45

Yes! Hats are fun. Or if you don't think they're fun, at least they're harmless -- you can ignore them if you don't want to play.


31

How about: Questions asking for advice on a specific choice, such as what job to take or what skills to learn, are off-topic as the answers are unlikely to be useful for anyone else, and are often primarily opinion-based. Instead of asking which decision to make, try asking how to make the decision, or more specific details about one element of the ...


24

I'm in favor to nuke because : there are already the tags work-environment, professionalism and unprofessional-behavior to describe this problem such a tag don't seems itself to be profesional and calling people toxic here would not pass the Be nice policy.


16

This sounds like a good idea to me as well. I think the reasoning for why has been pretty clear, so I'd like to suggest a wording like this: This question deals with a topic about which many people have strong opinions. We respectfully ask that answers keep their focus on the question, and that those answering refrain from sharing personal opinions unless ...


15

How can I not want hats with this avatar?


14

Do we still need the lower threshold for spam/rude deletions? Based on the numbers outlined in your question, I don't believe we need any special attention. Also, considering our community is strong and our moderation team is solid I think we can revert our site back to the normal threshold. My two cents.


12

How about a bit of rephrasing Questions require a goal that we can address. Rather than explaining the difficulties of your situation, explain what you want to do to make it better. For more information, click here.


11

That one question already has resulted in 150+ deleted comments between the question and several answers, many of which are quite offensive. The majority of the rest of the deleted ones are not constructive and/or off-topic. There are have been multiple different discussions ongoing on various posts there which belong in either chat or on this meta site, not ...


11

My proposal: It is not practical for us to answer a question that depends so heavily on your own abilities, preferences or circumstances. Instead, consider asking a factual question that will help you make your own choices, and that can be answered without detailed knowledge of your personal situation. Rationale: A good close reason focusses on why the ...


11

The question has been reopened.


10

We discussed this request internally a few weeks back, and then I kept my eyes open with it in mind. Here are, I believe, the key factors to consider when constructing such a post notice: Responses to the question have already gone off the rails. All of the proposed notices here serve only to remind readers of things they should already be keeping in ...


9

It seems like it's an appropriate time to recalibrate. The trend is pretty clear on spam: Data from SEDE


8

Just for an additional choice that folks can vote on ... Meh. Hats or no hats - it doesn't matter to me either way.


7

This sounds like a great idea. Adding this to the FAQ doesn't explicitly discourage or eliminate any specific topics but is instead geared towards helping people take their real, actual problem and then focus on describing the problem in a very clear and organized manner. This also makes the asker think about what he or she expects to receive as answers, ...


7

Coming from a programming background, I think this question falls into the XY Problem category. An XY problem is when someone asks, "How do I do Y?" But often times, Y is considered a bad idea. So the question naturally arises from others: "Why do you want to do Y?" The asker might respond, "I'm trying to do X." The other people very quickly realize the ...


7

"I used to joke that they would only deploy new software if they were wearing their cowboy hats." In what way was this sentence offensive to you? I have only my only limited experience to draw from. As a Yankee from New England I've never had occasion to feel anything but positive about the symbolism associated with Cowboys and Cowboy hats. The Boston ...


6

I don't think this question can be reopened until it becomes a specific, answerable question. Right now the question boils down to "I did something bad, now there are consequences, I have stress, what should I do?". The comments and answers seem to focus on varying degrees of "OP you shouldn't have done that, deal with the consequences and don't do it ...


6

Yes. Tags with no questions are already automatically deleted. This tag has two questions which are currently closed. While I can imagine questions that would be on-topic here that could use it, such a tag can just be recreated then if there is a need for it. It might be worth launching another tag cleanup round to avoid creating new discussions for each ...


6

I agree. I was one of the ones who voted to close. Enderland is right, I have voted to reopen. We need to separate the motivation/attitude/wisdom of the querent from the quality of the question. For that reason, I have voted to reopen.


6

Do we want this notice? If yes What should the wording be? I say yes, but let's see what others think (based on comments and the votes on this question seems that others think the same). People may argue about its effectiveness as a preemptive measure for problematic posts, but it is true that at least some users will read it and refrain from rage posting,...


6

Ah, I missed this the first time - when an OP posts a self-answer, answers are sorted by votes even if it's accepted. Notice the OP in that case is actually the same user who wrote the accepted answer.


6

Cowboy coding seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say. There was no implication that it was an actual cowboy on a horse. Complaining about it seems a bit 'non-cowboy' if anything.


6

Done. Tags are merged and a synonym from maternity-leave now points to parental-leave. The tag could still use a Wiki to describe it.


6

The question has in fact been protected; this happened around about 07:00 UTC on 2019-01-31. There is a network-wide bug which means that the protection status is not shown if (and only if) you do not have enough reputation (on the specific site) to answer the question. (Credit to Monica Cellio for finding that bug report). As you do not have 10 reputation ...


6

This seems pretty reasonable and it's a quick and easy change so... it's done. I've spoken with Charcoal to ensure that the autoflagging is raised to four as discussed. Thanks for having this discussion and for letting us restore the entire network to the default! As I noted on English, if there's a huge increase of blatantly problematic content that isn'...


5

Done. Please care for the widows and orphans!


5

It's fixed on the development server. Will be on live site after the next production build. Thanks for your feedback @jmac


5

Thanks; this will be fixed in the next deploy. It looks like we changed the display from (3) to (3/5), but the javascript / regex at the client wasn't updated accordingly.


5

We do need the position:relative but I removed it on the mod & review pages. This way you won't have the bug anymore. A fix has been pushed, it'll be live after the next production build.


5

I've removed the comment thread. In the future, you can use a custom flag on the post to make this kind of request. Only moderators (and the posters of the comments) can remove comments, so while a post on meta reaches more people it doesn't, in this case, reach more people who can fulfill the request. Below each post you should have a 'flag' option if ...


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