4 replaced http://travel.stackexchange.com/ with https://travel.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Some moderation issue have come up regarding this question: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/504/is-it-cheaper-to-mail-a-small-package-to-germany-from-turkey-bulgaria-or-romaniIs it cheaper to mail a small package to Germany from Turkey, Bulgaria, or Romania?

Forget for the moment that there is disagreement about whether it's on- or off-topic.

The problem I have is that it was closed with no explanation. This directly contradicts A Theory of Moderation (emphasis not mine):

Whenever possible, try to leave frequent comments on posts where you’ve taken (or considered taking) a moderator action, explaining the reasoning. This is important so that community members can learn the norms of the community and the moderation policies.

Another mod insists that such an explanation should "happen in meta only". Again, this contradicts the blog post. There are a few other problems with it; to give four:

  • A user's first response to a closed question is not to post on Meta
  • A user's first response to finding a closed question is not to read all the Meta questions tagged
  • Closing without any explanation looks bad and generates ill will
  • This is not in line with how other SE sites have been run, from what I've seen

It's also claimed that the following is explanation enough:

closed as off topic by Dori♦ 23 hours ago

Questions on Travel - Stack Exchange are expected to generally relate to traveling, within the scope defined in the faq.

As I noted in my comments before they were deleted:

  • The FAQ was devoid of guidance here
  • There had been almost no Meta discussion on scope

"Off-topic" is not an explanation of why it's off-topic. A single sentence would suffice. Why is this too much too ask?

One of the deleted comments said that the question has nothing to do with travel. This is simply false; you can't bring a package in person to multiple countries without travelling. The fact that it involves travel doesn't necessarily make it a good question, but claiming it doesn't involve travel is ridiculous. (I answered here on distinguishing "travel problems", "traveller's problems", and "nothing-to-do-with-travel problems".)

I have no problem with discussions of scope occuring on Meta; in fact, I think that's exactly what should happen. But I do not see how that means that a quick explanation with at least minimal thought put into it is disallowed and, apparently, actively discouraged.

And, just maybe, the mods should consider posting on Meta. Users are currently working within the scope of "Travel". The moderation is obviously occurring according to a more refined scope, and it would be helpful if that scope was actually made available for review and discussion. The Area51 page doesn't help much either, since several questions similar to some of the voted-on-topic questions have been closed.

Some moderation issue have come up regarding this question: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/504/is-it-cheaper-to-mail-a-small-package-to-germany-from-turkey-bulgaria-or-romani

Forget for the moment that there is disagreement about whether it's on- or off-topic.

The problem I have is that it was closed with no explanation. This directly contradicts A Theory of Moderation (emphasis not mine):

Whenever possible, try to leave frequent comments on posts where you’ve taken (or considered taking) a moderator action, explaining the reasoning. This is important so that community members can learn the norms of the community and the moderation policies.

Another mod insists that such an explanation should "happen in meta only". Again, this contradicts the blog post. There are a few other problems with it; to give four:

  • A user's first response to a closed question is not to post on Meta
  • A user's first response to finding a closed question is not to read all the Meta questions tagged
  • Closing without any explanation looks bad and generates ill will
  • This is not in line with how other SE sites have been run, from what I've seen

It's also claimed that the following is explanation enough:

closed as off topic by Dori♦ 23 hours ago

Questions on Travel - Stack Exchange are expected to generally relate to traveling, within the scope defined in the faq.

As I noted in my comments before they were deleted:

  • The FAQ was devoid of guidance here
  • There had been almost no Meta discussion on scope

"Off-topic" is not an explanation of why it's off-topic. A single sentence would suffice. Why is this too much too ask?

One of the deleted comments said that the question has nothing to do with travel. This is simply false; you can't bring a package in person to multiple countries without travelling. The fact that it involves travel doesn't necessarily make it a good question, but claiming it doesn't involve travel is ridiculous. (I answered here on distinguishing "travel problems", "traveller's problems", and "nothing-to-do-with-travel problems".)

