Timeline for Why are changes applied without any reasoning or community agreement?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 8:59 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.superuser.com/ with https://meta.superuser.com/
|
|
| Jun 26, 2011 at 13:12 | history | edited | Tamara Wijsman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 51 characters in body; added 5 characters in body
|
| Jun 26, 2011 at 13:11 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @JeffAtwood: Agreed. Well, if he didn't see the other question it would have been fine with me and this question wouldn't even exist, but if there has been contradictory community agreement before that ♦ has taken part in I don't see the point why this action has been performed now. So, I do have the need to list it. I probably was a bit upset at that point. It's a good point that referring to a single person is bad, I'll try to avoid it next time (which I hope there won't be)... | |
| Jun 26, 2011 at 13:01 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @tom "And not only ignorance by the questioneer, but also ignorance from Random" is really not appropriate IMO. | |
| Jun 26, 2011 at 13:00 | history | edited | Tamara Wijsman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 15 characters in body
|
| Jun 26, 2011 at 13:00 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | @JeffAtwood: The problem is that if I don't come up with the example, this question would have no sense at all. Or should I have mailed instead? Although I don't like talking behinds people's back. If someone does something, he either does have a reason for it which he can choose to explain (well, in the sense of a community doing actions without reasoning or agreement feels wrong), if he doesn't have a reason for it and it's a mere accident he could choose to agree (and forgive). I don't want to put @random in a bad daylight which is why he is only listed inside the OL, just my two cents... | |
| Jun 26, 2011 at 7:18 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | I generally don't like posts that single other people out by name. The concept can be generalized. (I did not downvote, but that is a reason why I would..) | |
| Jun 25, 2011 at 16:41 | comment | added | slhck | I also can't really see why you'd downvote that. Tom is asking for reasons why changes are made without community agreement first (especially if there has been contradictory community agreement before). | |
| Jun 25, 2011 at 14:42 | comment | added | Daniel Beck Mod | A downvote on this topic means what, exactly? "No, we don't want moderators to explain why they do things the way they do?" | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 23:03 | answer | added | randomMod | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 24, 2011 at 22:57 | history | asked | Tamara Wijsman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |