I asked this question some time ago and it was "closed" by moderator badp who then (10 hours ago) edited the question, removing my entire text and replacing it with his own related question.

I consider that not a good practice. I would like my original question restored, or else completely deleted, and I would like the moderators not to remove my question while leaving the accepted answer (which no longer fits the completely modified question) alone. If badp wants to ask about achievements (when I only asked about finding the hidden areas) then let him ask. But I didn't. And I don't like 100% question edits. It feels wrong.

Frankly, I am apalled at moderator badp's behaviour here. There is some history here. badp wigged out when I asked that my question be reopened, and seems to have a vendetta or something.

I fail to follow the meta discussion linked in the "bounty" and I fail to see the value of going back and rewriting questions. Frankly, I wish you'd just delete my questions, and I'll just leave gaming.se completely, because I no longer like where this community is going with this site. I wanted to share my reaction to your meta process, and the "let's rewrite the questions we don't like" approach. I think it sucks. Thank you. Obviously, if badp's school of thought, and his meta question, gives him the right to delete my question without deleting it (substituting the question for one he thinks fits the criteria for questions the community wants), then I'm done here.

Update: I'm done with the site, it's not fun for me. I think I understand your motives and your goals with the site, and think that obviously most people like exactly where this is going. In the end, I realize I don't "own" the content. I would like to be able to drop my name off questions that no longer bear any contribution from me, but that's a tiny tiny nitpick. The reason I've lost interest in the site, is that for me, there's no fun to be had here anymore. Cheers, and best of luck.

share
    
you win. I'm done. –  Warren P Nov 10 '11 at 3:07
14  
Listen carefully, there isn't much time; you need to he-- [DELETED BY BADP] –  jmfsg Nov 10 '11 at 3:29
    
Please don't let Badp get to you, Warren. He may be snarky, but he's mostly harmless. ♪ –  Raven Dreamer Nov 10 '11 at 3:51
    
On Stackoverflow, such a question that is older than the rules it supposedly violates, are usually closed and locked, instead of retroactively edited. It seems things are different over here. –  Warren P Nov 10 '11 at 12:07
    
Well, it's a whole different community with its own rules. But we do try to respect everyone, he's just trying to be funny in this meta post. –  jmfsg Nov 10 '11 at 13:35
2  
"On Stackoverflow, such a question that is older than the rules it supposedly violates, are usually closed and locked" and then deleted. I don't agree with this but that's how StackExchange works. Some of my favorite Server Fault questions ("Best Server Names" for example) which were posted when the rules sortof allowed them to be are now completely gone. If you don't like this, take it up with the SE team, not badp. He's just doing his job. –  Josh Nov 10 '11 at 13:53
add comment

6 Answers

up vote 15 down vote accepted

To quote one of our top users

"It's not about you"

Badp's actions weren't a personal crusade, they were an effort to improve the site. It is OK for you to disagree with his actions, and you are within your rights to rollback the edits, with the end result that the question will then be closed. But ultimately this site isn't about "your question", its about making the internet a better place. In order to do that, we've agreed on some rules. It wasn't a unanimous decision, but those that participate in the site agree to follow the rules even if they don't agree with them. badp's edits are an attempt to take a question that didn't follow the rules and make it follow them. While he could've created a new question and transferred the answer there, this would've take away the credit from you for the initial question, an action that most people would find a greater offense than what he did.

If you don't agree with the rules that we have, you may certainly voice your opinion. At the end of the day though you're left with deciding that you can live with them, or not participating in the site.

share
1  
I like this answer. I think it's honest and minimal and accurate. I think it also sums up exactly the direction that SE is heading in that I personally find incompatible with the subject matter. Gaming is a matter of personal subjective enjoyment for me (I have no idea what it's about for anybody else), and if I can't ask vague, fuzzy questions about games that sometimes involve lists of fun (for me) things, then I have no further use for this site. I'm feeling calmer this morning than last night. The site is great for lots of people, just not me. (No hard feelings.) –  Warren P Nov 10 '11 at 14:42
4  
It saddens me to see you go @WarrenP, I hope you change your mind. Your position is perfectly understandable but there is little place for subjectivity at the core level of the engine (you won't find it in any other site in the network). Thank you for respecting the site! –  jmfsg Nov 10 '11 at 15:19
    
I'm an avid StackOverflow user, and think that the nature of the engine and the nature of the subject matter (programming) clearly gel better in my head. g.SE has always felt to me like we're nailing jelly to a tree here. –  Warren P Nov 10 '11 at 15:21
add comment

Take the meat of your original question:

Are there hidden areas?

