Timeline for Help us identify new roles for community members
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2023 at 10:06 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
last part wasn't really relevant, trimmed.
|
| Dec 19, 2022 at 8:57 | comment | added | mousetail | Strongly opposed to giving close votes to people who are not active in a site. Valid reasons for closing vary wildly across the network. You could do a lot of damage as a high-rep user applying policies from one site to another. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 15:00 | comment | added | TylerH | I agree with the premise of some tiers of privileges for network association, however I strongly disagree with the premise of 'having more than 30k in gardening [...] does signify I'm likely to be reasonably adept at weeding out the truly bad questions [about Unix]". Different sites often have entirely different metrics for what constitutes a good question. Hell, there's even a site whose entire mod team thinks "+1 thanks" is a perfectly acceptable comment to make on posts. You invite a lot of friction by giving moderation powers to users unfamiliar with a site/community. | |
| Dec 2, 2022 at 18:34 | comment | added | shiny-metal | This is one of the coolest suggestions and I have always been wondering why it's not a standard yet. | |
| Dec 1, 2022 at 18:32 | comment | added | Tetsujin | @starball - I think we're reaching the limit of 'personal space', metaphorically. Don't hound people; one comment, a vote either way, then off to the next post. | |
| Dec 1, 2022 at 18:03 | comment | added | starball | @Tetsujin I'm not agreeing or disagreeing! I'm trying to prompt you to 1) build supporting arguments for your case, 2) explain more of your thought process and make some of what might be implicit to you explicit to us, 3) and consider things you might not have, and 4) make connections between related role suggestions that people might not notice in the flood. I'm not out to get you, and in my own head, I think I have good intentions. I've been doing the same to most posts here. | |
| Dec 1, 2022 at 16:23 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo
|
| Dec 1, 2022 at 13:15 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading [<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/downvote#Noun> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rubber_stamp#Noun> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_clause_structure#Run-on_sentences>]. Expanded.
|
| Dec 1, 2022 at 12:36 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2022 at 12:12 | comment | added | Tetsujin | @TheAmplitwist - I've noted it as needing discussion elsewhere if this entire idea gains traction. I did intend to mean it as just one idea for a consolidated privilege rather than single stack. Clarified slightly. | |
| Dec 1, 2022 at 12:10 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2022 at 12:09 | comment | added | The Amplitwist | I think the part about removing bot comments with a single flag at >30k reputation should be a different answer. It's not really related to "privilege consolidation" as you've described it in the first part of your answer. | |
| Dec 1, 2022 at 12:05 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 111 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2022 at 11:57 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 140 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2022 at 11:25 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 189 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2022 at 11:12 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 351 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2022 at 10:50 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 635 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2022 at 10:39 | comment | added | Tetsujin | I'm throwing ideas in the pool, whether you agree with every sentence is not important. I think the US version of rubber stamp is boiler plate. Flag privs don't take the weight off moderating/review queues, they add to it. I can't even see the review queue icon in some of my newer, quieter groups. At current rate it will take me years to get there, because traffic is so low, but they're out of beta so full scores are needed. | |
| Dec 1, 2022 at 10:36 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 132 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2022 at 10:30 | history | edited | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 132 characters in body
|
| Dec 1, 2022 at 10:23 | history | undeleted | Tetsujin | ||
| Dec 1, 2022 at 10:20 | history | deleted | Tetsujin | via Vote | |
| Dec 1, 2022 at 10:16 | comment | added | starball | "I feel it should grant some of the lower privileges - actual up/down votes, close votes, review queue abilities.". Vote-up privilege comes at 15 rep. Site association bonus is 100. Vote-down is at 125 rep. That's like 13 approved edits, or one upvoted and accepted answer. Concerning review queue privileges, that role suggestion has already been made here: here. | |
| Dec 1, 2022 at 10:13 | comment | added | starball | You mention wanting close votes. Flag privilege comes at 15 rep, and association bonus is 100. Why do you think having the flag privilege is insufficient for you to help other communities? Flags either show up to mods or to queue reviewers. That's a big help already (I think). | |
| Dec 1, 2022 at 10:09 | comment | added | starball | By "pointless rubber stamp", do you mean "canned comment"? I didn't understand what you meant there. Also, I don't think you need to mention gold-badge-hammers- assuming that two sites don't have the same tags or know/care about what tags you have on other sites. | |
| Dec 1, 2022 at 10:05 | history | answered | Tetsujin | CC BY-SA 4.0 |