Sign Up Sign In

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Why was this answer to the volunteer-discussion removed?


For what reasons post (answer or question) might be removed by moderator / staff ?

I do not ask about obvious reasons like spam, off-topic, base rule violations, etc here.

Context: history.


Obviously, author of the post wasn't agreed with decision.

To my opinion this answer is bad: hasty and rash. I, personally, would suggest removing it to its author. But I see no reason to delete it forcefully.

In the answer that I've referenced above author merely expressed they opinion: no more. They might be completely wrong but they has rights to express it freely, isn't it ?

Why should this post be closed?


I changed the title because this question seems to be more to be about a specific post rather than deletion in general. If this isn't what you intended, please revert and clarify. ‭luap42 is a ghost 👻 ‭ 22 days ago

@luap42 yep, my question was general, about current rules. I asked the question because I noticed removed answer. I'm not really interested in why the specific answer was removed but quite the opposite I want to be sure that answers & questions won't removed only because they contains something that someone from staff & moderators dislike. ‭FoggyFinder‭ 22 days ago

@luap42 Since there is a statement that community-run Q&A platform; by the community, for the community. I want to discuss and create rules if needed as soon as possible to avoid misunderstaning, unfounded accusations (in both sides), resentment etc that leads to dramas. All users are different but any is valuable. Even those who seems doesn't respect project....(1/2) ‭FoggyFinder‭ 22 days ago

To my opinion post was removed by mistake. I'm not going to make any conclusion by one, two decisions with whom I disagree. That's fine (I actually like it, otherwise it would be boring). But freedome of speech is a red line to me. If community doesn't want to hear negative feedback - well, then I don't want to be part of such community. Again I'm not saying it's bad thing. It's just one that I find inaccepable for myself. (2/2) ‭FoggyFinder‭ 22 days ago

@FoggyFinder there has been some more internal discussion regarding the deleted answer. We'll post an update soon, which will contain our new stance on that specific post. Unfortunately, this post seems to have been misinterpreted by most people (including me) to be mostly about the one specific post. Maybe it'd be better to ask a new one than to change this one now, so that the context of the answers isn't invalidated? ‭luap42 is a ghost 👻 ‭ 22 days ago

Show 1 more comments

2 answers


That answer (and this meta question) prompted a lot of discussion. This discussion is a good outcome. We are by the community, for the community, which means if the community questions what we're doing, we need to discuss that. We don't need to keep engaging if someone is clearly out to be disruptive (i.e. don't feed the trolls), but that's not what happened here. I think we have a group of people who care deeply about Codidact and its communities (good!) who don't always agree (expected!) and who vary in how they express themselves (also expected).

The answer, especially in the broader context of the question (from the same author) and other activity, came across as disrespectful bordering on personal attack. Criticism of decisions is fine, and encouraged -- if you see something that concerns you, bring it up! But criticism still needs to be constructive, and "you should all step down and give me complete power" doesn't sound very constructive. What productive responses could we expect from that?

When faced with a moderation issue we strive to take the smallest action that fixes the problem. A single rude comment? Delete it. An otherwise-ok post with some problematic content? Edit it. A user skirting the boundaries of acceptable behavior? Send a warning. Somebody suddenly going wild with inappropriate behavior (drunk, compromised account, whatever)? Suspend to stop the damage and then discuss. And so on.

This answer attracted flags and struck several team members as being on the wrong side of the line. Deleting it seemed the best response in the moment. But the issue can be fixed with an edit, allowing the post to be undeleted, so we have done that. The edit removed one problematic paragraph and also changed some talk-about-yourself-in-the-third-person language that was obfuscating this self-answer.

Codidact is a volunteer-run project. The team members care deeply about Codidact. We are not instantly available when there is a problem. That would be true even if we were employees, because people sleep and have families and stuff like that. I'd like to point out that I and several others took an hour out of our work days to respond to this situation instead of deferring it. We are here to work together with the community as we all work through growth, policies, and features. Let's all try to keep it constructive; it's entirely possible to express strong contrary opinions without making it personal.