I have no problem with discussions of scope occuring on Meta; in fact, I think that's exactly what should happen. But I do not see how that means that a quick explanation with at least minimal thought put into it is disallowed and, apparently, actively discouraged.

And, just maybe, the mods should consider posting on Meta. Users are currently working within the scope of "Travel". The moderation is obviously occurring according to a more refined scope, and it would be helpful if that scope was actually made available for review and discussion. The Area51 page doesn't help much either, since several questions similar to some of the voted-on-topic questions have been closed.

Some moderation issue have come up regarding this question: Is it cheaper to mail a small package to Germany from Turkey, Bulgaria, or Romania?

Forget for the moment that there is disagreement about whether it's on- or off-topic.

The problem I have is that it was closed with no explanation. This directly contradicts A Theory of Moderation (emphasis not mine):

Whenever possible, try to leave frequent comments on posts where you’ve taken (or considered taking) a moderator action, explaining the reasoning. This is important so that community members can learn the norms of the community and the moderation policies.

Another mod insists that such an explanation should "happen in meta only". Again, this contradicts the blog post. There are a few other problems with it; to give four:

  • A user's first response to a closed question is not to post on Meta
  • A user's first response to finding a closed question is not to read all the Meta questions tagged
  • Closing without any explanation looks bad and generates ill will
  • This is not in line with how other SE sites have been run, from what I've seen

It's also claimed that the following is explanation enough:

closed as off topic by Dori♦ 23 hours ago

Questions on Travel - Stack Exchange are expected to generally relate to traveling, within the scope defined in the faq.

As I noted in my comments before they were deleted:

  • The FAQ was devoid of guidance here
  • There had been almost no Meta discussion on scope

"Off-topic" is not an explanation of why it's off-topic. A single sentence would suffice. Why is this too much too ask?

One of the deleted comments said that the question has nothing to do with travel. This is simply false; you can't bring a package in person to multiple countries without travelling. The fact that it involves travel doesn't necessarily make it a good question, but claiming it doesn't involve travel is ridiculous. (I answered here on distinguishing "travel problems", "traveller's problems", and "nothing-to-do-with-travel problems".)

I have no problem with discussions of scope occuring on Meta; in fact, I think that's exactly what should happen. But I do not see how that means that a quick explanation with at least minimal thought put into it is disallowed and, apparently, actively discouraged.

And, just maybe, the mods should consider posting on Meta. Users are currently working within the scope of "Travel". The moderation is obviously occurring according to a more refined scope, and it would be helpful if that scope was actually made available for review and discussion. The Area51 page doesn't help much either, since several questions similar to some of the voted-on-topic questions have been closed.

3 replaced http://meta.travel.stackexchange.com/ with https://travel.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Some moderation issue have come up regarding this question: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/504/is-it-cheaper-to-mail-a-small-package-to-germany-from-turkey-bulgaria-or-romani

Forget for the moment that there is disagreement about whether it's on- or off-topic.

The problem I have is that it was closed with no explanation. This directly contradicts A Theory of Moderation (emphasis not mine):

Whenever possible, try to leave frequent comments on posts where you’ve taken (or considered taking) a moderator action, explaining the reasoning. This is important so that community members can learn the norms of the community and the moderation policies.

Another mod insists that such an explanation should "happen in meta only". Again, this contradicts the blog post. There are a few other problems with it; to give four:

  • A user's first response to a closed question is not to post on Meta
  • A user's first response to finding a closed question is not to read all the Meta questions tagged
  • Closing without any explanation looks bad and generates ill will
  • This is not in line with how other SE sites have been run, from what I've seen

It's also claimed that the following is explanation enough:

closed as off topic by Dori♦ 23 hours ago

Questions on Travel - Stack Exchange are expected to generally relate to traveling, within the scope defined in the faq.

As I noted in my comments before they were deleted:

  • The FAQ was devoid of guidance here
  • There had been almost no Meta discussion on scope

"Off-topic" is not an explanation of why it's off-topic. A single sentence would suffice. Why is this too much too ask?

One of the deleted comments said that the question has nothing to do with travel. This is simply false; you can't bring a package in person to multiple countries without travelling. The fact that it involves travel doesn't necessarily make it a good question, but claiming it doesn't involve travel is ridiculous. (I answered herehere on distinguishing "travel problems", "traveller's problems", and "nothing-to-do-with-travel problems".)

I have no problem with discussions of scope occuring on Meta; in fact, I think that's exactly what should happen. But I do not see how that means that a quick explanation with at least minimal thought put into it is disallowed and, apparently, actively discouraged.

And, just maybe, the mods should consider posting on Meta. Users are currently working within the scope of "Travel". The moderation is obviously occurring according to a more refined scope, and it would be helpful if that scope was actually made available for review and discussion. The Area51 page doesn't help much either, since several questions similar to some of the voted-on-topic questions have been closed.

Some moderation issue have come up regarding this question: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/504/is-it-cheaper-to-mail-a-small-package-to-germany-from-turkey-bulgaria-or-romani

Forget for the moment that there is disagreement about whether it's on- or off-topic.

The problem I have is that it was closed with no explanation. This directly contradicts A Theory of Moderation (emphasis not mine):

Whenever possible, try to leave frequent comments on posts where you’ve taken (or considered taking) a moderator action, explaining the reasoning. This is important so that community members can learn the norms of the community and the moderation policies.

Another mod insists that such an explanation should "happen in meta only". Again, this contradicts the blog post. There are a few other problems with it; to give four:

  • A user's first response to a closed question is not to post on Meta
  • A user's first response to finding a closed question is not to read all the Meta questions tagged
  • Closing without any explanation looks bad and generates ill will
  • This is not in line with how other SE sites have been run, from what I've seen

It's also claimed that the following is explanation enough:

closed as off topic by Dori♦ 23 hours ago

Questions on Travel - Stack Exchange are expected to generally relate to traveling, within the scope defined in the faq.

As I noted in my comments before they were deleted:

  • The FAQ was devoid of guidance here
  • There had been almost no Meta discussion on scope

"Off-topic" is not an explanation of why it's off-topic. A single sentence would suffice. Why is this too much too ask?

One of the deleted comments said that the question has nothing to do with travel. This is simply false; you can't bring a package in person to multiple countries without travelling. The fact that it involves travel doesn't necessarily make it a good question, but claiming it doesn't involve travel is ridiculous. (I answered here on distinguishing "travel problems", "traveller's problems", and "nothing-to-do-with-travel problems".)

I have no problem with discussions of scope occuring on Meta; in fact, I think that's exactly what should happen. But I do not see how that means that a quick explanation with at least minimal thought put into it is disallowed and, apparently, actively discouraged.

And, just maybe, the mods should consider posting on Meta. Users are currently working within the scope of "Travel". The moderation is obviously occurring according to a more refined scope, and it would be helpful if that scope was actually made available for review and discussion. The Area51 page doesn't help much either, since several questions similar to some of the voted-on-topic questions have been closed.

Some moderation issue have come up regarding this question: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/504/is-it-cheaper-to-mail-a-small-package-to-germany-from-turkey-bulgaria-or-romani

Forget for the moment that there is disagreement about whether it's on- or off-topic.

The problem I have is that it was closed with no explanation. This directly contradicts A Theory of Moderation (emphasis not mine):

Whenever possible, try to leave frequent comments on posts where you’ve taken (or considered taking) a moderator action, explaining the reasoning. This is important so that community members can learn the norms of the community and the moderation policies.

