6

I’m sure this is a very old question, certainly older than my time on this site, but I want to ask an open ended question to see if we can make our site more welcoming to users.

What I’ve begun to notice is that when new users, who are unaware of this sites unique rule set, ask questions that go against the rules, they are downvoted, often with no comment explaining how the site works.

Now from a layman’s psychology analysis, this seems like a poor way to treat new users. If I join a site and immediately see “negative score”, that seems to disincentivize me from continuing to be a part of the site.

I’m interested to hear your perspectives on this, blessings.

5 Answers 5

6

My first questions as a Christian in the world

My first questions as I entered the critical thinking period (after being baptized as a baby and was raised in a church of my parents):

  • Is my faith genuine? What's with this faith vs. works thing?
  • Where is the Bible come from?
  • Why should the gospels be trusted as historical document?
  • Why is creation explained very differently by science?
  • Did Noah's flood really happen as described? How do you explain the similarity with the Gilgamesh epic?
  • Why are there many inter-denominational hostilities if they all claim to be Christians?
  • Why there are people who are staunch atheists? What's their problem with Christianity? Isn't the Bible obvious enough?
  • Can "anonymous" Christian be saved? How about well-meaning people from other religions who never heard of the gospel?
  • What is the meaning of life? How is building my career relate to Jesus's command to "seek first the Kingdom of God"?

But I went through this period before C.SE existed, so I had to resolve those questions by another means. It seems these questions are common since I see many visitors are struggling with them too.

My personal experience with C.SE, also my review of C.SE

I started to become aware of C.SE 8-9 years ago. My first impression was how academic this site was, and how the topics discussed were above my head, so I left.

About 4 years later I came back, after I had some personal readings outside C.SE. By this time, the Q&A were no longer above my head since I understood the theological and Biblical concepts used. The site's value started to make sense to me and I learned a lot about other denominations. The site's purpose also began to become clear to me, especially after reading several high-voted meta answers, which in my own words:

To provide objective answers to questions properly scoped and defined without regard to their truth in the eyes of God (absolute truth).

Without a clear sense of value and purpose the site will "degenerate" into opinion-centered communities like Reddit or a rather loosely controlled collection of answers in Quora-like websites. As a long-time contributor KovinStarmast puts it: "Participation in a number of SE's has been enjoyable thanks to a high signal to noise ratio -- unusual for the internet ..." By keeping true to this purpose, C.SE has a distinctive to offer and an enduring quality approaching Wikipedia, which is even more strict with objectivity and citing sources.

About 3 years ago I started contributing answers for topics that I'm interested to learn on my own. So I'm using this site partly to keep my research notes and partly to share my findings. As I contribute, I began to discover how the Internet has a plethora of academic resources available to the general public. I benefit greatly from them, and then I gradually see

the answerer's primary role as editor/research-assistant to point readers to relevant and good quality in-depth information out there, acting as a seasoned reviewer serving as a bridge between the general public and the experts.

This then balances the answerer's lack of theological academic credentials (myself included) with the answer's usefulness (my ability to explain to the general public), since in C.SE although original perspective IS valued, the argument/position needs to be backed up by sources such as:

  • a Bible interpretation done within a particular theological framework citing a commentary / expert
  • a peer-reviewed journal or books (because books are vetted by the publishers)
  • blog articles done by credentialed authors (such as a professor's blog)
  • official websites or websites recognized by churches (such as GotQuestions or Catholic Answers)
  • well respected and acknowledged pastors who can speak as representatives of their denominations (such as John Piper for New Calvinist Reformed and Bishop Barron for Catholicism)
  • etc.

A few months after posting my answers, I posted my first question in Oct 2019 which was immediately closed by the moderator :-). I began to learn more about the site's purpose, the comment system, closing system, tagging system, etc. I also began to appreciate the thankless job the fine moderators here are doing to enforce the site's purpose described above against new visitors who through no fault of their own unfortunately have a different expectation of the site. Long-time members of the C.SE community would be good in assisting and supporting the moderators, who as I personally witnessed in the past 3 years have done an exemplary job in helping new visitors, with a sense of duty, lots of patience, and burning a lot of brain cells dealing with borderline cases.

The site has been helpful to me in the past 3 years as I learn and discover multiple Christian perspectives on the same questions, helping me to clarify my own convictions and placing my chosen theology on the map. But now I feel the site has outgrown its usefulness for me personally since it tends to be a lot less academic than what I need at present.

