Timeline for On the subject of moderation by single individuals
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22, 2011 at 11:06 | comment | added | Deepak Vaid | @Carl, it wasn't a post but a back and forth in the comments. Anyhow that situation is water under the bridge. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 4:33 | comment | added | Carl Brannen | Space_cadet; What was the post that got you a 2 week suspension? | |
| Jan 21, 2011 at 10:43 | comment | added | Deepak Vaid | I am not in favor of adding any more rules to the FAQ or anywhere else. Such a piecemeal approach is inefficient at best and destructive at best. If there is a situation where one needs to close lots of questions under short time ... I don't think that is any clear and present danger of that happening. Moderators on this site have, in fact, been subject to moderation. In particular I was recently awarded a two-week suspension by a mod which was rescinded by the super-mods on consideration of the facts. | |
| Jan 21, 2011 at 9:09 | comment | added | Carl Brannen | The basic problem is the question of whether or not a question is in "100% clear violation". For example, suppose someone asks a question about a preferred reference frame. There are some physicists who believe that this is a bad idea that was proven wrong long ago. There are others who disagree and papers are still published on the subject. Eventually, in the fullness of time, you will have a moderator who closes a question of this nature. | |
| Jan 21, 2011 at 8:06 | history | edited | TROLLHUNTER | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 41 characters in body; added 290 characters in body
|
| Jan 21, 2011 at 7:59 | history | answered | TROLLHUNTER | CC BY-SA 2.5 |