That's...really the important part. We don't really need to know how many times you've finished it, and we figured you didn't find the areas, or you wouldn't be here asking where they were.

Generally, extremely short questions (or even long ones) are bad questions. If you cut out the unnecessary fluff, it would be too short for the system to even accept it.

The way the question was stated, it could be fully answered with this:

Yes.

That's not really helpful, is it? It needed details1. Why exactly do you want this information? We can help you much better if we tailor our answers to include details relevant to your long term goal. I'm sure you probably implied the "Where are they, how do I get there, and why should I bother" bits, but as it stood, not a superb question.

Is was an ok question, but badp realized it needed more, and admittedly went off on a tangent to make it a better question. As Grace Note said, the problem was one of scope. You gave none. What counts as a "hidden area"? badp edited it to make it specific, while still leaving it a question about the hidden areas and how to use them. I mean, if I were in your shoes, I'd be thanking him. Sure he changed the question, but he made it better while preserving (as much as possible) the original intent (obviously not enough of it or we wouldn't be having this discussion).

Ok, abusive mod. I can see how'd you get that. But then, he goes and slaps a bounty on it.

I don't know how much experience you have with Stack Exchange, but that's about the nicest thing one user can do for another.

If he didn't care about making the question better, he would have just posted his own question and saved himself the rep.


1If I had to guess, I'd say he closed it because it was fairly vague. You weren't clear what kind of answer you wanted. I'm sure most people have brains enough to assume, but hey, this is the internet here, you can't be too sure. :P

share
5  
The big problem I have here is that the question's original version was posted in May, and has had an accepted answer for the majority of that time. Now, all the sudden, we have a completely different question. The worst part is, I feel guilty because I'm the one who mentioned Achievements on The Bridge; I didn't think someone would go edit an 8 month old question with a highly-rated accepted answer. –  user2974 Nov 10 '11 at 3:58
3  
@Powerlord Questions that don't fit policies are broken windows, regardless of age of upvotes. Actually, the more upvotes involved, the more important it is to fix the windows. –  badp Nov 10 '11 at 4:06
6  
@badp Policy? You opened that Meta question about it 12 hours ago and it's already policy? Let me just say I'm glad you're not a politician. –  user2974 Nov 10 '11 at 4:09
    
@Powerlord I think we've already established we don't want to have another game-rec debacle again? This was posted a little more than 12 hours ago. –  badp Nov 10 '11 at 4:12
1  
@Powerlord As someone I've seen around on MSO and as someone with like, 26k SO rep, you should be very familiar with how the old questions there are slowly being closed because they no longer fit the rules. Same case here. Also, don't feel bad about mentioning it, it's a highly voted question. It was bound to come up. –  John the Green Nov 10 '11 at 4:12
1  
@badp: I do remember being against that policy, and I'm pretty sure I mentioned that during the first moderator election. –  user2974 Nov 10 '11 at 4:40
    
@John: I really don't think "hidden areas" is vague at all, and in fact, I went on to define it in terms of games in the other topic. –  user2974 Nov 10 '11 at 5:03
    
@Powerlord And you're entitled to your opinion. That's fine. However, membership in a community means your opinion won't always be the majority one. –  John the Green Nov 10 '11 at 5:05
1  
@John I'm so glad you said that, because I'm going to point out that also applies to our dear moderators. –  user2974 Nov 10 '11 at 5:07
2  
Except, oh wait, that's right, I forgot, according to the topic @badp linked to, by definition whatever a moderator says is "right" –  user2974 Nov 10 '11 at 5:09
    
@Powerlord If you see issue with my speedy policy making proposal, perhaps you should post about it there. –  badp Nov 10 '11 at 5:11
1  
@Powerlord They are the ones entrusted by the providers of this site with running it well. Obviously the community at large trusts them or they never would have been elected. –  John the Green Nov 10 '11 at 5:12
2  
@John: I hate to break it to you, but the Gaming elections are more popularity contests than anything else. –  user2974 Nov 10 '11 at 5:13
    
Also, you seem to not be making the distinction between mere membership here and authority here. Hey, the blue names aren't just for show :P –  John the Green Nov 10 '11 at 5:13
6  
"The elections are popularity contests." I take it badp used to be far more popular? –  John the Green Nov 10 '11 at 5:21
show 3 more comments

Wow. Things really went down when I went to bed last night, huh.