It's especially true in many Protestant theology answers that cite Bible verses uncritically, unaware of the many perspectives that academic journals would consider relevant. A lot of them assume the Biblicism perspective which in my opinion can be dangerous when it is about science: putting off would-be Christians unnecessarily, or make current Christians quit for the wrong reason. Another example they can put off would-be or existing Christians is their tendency to promote PSA as the only Atonement theory, or exclusivism as the only way God deals with non-Christians, which then portrays God as unnecessarily cruel. Many Catholic theology answers suffer a similar problem when they uncritically cite the Summa, oblivious to the late 20th century theological development (answers citing the Catechism are usually fine).

I think it's due to most contributors being laymen, except for a few who graduated from seminaries. Those who feel the same way may want to check out Reddit r/AskBibleScholars, visit blogs by professors, and read academically oriented theology books.

CONCLUSION: So I have come to the opposite end of my journey with C.SE. I came bewildered but now I leave unsatisfied. But due to C.SE's enduring value, I will still participate as a custodian, like many of the top 50 users, and contribute occasionally.

My observation of new visitors's "psychology" in the past 3 years

People come to C.SE with personal needs.

  1. One class of needs prompts questions that arise from uncertainties in the hope of getting answered in the way that can move them along in their religious journey OR to resolve doubts about their current faith. So naturally people who stumble on this site "without going through the narrow gate" (i.e. the tour) will then focus on getting their needs met. But this site will make it worse for them, since they come with uncertainty and will leave with MORE uncertainty! (although they can have more clarity of their uncertainty). This includes the following themes:

    • I feel I'm losing my faith. For example: how can I continue believing Christianity when God "sends" good Moslems to hell, when innocent Christians are unjustly killed / died of disease, etc.
    • I feel bewildered because different Christians say different things on a matter of importance (such as about sacraments, baptism, or spiritual gifts)
    • I am upset with Christianity (or with a denomination) and I want to argue with people about it to prove them wrong
    • I am troubled with the un-Godly claim that denomination X is making leading unsuspecting believers to hell, so I want to prove them wrong
    • I am disappointed with my church and I want answers that justify me quitting church / Christianity
  2. Another class of questions is well-intentioned but they have wrong expectations of the site because the answers will necessarily be too subjective. With proper guidance this site may / can help them.

    • I hope a friendly Christian can have a pastoral answer for my moral / psychological / philosophical / religious situation.
    • I want help on why I should be a Christian or why I should join denomination X, so here's my problem with it, what should I do?
    • I want help to clarify my question about X in Christianity but just give me the RIGHT answer simply, I don't want to learn more about the Bible or theology.
    • I want to know the best denomination / church to join so I need advice.
    • I need to grow my faith and want to know how to serve Jesus better in area X so I need help in this practical matter.
    • I have a different religion and I'm curious how Christianity addresses this (and proceeded the frame the question in terms of his/her religion).
    • I have this philosophical question that I want a Christian answer but most Christians say it's unanswerable.
  3. Another class of questions come with the fallacious assumption that the Bible can only be interpreted one way and without that one way you will be in trouble. Sometimes users leave with either disgust ("you guys are not Christian despite your site's name!"), or with concern/anger ("you are guiding people to hell"). They usually have a very low opinion of theology or church authority. But if they are less militant, they can be persuaded to give this site a try by adding a scope to their question, making this a class 4 question.

    • What does the Bible teach about X?
  4. The fourth class of questions is where this site can truly help. We may need to help them tune the questions for focus, clarity, and scope.

    • How is Bible verse V is interpreted by denomination Y?
    • What does denomination Y teach about X? X being doctrinal questions like: the purpose of baptism, whether asking for spiritual gift is a norm, the meaning of the Lord's supper, whether salvation can be lost, etc.
    • How does denomination Y answer religious question X? X being practical spiritual living questions like: methods to deepen prayer life, methods to deal with temptation, discernment for God's calling, etc.
    • I have a question about theological aspect X of denomination Y.
    • Can you compare doctrine X between theology Y and Z? Can you compare doctrine X between denomination Y and Z?
    • What is the biblical basis of denomination Y's teaching of doctrine X?

Suggestions to acclimate new visitors

My primary suggestion then is to set the right expectation according to their needs as gently and as graciously as we can. One way is to identify them right away whether their initial engagement belongs to class 1, 2, 3, or 4 needs described above, and to interact with them appropriately through the technically limited means this site provides: comments and chats.

Some suggestions:

  • Always have comments associated with downvote / closevote for new users
  • Don't leave class 1 questions empty handed by providing a helpful comment so the OP can fulfill their need by some other means. We can
    • try to find an existing answer for them most related to their closed question
    • offer a suggestion to make the question acceptable
    • give a mini answer in the comment
    • point them to other sites
  • For class 3 users, gently point out that different theologies interpret the Bible differently, and that's where this site can be helpful. Point to relevant meta questions. We can also direct them to BH.SE if their questions are about certain Bible verses.
  • For hostile class 1 questions that could have been turned into a quality question by an expert of a denomination, the expert can request permission to edit the question or put a more ideal form for the core of the question in the comment. If this suggestion is then integrated by the OP, all is well. If not, one heavy-handed method is for the expert to create a competing question with that ideal form and hope that in due time the answerers will flock to the better question. The original question can then be closed-duplicate. Whether this will create a hostile environment I don't feel competent to answer, but hopefully the comments will show that it's a better outcome for the site since the end result should be quality questions having quality answers that reflect the clarity of the beliefs of that denomination.
  • For class 1 and 3 users, they will most likely leave, so let's give a positive impression and invite them back when their needs are more aligned with their class 2 and class 4 questions so they can be happy consumers and hopefully become happy producers.
  • For class 2 and 4 users, point out the all important tour and some relevant meta answers tagged faq
  • Help search for existing answer
  • Help formulate the question better
  • Help distinguish this site from others

Useful resources

11
  • This definitely reflects some of my thoughts - I may write my own answer with suggestions on how we can “nudge” users, but I really appreciate how you pointed out that this site isn’t for everyone. It can be too high level, too layman, too rigorous quality wise, ect.
    – Luke Hill
    Mar 17 at 18:34
  • 1
    @LukeHill Looking forward to reading your answer. I think it's about time I write a review for C.SE, and your question provides me with an opportunity. There's nothing like a personal experience! March 20 marks my 3rd year anniversary of posting an answer. Mar 17 at 18:40
  • 1
    There are lots of Class 1 questions, which could be really good questions if they could just go from "I want to argue and prove you wrong" to "I want to learn, regardless of whether I think it's ultimately wrong". Many questions in that area seem like they could eventually become good questions, if they could just get rid of their "gotcha" mentality. Sometimes I want to edit those questions, but find I am unable to without warping it too much. Asking without attacking is not so easy sometimes, I guess. Thoughts?
    – kutschkem
    Mar 18 at 11:43
  • @kutschkem I'm sorry this happens much more often for LDS questions. One heavy-handed method once it's clear the user needs is class 1 is we can propose in comment the ideal phrasing even if it warps the original. If the user agrees that's great. If not, create a competing question with that "warped" framing and in due time answerer will flock to the better question, and later arguments can be made to close-duplicate the first question. Whether this will create a hostile environment, I don't feel competent to answer. Hopefully the trace of comments show it's better outcome for the site. Mar 18 at 12:11
  • @GratefulDisciple Is it actually happening more often with LDS questions? I don't follow the non-LDS questions so thoroughly, but I guess Class 2 and 3 are more often the issue with larger denominations?
    – kutschkem
    Mar 18 at 14:58
  • @kutschkem For Class 1, it's probably just my subjective and probably selective observation. For Class 3, yes, they are from mainstream Christians with Biblicism bent. Class 2 can actually be any denomination, but since LDS seems to have implemented a purposeful education program in each parish, yes, the net effect is they will come from non-LDS who haven't gone through Sunday school much or someone new to Christianity. Mar 18 at 15:38
  • is there a data explorer query link or is that a reference to a mod tool that only 10k+ rep users can access?
    – depperm
    Mar 18 at 16:18
  • @depperm I believe the Data Explorer site doesn't depend on the rep, and the user is separate, maybe similar to chat user (although chat user has a parent site). This is the one for C.SE. Mar 18 at 16:22
  • 1
    Part of the problem with the class one questions is the LDS and JW presence, which used to be going towards Kris, but since they left it seems that Hold to the Rod has taken a lot of that slack. Unfortunately, those two religions are viewed as cultish. While I will leave my personal opinions on this out of it, it’s unsurprising to me that the groups that receive the most attention and criticism on this site are the Catholics, LDS, and JWs.
    – Luke Hill
    Mar 19 at 5:25
  • @LukeHill Sure, many mainstream denominations view LDS and JW as "cultish", but for this site I think the decision has been made a long time ago that they both are first class citizens. That's why in an answer to another meta question I propose to treat this site as a "Christian studies". The idea is to learn from each other and don't try to prove each other wrong. Mar 19 at 6:27
  • 1
    @GratefulDisciple I totally agree. I was just identifying the groups that get the most flak and why they receive it.
    – Luke Hill
    Mar 19 at 6:31
4

