Want more features on Pastebin? Sign Up, it's FREE!
Guest

Untitled

By: a guest on Feb 8th, 2010  |  syntax: None  |  size: 5.87 KB  |  views: 172  |  expires: Never
download  |  raw  |  embed  |  report abuse  |  print
This paste has a previous version, view the difference. Text below is selected. Please press Ctrl+C to copy to your clipboard. (⌘+C on Mac)
  1. stackoverflow team <team@stackoverflow.com> Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:19 PM
  2.  
  3. Rich,
  4.  
  5. Every day on meta has become (and remains, even after my warning) a tedious slog through a dozen different flags since you returned to meta. When you are there, meta becomes an angry place full of discord and unhappiness.
  6.  
  7. It's really tedious and takes up a lot of my time to deal with the fallout.
  8.  
  9. I appreciate that you tried to make it work, but I don't think it's possible for it to work at this point.
  10.  
  11. As per my previous warning, I am instituting a 365 day timed suspension. I don't think meta is the right place for you.
  12.  
  13. --
  14.  
  15. ---
  16.  
  17. http://stackoverflow.com
  18.  
  19. To: stackoverflow team <team@stackoverflow.com>
  20.  
  21. What exactly is it that I did?
  22.  
  23. You deleted a post of mine with no explanation, and I see it violating no rules and I asked what rationale there was, since it surely could have been edited if there was something wrong with it. Of course I got no reply to that, which is a problem.
  24.  
  25. Other than that today, I think I was rather helpful today with plenty of upvotes to show for it. I am not aware of any problems where there was 'anger', 'discord', and 'unhappiness'. Can you show me where that occurred?
  26.  
  27. It is becoming pretty clear to me at this point that you were just looking for a reason to ban me, although I cannot really even say I think you found one. I suspect you are just doing it anyway.
  28.  
  29. To: stackoverflow team <team@stackoverflow.com>
  30.  
  31. Right, that is what I figured.
  32.  
  33. stackoverflow team <team@stackoverflow.com> Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 6:05 PM
  34.  
  35. It gives me no pleasure to put anyone in timed suspension. But it is sometimes necessary to preserve community on the site.
  36.  
  37. The guideline was quite clear: don't generate multiple flags every day.
  38.  
  39. You kept generating 5+ user flags, every day, like clockwork. This requires time for the moderators to clean up, and it also causes a lot of discord and anger in the site community, which leads to even more problems and flags.
  40.  
  41. This is time I don't have to spend on any -- literally any! -- other users in the system. No other user that I can ever recall, save Sasha, EVER generated as many flags as you do, every day, day in, day out, day after day, consistently time and time again.
  42.  
  43. While I definitely appreciate that you tried to work with us on this, I think it's clear that the relationship is not working out on meta. It is time for us to cite irreconcilable differences and go our separate ways.
  44.  
  45. --
  46.  
  47. ---
  48.  
  49. http://stackoverflow.com
  50.  
  51. To: stackoverflow team <team@stackoverflow.com>
  52.  
  53. That is hopelessly irrational judgement unless you can point to comments that were generating multiple flags.
  54.  
  55. Of course, I think you know that and that is why you continually ignore my requests for evidence of such comments.
  56.  
  57. You and I both know that there is no need to follow up on comment flags, as once they reach the threshold, they take care of themselves. Obviously they were not reaching any such threshold and you are just greasing squeaky wheels.
  58.  
  59. stackoverflow team <team@stackoverflow.com> Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 5:42 AM
  60.  
  61. Rich,
  62.  
  63. I do think you have some positive stuff to contribute -- the problem is all the negative friction that you tend to generate along the way.
  64.  
  65. I feel we have been more than generous and patient in trying to get this situation to work, but despite all our efforts, it just isn't -- classic irreconcilable differences.
  66.  
  67. With all respect, I urge you to consider why this happens, and how *you* could change it. I suspect it is not having a positive effect on you in your career, or in your life, and that's a shame because you are fundamentally a talented guy. This accidental negativity and friction is holding you back.
  68.  
  69. Jeff
  70.  
  71. --
  72.  
  73. ---
  74.  
  75. http://stackoverflow.com
  76.  
  77. To: stackoverflow team <team@stackoverflow.com>
  78.  
  79. Jeff,
  80.  
  81. It appears that you are just going to continue to ignore my requests for some kind of evidence of comments that were offensive or caused 'negative friction' (whatever that is) on the day you decided to ban me for comments. That is not 'irreconcilable differences' because it makes no attempt to reconcile.
  82.  
  83. You keep saying that you think you have been 'generous and patient' and yet the problems you describe you are unable to back up with evidence of any kind of rules being broken. If so many of my comments are being flagged by so many different people, a) they would be getting deleted automatically and you wouldn't be complaining about the effort you are exerting and b) you would have been able to produce examples of these comments. Neither is true.
  84.  
  85. The issues may indeed be 'irreconcilable', but it is clear from your refusal to address the facts and your tendency to lean towards what you seem to (erroneously) think is a personal attack that the issues exist on your end.
  86.  
  87. Whatever your personal issue with me has been (I have still not quite identified what root issue has caused you so much emotional trauma), I contributed a lot to your site since the beta days, and the adult thing to do would have been to address any issues with me like an adult. Instead, you let yourself be led around like a child's toy by a hyper sensitive minority that disliked the basic principles the site was founded on. The most evident (and pivotal to me) violation of principles was your tirade about the editing of Mark Harrison's posts. The idea that you would side with a crybaby user and issue a 'do not edit' order to a member of the community that edited a good percentage of your traffic (with positive effects) was the epitome of what is wrong with your moderation. That is when I lost respect for your concept of moderation and knew what kind of decisions you would be making. You should be ashamed.
  88.  
  89. It is quite clear you are unable to address the issue like an adult. That is sad and unfortunate, I really enjoyed my time helping with this project and being a pivotal (albeit controversial) member of the community.
  90.  
  91. -Rich B
clone this paste RAW Paste Data