Perhaps there was one thing I didn't stress enough in that last Meta discussion, it was that cooperation is helpful. I am sorry that everything kinda tumbled down with no warning, as I had personally expected a more... co-op discussion about the question, considering that you do visit this site now-and-then. Something we could work on together.

Yes, a little bit of motivation was from the sting of the last discussion - part of the reason it came up at all is because of how badp continued to feel that it wasn't quite fitting on the site. However, the decision to actually change the question was not one of malignance. It was intended to retain most of the essences of the question while making it somewhat more acceptable in the given interpretation of policy. It was meant to improve, not to ruin.

I don't think this has to boil down leaving the site in a huff, or that we have to go through the extremes of "undoing all changes" or "delete everything". Is it, perchance, still a valid avenue to discuss how we may want to change things and come to a middle ground? Some people think "hidden areas" is too vague, others thing it is specific enough - I'm kinda in the middle because I still operate on the understanding that in the scope of Portal 2, it has a meaningful and specific intent behind the term. With some cooperative tampering, we can seek to improve the question even further while also returning it to how you might like it.

share
    
If g.SE became a site that was open to having a bit more fun, I'd be interested in it. It seems to me that the fun is gone. Not just this one incident. It seems to me that lots of people like the site exactly how you're running it, and all indications are that I'm a sole voice of discontent. Which is okay. You should ignore me, because I am a statistical outlier. That's how it works. –  Warren P Nov 10 '11 at 14:45
4  
@Warren You're not the only discontent, and a successful site doesn't operate on being an echo chamber of inner support. I'm sorry to hear that the fun of the site is gone for you, though. We may not be able to transform to a completely different viewpoint, but there's no sense turning down an opportunity for feedback. There's always a lot of messiness involving lists - I still strongly think that the original list wasn't all that bad on its own. But, with strictness comes scrutiny. –  Grace Note Nov 10 '11 at 14:50
add comment

I asked this question some time ago and it was "closed" by moderator badp

The reason for the closure has been explained in the linked meta post, but to reiterate:

You didn't specify what you meant by "hidden." We can't know what you missed. We can't say what anybody might've missed. The question, as it was, is unacceptable and needs to be closed. The matter has been reviewed today on the wake of a similar question.

who then (10 hours ago) edited the question removing my entire text and replacing it with his own related question.

I could either close it again, or rewrite it as little as possible to fit the policies. Since the question had accumulated useful answers that needed a little rewording (nevermind the link rot in the accepted answer), then I saw editing to be the best solution.

He also periodically deletes all comments referencing his behaviour.

I call bullshit here. Evidence, please.

I would like my original question restored

This is not possible. If you want the edits rolled back, roll them back yourself, and then the question will be closed for the reasons explained above.

or else completely deleted

This is not possible. The question has received answers. It would be wrong to throw the children away with the water. It's not just your question, it's your questions with other answers. It's no longer yours to take.

It is not about you. It is about the question. A question that is no longer yours to remove, or vandalize.

and I would like the moderators not to remove my question while leaving the accepted answer (which no longer fits the completely modified question) alone.

So you want an exception from being moderated? I'm sure you'll see that's just not possible.

If badp wants to ask about achievements (when I only asked about finding the hidden areas) then let him ask.

I don't want to ask about achievements. I want to help you, your question and the community. If that means losing you as a user so be it.

But I didn't. And I don't like 100% question edits. It feels wrong.

You can't make everybody happy. I chose this tradeoff that keeps the nature of the question while making it acceptable by putting a task at hand - getting achievements.

Frankly, I am apalled at moderator badp's behaviour here. There is some history here.

Bullshit. Evidence please.

badp wigged out when I asked that my question be reopened, and seems to have a vendetta or something.

You barely asked for anything. Since you think I'm censoring or whatever, let's whip out all the deleted comments. Yes the system keeps them.

The question as it is asks for a list of one hidden area per answer, with voting based on... popularity? Real questions have answers, not items. Closing. badp♦ may 5 at 19:35
1 @failbadp There's a finite list of them. If you're closing this one, kindly close this one as well, for example. Arda Xi may 5 at 19:36
And this one. A real answer would be a single list containing all hidden areas. Keaanu may 5 at 19:39

This is people asking me why I closed the question proving supporting arguments and evidence.