This is to provide a link to a user who has not been active for two years, and the opening statements made in the profile page explain why.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/17879/quidam

Everything said by this person agrees with your observations, Luke, but gives further insight as to what was noted regarding point-scoring. For example:

"I see StackEchange as everything but a welcoming community. Too many people here who likes to mock other people, harsh comments, downvoting as a sport, marking questions duplicate without reading or trying to understand what the person is really asking. A lot of people doesn't like to help other, but seems to be here to collect reputation points. Downvoting, downvoting, downvoting, and closing questions... If you are a beginner in a topic, how to avoid asking noob questions? I wonder!!! This reputation point system prevents people to be more friendly. Neutrality is a lie."

Those observations need considering. It would be salutary for all of us to only down-vote and/or to close questions for users who are not new to the site, in my opinion. Every encouragement should be given to get them to try again, or to edit - giving reasons why. I strive to do this myself with new Qs or As that fall short of what's required. I do confess, though, that I still need to work on my 'neutrality' because (to put it bluntly) I am not neutral, and I doubt if anyone else here truly is. It's just that some are good at becoming neutral for the sake of posting a neutral Q or A. In real life, we all take a stance on religious matters. And when an issue is crucially important to us, we cannot be neutral. However, to participate on this Site, neutrality is called for; please be gracious and consider me "a work in progress" on that point! And if you can do that with someone active here for 4 years, how much more-so for newcomers!

(P.S. Despite being active on Meta, following Qs and posting both comments and answers, nothing appears on my Meta profile page. It's as if I joined a while ago but have never touched Meta since. Can anyone sort that out?)

6
  • 1
    Your answer has given me a lot of good subject matter to think about, thank you. +1. I realize I can do more to encourage new users whose first post is less-than-stellar. Mar 21 at 1:41
  • @GratefulDisciple Re. my P.S. and your response: On my profile page here meta.stackexchange.com/users/1065343/anne?tab=topactivity you will see zero activity. It goes into Meta Stack Exchange, but I'm active in Christianity meta. I cannot bring up this latter site via my Christianity Profile Page. I need Christianity meta to appear on my Profile Page and not the one I've never touched. Any ideas?
    – Anne
    Mar 22 at 13:45
  • @GratefulDisciple Go to christianity.stackexchange.com/users/40447/anne and drop down to Accounts to see what I mean.
    – Anne
    Mar 22 at 13:51
  • @GratefulDisciple I've tried that, but there is no Christianity Meta profile to be found anywhere, only the Meta user profile which says I have zero activity. stackexchange.com/users/13008955/anne?tab=accounts
    – Anne
    Mar 27 at 12:14
  • @GratefulDisciple - the last time I bother you! Thank-you. For the first time I've been able to access my Christianity Meta profile page, since you provided my link. I've never been able to find it till you copied it up above. A Meta site I have nothing to do with keeps appearing! It's all about coding and programming. How did I ever get included in that? Don't answer! Have a rest from all my perplexities! Thank-you.
    – Anne
    Mar 27 at 15:49
  • @Anne I'm glad now you can. It used to confuse me as well. I'm deleting my comments to prevent clutter. Have a great day! Mar 28 at 15:04
2

I agree with GratefulDisciple. My background to the site before C.SE was from SO.SE and so for the most part I feel that there are already quite a few methods in place to inform new users of how the site works and why a question may have been closed.

For example when you ask a question there are links to

If an answer is closed there are details at the top:

  • reason (for example: This question needs to be more focused.)
  • and a solution (for example: Update the question so it focuses on one problem only.)

Many sites have requirements to ask questions to be on-topic or valid without being closed. I've seen rules on reddit and discord servers where if you don't follow the rules your post/account is closed/banned. It should be on the users to read the rules before posting randomly, especially on the internet.

