Thanks very much! I will try searching meta next time I have a question like this.

@XanderHenderson I'm sorry to say, but there are as many users as ever undeterred by quality standards.

I have to say that Buraian had a point in this post in the sense, I think he sincerely wants to honor quality standards, while at the same time, we currently have a cohort who seem to feel safe from EoQS while rapidly answering PSQs, to gain privileges, given the mods have accosted users for flagging for EoQS on users under 20K, even when 90% of their answers are to worst case PSQs.

The EoQS post needs to more clearly state that any pattern of repeated violations of quality standards from answerers, is actionable. I mean an asker who repeatedly asks poor questions is question limited rather quickly.

@Xander If you think my last two comments are a better fit for the mods' office chat, feel free to move them. (I would, but you ensured I can't move anything.)

I won't flag 5k, who become 10k, then 15k and more within a rather short period of time, by ignoring quality standards, because you and others have made clear the aim of EoQS is to address "habitual" violators. Then you need to define, "habitual". If a user gains 1000 rep by answering 250 questions, in two weeks, 200 of them answers to PSQs, there is a problem

@Xander Just seeking an update, and more clarity. Perhaps better to do in the mods' office, or in the math meta chatroom. This isn't on you, nor on the mods; I'm just giving heads up, and seeking guidance with respect to some of the situations I mention above. Nothing urgent. Laters...

@amWhy I think that it is an exaggeration to say that users have been "accosted" for raising flags on users with lower XP. It might also be worth noting that my own feelings are changing---last summer, when EoQS was new, we had a massive backlog of flags (the moderator election was, in part, meant to help with the backlog). The request was to focus on high rep users, largely as a method of triage.

At this moment in time, we are actually reasonably on top of the flags (the queue is measured in 10s, not 100s), thus I have more energy to look at users with little XP.

← 8 messages moved from CURED

In any event, I still think that it is best to go slow with new users, and give them a chance to learn the site norms. Moderator messages (and suspensions) are quite heavy handed, and I would rather that the community send a strong message to such users that they need to be careful about selecting questions to answer.

On the other hand, because we don't have a massive backlog of flags any longer, I am more inclined to spend time looking at newer accounts.

@XanderHenderson I'm mainly concerned about a dozen or so users between 10 k and 50K. Occasionally, 5k, when I know I or others have linked to the EoQS post. I have no interest in anyone much less than 5K. I understand the need for patience.

@amWhy Honestly, a user with 5k XP really ought to know better by now.

Similarly, anyone who has been around for more than a couple of months should know better.

Also, more and more of the EoQS flags are getting clear as "helpful, but there is not enough of a pattern to warrant more than a moderator message (if that)", so there seems to be some change in attitudes.

@XanderHenderson I agree. I just wanted to let you know I'm quite reasonable in this respect.

The mass of the aircraft carrier is turning. It just takes time.

@XanderHenderson I agree. I hope meta moves on at some point, from the "you rant, we cheer" site for disgruntled users that its become. A post today seemed oblivious to the purpose of EoQS, though they didn't cite that. It was more "so, the question was a PSQ, but the quality of my answer naturally should make the post worth keeping..." I couldn't find a dupe. I think your EoQS post answers that beautifully: One shouldn't have answered in the first place....

While it is frustrating to me, I have no doubt it can get frustrating to mods, as well. I just give you a lot of credit, Xander, for "standing tall".