🐉

Rawr. Rooms only freeze after 14 days by the way :)

How does comment flagging work? I flagged one a moment ago which disappeared, but I'm not sure if that's a product of flagging, if the comment was deleted while I was writing up the flag, or something else

The comment was part of a multi-comment string with the same issue, so I'm not sure if I should flag the remaining one or not. I don't want to bug a mod to no purpose

I assume that was mine-- why did you even flag it in the first place, and why was it removed?

Comments which have certain words/phrases which match a regex are auto-deleted by a single flag: meta.stackexchange.com/q/238835/1017231

I can't speak as to why it was removed, but its content belongs in an answer on the meta question and not in a three-comment harangue

It wasn't vulgar, and it was responding directly to your answer.

I also object to characterizing it as harangue.

You're free to object, as you feel is appropriate. And comments aren't for discussion, though they often include some of that (especially on meta)

An answer on meta facilitates discussion much better than a set of comments. If your answer attracts lots of upvotes, that will be much better for producing the results you want. The comments will be less likely to be seen, and don't allow other users to agree or disagree in the way meta is meant to allow

There are lots of back and forth discussions on meta. There was no cause to single this one out.

And it seems to me, that whether I want to present an answer is my decision, not yours.

The deleted comment wasn't very kind, and as it was directed at me I felt a flag was fine. I didn't know about the auto-delete, and I'm still not sure what specifically prompted it. My flag said that it would fit better in an answer

In what way was it unkind.

You are absolutely free to present an answer if you like, or to not do so. I'm not trying to make you do anything. My comments are all along the lines of "if you post this as an answer to the meta question, the site will be more likely to operate the way you want"

And the deleted comment had a strong "you're a fool, and are seriously harming the stack in an unusually blatant way" vibe to it. Maybe not what you intended, but certainly what I read in it

I don't think you're a fool. I do think this answer is part of a trend which is harming this stack.

Is that so beyond the pale?

The phrasing was harsh, and spread across three comments came across even more harshly. Advocating for what you'd like to see on RPG.SE is totally fine. But that is better done, in my opinion, by letting meta operate the way it's supposed to-- with up and down votes

I did downvote you.

Awesome. That's what is supposed to happen to an opinion a user disagrees with. Where can a user upvote or downvote your position?

And again, I fail to see where it's on you to decide what goes in meta comments.

The flag was intended to draw a mod's attention for them to decide

My overarching opinion, which is not something this meta answer expresses at all, is that fights over opening and closing questions generate a lot of heat and ill will here. My preference is to not engage in immediate open or close voting on contentious posts, and where there is strong opinion on either side to use meta to express opinions in either direction

You can also respond in comments. There is no requirement to answer rather than comment in meta.

Indeed there is not. But there is no voting that way either

So what? My words, my opinion, my comment, my choice.

I'm not saying that you can't communicate in comments, only that for some purposes answers are better. As above, the comment in question were, in my reading, unkind, and so I did what we're advised to do and tried to draw a mod's attention to it

This constant deciding where, when, and how other people use the stack is the single biggest problem with it today.

See above: I'm not trying to make you do anything. My comments are all along the lines of "if you post this as an answer to the meta question, the site will be more likely to operate the way you want"

If you don't want that, that's totally fine

What I'd like-- and which I know you can't effect-- is for my comment to be put back where it was in the first place.

An apology for the unfair characterization of my comments as "a harangue" would also be nice.

I'm not sure if auto-deleted comments are treated differently from others. If you'd like to try to re-create it, we can reconstruct the comment thread as it was

Not worth the effort. I recognize that the system didn't act the way you expected it to. Nevertheless, having a comment unceremoniously deleted with no justification, no warning, no discussion-- especially in the context of this discussion-- really rubs me the wrong way.

I stand by the word, which I chose very carefully, to describe it. I felt that the three comments you posted under that answer were, collectively, lengthy and aggressive. Certainly not constructive. Whether or not that's what you intended I can't say

@Novak I can certainly relate to that. I feel like I'll never understand the inner workings of SE very well

Well what is the Upper_case approved language for saying, "I think this answer is a good example of a trend which harms this stack"?

The phrasing used right there is excellent

And how is it better than what I actually posted?

It's far more succinct, is constructive, and doesn't seem like it's venting any anger

Other readers may differ, of course

Other readers can't differ, because it's been deleted.

But be specific: How is it better?

I have no idea what you mean by venting anger.

As I've mentioned several times, the tone of the comment set struck me as pretty aggressive. Certainly heated, and personally directed. And since the point of that writing being in comments seemed primarily to be about expressing your opinion (rather than engaging in the meta discussion, which, again, you are free to do or not at your preference), I chose that phrasing to describe my perception of it

Of course it was personally directed: It was responding directly to your argument. As is my prerogative.

Responding to an argument does not require directing anything at the person making it

And it is your prerogative. I've said several times I'm not trying to make you do anything. If my reading of that particular comment was that it was aggressive, that's my prerogative

Again: I was responding directly to your argument, as you phrased it. It would be no less directed if I had responded in an answer. I am failing to see the problem with this. And I fail to see any particular aggression in what I wrote.

I just see that you didn't like a comment, so you tried to (and succeeded in) getting it removed.

With no discussion, no explanation, no elaboration of criteria. Just gone.

The deleted comment felt like a personal attack against me, whether you intended it or not. I do not see anything missing which your remaining two comments do not express, and they were not flagged in any way. That you fail to see the issue I perceived, while emphasizing only your own prerogatives repeatedly, and cannot even imagine that your tone might not have matched your intent, really isn't something anyone else can address. Especially after you've already acknowledge that I did not

know that the stack worked that way. I wanted a mod's opinion, but that didn't work out

What did I say that you perceived as an attack?