Down votes is a realm in of itself. Many meta questions have covered this subject (basically its for community to decide value of question/answer, its not going to change-system encourages users to comment down vote reason):

Negative scores are a bummer, but you can't please everyone. Generally well written questions/answers receive fewer down votes than upvotes (20 most downvoted questions)

I think the best thing to do is be an example. If you down vote, leave a comment or up vote another comment stating the reason. If you see a bad question, ask the user clarifying questions in the comments or direct them to the help center.

1

Introduction

I've been reflecting on this question since I've asked it two days ago. Please note that I am not infallible, I am young, and I am limited in my experience. But I also have a very recent experience of joining this site and the community. My goal here is not to shame anyone, not to place someone at fault, but merely to observe the issues we have at C.SE and give potential solutions. Your feedback is welcomed, and together I think we can build a better site for new members and our established community as a whole.

Problems

I've identified two key issues on the site as I've been here and seen not only my interactions with well established members but also with my observations of new members entering the site. Admittedly, I've been harsh with some new members. I've tried to lead people to see the tour for more info, but I can be harsh, and I'm trying to work on that.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to cite specific examples (vacation), but anyone who's been on this cite for more than an hour probably knows what I am talking about.

We are rude.

We are rude to new visitors, and we are rude to each other.

Why? I'm not sure. C.SE has a certain level of academic prestige. We are very strict in our rules, and people enforce them. Not just mods, but the laypeople. The painful truth of SE is that we are very elitist. We want perfection in questions. We want the highest quality. The filet mignon of questions.

To a certain extent, striving for high levels of quality that is not a bad thing. High quality is important, and we don't want to devolve into sites like Quora or Reddit, with nearly no rules on question quality or types of questions.

All that's to say, we have to have a limit on how much we care about quality. For new members, that limit has to be pretty low. As a member becomes more situated, that limit rises. I'll expound on this more later.

So that's problem one: overall high expectations that manifest with rudeness towards others.

My second problem is one from a psychological point of view that I've mentioned. Note that I am not a psychologist, this is merely armchair thinking.

Humans are obsessed with score. Video games and sports are a great example of how score manifests in our society and plays a key role in behavior.

We use score here on SE in order to do quality control. It definitely isn't a perfect system, but upvoting and downvoting as positives that other systems don't offer. But there is one problem, and it is very serious.

Downvotes are a mental boot out the door of our website. I myself was very lucky to have success in my early posts, such as my question on universalism, which was super popular and very helpful to me. But downvotes hurt, and I speak from experience here. Spending time on a question that you think is important and having it blasted into the ground is painful. Especially as GratefulDisciple said, most people come here searching for answers about their doubts on their denominations or Christian faith as a whole. Sometimes that works out and this site is helpful, such as my time here. But a lot of the times, it's not like that.

And the fact that we have not had a new consistent member for a while is telling of the problem we see. Downvoting these new users is hurting them.

Who can blame them? It is human nature to flee from criticism. We don't like it. That's not to say criticism is bad, but it is to say that we need to be careful where we direct our criticism.

I think there are some sub-problems that I could identify, but I think those two are the most important that I would like to address.

Solutions?

I see a couple of ideas. I think we want to have two things happen.

  1. A welcome of new members that we want to stay.
  2. Quality questions from new users that maintain our unique site rules and ideals.

Welcoming new members.

Upon welcome, I think we should have a popup that strongly encourages, if not requires, users to take the tour. Taking the tour gives them access to asking a question. Before they ask a question, I think they should be presented with a short article (in pop-up form) saying what kind of questions are acceptable on this site. Once they have read both of those, they might still ask a bad question, but it could serve to help some of the questions we receive.

Second, we strongly advise against downvoting new members. I don't know how we do this, maybe a message when you downvote a new user that says, "consider leaving a comment to help this user understand where they went wrong, or remove your downvote." Or maybe we don't allow downvoting for new users at all! I'm not sure. But I think the number one thing we can do is be kind. If you can get your message across without downvoting, do it. If you upvote, say why. Be welcoming. Treat someone like you would treat your best friend.

Let things slide. As I've mentioned, let's cut new users some slack. Let's allow (to a certain extent) questions that go against our rules. That's not to say we don't say anything, but let people make errors without downvoting or immediately closing.

I'd appreciate any other ideas you have. I really want to build this community past the few consistent members we have (me, Ken, Peter, HTR, GratefulDisciple, Geremia, ect.) more people is better. We want a big community. We want people getting their questions answered. That's what this site is about.

Blessings y'all, I can't wait to hear from you.

