Timeline for What to do if I disagree with a moderator decision?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2015 at 18:26 | comment | added | Lord_Farin | FYI: The comment under consideration has been deleted. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 17:30 | vote | accept | emcor | ||
| Jun 24, 2015 at 16:42 | comment | added | Surb | @quid "... especially elsewhere." If the community was determining the truth, the earth would probably still be flat ;). | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 15:56 | comment | added | Zach466920 | I agree with you, the comment is rude, however he isn't attacking you so it doesn't even count as ad hominem. You shouldn't be hurt by the comment, he is only commenting on the validity of the idea. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 14:51 | comment | added | Najib Idrissi | @emcor Please don't be ridiculous. Even in that biased news report it's explicitly written "Today’s decision doesn’t have any direct legal effect. It simply finds that Estonia’s laws on site liability aren’t incompatible with the ECHR. It doesn’t directly require any change in national or EU law." How you can interpret that decision as you having a human right not to be offended in public is beyond my comprehension. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 14:24 | comment | added | Did | "Insulting"? The comment in question is supposed to be insulting? How? | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 14:05 | comment | added | Thomas | I don't understand the downvotes on this meta-post. It is a completely fine question to ask what to do when one disagrees with moderators. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 14:02 | answer | added | Thomas | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 13:40 | comment | added | mrf | On main, I would have agreed that an analogous comment would be unconstructive and borderline rude. On meta, not so much. This is the place to voice opinion. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 13:31 | comment | added | quid | @GerryMyerson You ought to be joking with this "community viewpoint" comment. This is a terrible line of argument and could be used to justify all kinds of abuse and discrimination, here and especially elsewhere. (This is not altered by the fact that I personally consider the specific comment in question as harmless in its intent.) | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 13:25 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | IANAL, but I seriously doubt that any court has ever stated that an individual is entitled to anything simply because the individual feels his or her reputation has been harmed. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 13:19 | comment | added | emcor | @GerryMyerson I dont agree that the fact that a certain group of people upvotes a comment can deprive me of my human rights not to be offended in public. There has been a recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights stating that I am entitled to indemnity if I feel my reputation is harmed through an online comment. I will contact the next level at SE first, but I do have a lawyer to dismiss any unlawful activity on SE and grant me a significant amount of indemnity if my plea is refused. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 13:14 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Well, emcor, that can be interpreted as an indication of the community viewpoint on the comment. We wouldn't want the moderators to act contrary to the standards of the community, would we? | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 13:10 | comment | added | emcor | @GerryMyerson Yes. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 13:08 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Are we talking about the comment that (currently) has 11 upvotes? | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:46 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | I think that advice from this post is very reasonable: "It's often best for you to try to work things out at as low a level as possible." (The post is about a more serious isue that just handling flags.) | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:42 | answer | added | user642796Mod | timeline score: 14 | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:19 | history | edited | emcor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jun 24, 2015 at 12:00 | history | edited | emcor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags
|
| Jun 24, 2015 at 11:58 | comment | added | emcor | @MartinSleziak I think the answer is the same to both issues and anyways I would like to know about both solutions. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 11:54 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | For example, I would upvote the general question. (Since this might be a useful information.) I might downvote the question about particular flag. (I do not agree that it is offensive. Maybe it can be called non-constructive, but it is probably not bad enough for flagging.) The way the question is phrased I am not sure whether you are asking the general question or you want to discuss this specific instance. So I am not sure how to vote. | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 11:52 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | If this is the question about handling this one particular flag, you should add (specific-flag) tag. If you want to ask about more general issue stated in the title, then this tag is not suitable. But I would recommend removing the link, since it will distract from the main question. (You can explain that you flagged some comment even without explicitly linking to the particular comment.) | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 11:47 | history | edited | Martin Sleziak |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 24, 2015 at 11:45 | history | asked | emcor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |