On “Is there any way to squeeze more performance out of a vintage Itronix GD8000 laptop PC?” (previously titled, “What, for a Paleo computer, can be done to get performance out of an Itronix GD8000?”), I received a singularly blunt comment of:
@JonathanHayward - I spent more then 30 seconds reading your question, and all I learned, Paleo Diet folks need a better spam company and spam isn't just limited to 1 reputation user apparently. The point of my comment, was to indicated, I reported your post as spam.
This is harsher than I expected; a previous poster had asked me to cut down my wall of text and I immediately did so, seeing this comment on the way after editing out information about Paleo motivation. When I said that I had cut my post down and asked about reversing a downvote, someone commented:
A spam flag is an automatic downvote, which I can't reverse, even if I did I wouldn't want to. As somebody with 200+ reputation, you should know, asking about or providing information on the Paleo diet wasn't welcome.
Is this how the StackExchange community communicates? Rudely even after someone has made amends?
I'd like to think the StackExchange community is more polite than this; and that "spam" mean something narrower than "something off-topic that takes time to read." This reads like the RBL maintainers responding to small ISP's complaints about inappropriate treatment by placing small ISP's that complained on the RBL. "Spam" doesn't just mean "verbose" or "off-topic"; "spam" means bulk recruiting or selling. It's not a catchall for "I don't like your post, and I'm still mad after you backed down."
I think most people on reading these comments will not think, "I should back down;" a possible impression is "Powerful people here are rude." And in this case, powerful people remain rude after you back down.
Could there perhaps be better recommended practices when, in this case, someone provides context that is not to the point with genuinely good intentions?