3
$\begingroup$

This comment says:

@uhoh: That's good for you. It is very unclear to me, because your interpretation doesn't make sense, as other comments have pointed out. Not objective indeed, maybe you should refrain from policing this website as if it were your own.

I fell that I've understood the OP's question quite well and think that the edit I've made to the sticks quite closely to the original question, and only makes it a bit better fit to the site. There were some requests for clarifications and the OP did respond but apparently not to everyone's satisfaction.

Questions:

  1. But I was surprised at the "policing this website as if it were your own" dig. Do I do that?

  2. The question and the OP's follow-up comment both feel quite clear to me even if it isn't to others, and I've since posted an answer. Rather than have the OP, a new user to the site run the gauntlet, why not just wait for the OP to respond if this answers the question?

I don't think I've negated anyone else's comments about the question, it's just that to me the OP makes complete sense. Since this is a new user, this action seemed the most productive, expedient and welcoming way to get to a conclusion.

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I feel the commenter was over-reacting. Your edit and comments were reasonable to me. Frankly, I don't completely understand what OP was asking (my confusion is due to some assumptions on my part; doesn't matter in the context of this meta-post) but as you pointed out, "unclear" is not an objective measure. $\endgroup$ – DarkDust Dec 2 '19 at 9:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Why make this public like this? Imo, if there are such issues people should get in touch personally (e.g. in chat) or ask for moderation (also in private). This is not a community issue as far as I can see. Just be yourself unless officially told otherwise. $\endgroup$ – Everyday Astronaut Dec 2 '19 at 13:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @EverydayAstronaut I'm a pretty active member and I do a lot of question-editing on new users' first questions, so if other members of the community also felt this way I'd definitely like to know about it! Burying this in chat would't give others a chance to chime in. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Dec 3 '19 at 2:46
9
$\begingroup$

By @uhoh:

@AtmosphericPrisonEscape "unclear" is not an objective concept. It's quite clear to me

You have used this subjective phrasing before to justify actions. While pointing out how other's phrasing or actions are not objective/somehow not understandable to you, you yourself commit to courses of action that are not objective and far from obvious.

It is beyond me how you can have the audacity of interpreting meaning into a question so obscure, and (as to now) still without OPs clarification on what it actually means.

Also I'm not sure how and why, instead of thinking about your way of acting, you're trying to avoid the issue by putting this on meta and making this into a kind of popularity contest.

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for your post! The stated purpose of posting this question is to welcome you to expand on your comment; I don't think I've ever done anything to be "popular". I've only said that "unclear" is subjective, so it can be simultaneously unclear to some and clear to others. To me it's clear, but I never suggested that it's objectively clear. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Dec 2 '19 at 12:05
4
$\begingroup$

Yes.

A feeling of stewardship over a shared resource isn't a bad thing and is, to an extent, encouraged.

Sometimes, if others disagree with you, you come to meta to denounce them.

||||||
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If I indeed denounce, hopefully it's actions rather than users (e.g. the insta-closings rather than the insta-closers) $\endgroup$ – uhoh Dec 2 '19 at 10:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I would change "denounce them" to "discuss it further", but otherwise agree with this. $\endgroup$ – PearsonArtPhoto♦ Dec 2 '19 at 11:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .