@TheDestroyer Hi. ruSO mod here. My 2 cents - proposing users to directly contact mods instead of flagging is generally a bad idea. We had exactly the same situation on Russian stack overflow segment - local chat room encouraged users not to use flags because of cross-site flags visibility. ended up with chaos and room owners permissions revoked
Note that: Though this room is made public. Users are requested to behave with etiquette and discussion should not reach to the level of rude/offensive. Otherwise those users may be kicked out and room can be frozen.
@AnkitSharma yes, but flags should only be used for messages that are violating network-wide rules. General objections should not be flagged and should not be removed. Flagging something just because it is an objection is against network rules.
@Rickross It is not a valid tag. The question is about belief about Porn and not about scriptures. What do Scriptures say about a topic should have the topic and not scripture tag. Scripture is about scripture only. I see that it is not about scripture. See similar questions.
@Rickross, I truly appreciate your efforts in discussing and presenting my case in a neutral manner. In my view you are a "Future Moderator". Both of us have lot of philosophical differences, but I think you have understood well that such differences are left out in the main site. In Meta, one has to think in an objective way. If the elections come for this site. Stand for it. My vote will go to you. :-)
Topic 1: Whole community should come to one stand on dealing with anwers that don't have references. we can subcategorize this into three sections. 1) "Answers of new users with no references" 2) "Answers of active users (or high rep) with no references" and 3) "Answers of old users (who are not so active) with no references".
@Pandya just a FYI to folks in the room: I've seen the email and the meta post; I think this is being blown well out of proportion. Got my hands kinda full at the moment, but one of my teammates is gonna take a closer look at this shortly.
@Pratimaputra I am a normal user here. I guide new users to understand the site better based on what I know. I was never silent when some sect was targeted bitterly. I did something that is not known publicly.
@Pratimaputra if you find any rudeness/offensiveness on site, the proper action is to flag, don't follow that rudeness/offensiveness in your posts/comments.
@TheDestroyer we still have to follow general network rules. if vaishnavism is optopic on site (not sure if it is) - then it ok to discuss it on site and in site-bound rooms. If it is could be considered as "causing drama/flame" - then imo it is ok to propose it as a local offtopic
@AnkitSharma If you think a site moderator is abusing the rules on their own site, there's some guidance on escalating to SE here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/28867/… (note that I'm not at all saying I think that's happened or not, just advising of the appropriate escalation route)
@TheDestroyer kind of a local "offensive" definition issue. We have the same with obscene words topic. Flagged message should violate general chat rules, not local site rules. Not sure what exactly could be offensive in Vaishnavism. If that is a general religion branch - then stating "discussing Vaishnavism is offensive and should not be allowed" is against network "Acceptable Use Policy"
@TheDestroyer so he doesn't want other perspective? There is an option of ignore. But users there are talking about people with other faiths and that too in objectionable way. That is what causing the problem. You can see deleted messages too.
What I mean is SE is designed to be open to everybody for creating content, discussing it, moderating and so on.
A private room for anything except moderation would be totally wrong. A read-only room based on a comment discussion still looks wrong. Why are some users allowed to discuss a topic, while others are not?
@TheDestroyer It is not my opinion. There are guidelines when is a post rude and when it is not. It should be used when there is 100% surity. When there are ambiguity in the words, they should not be used.
@LakshmiNarayanan The solution to the problem is very simple - as per the meta post, majority of the people agree that such notes of caution should not be added, that's it - that's the solution.
@iammilind If there are past things involved in this one, they should be seen separately. The heat here is not about moderation. It is about the beliefs of a user. And the users are cornering a user.
@Pandya Providing information about a mantra is different from providing the mantra itself. You are contradicting yourself. It is not just "better"; it is mandatory. I have made myself clear enough. Nothing further to say other than allowing hte publication of mantras is perpetrating adharma .
@sv. Now comes important question, should we convert answers which cite wiki to comments (if it has useful content ) and delete answers if they are too long and unrelated?
Let's discuss the first category, which is "Answers of new users (including unregistered users) with no references". Moderators thumb rule for this is, 1. If a new user doesn't cite references, mods leave comments under their post and wait for some time. 2. If a user still doesn't cite any reference after some days,Mods convert it to comment if it's short answer or delete it if it is long answer. 3. Mods will undelete answer, if user cites the references, leaving comment (reason why they undeleted it) under the answer.
