Is Stack Exchange a site for adults to respectfully and civilly work together as adults and peers to answer questions?

Question

I thought Stack Exchange was a place where the users have input into how things work and are well respected as equals and peers. I am asking this question so that we can know unequivocally if that is true or false, because many of us are getting tired of trying to figure this out.

On the meta IPS question How do you tell an answerer that you think their answer needs work? a moderator moved all the comments to an archive and left the comment "write an answer if you have something to say".

The comment thread archived was useful in helping that meta question's poster to fix up their question, so the comments had the intended effect that Stack Exchange comments are supposed to have. The comments did get chatty, but it was a meta discussion after all - it is, I think, well known that the comment-discussion guidelines are more relaxed for a meta-discussion. Those comments were making headway and coming together nicely.

I left a comment in response to that, partially asking for clarification on that moderator's intent and partially hinting that that is not how Stack Exchange works, that, under normal situations (the mod action was not some necessary action in response to an extreme situation), moderators should not unilaterally say "Don't leave comments on this question". I even asked in that comment if we need to have yet another meta question to start a discussion about meta discussion comments... I think that's asinine personally, but if others disagree then another meta discussion would be the way to go.

Even that comment to the moderator was deleted! And this is in a meta discussion which is trying to hash out how tolerant we should be about comments.

I feel somewhat disrespected, and I believe that question was not given a fair chance for the above reason and other reasons as well (some answers made unsupported accusations against the question-asker, and I even politely asked if they could get the evidence dredged up since it should be available). If the meta OP falls flat on its face because of provided facts, then so be it, but that has not happened in this case.

Since our attempts at working together as adults resulted in big brother coming in and deciding anything that crosses what they say gets moderator action, I believe the question I am asking here is both valid and necessary.

The actions that are intended for moderators and high-rep users to make in order to keep the website on track and civil are understood and necessary. I am not challenging that ability at all, so please do not make this discussion about that. What I am asking about is situations where moderators bend the rules (ie: Don't leave comments on this question at all), where they abuse their power ("You dare to question my authority? And you dare to ask if you should ask a meta question about whether I should be ban-hammer-happy? comment deleted), or where they even outright deny discussion (someone linked to a spot where that same moderator had the gall to post a rant and end it with "None of this is up for discussion."; the fact that I agree with that moderator's rant there is irrelevant to my question here).

Some related questions as food for thought...

Is everything always up for discussion, or can discussion be axed?

Whose will comes first, users trying to hash things out on their own (especially when they are doing so successfully), or moderator fiat?

Is my opinion just as important as some moderator's opinion, and the only thing that sets us apart is that someone trusted the moderator to act on theirs, or is the moderator's opinion more important than mine?

The root question, in the context of the above, is this: Is Stack Exchange a site for adults to respectfully and civilly work together as adults and peers to answer questions?

Answer 1

FWIW, I liked that question. It started off on the wrong foot, but was edited in response to feedback and currently touches on an important issue without going out of its way to denigrate any one side of that issue.

Indeed, it was edited in response to those comments that I archived - so they served their purpose!

...And now they have no purpose.

So what's the point of keeping an increasingly anachronistic thread of comments strung below the post, with tangential asides and misleading criticisms? None. There is no point to it. If nothing else, it's something like 3 pages of text between the question and the answers - that's a hindrance to folks who might be interested in the discussion rather than the meta-discussion of the discussion. Come on; this is already a discussion of an interpersonal problem that occurs on the site for questions about interpersonal problems; how meta do we want to get here? Does everyone who participates need to be a part of the pre-discussion discussion before they can discuss the problems inherent in the discussions that led to the discussion? And when I archived the thread, you wanted to discuss that in the comments too...

That's just silly. Three levels of meta should be enough for everyone.

(of course, this discussion probably qualifies as a fourth, so...)

Anyway; the comments are still there, in an archive, for anyone sufficiently curious to read. Not every bit of text someone types on The Internet is worth pinning to our collective foreheads for eternity.

Answer 2

Having worked retail as a female and having a boss with a sense of humour, I was brought up with a twisted version of a Dutch saying:

The customer is king, as long as he behaves kingly.

I'd like to think that applies to SE too:

The user is an adult and peer, as long as he behaves like one.

So:

Is everything always up for discussion, or can discussion be axed?
Everything can be axed, if people aren't behaving like adults or peers.

