-22

I've had this happen many, many times, but just recently I asked quite a rudimentary question on ServerFault and someone who turned out to be a moderator answered me.

His answer confused me and I tried to understand why he answered like he did. When I finally realized he was dead wrong I said so and what do you know, all my comments were deleted and my question was closed. Frankly I'm surprised I escaped the ban!

Before that he used the line "I don't have the time to answer you, go read up on basic stuff". I've seen that line used MANY times. I mean, if you don't have time to help me, don't. This is a site designed to help people with questions, but I'm not allowed to ask for help because it's "too basic"? If it's so basic, why aren't you with all your fake points able to help me?

This site has a huge problem with pompous moderators who can't be wrong.

I don't really know to phrase this as a question. I know I will get downvoted and deleted and likely banned anyway, so why bother. Stack Exchange is dead.

Edit: Ohhh, what a surprise. The downvotes are coming in! Maybe you should ask yourself why Stack Exchange has turned into pure shit? Maybe it's because you defend the status quo so hard that you don't even allow questions anymore. Everyone must already know everything or else they aren't allowed to ask questions?

  • "many, many times"? You've asked five questions on SF. Two of them you deleted yourself, one of them was closed as off-topic (too broad) and auto-deleted, one of them is still open, and the fifth is linked above. – EEAA Jul 12 '16 at 20:51
  • With many times I refer to the entirety of Stack Exchange. – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 20:51
  • 6
    That should perhaps be taken as a clue that you're not asking great questions, or that the questions you are asking aren't on-topic for whatever site you're posting on. – EEAA Jul 12 '16 at 20:53
  • Yeah, totally. Who am I to ask server related questions on ServerFault? This is a site for scratching each other's backs, not asking questions! – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 20:54
  • I mean, you aren't even allowed to criticize a moderator. Look what happens. Buried with downvotes. Soon this will be closed and I will be banned. The circle is closed. :) – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 20:55
  • 1
    @Yeats: Server Fault is a site by professionals for professionals. You are expected to write good, topical questions and investigate before posting and even after in order to understand an answer. If you are not willing to do this, you are wrong here. – Sven Jul 12 '16 at 20:56
  • @Sven So it's not a site where you're allowed to ask server related questions? How strange that my simple question was too hard for one of your moderators then. – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 20:57
  • 5
    @Yeats: Again, this is a site for professionals and you are absolutely required to ask professional questions and behave in a professional way. Just "server related" is not nearly enough to participate here. And your question wasn't "too hard", it was just badly written and you are unable or unwilling to professionally process the answer given to you. – Sven Jul 12 '16 at 20:59
  • @Sven Okay buddy. Oh, it says moderator when I click your name. How surprising! – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 21:03
  • 3
    ... why Stack Exchange has turned into pure shit? Because for too long allowing people to ask shit questions was tolerated ... google ... the rest is history and an amazon sized river of crappy questions from people like yourself. – Iain Jul 13 '16 at 9:12
  • 1
    Moderators are elected by the community and do a job that the majority of people do not want to do, so if you have issues with the ServerFault moderator team (or, in fact, any other site moderators) raise it on Meta.StackExchange. Then, if you're still not happy, try and contact StackExchange directly via the contact link, although I suspect they will take a dim view of petty squabbles. – tombull89 Jul 13 '16 at 10:01
  • @tombull89 I thought I did raise it on Meta.StackExchange... – Yeats Jul 13 '16 at 10:53
  • @Yeats not that I can see - this is Meta.ServerFault, for ServerFault issues. If you're not happy you can take it up to the next level, to Meta.StackExchange. – tombull89 Jul 13 '16 at 15:52
  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it seems to be more of a passionate release than an thoughtful exchange of information. Interesting reading however. – mdpc Jul 28 '16 at 0:41
12

You forgot to mention that in the course of the conversation, you were abusive and condescending. That is why I deleted your comments. Your question was put on hold because not enough details were provided. I tried to seek additional details that could help us answer your question, and you declined to add those details, stating that "I've provided enough information.", and then dove right back into the abusive behavior.

It was clear that you weren't really interested in productive discourse, so I locked the question.

I'll post again a comment I made on your question:

I honestly want to help, but it's clear from the confusion in the below now-deleted comments that your question did not communicate enough information to get an answer. Believe me, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. Apparently I didn't answer the question you asked, which is why I'm requesting that you add more details. If you're not willing to do that, then suit yourself.

So. do you want help? If so, help us to help you. If not, well then I'll bid you good luck with your project.