What the heck fail badp? What is your issue? Warren P may 5 at 19:40

This is you whining at my general direction.

4 This question is ANSWERABLE and not even subjective. WTH? Warren may 5 at 19:41

It's not enough to be "answerable" and "not subjective". First of all, I've already explained to you why it is subjective - there's no objective definition of "hidden".

Answerable? What do you mean by answerable? Are you referring to "Real questions have answers"? The full quote is "real questions have answers, not items or ideas or opinions." Your question, I'm afraid, has items, given that other answerers felt the urge to add their own items in their own answers rather than trying to provide a full list themselves.

I am as confused as you are. Arda Xi may 5 at 19:44
Fine, let's cry mod abuse. badp♦ may 5 at 19:48
@fail: A common cry for a common occurrence, across the network. Jeremy Banks
1 @Jeremy Handling lists isn't easy, give me a break. badp♦ may 5 at 19:53 @failbadp Those are another kind of lists, the one you decided to see in this question, not the kind that this question actually elicits. Arda Xi may 5 at 20:30

This is me backing off from my original decision.

1 This is... getting a bit heated. Yes, it's not a lot of comments yet, but it's getting really dicey in tone. If you must continue, consider a Meta post, otherwise this question has already been reopened so I don't think we need to advance the subject of why it should not have been closed further. Let's not see a big scuffle here, please. Grace Note♦ may 5 at 20:32

Here's the voice of reason, and the reason for the comment pruning. Hooray for Grace Note.

1 Well that was fun. This question got reopened after random moderator closage, got a GREAT answer, and all the indicators of random moderator closing are deleted. Neat and tidy like. Warren P may 6 at 3:20

And here's your going back at personal attacks in my general direction. I haven't hidden anything. I can't hide anything. You just need to know where to look, and your previous meta question provided the links. My fellow moderators have access to everything I can see and a detailed log of everything I do. Employers can see even more. Food for thought.

I fail to follow the meta discussion linked in the "bounty"

I hope the summary above is sufficient.

and I fail to see the value of going back and rewriting questions.

Content on Gaming Stack Exchange is write once, read many. When we write an answer, we don't write an answer to the asker, we write an answer to everybody who may have the same question. Furthermore, as you have above, existing questions will be precedents for future questions. Every old questions that shifts away from acceptability is a broken window that must be fixed.

Frankly, I wish you'd just delete my questions, and I'll just leave gaming.se completely, because I no longer like where this community is going with this site.

You can leave the community and I can even delete your account, but the question is no longer yours to delete. Sorry.

I wanted to share my reaction to your meta process, and the "let's rewrite the questions we don't like" approach. I think it sucks. Thank you.

Your feedback is appreciated.

Obviously, if badp's school of thought, and his meta question, gives him the right to delete my question without deleting it (substituting the question for one he thinks fits the criteria for questions the community wants), then I'm done here.

I'm here to moderate. That sometimes means stepping on people's toes. I'm sorry about that. The alternative is sitting here doing nothing in the fear that my every action hurts somebody's feelings.

I wasn't elected to do nothing.

share
12  
You were (presumably) elected to uphold a certain level of civility rather than berating other users, like calling "bullshit" on them when you are one of the few people who actually has access to evidence either way. –  Nick T Nov 10 '11 at 3:29
2  
@NickT So it's okay for you to make claims based on evidence you can't have? At the very least, surely, if I've wronged other people, they'll also have gone to meta to discuss it. –  badp Nov 10 '11 at 3:35
3  
I think I clouded the issue. You shouldn't go around thinking other users are blind (myself) or calling them whiners, etc. –  Nick T Nov 10 '11 at 3:39
3  
What's more, if one moderator needs to rely on another to be the "voice of reason", the former is superfluous. –  Nick T Nov 10 '11 at 3:40
1  
@NickT I'm superfluous because I listen? –  badp Nov 10 '11 at 4:01
5  
@badp +1. For providing feedback and making visible what others believe are hidden. Sadly, moderators will always be the bad guys, no matter what we do to help, or enforce the site guidelines. You did more then I would have, and honestly, I see nothing wrong with your edits of the question. –  Diago Nov 10 '11 at 7:15
    
