Dan Bron

why didn't that autobox?

x.com/dietweeterei/status/1751621352690171911?s=20

speaking of set points in time:

Aw c'mon Tom, give peas a chance.

haha

I'm not so invested anymore, but I do think it would be a shame to disregard and suppress those users' visions for the site by curtailing their earned privileges

go after them on what charges? they are not breaking any rules

We are all shapers of the site, and all our opinions and preferences should be taken into account, excepting obvious bad-fath actors

@alphabet That's slo been tried and doesn't work, and has some bad community side effects. Plus, those people literally did earn their CV priv, saying how they should use it is a bit precious

@alphabet I'd back this proposal, with increasing numbers of voters for each side needed for each subsequent "turn" of the cycle

still not a cycle

@Laurel Then I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but nothing else will either

and back when I was active at leastreally only used and effective in very borderline vases

@Laurel This isn't a cycle, it's an explicit Meta appeal, one that Meta was set up to facilitate

then I think the right soln is to bring an example or 3 to Meta and have the two tribes set out their positions and try to come to a social resolution, because the disease is social, and technical tweaks oly service the symptoms, slightly

@alphabet If it's common, agreed, if it's just a rare case, then we still don't have a closure problem, with have a debate at one edge of question types

@alphabet My take is a question that shows native command (NNS or not) should be answered formally, gramatically, irrespective of the user. That's what we're here to teach. Just "making it make sense" is not eough, but it will improve any formal answer that includes it, agreed.

Oh, the mods themselves don't like asking here. That's different, gotcha.

All the tweaks in the world will net you nothing more than a front page of low-level low-effort uninteresting detritus

@alphabet I don't think we have a closure problem, I think we have a quality question problem.

I agree on the cycles- that indicates a difference of opinion. They should get the benefit of the doubt, IMO. As for other people saying they don't like asking here: sure they don't, we want quality questions, and quality means we ask them to put in effort, which is work. Same old song as on SE, or Usenet before it.

I usually only see NNS-level Qs closed, whether asked by a NNS or not, as our user-blind policies dictate (correctly)

They should be the overwhelmingly popular one.

It always shouldhave been! Just took a while. We should be the niche site.

still don't think permitting baisc workaday Qs from NNSes would have helped and I don't regret the policy or enforcement

agreed

"small town" charm

but the site has been headed this way for years; was probably inevitable after its initial success and it lost its

yeah, real overall downtrend, but no big dip recently AFAICT

originates

but i understand where the mistake originated

Yeah, that's a prevalent misconception about LLMs

asked a questsion for the first time in an eternity recently, was somewhat disappointed by the results, though people put good work in. I wonder if Sven is still around?

I am not totally gone from the site, i check in every week or so

I've been tracking it

they definitely would be unwelcome on the site

@Laurel Yes, I understand

I wonder if the exodus is really mostly to ChatGPT like on the big sites; it seems to me SE isn't a "place to go" anymore

fair

the site has definitely got a subdued air recently, a dropoff in regulars that at least I recognize. I wonder if the drop in closures can be attributed partly to that

An improved Question Wizard would be welcome and a boon, I think

people want this not to be true but it persists neverthless

My feeling is we do get 60% inappropriate questions

nominate himself

Someone convince Sven to nomintate

It was the cat

Both

anyway, lest I embarrass myself further, thanks for the ping. I bow out

@gaazkam Another explanation is predicated on the existence of the phenomenon; but that is the point to be established. First we must establish the phenomenon occurred, then we can debate explanations. But if the only evidence that the phenomenon occurred was mere testimony, then mere testimony isn’t enough.

@Mari-LouA That, and no indication of the comment vote scores before they were moved to chat. I wish the system automatically converted votes to stars when migrating comments to chat.