51

As a long time lurker ServerFault is infamously known for its hostility. Several times I have considered reporting certain users due to their consistent history of attacking the OP and arrogance with their knowledge. That doesn't make a healthy Q&A site. I also disagree with the idea that eliminating the "professional capacity" requirement will ...


41

I've noticed a fair amount of hostility towards questions that originate from people who are obviously developers. In most cases, the negativity isn't as blatant as this example, but I frequently spot on topic questions being VTC as 'Off Topic' simply because a developer has asked the question. Now according the FAQ, "Server Fault is for Information ...


22

There's no reason for us to tell someone "Quit and get a new job" in comments: If it's a situation where quitting is the only option (some kind of criminal/ethical violations like the company forcing you to pirate software) "Quit" is the answer. If the work situation is terrible then if the admin in question is any good they'll figure it out on their own (...


17

What hostility? Telling a developer "hire a sysadmin" might not be the answer he's looking for, but it's hardly hostile, disrespectful or unreasonable in response to a question that amounts to "what sysadmining do I need to do?" Of course, that's not exactly useful as an answer, hence it being said in the comments. Turn it around. Dear Stackoverflow, ...


16

This is going to be short because I think the other answers have the other angles covered. There is very clearly an identity struggle going on here. I'm picking up three main themes: The "IT professionals" standard: It's hard to maintain in the face of least common denominator, but it's what makes this SE site unique. Not scaring away new users: Some ...


14

"Do not do it again" is an order (an imperative statement), not a threat. A threat would be "If you do it again, I'll come to your house with a cream pie and throw it into your face while shouting, 'Mit Schlag!'" Or some other statement that included potential consequences. Moderators are allowed to make imperative statements. As for whether or not it'...


14

What's the problem with the comments? I thought the comments were basically valid, if just a little bit harsh. I also agree with Michael Hampton in that the OP is the first one who bristled when they didn't get a nice answer chock full o' pointers and links for them to reference. I think the following comments were at least partly in reaction to the ...


14

I haven't found an official source/reference for this yet, but here's my opinion: Mods should not radically change the content of a comment. Spelling mistakes, various typos, and the like are fair game for correction. If part of a comment is "hostile" and the rest is not, delete only the offending part. With that blanket statement, I'll confess that I've ...


13

I don't see any outright insults here on the part of naktinis, at least as far as I would be insulted, but your comment was also completely unnecessary and outright wrong in the situation. To recapitulate: The question was in a nutshell "how are these commands named, I forgot". The complete answer to this is nginx_ensite and nginx_dissite. The link Michael ...


13

The hostility both on this site and on SO sadden me greatly. To my surprise, I discovered just now that the SF FAQ explicitly covers "civility" under the "Etiquette" section: Civility is required at all times; rudeness will not be tolerated. The proper way to handle the referenced question, and any overly broad questions generally, would have been to ...


11

The question itself probably needed more details and that kinda didn't reflect what the OP had done (which was bad). I might not asking questions on SF as much as I wish I could (or answering), but if I did, I'd want to provide as much information on what I'm doing. If I'd asked this question, I'd have started with - not all of this would be best practice, ...


7

The "take this discussion to chat" button appears automatically if the thread is long enough, but I don't see a way for either users or moderators to force this to happen for shorter discussions. Cheap workaround: Maybe just add a few bogus comments.


7

The endless loop one basically said "my boss doesn't trust the right tools, so I can't use them". That to me clearly says you either need to learn to communicate better with your boss to explain why it's the right solution, or find a new boss. I'm all for telling people to either stand their ground and convince them to use the right tools, or run. It's ...


6

I liked the original version much better and if I remember correctly I even upvoted it. The edited version is too limp-wristed for my taste. It's also wrong because there is no similarity whatsoever in the standards on SF and SO, the latter being extremely undisciplined and sloppy. TL;DR - I don't believe such an edit should be allowed unless the original ...


5

I would like to throw in my 2 cents here (I am sorry), as I get the feeling that people are talking past the posed question(s). Talking past the question for a moment: Let me pre-face it quickly by saying that I personally think this is all an exaggerated response. The moderators response was not overly harsh, and the way he perceives the comment is wholly ...


4

Original question was WAY too broad. Akin to asking: I'm starting a new company, what are the basic things I need to do to prepare i.e. HR policies, plan for bad debt collection, accounting software we need, payroll, that sort of thing. Just securing a server alone is a non-trivial task. There are many tools and techniques. If you're a developer, imagine ...


4

Oh dear it looks like I wasn't sufficiently caffinated when I dealt with that flag and clicked the wrong option :( Anyway to answer your question - burninate them.


4

IMHO comments like this one should not be part of the question. They're comments, and should be left as such. I say "Nuke with extreme prejudice!" and optionally leave a polite note inviting the OP to re-post as a proper comment. Caveat: My hatred for commentary in questions, equalled only by my hatred for LiveJournal-style Edit # . . . notes, is trumped ...


3

Was the comment insulting? No. There was nothing there that was objectively insulting. In my opinion, a reasonable person should not be insulted, and the comment shouldn't be removed on grounds that it is offensive or insulting. Was the moderator abusing their power? No. It was a comment. Comments are transient and deleted all the time. Suggestions ...


3

This, to the best of my knowledge, is actually by-design. In this MSO thread, it says that as you could only be replying to the person that asked the question (in your example) then the @Username is stripped out automatically. If you can fully understand that answer in its entirety I would be more than impressed as it's not exactly clear.


2

I would have no problem with this if it was transparent to the viewer what had happened, as with question edits -- if the page displayed or made easily available that the comment had been edited, by whom, when, and what the change was I would see no issue with this.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible