Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I'm not even a moderator, but if you as a bad question I vote to close it. That's how the site works. Even if you feel you put a lot of work into something doesn't mean it's a valid question to the site. Read the FAQ.

>> along with the overzealous mods shutting down my questions in the most condescending tone possible.

> Read the FAQ.

Your response seems to be a a perfect demonstration of what he's complaining about.

Help me understand what's condescending about being a normal user to the site (ie, I don't work for Stack Exchange, nor am I a moderator) and telling him to read the FAQ.

Help me understand this.

Ok, I'm going to assume that you actually want me to explain, and not that this is just an argument tactic you're using to try to score debate points. I hope I'm correct.

The OP's complaint was presented in a reasonable tone of voice, was articulate and carefully worded. Now, it may be that he has misunderstood something about Stack Overflow, or that he's looking for something the site doesn't provide. But, the OP does not come off as an idiot or a troll.

Your response to "read the FAQ" treats him as if he were a fool (the exact word you used in another reply). It was also so hastily typed, that you misspelled "ask" as "as" and you obviously cared so little about your writing, that you didn't notice this and go back to redit your comment and fix it.

So to sum up: somebody posts a carefully worded, slightly angry but non-offensive complaint, and you rapidly dash off a short, typo-ridden response telling him to read the FAQ.

In other replies to the same user, you put words in his mouth and beat him up like a straw man. You come off as an angry, petulant, mean-spirited and unreasonable person.

In other words, condescending.

First off, realize that I don't actually care about the FAQ or site rules at all. I care about getting value out of a site. That's true of everyone.

Second, I asked a question, and I believe it was a good one. However, it was closed for being "too conversational," whatever that means. Instead of merely answering my question, the mods instead chose to make condescending comments, which eventually lead to an answer in the comments, so why not just answer the question in the first place?

SO mods think their job is to eliminate 'bad' questions. But that's not their job. Their job is to foster a community and a valuable site. Look at all the 'bad' questions which have made it onto HN and Reddit that have been closed by an overzealous mod, then re-opened due to mass appeal. Overzealous SO mods are a known problem, so much so that they've alluded to it repeatedly on the SO podcast.

> First off, realize that I don't actually care about the FAQ

Has it ever occurred to you that you're a fool? You complain about the site and have no regard for the rules or what the site is. It's not your spam-filled phpBB site that you dump the same 'plzzz halllpp I can't get $_[get] when I make a post!!11' nonsense onto every day.

> it was closed for being "too conversational," whatever that means

I'm calling you out on this.

Link to your question. You're totally full of it, there is no "too conversational" option. There does happen to be a "too localized" question, which is something we pick when users think the site is a place to dump thousands of lines of code and ask a question nobody else will ever have (ie, lazy slobs who don't read the FAQ and know what the site's about).

In short, you're full of it.

Your aggressive tone is unhelpful.

There was / is a "closed as not constructive" - as well as getting the moderator's comment for closing the questioner could have had other comments from users pointing out that conversational questions are not welcome on SO.

He's not full of it at all. He's describing a very real SO issue (one of many) and, as usual, the SO-fanbois/shills are getting on their high-horse explaining that SO is perfect, that there is nothing to see, that mods cannot possibly be overzealous, etc. And all this using a "tone", as usual...

Has it ever occurred to you that you're a fool?


You complain about the site and have no regard for the rules or what the site is.

You have completely failed to understand what I wrote. SO mods, instead of working to form community and value, have become trigger-happy bureaucrats. The entire method by which mods operate is, in many cases, opposed to the stated goals of SO.

Link to your question.

I have zero intention of linking my online identities, and I don't care in the least whether or not you believe me.

SO has decided what they think will make a good useful community. They might be wrong, but the way to tackle that is to create a different community.

Part of SO's strategy is to rigorously prune bad questions. A bad question has a specific meaning in SO. It's defined by the FAQ. Bad questions encourage more bad questions and dilute people available to work on good questions.

Becoming familiar with site guidelines is an established part of Netiquette, and has been for very many years.


> Read both mailing lists and newsgroups for one to two months before you post anything. This helps you to get an understanding of the culture of the group.

tl;dr: their servers, their rules.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact