Central location for submitting topics for room meetings
This repository holds the topics people would like to discuss at SOCVR's room meetings. Older topics can be found in the old repository.
Content should be deleted when it offers absolutely zero value to the site. However, why it lacks any value should be explained, for example ("nth duplicate"). As such the "has no value to stay on site" del-pls example should be deleted from the FAQ.
SO Channels (MSO) are a kind of private space on SO.
Should we request one for SOCVR to put stuff like FAQ elements, userscripts, questions from regulars or outsiders (or lost ROs I guess), whatever?
Prompted by mickmackusa in SOCVR:
Am I allowed to ask this room to euthanize my accepted answer? I only got my search terms right after answering this basic dupe. I don't want to be a hypocrite and scold others, yet answer basic dupes myself.
If assisted killing is not kosher, I'd like the RO's to consider it in the future.
Assuming for the moment that this is just about answers (not questions), should del-pls requests be allowed for your own posts which are accepted or upvoted by others to the point where you cannot self-delete unilaterally? What about undelete requests on things you cannot unilaterally undelete (just for total coverage in both directions)?
This is currently prevented by Rule #15:
Do not request action on posts or edits where you are involved or where you have a conflict of interest.
For questions and answers:
- You are "involved" in the post if you are the post's original author.
[...]
Prior discussion related to this issue was discussed in the August 2018 room meeting, but that discussion focused on Close/Reopen requests and did not include any discussion on Delete/Undelete requests: https://socvr.org/room-info/room-meetings/2018-08
Bad review audits can be handled by normal users (as in, downvote & VtC or reopen an audit question, so that it ceases to be an audit?).
Do we want the room to be open for such requests and if yes, what would the rules be to govern those requests.
Idea from Stephen Leppik with as background: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/357905/578411
And if yes, what should that participation look like?
Is this really useful? Is it helping? Can we not have this rule and just use common sense? When new users come in and ask to reopen a post they have a stake in they violate the rule but we allow it (at least I do because if it really needs to be handled we should help).
This topic is not intended to create a rule, but to give reference for new user on how the members of SOCVR evaluate the number of cv-pls request sent by a single user, lets create some guidelines.
Uh, this topic by petter missed two meetings, making a new issue here so that it can be raised in this meeting.
Queen is passing duplicate notifications, she has started to send offensive comments... How much can we take of this breaking train bee?
Let me give you some stats about all the dupes closed and tell me what you think.
Now that there is a specific burnination related chat room, do we still need to keep the "contact SOCVR" in the burnination template, or do we delegate it to that room?
Are we even being affected by it? Have there been any users who have visited our room asking for advice/criticized our actions due to the room name being there?
A lot of the non-FAQ content on our website is either out of date or not user friendly. This task is to spruce up the site to make it easier for readers to find what they are looking for, take out unimportant stuff, and clean up the rest.
Site styles can be modified as well. Communicate with gunr if more features need to be added to the server.
During one room meeting we decided that:
"It seems we have reached a consensus: we will not allow tag-editing for handing off to gold badge holders."
https://chat.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/29750947#29750947
However, this decision is only reflected in the team meeting minutes on socvr.org, and is not listed anywhere in the 'general expectations' or rules for members. Seeing as how this is an expectation for members, can it please be added to the list of rules somewhere?
We have dogs, cats, squirrels, unicorns and much more undefined stuff wandering around in the room. Can we still ensure an healthy climate among our regulars or do we need moar rulez?
Now and then situations pop-up where an auto-comment doesn't result in the predicted outcome but instead cause an opposite effect, for example mentioned here.
User Pekka ์ suggests in a comment:
...there is something to be said for customizing comments a bit so they don't look like a standard message you post everywhere. [...] I can see how to someone in a bad mood/feeling intimidated by the place/being under a lot of stress a comment like that could come across as condescending. One could try to point out something that's wrong with the specific post
Is this something we can incorporate in our stock auto-comments, maybe with having extension points or is the shrug it off, move on attitude enough? Do you use a common tactic to tailor those already?
If this is too specific, we could broaden the topic and ask ourselves: Is a rude/abusive/criticizing comment reason to review the used (auto)-comment and improve over it?
In the userscript the "c" will output "Needs Details or Clarity" but if you can't use the userscript that is a lot to type.
For those cases being able to shorten it to NDC would save time / effort.
What abbreviations can we use in the transcript?
SOCVR should only accept close (reopen, etc etc) requests and all the other chatty messages should be avoided
source: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/380448/off-topic-chats-in-so-chat-rooms
from: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/9134576/zlytherin
SO is lowering the votes threshold to close and reopen questions.