1
-3

Disclaimer: I am using "you/r" in a general sense; I am not opening fire on any proper nouns, excepting, perhaps, the site.

Regardless, please do not take this personally; I intend brevity, clarity, and accuracy, not offence.

Bottom Line, Up Front: walk the talk or say nothing. Otherwise, do not expect others to heed you; if you do, make sure you want them to. #GoldenRule #Standards #Justice #Uniformity #HorseSense

You can have your cake and eat it if you still have cake.

What would be helpful is to site-officially neon light, road flare, and jacklight actual, academically rigorous criteria for asking and answering here, at least if the relevant parties keep bandying about terms like "academic" in reference to the site.

I am not saying such criteria are not about here, but, as a highly infrequent user, I've yet to see them, and it should not be all bullwhips, snakes, and idols to find them if they exist.

One principal reason I am an infrequent user is people insist on beating me over the noggin with cries of, e.g., "That's not how the site works!" at least according to them that day, often ostensibly in violation of my digital assailant's evidenced if mercurial standards.

At the very least, do not, for example, make weakly supported or unsupported claims like "That's not how the site works!" because someone, at least according to you, did the same sort of thing. #Arbitrary #DoubleStandard #Hypocrisy

In short, sayin' so don't make it so; show us, don't tell us, and have your stuff wired tight or stop saying how academic the site is and invoking same.

Here are two comparatively mild examples from just the past couple of days:

One

Two

Add: after catching flack for days, I've concluded four options here.

  1. Tighten up your entry criteria: if you want PhDs, then restrict it to PhDs. If you want to have an academic forum, then make it for actual academics and, perhaps, others via invitation and sponsorship. In Crayola, it's insane, wicked, or both to open the doors wide and then complain about, ignore, or pick on whatever blows through the door. It would be interesting to see which of us here would remain.
  2. Clarify your criteria and require passing a relevant test before further interaction.
  3. Let it go, stop hitting the feeder bar, and realise not all of us are in High School. Human respect is a sin, and popularity contests are pathetic.
  4. Some combo of the above.

In short, it's the wrong question. Change the new people, change yourself, or both.

I suspect that the ancient sages here, in general, like things just as they are; that's why they are.

8
  • Just to clarify so I can reflect on this - are you saying that we are hypocrites and criticize others for not following the rules while simultaneously not following them ourselves?
    – Luke Hill
    Mar 19 at 0:48
  • With all due respect, sir, I don't know how much more obvious I can make the disclaimer, but thanks for asking. It could have been worse; way to not be rash. Very Catholic of you.
    – user58073
    Mar 19 at 1:23
  • no need to call me sir :) but I’m still confused what you are saying, your words are befuddling to me.
    – Luke Hill
    Mar 19 at 3:00
  • Never mind, man; I recall another reason I don't come here very much. Too much output for too little input. "'taint worth it." I'm the nail that sticks out; time to go before I get hammered again. If it weren't for Google alerts, I wouldn't have returned. Have a good'n. It's like pulling the teeth of the thought police.
    – user58073
    Mar 19 at 3:05
  • You are an odd person - I’m not trying to police you, I’m trying to genuinely understand what you are saying.
    – Luke Hill
    Mar 19 at 5:09
  • Sir, I didn't say that you, specifically, individually, namely, were trying to police me, and I figured you were just trying to understand and, yet here "we" are, again. I was referring to my OVERALL experience on ~C.SE. To be JUST, I get how you might reach these kinds of conclusions, if by leaping. In crayon, it "shouldn't" be this hard, but it is; it's ridiculous. WWIII will go hot with an "LOL." Text "communications" will end civilization such as it is. "Vlad baby, why'd you nuke DC?" "I didn't like your 'tone' on Twitter."
    – user58073
    Mar 19 at 10:30
  • 3
    This site doesn't aim to actually have academic standards like a journal. But it does have an academic style: questions are impersonal, and answers are expected to support their claims with quotes, references, or other evidence, though not to the same standards as you'd expect for an academic journal.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Mar 21 at 21:51
  • That reads like an excuse, but I'll upvote for the clarification. I don't know if it will linger as I'm deleting my account and popping smoke in< 24h, but thanks for the attempt, at the very least. Regardless, "it" should make up "its" mind and quit sitting the fence. There's only so much cake to have and eat, and fence-sitters get shot off, eventually.
    – user58073
    Mar 21 at 22:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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