OK. I agree this is a legitimate issue with the proposal, but it’s the best idea I know of that can be implemented without site changes (and we all know how easily site changes happen).
Do you agree, though, that the sporadic meta flame wars are a problem? (If not, it’s worth noting that other people do find it a significant ugh field- beware trivial inconveniences to their use of the site too.)
I apologize, there was a html error in my comment and so most of it was accidentally eaten; I recommend rereading it. In particular, I’m curious if you think the Recent Unpleasantness with V_V was a flamewar or not.
Do you agree, though, that the sporadic meta flame wars are a problem?
I disagree with the words “flame” and “a”: I think that the meta discussions that generate the most heat are discussions about the use of moderator power, and I think those discussions are often gone about in a suboptimal manner. I think that there are significant cheap improvements to the way those discussions occur, and significant cheap improvements that make those discussions less frequent.
I don’t think that meta discussions as a whole should be avoided, because there are many meta topics that are useful. If people get the sense that there is too much meta discussion going on, I suspect that’s generally a disguised complaint that there’s not enough object discussion going on, and it is better cured by subsidizing / generating object discussion than penalizing meta discussion.
Edited to add: I didn’t elaborate on my disagreement with “a” enough. I think there are several related problems that meta discussions bring up, and I think that targeting those problems individually is superior to a blanket ban / penalization.
Yes, the recent unpleasantness was the reason I made this post. And I don’t think there’s much evidence to the effect that meta arguments happen more when there’s less other content on the site; I think it flares up at pretty random intervals.
OK. I agree this is a legitimate issue with the proposal, but it’s the best idea I know of that can be implemented without site changes (and we all know how easily site changes happen).
Do you agree, though, that the sporadic meta flame wars are a problem? (If not, it’s worth noting that other people do find it a significant ugh field- beware trivial inconveniences to their use of the site too.)
I apologize, there was a html error in my comment and so most of it was accidentally eaten; I recommend rereading it. In particular, I’m curious if you think the Recent Unpleasantness with V_V was a flamewar or not.
I disagree with the words “flame” and “a”: I think that the meta discussions that generate the most heat are discussions about the use of moderator power, and I think those discussions are often gone about in a suboptimal manner. I think that there are significant cheap improvements to the way those discussions occur, and significant cheap improvements that make those discussions less frequent.
I don’t think that meta discussions as a whole should be avoided, because there are many meta topics that are useful. If people get the sense that there is too much meta discussion going on, I suspect that’s generally a disguised complaint that there’s not enough object discussion going on, and it is better cured by subsidizing / generating object discussion than penalizing meta discussion.
Edited to add: I didn’t elaborate on my disagreement with “a” enough. I think there are several related problems that meta discussions bring up, and I think that targeting those problems individually is superior to a blanket ban / penalization.
Yes, the recent unpleasantness was the reason I made this post. And I don’t think there’s much evidence to the effect that meta arguments happen more when there’s less other content on the site; I think it flares up at pretty random intervals.