Whose will comes first, users trying to hash things out on their own (especially when they are doing so successfully), or moderator fiat?
Users, but you can expect the CM to do their job when things get out of hand. The fact that they need to means we haven't been behaving like adults or peers.

Is my opinion just as important as some moderator's opinion, and the only thing that sets us apart is that someone trusted the moderator to act on theirs, or is the moderator's opinion more important than mine?
At the risk of making the authority fallacy here: the CM has way more experience, has seen other proposals of this site fail and knows why, moreover they are paid to deal with stuff like what they did, so I'd attribute a little more value to the CM at this point. Again, they step in when we aren't behaving like adults and peers, so at that point they become the teacher and adult in a space full of toddlers.

Is Stack Exchange a site for adults to respectfully and civilly work together as adults and peers to answer questions?
I certainly hope so, but remember the minimum age is 13, so adult might be a little overdone. I am glad there's moderation to take care of people behaving like they're not 13 yet though.

Answer 3

In asking everyone to stop commenting and moving the comments that were there to chat, Shog was giving everyone the opportunity to participate in an honest discussion by encouraging us to answer the question. It's much easier for individual points to be discussed when they have separate comment chains (one per answer) rather than one huge muddle of comments on the question.

I even asked in that comment if we need to have yet another meta question to start a discussion about meta discussion comments... I think that's asinine personally, but if others disagree then another meta discussion would be the way to go.

This is exactly what Meta is for. We don't set policy in comments on unrelated meta questions. It's unsustainable and the policy will be impossible to find. If you want to discuss the appropriate way to act or respond or... whatever... ASK A QUESTION. That's what this half of the site is for.

For the class, your comment read:

Really? "Comments archived. write an answer if you have something to say."??? Do we now need to have another meta post, this one to discuss how comments should be use in meta? I understand archiving away a bunch of comments that helped to reshape the question, some of which are now obsolete, but please be careful about the rest of your comment. Sorry if I'm misrepresenting your intent, but it looks almost like you don't want any more comments here. If that is the case, then in the words of Charlie Brown: good grief.

I see no reason for it to be there. I didn't delete it but I would have. Asking a question - this question, maybe - is what you should have done.

Now, you (and Shog) both seem to think this is one layer of meta too far... but your comment there was completely off topic, so I think your only option would be to ask a question. What's the benefit to that question for us to host a discussion about whether it's OK for a moderator or CM to tell users to stop commenting? There is none!

That said... I think you may be slightly misinformed. There's nothing "bending the rules" about asking or telling people to stop commenting. In fact, many of the post locks that moderators have will specifically prevent comments. They have some other side effects - so we don't really like using them unless absolutely necessary - but it's actually within our power to systematically prevent new comments from being posted.

So, in a sense, the users and staff who have diamonds have the power and are entrusted to make good choices in using it. If you think it's being abused, by all means, ask about it. You can ask here or, if you think it's related to a larger, network-wide issue, you can ask on Meta Stack Exchange. But please remember, asking rather than accusing generally goes over better.

Answer 4

Is my opinion just as important as some moderator's opinion, and the only thing that sets us apart is that someone trusted the moderator to act on theirs, or is the moderator's opinion more important than mine?

The moderator's opinion is more important than yours, on moderation issues. That is, when it comes to whether an answer is good or bad, the moderators get one vote each, just like you and me—we're equals there. But when it comes to issues like whether a particular action violates the rules of Stack Exchange, the moderators (and SE employees) have the power. They might welcome input from users, but the final decision is theirs. That's what they're here for.

Think of it like a real world modern democracy with the rule of law: we're equal in the voting booth, but elected officials do the actual writing and passing of laws, police decide who to arrest, prosecutors decide who to prosecute, and judges (usually with the help of juries) decide who is convicted and who is not.

This isn't inherently an abuse of power, it's part of the system that keeps the democracy ticking along.

This also doesn't make any of those officials inherently better or more important than anyone else—we're still a society of equals in terms of human worth and dignity.

This is different from a private club where all decisions are made by consensus, with no hierarchy and no role-differentiation between members. There are websites out there that are run that way, but SE is not one of them.

Answer 5

Aaron, I confess I haven't read through every word on this page, and I haven't visited the links, but I think I've seen enough of the tone of the dispute to be able to share something that I think may help you.

I was once involved in a legal action. Not exactly a court case. This type of action involves a hearing, which is run by a "hearing officer," who functions kind of like a judge. I did not have a lawyer, but the other side did.