As an obvious effect, it is now easier to close questions. It is common to post cv-pls requests in the SOCVR. These together, might mean that there is now a very potent effect to posting cv-pls requests, and it's possible but not necessary that changes in policy be needed?
There was already some discussion about it in chat (message from TylerH):
@NathanOliver-ReinstateMonica @chipster Yeah; no change should be necessary for the room at least for a week or so. The queue should start to drop a bit, though, and eventually the room will thin out too re: outstanding requests. But we'll still probably run out of CVs as frequently. Currently we tend to have more requests than can be fulfilled in a given day.
The goal of this issue is that this topic be brought to the attention of the meeting, not to imply that any change should be undertaken.
So we already have a general rule about not pinging mods, but we probably should expand that somewhat, since there are some grey areas that people get confused about. I would propose we adopt these three simple rules about pinging mods
Pings to a moderator that break these rules may be dealt with by kicks and/or removal of the offending messages.
We had an issue with a pair of questions being discussed on Meta. Question 1 had been marked as a duplicate of Question 2, which had resulted in this Meta.SO question. Meta effect had reopened Question 1. That prompted two separate users (one of whom had closed Question 1) to post cv-pls requests. The request on Question 2 was binned for being on an inactive question (12 months). The request on Question 1 was binned for being on an active Meta discussion (Meta had just reopened it). The person who opened the CV on Question 1 had been the hammer that closed it previously.
There are no official rules on this, but perhaps we need to amend Rule 11 as such
We also probably need to amend Rule 15
Do we all agree that the cv queue is broke?, if so should we push as a room to try and fix the problem?
The most obvious solution would be to rant to the DAG team that they need to lower the cv needed to close a question another can be to take turns and ping Shog9 every day.
Should we rant or who gives we close what we can and hope that dv does the rest?
In the rare occasions that I post an answer I would really love to have it proofread by a native speaker. It seems a bit cumbersome to head off to English Learner chat or Writers.se.
Instead I would like to ask the regulars of SOCVR to proofread my post to iron out the most obvious spelling and grammar mistakes.
However, the room has already several rules that prohibit to link to your own post, or posts you have a stake in. Can I request the room to scrutinize my own post for quality or is this a conflict of interest?
If I can, what would be the preferred format and/or etiquette?
I hope I made many mistakes in this topic
Should we permit people to post approve-pls requests about their own suggested edits when both of the following conditions apply:
We've had a few requests matching these circumstances over the last several months.
Some additional context is available in the discussion for pull request #8.
Full disclosure: I've made one such request.
The FAQ says that 3k+ users should vote to close five other questions for every request they file, and that <3k users should "refrain" from filing such requests (since they can't give back as they don't have enough rep). However, I've often seen (from personal experience) that certain requests from <3k users are de facto accepted within limits.
Since there is no explicit, enforced policy with regards to <3k+ rep users filing such requests, should we officially codify one? Should it be altogether disallowed, or should it be allowed but with explicit limits (e.g. no more than two at a time, can only file if it's disputed or about to be disputed in Triage, can file if there was a bot report, etc.)?
Also, what about [del-pls] requests?
Should SOCVR actively encourage clean-up (delete bad answers) of canonical questions?
If so how?
Keep a list for 20k, userscript with special tag?
This is inspired from TylerH's meta, https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/380811/5292302
The name insinuates illness of anyone who's send there.
That is maybe not the feeling we want to go with that.
This topic is here to seek a new name.
Design criteria:
Post and Vote on the suggestions below or vote on this post, if you feel no change is needed.
One suggestion per comment please!
Per the new Code of Conduct (and to stop providing a potential crutch for users who might push the line a bit in requests), we should revisit instances of or references to the term "crap" in our FAQ.
I believe in almost all cases we can replace "crap" with "low-quality posts" or "low-quality answers" without losing any meaning but gaining a lot of professional courtesy. I will follow up on this issue before the next meeting with a list of every instance (or if someone else beats me to it, that's fine).
Regarding this conversation: https://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/41570/conversation/bin-wrong-cv-pls-requests
From time to time users may post a [cv-pls] (or other *-pls) request that is based on, or that contains, some factually or demonstrably wrong meta-data/reasoning. For example:
An inaccurate close reason may be used or the question may be described inaccurately:
There was no clear consensus when the room held an impromptu discussion on this. I was in favor of some kind of action the room community can take beyond:
waiting 3 days for the request to either fall past the threshold where the Room Cleanup script will bin it, or more likely,
where enough people will see it, trust in the requestor's judgment (without seeing any ensuing counter comments), and vote on a question that ought not to be voted on a particular way.