I agree with Diago, and to @NickT, what's wrong with calling bullshit when that's what he sees? I see the same thing. Warren just seems pissed off, there's no evidence I se that badp is out to get anyone. –  Josh Nov 10 '11 at 13:39
1  
@Josh: Fun fact, this question was the only one on the list of examples mentioned in the other thread that was modified. –  user2974 Nov 10 '11 at 13:53
    
I've just found out about this from your MSO post @Powerlord; I don't have time to read all the other posts right now so let me just quote my comment on Robert Harvey♦'s answer: –  Josh Nov 10 '11 at 14:00
    
Moderators do not set policy; rather, they enforce the policy that is set forth by a process of community consensus and dictates by the SE staff badp is taking flack for enforcing the policies set forth by community consensus and SE staff. Give the guy a break @Powerlord –  Josh Nov 10 '11 at 14:00
2  
@Josh surely you must be joking that moderators do not set policy. They absolutely do in a de facto sense as a fancy little diamond posting on meta is a huge bully pulpit. –  Nick T Nov 10 '11 at 14:30
9  
+1. I do think editing old questions should be done rarely, and I do think you could have been more civil, badp, especially when you know people tend to have an attachment with their own content. And while it's true you were personally attacked, I do expect mods to react to that with civility and patience, precisely because they are mods who represent us all. But ultimately you did the right thing, and no, Warren's content isn't his to control. –  Oak Nov 10 '11 at 14:32
6  
I think @NickT was originally saying that calling "bullshit" says nothing productive that "I disagree" can't say. Using abrasive language has never made anyone change their mind or see reason. That being said, I agree 100% with editing closed questions to make them acceptable as long as some semblance of the intent remains. We can either have a dead question sitting there not helping anyone or we can turn that into something useful. I'll take the latter. –  user9983 Nov 10 '11 at 14:43
7  
Thanks for your answer badp. I understand you, and think you are trying to do your job well. You deserve an apology from me for being huffy. I apologize. Specifically, saying that you delete the comments, when that is really a standard practice here, is out of line. –  Warren P Nov 10 '11 at 14:48
3  
@WarrenP That's heartening. Thank you for managing to see through my rudeness. Say, can we clean this mess up now? :) –  badp Nov 10 '11 at 15:15
show 2 more comments

Presumably your original question was closed because it was too vague (bits of GN's argument) and didn't really ask for specifics (plus "yes" would be a "valid" answer). However, your question contained a good seed, that lead to a more specific, quantifiable, and definite (achievements) one taking its place.

As far as the unilateral closure followed by a reopening (sans any edits, and 15 minutes later) after other users had begun an override process suggests that community moderation would have ultimately prevailed. That said, some of his comments seem a bit offensive coming from a moderator.

Moderators occasionally delete comments, usually when there is a tremendous volume of them and they digress to the point where they should be some sort of a meta-post (e.g. here) or ported to chat.

share
1  
Moderators also delete comments when they detract from the question, and becomes a discussion about something not relevant to finding an answer. Those should be taken to chat or meta. The history of these comments are available to all moderators and employees to view as shown by badp in his answer. –  Diago Nov 10 '11 at 7:18
    
Point taken about comments. I was out of line, and badp has not been in any way malicious. I was upset last night. Sorry, everybody. –  Warren P Nov 10 '11 at 14:51
add comment

I really, really try to stay out of meta discussions, because they just make me upset, but is it really SE policy to arbitrarily change questions that don't fit the site? I thought the policy was to close questions that did not belong and give the original author of the question the option to make the question better, which would allow the question to be reopened.

For instance, when I click edit on a question, the side bar displays the following text:

How to Edit

► fix grammatical or spelling errors

clarify meaning without changing it

► correct minor mistakes

► add related resources or links

always respect the original author

Note the bolded items. I think the existance of this meta post indicates that the original author was not respected and I personally think the question was actually changed, not clarified.

Also, I found this post on meta SO where Jeff says "never [...] change meaning".

So what is the actual policy? Should questionable questions be editted?

share
    
That's definitely the general case but I think the problem arises here because deleting the question means deleting the tons of content in the answers. We want that good content and for the answerers to be rewarded, but we don't want the broken question to stay around. As Grace says in her answer, the way to approach this sort of change is through communication with all parties, and obviously that broke down here. But it looks like everyone's learned something and will do better next time... –  Matthew Read Nov 11 '11 at 2:40
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .