Being More Aggressive about "Just Quit" Comments/Answers

Question

We have had a discussion in the past about whether or not 'Quit Your Job' is an acceptable answer.

I have been noticing this in comments quite a bit. This is the one that caught my attention spurring this post, but since I can't search comment text, it isn't easy to find additional examples:

Leave. CEO is where the buck stops, and is the last authority of appeal. If they are refusing to accept responsibility then the company suffer a lot. Bad CEOs kill companies.

^source

I really don't think we should be saying this in comments if they aren't appropriate one-line answers. I have flagged the above comment in the hopes it is removed, and hope that in the future, people will do the same if they catch a similar sort of comment/answer.

The conventional wisdom as stated by jmort is:

It's way too easy to post "quit your job" as an answer, and almost every post on our site could be answered in this manner.

However, our FAQ and How to Answer both make it clear that proposing viable alternatives in an answer is acceptable, and in some cases, quitting may be a correct answer.

But quitting a job is a very big decision and is irreversible, in most cases. Due to the nature and severity of these suggestions, I propose that these answers be held to a much higher standard as follows:

• The answerer MUST post references to back up the answer.
• Alternatively, sharing personal experiences MAY be sufficient, but the answer can't just simply contain the words, "in my experience". The answerer MUST post details about his or her experiences that led to quitting being the correct answer.
• One liner answers suggesting one quit are not allowed. Our FAQ already makes it clear that explanations containing why and how are encouraged. For "you should quit" answers that don't provide explanation and references, I propose downvoting them, leaving a comment helping the answerer improve it, and if it doesn't get fixed, flagging them for removal.

To clarify, I believe we can enforce the rules on these types of answers, in a polite, helpful manner, while still allowing answers that offer alternative solutions.

If anyone has any further comments, please go ahead and share (especially if you think this type of comment has any value), otherwise please pop up a flag whenever you see one.

Mod-type folk, how should we flag these (I flagged as 'non-constructive', but since these are your guys' work, I want to know what will make it easiest for you to handle).

Answer 1

As has been stressed, "quitting a job is a very big decision and is irreversible"; a responsible answerer would do their best to ensure reader that such a serious advice is justified in a given case.

Any answer of just-quit kind, if not backed up with a compelling justification, is guaranteed to get my downvote - on the grounds of being insufficiently responsible (per tooltip: "This answer is not useful").

One thing I specifically expect of this kind answers is an explanation for a "just" part, namely, what in given case makes it preferable over other, "alternative" quit options. One example of an alternative option is: "Start looking for a new job and quit after you get a more appealing offer".

---

I am not going to flag just-quit answers, because per my understanding of current site standards, these do not qualify as flaggable offense.

However, voting, commenting and post quality evaluations are mine and, if I find that answer does not meet expectations outlined above, I am going to vote it down with comment like

per my reading, suggested approach is not sufficiently explained (more details on that at meta).

Answer 2

Since I'm one of the persons that supplies this answer from time to time, I'll describe my thinking:

There are people that can be persuaded, and those that are immutable to any suggestion or entreaty. If someone is not paying attention, or simply cannot, for whatever reason, alter course in a situation that is untenable, then the person having to live with it should chart a course out. The speed with which this should be done is dependent on 'immediacy of harm'. In some cases, remaining on duty puts customers, employees, or the general public at risk. One particular situation I hear about repeatedly has to do with licensed electricians that go work for big factories or warehouses: often the plant is grossly out of code, and some elements are dangerous. The electrician makes their supervisor aware of the issues and the supervisor says 'we're not spending the money, drop it'. It is better to be far away when the situation implodes - you have done what you can and it isn't enough.

If a business is no longer competitive, all efforts to carry on as normal are wasted effort. As people have noticed, bankrupt companies have stranded their pensioners, so the idea of working until retirement and hoping for the best is useless. This is a trap, and it isn't worth getting caught in it. Therefore, if one is 20 years into a 40 year career, and the people in leadership roles are quite obviously clueless, the safe course of action is to find an industry that is competitive - note that in some American industries, not a single company is making money. At various times this has been automobiles, oil, hotels, airlines, commercial real estate, etc. so one has to find a growing line of business, not just an employer. Often in such situations the people that could alter the outcome would love to, and really feel for you, but there's nothing they can do. You have to take matters into your own hands.

Answer 3

Being More Aggressive about "Just Quit" Comments/Answers

I think we're already being sufficiently aggressive.

@jmac: You highlighted one offence. Does this issue occur in abundance? If so, can you point to at least three cases which were not adjusted by the moderators?