There is also precedent of Room Owners (hereafter referred to as 'RO') doing this. The suggestion then, is:
Whether at least two non-requesting*, non-RO SOCVR members, providing clear and objective reasoning that a *-pls request uses incorrect/inaccurate reasons--barring a logical/reasoned explanation for the choice by the requestor**--qualifies said request for being manually binned by an RO (who should obviously agree with said consensus).
It should be noted that, should such a policy be agreed upon and enacted, use of this action should not constitute a "punitive" action, nor be perceived, nor intended, as an action "against" a user, but rather as a corrective, educational action taken on a request to prevent unnecessary, incorrect, harmful, or undue action being taken on a question, comment, or answer that otherwise does not deserve said action.
* - non-requesting here meaning two users other than the one who made the *-pls request. This means a total of three users (two normal and one RO) should agree explicitly (the two normal users by saying something, and the RO by binning) that the request is wrong/incorrect. If the requestor agrees that the request should be binned, they already have unilateral 'authority' to request for a Room Owner to do so, and should continue to do so under this proposed rule.
** - if the requestor is able to provide a reasonable/logical explanation for their choice (e.g. not just "I skimmed the question and made this conclusion" or "I don't know enough about it to really say"), then the situation would be one of differing informed opinions, and thus should remain in the transcript. For lack of an immediate set of rules here, this would be left up to the participants of the discussion, with final ruling, as always, resting in the hands of the RO team, or moderators, if necessary.
Should we remove the link, keeping only the user name (to track stalkers) from the cv-pls user-script?
As I see it, it is of no use (you only risk mis-clicking) and probably it is also politically incorrect. (don't link user profile's in chat).
A question was presented today from the site Close Queue that was well outside the active window. When the user was reminded that a question needed recent activity in accordance with Rule #11, they asked why a Suggested Edit could be OK but not a CVQ entry. It's not clear we've ever set any official rules to this effect. The proposal here is to formalize the following:
A question is considered active by SO when it is
Comments and review queues by themselves do not change this. Logically, it would be acceptable to throw a Suggested Edit (not made by the requester, per Rule #27) into that mix as well (since someone is trying to edit the question, and thus make it active). The theory here is that we don't want to necessarily see someone approve an otherwise meaningless edit, just to make the question active, and thus CV-able.
Conversely, it would not make sense to allow this exception for other review queues. By definition, Triage, H&I, First Posts and Late Answers(NATO) deal with questions that are already considered active. Most of LQP is on newer answers (i.e. the question would be active anyways), so a CV from there that wouldn't normally qualify should be rare. Reopen Queue doesn't need CVs because it's already closed.
That leaves the Close Queue, and we've made it clear we don't want CV-ing to become a habit. If a user comes across a question in the Close Queue, that should not, in of itself, allow a CV to be posted. It's already in the queue, and it could have been started by the requester (you can't tell until the review is completed). As such, it doesn't make sense to extend this exception to an active CVQ review.
There could be one edge case that would, however, be acceptable. If a user comes across a CVQ that they did not start, that closure is rejected, and the user feels strongly that the question should be closed, they can post a CV on it. This requires the user to watch the review for its rejection, which is not an easy process. Like [del-pls], the nuisance factor of watching a specific review should be enough of a deterrent that these should be rare.
The proposed syntax here would be
[tag:cv-pls] Close Reason Here /some/question/link (related to /some/review/link)
The suggested edit queue is often full, this makes it impossible for <2000 user to edit posts. Do we like to intervene? and if so how? or is it better that the low-rep plebe don't touch anything.
It seems also to have affect on edit mod flags (I'm not sure why), chat message by halfer, chat message by Mark Amery
See also meta by Brad
I have often said (and seen others [ROs and non-ROs alike]) comment on some cv-pls requests, asking them to stick to the prescribed close reasons when posting cv-pls messages. The reasoning behind this is sound: the room should strive to be above reproach, and we don't need to put a target on our back by becoming a place where someone can post a cv-pls with the reason "trash question" or something similar.
However, when I looked through the FAQ, I couldn't find anything about this, and I swear it used to be mentioned somewhere.
Can we get some clarification from the RO team on whether this is still in effect? If so, can it be added (back) to the FAQ, and a general reminder given to the room as a whole?
Running the RO cleanup script moves all completed requests, and all cv-pls requests older than 3 days (7 days for del-pls requests), to the Requests graveyard.
If a *-pls request is not "fulfilled" (e.g. closed, deleted, reopened, etc.) within those 7 days, and the original request is moved to the graveyard, should one additional *-pls request be allowed*?