"The answer, especially in the broader context of the question (from the same author) and other activity, came across as disrespectful bordering on personal attack" is obviously a false claim. I always use respectful language in my posts, which is completely clear in my posts on Meta. Some community team only claim that my post is disrespectful without showing any evidence. ‭MathPhysics‭ 21 days ago

"You should all step down and give me complete power" is another false claim; I never said that. I only mentioned a sentence in parentheses stating that if you are unable to find unpaid employees, I can do that in case I have some authority. I mentioned such a statement only because of preventing some people asking me to show unpaid employees. In fact, only viewing a sentence in parentheses and ignoring the main text is not constructive. ‭MathPhysics‭ 21 days ago

@MathPhysics May I give you an advice? Do not attempt to edit current redaction of the answer over and over since you obviously noticed the discussion here. It's not constructive way to communicate. ‭FoggyFinder‭ 21 days ago

@MathPhysics only claim that my post is disrespectful without showing any evidence. Your last paragraph is arguable and doesn't add anything useful to the answer. It also has statement with no proof: However, why do they insist on continuing their staff role while they are too busy?. It is not a personal attack but it is still disrespectful. While I personally think you can have and express whatever opinion you want (even disrespectful) I understand other position as well. ‭FoggyFinder‭ 21 days ago

@MathPhysics Least valuable part of the answer was removed. The main idea is stayed unchanged. As you can see moderators heard arguments and reacted accordingly. So I consider current decision as perfect compromise. You should agree that your original version wasn't perceived well by community (including the staff members). I mean: downvotes, deletion, and negative feedback. Therefore I do not see why you have to insist on reverting changes to original version. It would be just wasting of time. ‭FoggyFinder‭ 21 days ago

Show 9 more comments

Update: The answer has been edited and undeleted.

The last paragraph - the one calling for staff to step down if they cannot make Codidact their top priority - has been removed, since that constitutes a personal attack against the volunteer Codidact staff. It's also been edited to make it clearer that the person writing the answer is the same person who wrote the original question.

In its edited state, since it no longer contains personal attacks, the post no longer qualifies for deletion and so has been restored.

It was deleted for being disrespectful and inciting drama.

The post attacks the (volunteer) staff members putting time, effort, and money into running these sites, dismissing their efforts because of a perception that the site should take precedence over living a real life. The post states that that should step down as staff members if they cannot make Codidact their top priority, which constitutes a personal attack against, well, the entire team, since pretty much the entire Codidact team has stated that they have other priorities aside from CD.

That personal attack was quite disrespectful, and rather rude, especially coupled with the request contained within that answer to be appointed CEO of Codidact. (Which, by the way, doesn't exist; Codidact does not and will not have a CEO position as far as I am aware.)

It's also sparking drama, as seen by the comments on the post.

I deleted it for those reasons, in discussion with other members of the team.

There's a bug that currently allows the OP to undelete their own posts if it's moderator-deleted; that's an oversight and will be fixed ASAP. That's why it kept getting undeleted and redeleted.

I'd also like to quote from the moderator help (available on GH as well):

Breaking the spirit of the law is also a problem. If you have a user who's continuously causing problems within your community, that's a problem, even if they're not technically breaking the letter of the law.

It was deleted with that in mind; even if it's not technically breaking the letter of any current rules, the fact that it's causing problems and drama is an issue in of itself.


Whatever the reason for deleting a post, it most be made visible in the edit history log. We can't have arbitrary, subjective moderation. It was not a personal attack, since such need to be directed towards a person. I'm not even sure it can be said to target a group, that's rather subjective too. ‭Lundin‭ 22 days ago

The post is however classic internet trolling: not interested in contributing constructively but posting for the sole reason to cause conflict and drama. The post could/should have been deleted for that reason. "Not constructive" or similar - that's a concrete and valid reason. "Breaking the spirit" is not - that's a hopelessly subjective reason. ‭Lundin‭ 22 days ago

@Lundin - There's currently no technical ability to include a reason when deleting a post; sounds like a good feature request to me, though. ‭Mithical‭ 21 days ago

Yes, it's subjective; that's intentional, because setting rules in stone doesn't work very well when humans are involved, especially online. There has to be room for situations that are context-dependent and other gray areas. Moderators then have to make judgement calls. (It's entirely possible that those judgement calls made will be incorrect; that's why we will have the Codidact Arbitration & Review Panel, which will be an objective party that can review actions and situations.) ‭Mithical‭ 21 days ago

Sign up to answer this question »