Why are we removing kindness and encouragement? [duplicate]

Question

It can take a great deal of effort and courage for a non-native speaker to get started on Stack Exchange which, despite being immensely valuable, can also be rather nit-picky in its moderation. I remember feeling like people were so cold and quick to issue a meta-rejection of how I phrased a question or where it was placed.

Therefore, I believe as an educator and human being that we should be allowed to include phrases of encouragement and, furthermore, that these promote a positive culture on the site. This is especially true in the case of moderation. Here are a few examples of lines that have been deleted from my answers:

"Great question, @user"

"Hope that helps!"

"Let us know if you have any other questions."

These short lines constitute less than 5% of the text and make it rewarding to participate. Why do we feel the need to be so rigid?

This question differs from How helpful is it to add “Hope this is helpful!” to an ELL answer? because it addresses an underlying question of moderation culture within ELL rather than discussing whether a specific phrase is preferable when users provide an answer.

Answer 1

There are a few things at work here that make your question hard to answer briefly.

First, the Stack Exchange has a long tradition of wanting to keep "fluff" out of its questions and answers. (It's not a unanimous sentiment by any means, and you can read some of both sides of the debate at this meta question.) Also, the help center for every SE site also boldly proclaims:

Ask questions, get answers, no distractions

This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat.

So, realize that you are getting into a community that has a good number of members who feel like they are doing a service by editing out comments that some might find unhelpful or distracting.

On the other hand, SE also has a longstanding policy about being nice, and some would argue that a few welcoming comments like the ones you mention in this meta question would be in keeping with that spirit.

Now I'm a little concerned about the way you've worded your question here, which almost makes it sound like there's an epidemic going on within ELL. I've checked all 12 answers you've left on ELL so far, and I could only find one that has been edited by other users in the community. Let's break that down, starting with my edit:

First, you started off by saying, "Great question..." I let that stand. In your last line, you added, "I hope this helps." I let that remain as well. However, I did delete this comment:

Feel free to ask any follow-up questions and I'll do my best to respond.

I didn't think that should stay in the answer, mostly because it's not unusual for newer users to ask follow-on questions in an answer box, which is something that does go against the grain of the SE format. Even if you meant for the user to ask other new questions, I thought your exhortation could be misinterpreted, so I took it out.

Therefore, I take a little exception to the way you've worded this:

I believe as an educator and human being that we should be allowed to include phrases of encouragement and, furthermore, that these promote a positive culture on the site. This is especially true in the case of moderation.

As a moderator, educator, and human being, I agree with you, and I think that my edit did just that. (In fact, the main reason I edited your answer was to improve the format of the arrows, by replacing --> with →.)

Now, there was another user – not a moderator, mind you – who came along later in a separate edit, and removed the "Hope this helps." No doubt this user believed he was doing his civic duty to remove fluff from answers; however, this particular user also has a bit of a reputation for being a little zealous, heavy-handed, and legalistic at times. I disagree with that edit, but it's worth adding that you'll find several long time users of the Stack Exchange that would have no qualms with it. But my point is that these were two separate edits and they should be analyzed as such.

In short:

Why are we removing kindness and encouragement?

A lot of your kindnesses and encouragements have been allowed to stand, and I think your question here perhaps mischaracterizes what is really going on. (In fact, I've found seven instances of you starting an answer with, "Great question, O.P.", and none of them have been edited out.)

SE...can also be rather nit-picky in its moderation

Yes, but don't confuse moderation with edits from members of the community who have sufficient reputation for editing privileges. Those are not the same thing.

Why do we feel the need to be so rigid?

There are a few in the community who seem to thrive on such rigidity, but I think the majority of the community doesn't get wrapped around the axle about such minor things. Please don't confuse the actions of a few pedants with the attitudes of the community at large.

One last comment: I'd ask you to keep an open mind about keeping chit-chat to a minimum. While some find that approach to be aloof or even downright hostile, many SE users enjoy the way the sites aren't cluttered by jibber-jabber in the same way so many other online forums tend to become. So, what you might initially find cold and sterile may be the very thing that keeps other active users coming back. That's worth remembering.

Answer 2

After reviewing these comments (including negativity from those who agree and disagree with my premise), I would like to raise a few points and offer a concrete suggestion. We are all volunteers here and I respect the tenure of J.R. and others who have put in great effort and time.

The Stack Exchange has a long tradition of wanting to keep "fluff" out of its questions and answers. (...) There's no chit-chat.

Let's define "fluff." Were I to ramble about my dog, no contest. Yet showing respect to someone who disagrees with me (as above) in what became a tense conversation, or acknowledging the benefits of a questioner seeking knowledge in the context of delivering it -- I'm not sure that this constitutes "fluff." ELL is geared towards a multicultural audience and thus should take seriously the prospect that what has been tersely termed "fluff" may carry cultural importance to users and derive educational benefit. Does this truly constitutes a "distraction" or "chit-chat"?

First, you started off by saying, "Great question..." I let that stand.

Putting aside that this was not just about me for a moment, as I did review other edits (and comments about them) rather thoroughly throughout Stack Exchange, what is the appropriate role of moderation? Please forgive me if I'm mistaken, but the very verbiage of "I let that stand" implies that the moderator is somehow the owner of the content. Let's review what Stack says about moderators:

Moderators are ... there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community. ... The ideal moderator does as little as possible, but those little actions may be powerful, visible, and highly concentrated.

@J.R., I ask for your openmindness as to the minimalism asked of moderators, the cultural subjectivity inherent in this discussion and the fact that I never intended (or wanted) to make this about you. Here's what I would like to propose:

Let's remember to generalize this conversation so that it's not about you and me. Instead, why don't we pose this directly to the subset of ELL moderators and ask for their guidance. I feel that this issue still merits attention and that the tone of the discussion has turned negative, but that there is a great group of individuals elected by the community who can serve, as @ColleenV phrased it, as an arbiter.