Another mod insists that such an explanation should "happen in meta only". Again, this contradicts the blog post. There are a few other problems with it; to give four:

  • A user's first response to a closed question is not to post on Meta
  • A user's first response to finding a closed question is not to read all the Meta questions tagged
  • Closing without any explanation looks bad and generates ill will
  • This is not in line with how other SE sites have been run, from what I've seen

It's also claimed that the following is explanation enough:

closed as off topic by Dori♦ 23 hours ago

Questions on Travel - Stack Exchange are expected to generally relate to traveling, within the scope defined in the faq.

As I noted in my comments before they were deleted:

  • The FAQ was devoid of guidance here
  • There had been almost no Meta discussion on scope

"Off-topic" is not an explanation of why it's off-topic. A single sentence would suffice. Why is this too much too ask?

One of the deleted comments said that the question has nothing to do with travel. This is simply false; you can't bring a package in person to multiple countries without travelling. The fact that it involves travel doesn't necessarily make it a good question, but claiming it doesn't involve travel is ridiculous. (I answered here on distinguishing "travel problems", "traveller's problems", and "nothing-to-do-with-travel problems".)

I have no problem with discussions of scope occuring on Meta; in fact, I think that's exactly what should happen. But I do not see how that means that a quick explanation with at least minimal thought put into it is disallowed and, apparently, actively discouraged.

And, just maybe, the mods should consider posting on Meta. Users are currently working within the scope of "Travel". The moderation is obviously occurring according to a more refined scope, and it would be helpful if that scope was actually made available for review and discussion. The Area51 page doesn't help much either, since several questions similar to some of the voted-on-topic questions have been closed.

2 added 216 characters in body
source | link

Some moderation issue have come up regarding this question: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/504/is-it-cheaper-to-mail-a-small-package-to-germany-from-turkey-bulgaria-or-romani

Forget for the moment that there is disagreement about whether it's on- or off-topic.

The problem I have is that it was closed with no explanation. This directly contradicts A Theory of Moderation (emphasis not mine):

Whenever possible, try to leave frequent comments on posts where you’ve taken (or considered taking) a moderator action, explaining the reasoning. This is important so that community members can learn the norms of the community and the moderation policies.

Another mod insists that such an explanation should "happen in meta only". Again, this contradicts the blog post. There are a few other problems with it; to give four:

  • A user's first response to a closed question is not to post on Meta.
  • A user's first response to finding a closed question is not to read all the Meta questions tagged
  • Closing without any explanation looks bad and generates ill will
  • This is not in line with how other SE sites have been run, from what I've seen.

It's also claimed that the following is explanation enough:

closed as off topic by Dori♦ 23 hours ago

Questions on Travel - Stack Exchange are expected to generally relate to traveling, within the scope defined in the faq.

As I noted in my comments before they were deleted:

  • The FAQ was devoid of guidance here
  • There had been almost no Meta discussion on scope

"Off-topic" is not an explanation of why it's off-topic. A single sentence would suffice. Why is this too much too ask?

One of the deleted comments said that the question has nothing to do with travel. This is simply false; you can't bring a package in person to multiple countries without travelling. The fact that it involves travel doesn't necessarily make it a good question, but claiming it doesn't involve travel is ridiculous. (I answered here on distinguishing "travel problems", "traveller's problems", and "nothing-to-do-with-travel problems".)

I have no problem with discussions of scope occuring on Meta; in fact, I think that's exactly what should happen. But I do not see how that means that a quick explanation with at least minimal thought put into it is disallowed and, apparently, actively discouraged.

And, just maybe, the mods should consider posting on Meta. Users are currently working within the scope of "Travel". The moderation is obviously occurring according to a more refined scope, and it would be helpful if that scope was actually made available for review and discussion. The Area51 page doesn't help much either, since several questions similar to some of the voted-on-topic questions have been closed.

Some moderation issue have come up regarding this question: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/504/is-it-cheaper-to-mail-a-small-package-to-germany-from-turkey-bulgaria-or-romani

Forget for the moment that there is disagreement about whether it's on- or off-topic.

The problem I have is that it was closed with no explanation. This directly contradicts A Theory of Moderation (emphasis not mine):

Whenever possible, try to leave frequent comments on posts where you’ve taken (or considered taking) a moderator action, explaining the reasoning. This is important so that community members can learn the norms of the community and the moderation policies.

Another mod insists that such an explanation should "happen in meta only". Again, this contradicts the blog post. There are a few other problems with it; to give four:

  • A user's first response to a closed question is not to post on Meta.
  • A user's first response to finding a closed question is not to read all the Meta questions tagged
  • Closing without any explanation looks bad and generates ill will
  • This is not in line with how other SE sites have been run, from what I've seen.

It's also claimed that the following is explanation enough:

closed as off topic by Dori♦ 23 hours ago

Questions on Travel - Stack Exchange are expected to generally relate to traveling, within the scope defined in the faq.

As I noted in my comments before they were deleted:

  • The FAQ was devoid of guidance here
  • There had been almost no Meta discussion on scope

"Off-topic" is not an explanation of why it's off-topic. A single sentence would suffice. Why is this too much too ask?

One of the deleted comments said that the question has nothing to do with travel. This is simply false; you can't bring a package in person to multiple countries without travelling. The fact that it involves travel doesn't necessarily make it a good question, but claiming it doesn't involve travel is ridiculous.

I have no problem with discussions of scope occuring on Meta; in fact, I think that's exactly what should happen. But I do not see how that means that a quick explanation with at least minimal thought put into it is disallowed and, apparently, actively discouraged.

And, just maybe, the mods should consider posting on Meta. Users are currently working within the scope of "Travel". The moderation is obviously occurring according to a more refined scope, and it would be helpful if that scope was actually made available for review and discussion. The Area51 page doesn't help much either, since several questions similar to some of the voted-on-topic questions have been closed.

Some moderation issue have come up regarding this question: http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/504/is-it-cheaper-to-mail-a-small-package-to-germany-from-turkey-bulgaria-or-romani

Forget for the moment that there is disagreement about whether it's on- or off-topic.

The problem I have is that it was closed with no explanation. This directly contradicts A Theory of Moderation (emphasis not mine):

Whenever possible, try to leave frequent comments on posts where you’ve taken (or considered taking) a moderator action, explaining the reasoning. This is important so that community members can learn the norms of the community and the moderation policies.

Another mod insists that such an explanation should "happen in meta only". Again, this contradicts the blog post. There are a few other problems with it; to give four:

  • A user's first response to a closed question is not to post on Meta
  • A user's first response to finding a closed question is not to read all the Meta questions tagged
  • Closing without any explanation looks bad and generates ill will
  • This is not in line with how other SE sites have been run, from what I've seen

It's also claimed that the following is explanation enough:

closed as off topic by Dori♦ 23 hours ago

Questions on Travel - Stack Exchange are expected to generally relate to traveling, within the scope defined in the faq.

As I noted in my comments before they were deleted:

  • The FAQ was devoid of guidance here
  • There had been almost no Meta discussion on scope

"Off-topic" is not an explanation of why it's off-topic. A single sentence would suffice. Why is this too much too ask?

One of the deleted comments said that the question has nothing to do with travel. This is simply false; you can't bring a package in person to multiple countries without travelling. The fact that it involves travel doesn't necessarily make it a good question, but claiming it doesn't involve travel is ridiculous. (I answered here on distinguishing "travel problems", "traveller's problems", and "nothing-to-do-with-travel problems".)

I have no problem with discussions of scope occuring on Meta; in fact, I think that's exactly what should happen. But I do not see how that means that a quick explanation with at least minimal thought put into it is disallowed and, apparently, actively discouraged.

And, just maybe, the mods should consider posting on Meta. Users are currently working within the scope of "Travel". The moderation is obviously occurring according to a more refined scope, and it would be helpful if that scope was actually made available for review and discussion. The Area51 page doesn't help much either, since several questions similar to some of the voted-on-topic questions have been closed.

1
source | link