What isn't rude here?

Question

So, today we had a flow of rude comments and behavior by a specific user on meta, I flagged a total of seven comments and there might even have been more that I didn't get.

Three of these flags just showed up in my status as declined, and are still up and visible here on the actual post, and here in the comment bot chat transcript. The first one is basically making fun of someone for seriously answering a post, the second is insulting our community for speaking in terms of 'we' and the third is even cursing (Geez is used as an alternative curse word for Jesus Christ).

Even if you disagree on the cursing, all of these comments don't match the Be Nice policy: Your tone should match the way you'd talk in person with someone you respect and whom you want to respect you.

The other four flags are still pending, and I'd like to know what is not rude about this behavior, and if I should retract these flags.

Answer 1

IMO, it's all rude.

IF:

• It speaks to the person and not the point, it's rude.
• It doesn't address the issue at hand, but distracts, it's rude.
• It is argumentative, it is rude.
• It is another answer under an answer, because it undermines the answer, and cannot be down-voted. This is VERY rude to the person who took the time to compose an answer.
• It is irrelevant, it may not be rude, but should be deleted.

If some sort of cut and dry standard isn't applied, people IMO, are just going to stop flagging.

What we as a community can do is alert each other and throw multiple flags on something. I think if three rude flags are thrown, the comment is deleted regardless of moderator action.

This shouldn't be undertaken lightly, but it is an option if several people feel a comment is rude.

per comment below.

Being argumentative is engaging in a back-and-forth or posting criticism without remedy.

Examples of being argumentative are:

• "No, it's not"
• "That won't work in all cases"
• "What about 'X', huh?"

or, when someone clarifies, and then there's another follow-up dispute on the same point.

Unconstructive criticism:

If you post: "I think you should also consider 'ABC' because" is constructive. "This is horrible advice", is not. "I disagree", is not. If you disagree, you should post your own answer instead of arguing on someone else's, especially since comments can not be down-voted.

Answer 2

I didn't think he was being rude, and it seemed like a sincere attempt on his part in understanding what IPS SE offers.

I read both questions (and its comments) of his on Meta last night, and I would objectively say that some of you censored him and chased him away, probably, at a time that was critical for him to learn what IPS SE was all about. It was an opportunity to show him the ropes, but instead you guys imposed heavy moderation against him - or at least it felt that way. In particular, a moderator from another SE site, Rory, seemed to continue to just agitate him, telling him that he's "ranting" -- but the thing is, he did the right thing by taking the conversation to Meta, and yet you guys still chose to silence him, rather than walking it through with him. His initial reactions are certainly going to be one of surprise, and you guys didn't handle that well. You have to be ready for surprised reactions from new users and put yourselves in their shoes. They could be coming in here seeking people with a set of minimum requirements; he mentions "mental health professionals", specifically. It takes some time to explain to him that that's not what this site offers. Expect more new users to come to IPS SE feeling this way.

(I can't see the deleted question, since I don't have enough rep, so I can't recall exactly who the users were that were responding to the OP.)

(I get that censoring is somewhat fundamental to Stack Exchange sites, and perhaps that's what makes SE sites better than other Q&A sites. But, again, he came to Meta, which was the correct first step to take. He should have been treated better and with more patience.)