  • You forget to mention that YOU were abusive and condescending, and that I merely followed suit with ONE off-handed remark. My question wasn't put on hold because "not enough details were provided", but because you couldn't answer it. – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 20:50
  • If you honestly feel I was abusive, use the below contact link to contact SE staff. They can see the deleted comments, and can contact me if they deem appropriate. – EEAA Jul 12 '16 at 20:57
  • 1
    LOL! What's the point? Look what happens when I try to reach out. You can't fight corruption by asking the corrupt to change. – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 20:58
  • 1
    @Yeats That's the sort of abusive behavior that got you into this mess in the first place. Stop it immediately. You will not get another warning. – Michael Hampton Jul 12 '16 at 20:58
  • @MichaelHampton Ah. What behavior, exactly? What am I getting a warning for? :) – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 20:59
  • @Yeats Do not even think about trolling me again. – Michael Hampton Jul 12 '16 at 21:00
  • 1
    @MichaelHampton Trolling to ask what I'm getting a warning for? I see where this is going... – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 21:01
  • 2
    As a DNS professional, I am in agreement with EEAA. By ignoring multiple requests to name the CNAME records (in these comments and the original question), you have demonstrated that you are far more invested in attempting to publicly roast moderators who may have misunderstood your presentation of the problem than actually getting it solved. People cannot admit fault if you won't give them enough information to do so, and you are far too belligerent to have any form of meaningful interaction with. (as evidenced by this comment) – Andrew B Jul 15 '16 at 18:14
  • I find it slightly problematic that as the question stands now it appears locked but with no evidence left showing that locking was the correct action. And in the current state of the question it isn't possible for the community to show its agreement or disagreement with the closure. – kasperd Jul 30 '16 at 22:26
  • 2
    @kasperd The question was locked due to abusive comments by the OP. The question should remain closed as the OP refused to provide sufficient details on his situation so that the question could be answered. – EEAA Jul 30 '16 at 23:39
  • 1
    I've unlocked the original QA, but it will remain closed. – EEAA Jul 30 '16 at 23:39
9

Your question seems to originate from a fundamental misunderstanding of a facet of DNS CNAME records. You seem to think that if you have a CNAME record anywhere in the zone, then you cannot use MX records at all. This is of course not true, and a basic understanding of DNS (or actually paying attention to one of EEAA's comments which explained this) would make this clear.

As for your comments, I have reviewed all of the deleted comments. Many of them were rude and offensive, so you should not be surprised that they were deleted. The behavior displayed in these comments is not permitted on any Stack Exchange site.

I am not sure how you interpret EEAA's comments as "abusive" or "condescending". You lack some fundamental knowledge of DNS which would help you understand your situation, and encouraging you to learn the basics of the technology you're trying to work with is hardly abusive.

  • Ah, so I'm not allowed to ask questions to which I don't already have the answer. Gotcha. And no, he didn't explain it. – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 21:00
  • How surprising that a moderator sticks up for another moderator and abuse their power together! – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 21:01
  • @Yeats Oh, but he did. He said: "No, your CNAME is not the reason you can't use MX records. Your www.example.com CNAME can happily co-exist with MX records for sub.example.com pointing to whatever mailservers you want." You don't appear to have acknowledged this at all. – Michael Hampton Jul 12 '16 at 21:01
  • @Yeats There's been absolutely no abuse of power here. The only abuse has been from you. – Michael Hampton Jul 12 '16 at 21:01
  • At which point I asked him why I needed a subdomain if that was the case. To which he never answered. – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 21:02
  • @Yeats You don't need a subdomain. The domain example.com itself can have an MX record (and this is the usual setup). – Michael Hampton Jul 12 '16 at 21:04
  • But his answer claims I do need a subdomain. Which is why we had a back and forth in the first place. But suddenly I'm the stupid one for asking why I need a subdomain if CNAME and MX can co-exist... – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 21:06
  • @Yeats CNAME and MX cannot coexist. The same name cannot have a CNAME record and any other record. – Michael Hampton Jul 12 '16 at 21:07
  • Wow. You literally said they can co-exist. – Yeats Jul 12 '16 at 21:09
  • @Yeats As I said, you have a fundamental misunderstanding. That is not only not what I said, it's not true. – Michael Hampton Jul 12 '16 at 21:09
  • 2
    @Yeats Right. The domain example.com can have an MX record, and most domains do. If it has an MX record, though, it cannot have a CNAME. But some other name can have a CNAME. Just because example.com has an MX record, doesn't affect www.example.com (which is a completely different name!). And you took that quote out of context; read the rest of the sentence. – Michael Hampton Jul 12 '16 at 21:14
  • 2
    @Yeats Here I am trying to help you, and you start up attacking me again? Why am I bothering? – Michael Hampton Jul 12 '16 at 21:18
  • 4
    @Yeats He is trying to tell you that you can have records with different names, and don't need to create a subdomain for an MX record, you just need to use a name that is not currently used for a CNAME. The reason he says your top should have the MX record, is because usually you don't CNAME your top record, you put an A record there and your MX record. (take my comment with a grain of salt, I don't use DNS in my daily work and my last experience with it was 5 years ago) – Reaces Jul 13 '16 at 8:25
  • 1
    Late to the game here, but in case @Yeats and Michael are still around... I just stumbled onto this Q&A, and I must say that at first glance it appears that Yeats has an excellent point. I was confused just like Yeats. It wasn't until I re-read things carefully more than once that it started to make sense. Michael, with all due respect, the technical explanation you started to give was confusing at first, and it did start to look like you were contradicting yourself. It took a more careful read to realize that you were not contradicting yourself. As such, it is somewhat disingenuous to...(1/2) – Aaron Sep 26 '18 at 20:46
  • 1
    (2/2)... to suggest that you cannot see where you ever said they can co-exist, and likewise to act like Yeats' confusion cannot be understood. However, that does not mean that I am defending Yeats' actions. @Yeats your frustration is understood, but you have responded very poorly. I won't agree nor disagree about your view that they are baiting you, but regardless of what their intentions are you have not handled the situation as well as you should have. Even if everything you said were true, your best response would be to respond calm and respectful to what you perceive as harassment. – Aaron Sep 26 '18 at 20:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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