Reasons for (non-exhaustive):
*-pls action for a different or more glaring/pressing reason.Reasons against (non-exhaustive):
*-pls requests (if you know about the feature/use a script, remember to do it, and have votes to spare).*-pls'd is not acted upon within 7 days, there's a chance the Q/A may no longer be "active" (receiving activity that bumps it to the homepage or top of 'recent activity' lists), and thus may not be a pressing situation where focused eyes/votes are needed.There's currently nothing in the FAQ about this nor a consensus in the room on how it should be handled.
* - Specifying one additional cv-pls because if a cv-pls request is posted twice, I feel that is enough of an opportunity for what amounts to an approved voting mob to handle it if handling it by SOCVR is something that's needed.
No 15 on the FAQ states "Do not request action on posts or edits where you are involved or where you have a conflict of interest." I disagree with this rule.
After some discussions in the chat room, I came away with two possible intentions for this rule:
Prevent the situation where a user might answer a question, then convince other people to close the question for some reason, thus ensuring no one else can answer.
Prevent there from being the appearance of some sort of favoritism by SOCVR members on behalf of one of the users participating in a post.
If I have unfairly stated those reasons, feel free to let me know. I don't agree with them, which is why I have such a hard time getting myself to see things from that viewpoint and give it a fair description.
Now, to dispute those points. I disagree with No 1, because that can happen anyways. How hard would it be for someone to gain the 20pts required to participate in a chat room? So someone could create a separate account, use it to make requests in SOCVR that work in their behavior. Or they could ask a friend to request for them. So this rule that SOCVR in actuality does not prevent the thing it's intended to prevent. It just barely mitigates it at all. What's a better way to fight against this sort of behavior? I typically downvote answers on questions that are clearly off-topic, even if the answer contains otherwise useful information. This teaches people that they should consider the rules before answering, and keeps them from being rewarded for rewarding others in breaking the rules. This is getting away from the point of SOCVR, but my point is that it shouldn't be on SOCVR to worry about these issues.
I disagree with No 2, because it's just silly. Users can and often do complain when their question is closed anyways, even if the person that requested action didn't have prior involvement in a post. As users entrusted with moderation privileges, it is our duty/right to use all the tools at our disposal to help keep the content of the site clean. If you are presented with bad content, then you should clean it up, regardless of how it came to your attention. The primary focus of those participating as moderators should be on the content. Even if someone does something for personal revenge or other nefarious motivations, those actions are almost never unilateral and still require the ascent of multiple other users who have been entrusted with moderation privileges.
If someone does raise a complaint, then the CM team or elected moderators can look into the issue and decide whether the appropriate action was taken. If there's a repeat history of a user abusing their moderation privileges for personal reasons, then they can take appropriate action.
My Stack Overflow username is mason on Stack Overflow. Not sure if you need to know that for some reason. I'm unaccustomed to participating in SOCVR besides occasionally popping in to make a request (and jumping on some of the relevant requests I see).
We have always shied away from voting as a general policy (e.g. "We are not a voting ring"). But we do have an odd grey area: 20k deletion.
If a question is closed and has a -3 score, 20k users can vote for immediate deletion. Sometimes, however, people will throw up questions not at -3. People will then go to the question and then downvote to allow deletion (which is acceptable). How should we handle this?
As noted elsewhere, the current FAQ page is somewhat bulky and cumbersome. With nothing but a single list of rules, adding new rules is difficult and has lead to some bulky rules in the middle.
I forked the current site and rewrote the FAQ page to try and address this.
This proposed page can be viewed here https://github.com/machavity/socvr-website-content/blob/master/pages/faq.md
Thoughts and feedback are welcome
As an RO, I've noticed instances where people drop many close vote requests into the room when they are not in the room themselves. While most of the time the requests are valid, if people have feedback to give it there is no good way to notify the poster. It takes (by default) 15 minutes for a ping in chat to reach a person's inbox.
In SOCVR we allow cv-pls and delv-pls to close and remove questions.
While we all agree we moderate content of a post it is possible by posting cv-pls and subsequent delv-pls to remove the answers as well that were posted on these questions.
What if those cv-pls and delv-pls are strategically posted to target certain OP's that posts answers to duplicate and/or low quality questions. Is that something we want to detect, warn and/or forbid.?
If so, how? if not, why is this okay and defend-able on meta when oposition is raised?
a bit of context here
Is there a rule/guideline for how long we should wait before posting a cv-pls request?
Maybe like wait until the 5 min grace period is over?
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
๐ Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. ๐๐๐
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
Google
Google โค๏ธ Open Source for everyone.
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
Tencent
China tencent open source team.