's getting tiresome)
I challenge that those points of view are fundamentally off-topic for most meta discussions about how this site can be improved.
- If people want to make a question about why the stated goals of this site are misguided, that's perfectly acceptable. Some of us might disagree, but at least everything is kept topical within the question.
- If people agree with the subject matter of the site but disagree with the proposed changes and/or attitudes of others, that's what everyone expects and is business as usual.
- In all other contexts, this line of conversation is line noise. It's debating something that isn't up for debate.
Going forward, I'd like to ask that the moderators keep an eye out for this creeping into the threads about how to improve the site again and do what comes natural. Folks have had their opportunity to get it out of their system. It's just another form of the ongoing problem: people ignoring what the site is about and expecting everyone else to play ball with them. (albeit dressed in a wall of text)