Re: Moderate in moderation [was: Re: an algorithm with interruption in the middle]
Victor Bazarov wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
(quoting my comment in another Andrei's post)
{ please let us not begin another discussion on merits of gotos.
thanks. -mod }
While I commend the great job that moderators do on this group, since
recently I couldn't stop noticing some overdoing. For at least two
times I've seen moderators actually giving full-blown answers to the
post they were approving (e.g. see thread "Reference to void").
Full blown? Are you referring to my reference to the Standard about
the ill-formedness of a cv-qualifier on a reference? I am a bit
surprised you called a "full-blown answer", to be honest. A short
point to where the stuff is so that somebody who needs to verify or
look other things up would do that. A full-blown answer would most
likely include a quote from the Standard to explain when those
qualifiers can actually be ignored (with examples). We're allowed
to give a brief reference to FAQ, aren't we (see the policies)? Why
do you think we can't give a reference to the Standard?
Because... it's not in the policies? I don't understand the logic.
Sentence 1, you refer me to the policy, implying that it is good and to
be obeyed. Sentence 2, you use sentence 1 to justify something that's
not in the policy.
If you're not referring to my comment in 'Reference to void', then what
are you referring to?
I have no idea who made that particular comment. I was referring to the
answer that gave chapter and verse from the standard, and to a few other
moderation comments that actually are participation to the discussion as
opposed to out-of-band moderation signals.
It's surprising to see such a nervous reaction to my point, which was
simple and minor. By "full-blown answer" within the context of my post,
I meant "a definitive answer". Definitive answers to on-topic questions
outside FAQ do not belong to moderation comments, period.
To me, the situation is simple and as cut and dried as it gets. On-topic
means approve. Off-topic or offensive means reject. You want to prevent
a flood of "yes, main() returns int" answers, you just point to the FAQ.
You want to calm a heated discussion, you insert a comment. You want to
reply a post, you use the standard interface that everybody uses. That's
about it. I don't see room for much creative interpretation there. Why
get so excited over my whole point?
I'm as unexcited about yet another discussion on goto as the next guy,
but I did feel the need to take issue with a statement about goto vs.
break and continue. I understand the urge of the moderators to stop or
even preempt a discussion that risks to become highly off-topic and
inflammatory, but in this case I think the concern is exaggerated.
Then ignore the comment (or take it into consideration) and proceed
with your discussion.
My point was not that I can't stand the comment. My point was of
deontological nature. Just like anyone else, moderators have preferences
over what is and what isn't interesting to discuss. But outside the
on/off-topic decision, they should not have special power (= unmoderated
comments) to express those preferences.
> If you can stay away from getting into beating
the proverbial dead horse, I am all for it and will be the first to
approve the postings. But I think my comment got here just in time,
and will give moderators more reason to shut the discussion down if it
does develop into another tennis match of "I like those -- I do not --
I see no good in it -- I am all for it ..."
Sure. I am all for that. :o)
So please, moderators, moderate in moderation. If you want to answer a
post of to steer a topic the way you feel, post like everybody else.
Don't use your prerogative to answer posts or to steer discussion
except in exceptional cases. Thank you.
My comment above is directed first of all at those who will read, and
think of replying to, your post, to prevent *them* from going off on
a tangent in this thread. I have a problem with one of our policies:
if a post is approved, we're supposed to be even more lenient toward
any replies. In this thread we already have something like "I never
use 'blah' in my code because it's just wrong -- I think reasonable
people don't do that ..." Please consider the consequences.
If a moderator has a problem with the moderation policy, the right thing
to do is start a discussion on that, either with the moderator panels,
or in the open. A not so right thing to do is to apply a slightly
different policy when carrying out moderation.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the moderators for
the great job that they have always done on this group.
Andrei
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]