Your personal inability to understand someone's action doesn't mean their action was made in bad faith or with malice. Please also back down on the passive-aggressive "Upper_case approved language" type phrasings, it's not really doing your case any favors. And I'm moving this whole thing to our designated side room for conversations that shouldn't be inflicted on everybody who logs into the main room.

← 56 messages moved from TRPG General Chat

Does it matter? You seem to be pretty firmly in the "My words, my opinion, my comment, my choice" mode, and not inclined to entertain the idea that there could have been any perceived issue with the comment. You also seem not to be interested in noting that the other two comments remain, nor describing what content is missing without the deleted one.

You've acknowledged that I didn't know the flag would delete the comment. At this point it seems that you mainly want to express your unhappiness that the comment was deleted. You don't need me to be around for that, and my participation certainly doesn't seem to be adding anything for you

Yes. Yes, it matters to me. I wouldn't bother to ask if it didn't. I do not know what it was that set you off about that comment. I really do not.

"My words, my opinion, my comment, my choice" is in reference to comment vs answer. This is about what apparently offended you, or at least, what you found "aggressive." These are two separate issues. The former, I will not concede in principle. The latter, you might convince me, if you tell me what you found aggressive or offensive.

I will say upfront: my reading of the comment is not a discussion. If you want to know, I'll outline it for you, but I have zero interest in whether or not you agree with how I felt the comments came across

If you're genuine in wanting to learn, then using dismissive, antagonistic, and accusative language to ask is not constructive. It looks to me like you're assuming wrongdoing and demanding that someone prove your assumption wrong, not trying to learn a new perspective.

I will also mention that the regex which prompted the auto-deletion found something in the comment which is what triggered the deletion. I have no idea what that may be, and cannot give any insight into it

The regex found something objectionable?! That... makes no sense to me, either.

That's what caused the auto-deletion in response to a flag, as mentioned by Bobble above

Yeah, I looked through that link and that... still makes no sense to me.

If I may jump in? Starting with the autodeletion; the exact details of how that works aren't public knowledge, and for good reasons. I'd class this as a misfire of that system. I think there's an old feature request on MSE about custom flags autodeleting content, but can't bother searching for it right now

As I said, I can offer no insight. The external review of the comment I wanted didn't happen, and now won't

Thanks, @Someone_Evil

Comments are just deleted silently, though usually it's on the judgement of a mod, not an algorithm. It being silent is just part of the nature of comments, if it was really important it should have been in an answer (or Q I suppose). Meta might be slightly different there, but only slightly

Ah, that explains why I couldn't find a clear list of offenses or trigger words-- I was beginning to think I was going blind and just not seeing something obvious. I can't say I'm thrilled with it, but I definitely see the point, because if the list were public it would be too easy to subvert.

Meta design is an absolute mess.

Knowing that it's (at least plausibly) a misfire is also useful information-- I read through that link the first time, didn't see anything obviously applicable, and thought the regex therefore played no part. That misunderstanding is mine; I own it, and probably would not have been quite so irritated, so I apologize for that.

Moving towards the comment itself, it has a certain undertone of accusing a group of close voters of -- how to put it? -- voting to close for a reason they don't want to admit(?). I'm having a hard time pinpointing it and it sort of shifts depending on how I read it, so I'd assume it's not intended, maybe just unfortunate

I'm nearly through writing out my response (I want to post it all at once)

It' seems you're in full agreement with KRyan, so I'll offer the distinction that I think it focuses more on the behaviour and perhaps more the ideas that are floating around more so than users. It's much more productive to focus on the ideas.

"There's the fault in that" over "There's the fault in you"

Ok, I think I'm done for now

I'll take that under advisement. But I see these things as linked. I see a general trend, years in the making, since the day I started lurking (i.e., literally before I had posted anything, in main stack or meta) which is best summed up as, "Well, I can't think of a good answer... vote to close!!"

I used the word 'subtext' for a reason, because obviously no one says that, and I'm pretty sure no one thinks that, at least consciously, either.

That's not what my answer says. But we're past that now anyways. My response to your question comes in six posts (for length)

Three comments in a row deriding an answer made in good faith to participate in a discussion which was in response to a question posted for that purpose seems excessive and more about venting than dialogue. The middle comment was not about the matter at hand, nor the content of the answer, but was a tangent about how this kind of answer is destroying the stack

That tangential comment's presence between your two far more useful comments in itself seemed antagonistic and accusatory. Whether or not the material content of that comment has merit, simply layering complaints together suggests (to my eye) a desire to complain rather than to engage or discuss in good faith

And if a person is not looking to discuss in good faith, then excessive or somewhat off-topic complaint is probably intended for some other purpose. If that (seemingly) off-topic or excessive complaint is directed at me, and not constructive, I will tend to receive it as unnecessary and thrown at me anyways-- aggressive and largely without purpose

Perhaps it's an unfortunate match of your writing style and my perception, but I read a generally combative tone in much of what you've written today both under the meta answer and in chat. I think that many readers would agree with that characterization, particularly if the deleted comment were included; maybe, and maybe not

If you want an example of what I read an aggressive tone in, simply scroll upwards. If you still don't see anything which might come across as harsh, then I'll never be able to provide an example which you will find satisfying based on what's already been written and posted

Either way, the content may or may not come across as you intended. I have made a substantial effort to be detached and measured in discussing this matter so far. I'll leave it to others to assess how successful or not I have been in that effort. I do not see much effort towards restraint in the responses I've read. As I've tried to emphasize, I could be mistaken in those impressions, but I believe that I have come by them honestly

(I paused while I saw those responses coming in, but I'm continuing my own train of thought, here.) But correct or incorrect, it was not a random throwaway comment. It is part of a trend I have seen for years.