Perhaps this is also question related to amWhy's link - would it be reasonable to ping the user in question somewhere and let them know that there is a question on meta about their posts? Or does this help nobody and only increase drama?

It does not feel right to discuss the actions of specific user without them knowing about it. (After all, it used to be etiquette on meta that it is better not to name users.) On the other hand, Alex M.'s comments suggests that this user had some problematic behavior in the past.

Disclaimer: I do not intend to ping the user in question. But asking mods about their opinion on this seemed like a reasonable thing to do.

@MartinSleziak Note that I linked only to the meta post, just to ensure at least one mod would review it. You did ping the OP in CRUDE. I have no problem with it, because the author of the question asked": "I am wondering if I should inform the moderators about this particular case."

@MartinSleziak Oops, perhaps you mean the user who authored the posts listed in the meta question? Indeed, I agree.

@amWhy Sorry for being unclear. Yes, by the user in question I meant the user who was downvoted (=the user who was mentioned in the post on meta).

BEGIN QUOTE And I, for one, will continue to maintain that these low quality questions are abusive to the site and will vote to close and delete as I see fit so that someone else does not have to have sore eyes. Personally? I don't think I'm asking for much. END QUOTE Don't attack straw men. No one proposed that one should not delete low-quality posts. There is no reason to use abusive language when one deletes low-quality posts. The abusive language is what I objected to.

@MartinSleziak No problem; I did consider that, in the end. I do agree with you that it does not feel right to "talk behind another's back". I think it's the right thing to do, and also reasonable to do.

← 1 message moved from Simply Beautiful Art's realm of calculus and analysis

@MichaelHardy Then perhaps you should not call the judgement of those who voted to close the question to be absurd. IMHO, calling someone's judgement to be absurd is no better.

Oh, while I'm here, I'd like to inform a moderator (@quid ?) that I may have been serially downvoted. Received 4 downvotes on relatively old content within about an hour's time today: math.stackexchange.com/users/272831/…

@MichaelHardy MichaelHardy Why distort a comment by calling it a "straw man attack." It's you who is actually introducing abuse in your comment to @SimplyBeautifulArt. SBA's comment is honest, sincere, and speaks about his standard about low-quality questions, which consist largely of problem-statement question. And you already know that one is justified in voting to close, per MSE, per SE, as off-topic, lacking context.

@amWhy : I did not say one should not vote to close low-quality questions. Is it abusive for me to say that?

It is abusive, @MichaelHardy, to call very reasonable comments abusive, just because you do not agree.

@SimplyBeautifulArt : I did not call the decision to close the question absurd; I called it absurd to use the kind of language that is used. At least one moderator has supported the proposal to create a new menu item labeled "lacking context or details" instead of "off topic".

@MichaelHardy Well, that doesn't exist yet, now does it? There's no point in kicking at dirt, so don't. It's misleading, and the dust gets in my face, which is quite annoying.

@SimplyBeautifulArt : The solution is for you to abstain from construing my comment about abusive language as saying that you are who is being abusive.

@MichaelHardy I am sorry, my English is likely not as good as yours, so it took me quite a while to read through that. Are you saying that I should avoid misinterpreting your comment as though it were directed towards me?

@SimplyBeautifulArt I am not a moderator on this site (I can moderate in chat as this is network-wide); so there is not really anything I can do about that. Sorry.

@quid Oops then :D

@arjafi If you could take a look ^

@SimplyBeautifulArt : Yes.

@MichaelHardy Then why would you think my first comment was as though your comment was taken that way? If you had copied my full comment, you would've realized I was replying to the post, which, presumptuously, was meant for everyone who visits meta.

@SimplyBeautifulArt : Because of the context.

"I continue to maintain that that is absurd and is abusive to newbies." And I, for one, will continue to maintain that these low quality questions are abusive to the site and will vote to close and delete as I see fit so that someone else does not have to have sore eyes. Personally? I don't think I'm asking for much. Just give me a few lines of something constructive other than the problem statement and we can live peacefully.

I was certainly not replying to your comment on the main site. I'm not sure how I could've been more clear on that.

@MichaelHardy @SimplyBeautifulArt I don't think the mod's office chat is the best place for this conversation. And it seems clear that Michael has already made up his mind about how the site should work, acts like he has omniscient about what users should allow, (though, he seems to favor answering "low quality," problem statement questions, which often get closed, and at times deleted.) Oops, I veered off my point. Take this "conversation" elsewhere.

@amWhy personally, I don't think it belongs anywhere, so I'll stop conversing on this topic.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Me too; understood.

Me 3.

:-)