There was a state office that was able to answer some basic procedural questions for me, and on one of my calls to that office, the person who worked there explained something to me that was very helpful.

She said: The state gives hearing officers some general rules and guidelines, but it leaves the details of the conduct of the hearing up to the discretion of the hearing officer. The hearing officer must be able to function as the decider of a hundred or more procedural squabbles, both big and small, that come up during the course of the hearing. Hearing officers receive training, and their decisions are scrutinized in case there is an appeal filed, but for the day-to-day running of the hearing, including the pre-hearing communication about preparation for the hearing, and post-hearing communication about closing arguments, decision date, etc., the hearing officer has to be clearly in charge. Someone has to be in charge of these things. The state can't do it -- that's what it pays the hearing officers to do.

She continued: Each hearing officer is going to have a slightly different style, because hearing officers are human beings... because hearings are complicated... and because the disputes the hearings are about are complicated.

She explained that the state would be willing to consider a complaint about the way the hearing officer conducted the hearing, if I wanted to file one. She sent me the instructions on how to do so, but she explained that such a complaint would only be considered once the hearing was over and the decision had been rendered.

What I found out through the course of the hearing was that in the hundred or more procedural squabbles that came up, I won some and I lost some. But at the end of the day, the outcome of the legal action itself was more important to me than the outcome of the skirmish that occurred on Tuesday morning at 9:45 about whether the question the other side's lawyer had asked the witness was fair or not.

_{In case you're wondering about the final outcome... I lost but won on appeal. On top of a whole lot of mistakes of all kinds and sizes, the hearing officer didn't render his decision on time. When he missed what I calculated to be the deadline, I sent an assertive letter to him about that. He perhaps retaliated and decided against me on every single aspect. I appealed, and prevailed on two out of the three main prongs of the case. The appeal officer included a footnote in the appeal decision about the lateness of the hearing officer's decision. Basically, what the footnote said, in fancy language, was that the hearing officer had danced on the edge of the timeliness requirement. Which was about as strong as I could have hoped to get, since the system favors the status quo. I think that my hearing officer will probably try pretty hard to avoid rendering decisions late in future.}

_{In the end, I did not bother filing an administrative complaint about the way the hearing officer conducted the hearing. It didn't seem necessary, since his decision had already been overturned and he had been given a subtle warning in the footnote.}

How I have applied this understanding to StackExchange: I figure, someone has to be in charge. That someone is only human, and may make mistakes. If I see something egregious, maybe it's worth pointing out... but I try to look at the big picture: StackExchange offers me a framework and an established group of participants. If I want to participate, I have to look philosophically at the day-to-day running of the many procedural squabbles that come up. I may win some, I may lose some. With experience, I get better at getting my ideas across in writing, and understanding other people's point of view from a purely written medium. Which is challenging, let's face it!

Letting go of a perceived injustice can be hard... but it's easier to do if we can find a way to focus on the main goal.

Answer 6

I asked that because I do not feel as though my opinion is held as equal to the opinion of a moderator (which I thought it was supposed to), but merely not having the capability to act on my opinion as they do, and I do not feel respected by nor like a peer of the moderators.

My understanding is that the site intention is that we are all supposed to be equal peers in this endeavor. I might not have the same powers on the site as a moderator as a high rep user, but I thought I was supposed to be treated as their equal in all other regards.

Regardless of the site's intention, we are all equals. Every last one of us. Everyone who works together in good faith must receive the same amount of respect and attention, that is, utmost respect and attention. I do not care who you are, if you are a high-rep user, a moderator, or a 1-rep new user: You are no more or less important than I am, and your opinions and insights are just as important as mine, no more and no less.

I believe that deleting comments in meta which question a moderator's authority is an abuse of power. I have the right as your peer to question everything that you do, just as you have the right to question my actions. You have the power, but not the authority, to delete a comment which questions your actions, especially on meta.

I believe that a moderator has the power but not the authority to make and act on demands such as "Do not make any comments on this meta question."

That is where I am coming from, and I hope that I am correct. I expect everyone to treat everyone with the utmost respect, honor, and equality. And I don't feel that is occurring.

I look forward to seeing the opposing answers and I look forward to having an honest discussion about this. I won't hold my breath for that, as I think it is ridiculous that we have to discuss this in the first place, but I am hopeful. If my understanding of how this website should be run is flawed then I hope that dissenting answers here enlighten me about that.