A question appeared on the site this afternoon which is explicitly off-topic for the site as per the scope. All that question would do is cause opinionated answers and comments filled to the brim with discussion (Which I know we want to avoid as best we can)

However, a user decided that he had some moral obligation to defend the OP to his dying breath (You can see all the comments alternatively you can view the chat which I tried to invite him into, he declined as you can see)

I'm a little disappointed with the user it seems that he used his opinion on the moderation on the site to make some snide remarks towards myself, whether he wanted to gain some extra points on his moral compass or just purposefully insult me because I am "ruining the site" I do not know.

My question is, is behaviour like this tolerated/acceptable? All I did was enforce the sites "rules" and I was attacked for it. Admittedly, I was wrong to respond back about him being on a high-horse that comment was unprofessional however his comments left me a little bitter.

As a note, I would like to formally apologise for the aforementioned final comment I made, it was not necessary. I won't delete it because it is relevant, I'd just like to apologise for it.

  • 3
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Rory Alsop Mod
    Jun 19, 2018 at 15:57
  • // , Welp. Today, upon reading the chat linked above, I have learned the word "falg." Jan 11, 2019 at 0:48

1 Answer 1


@JoshuaJones - course you are! Why wouldn't you? Would be CRAZY to try and help the OP out and answer their question if the question isn't the pinnacle of quality. – JᴀʏMᴇᴇ

This sentence, under the cover of sarcasm, is a passive-aggressive attack on @JoshuaJones, basically calling him crazy. It is against our Be nice policy here.

Anyone is entitled to its own opinion, but it should be stated as such, and without animosity toward fellow users.

The first, and often the most enthusiastic, comments tend to be from people heavily-moderating the StackExchange content rather than just cracking on with helping. Have a look over your most recent 'activity' on your profile page. Most of it, recently, has been to pull people up on irrelevant questions. There's too much of this on SE, it's ruining the community. – JᴀʏMᴇᴇ

SE is a community driven platform, where the general behaviour is governed by the SE policies and by the actions of its users. It might not be exactly the same on all SE sites. Yes there are 'heavy-moderating' SE users, who look out for off-topic content and will state it (especially with no vote-to-close privilege). But:

Welcome to InfoSec.Ex! I think this question will cause too many subjective/opinionated answers and ultimately leave comments full of extended discussion which is something we try to avoid here. Due to that I am flagging the question. – Joshua Jones

is a valid comment both on the on-topicness of the question, and in it's intend to help the OP to understand why this is considered off-topic (and might ultimately get closed, or left open depending on the general community consensus).

If someone thinks this is a problem, he can start a discussion on meta, link to relevant other meta SE sites and make his case.

  • 1
    Couldn't they also just vote to reopen a question if they think it was closed a little aggressively? Jun 19, 2018 at 19:56
  • 4
    The problem here is not the closing. The problem is making one's opinion known in a matter that is not nice in comments.
    – M'vy
    Jun 19, 2018 at 20:13
  • 1
    That's pretty obvious from the answer you provided, however I was attempting to find a way to suggest that you might also include in your answer that if someone REALLY thought a question shouldn't have been closed, they could also vote to reopen it and post about it on meta. I'm just at a lost on how to suggest that without either sounding condescending or pandering... Jun 19, 2018 at 20:15
  • 2
    I see. I've tried to add a little hint about consensus by the community.
    – M'vy
    Jun 20, 2018 at 8:09

You must log in to answer this question.