PCG has potential, but lacks direction

Question

This question:

Convert short month names to their longer counterparts [Ended]

Is going to end up getting closed, based on the close vote rate I see, despite not only meeting every single objective criteria in both tag descriptions...

• https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/tags/popularity-contest/info
• https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/tags/code-trolling/info

... but also, based on tone, quality, and number of answers, clearly providing a fun and entertaining challenge for at least a handful of people which, if I'm not mistaken, is the entire point of PCG.

But why was it closed? Because there are a handful of people here that don't particularly enjoy "popularity contests". That's totally fine, those opinions are reasonable and valid as far as opinions go, but "I don't like popularity contests" is not a valid close reason, and arbitrarily slapping on a nonsensical "too-broad" or "not-objective" (when both are categorically false for this question) doesn't disguise that reason.

Further, not one, but two people felt that it was both appropriate and productive to go down and downvote every single answer on that question. Whether you like a question or not, punishing every answerer is not appropriate. The type of user who does this is the type of user that PCG has catered to through its poorly defined close reasons, tags, and philosophies.

PCG is a brilliant idea on paper, but its execution has left it one of the desolate corners of the SE network. Granted its still in beta, but it doesn't seem to be progressing like it should.

Personally, I'm going to find enjoyable programming puzzles elsewhere. Not in an "I'm taking my ball and going home" kind of way, but in a "PCG isn't actually all that fun or interesting" kind of way. The problem isn't the overall quality of challenges that people post; the problem is that this site is either unattractive or downright repelling because:

1. Poorly defined and inappropriate close reasons lend themselves to constant misuse and misinterpretation,

2. A poorly defined and narrow philosophy leaves users without a framework for expectations, and so confusion results at a deep level: Fundamental etiquette and purpose concepts are frequently argued about on meta (the kinds of concepts that should have been solidified before PCG even went live, such as "what is the purpose of this site"). Tags exist for question categories that half of the users feel shouldn't belong on the site, and so nobody knows what's actually supposed to go here. There is a clear desire for PCG to be a fun and interesting outlet for code puzzles, and it is constantly suppressed by mismatched and weak expectations and philosophies.

3. Poor moderation. Most of the moderators that I have seen here strike me as totally great, reasonable, opinionated and highly intelligent people who should probably not be moderators. Unfortunately, that statement is always going to come across far harsher than I mean it, and I apologize! However, there does not seem to be enough moderator command presence (as they call it in cop shows); the moderators are more like general opinionated users, which would be fine if they weren't responsible for defining the philosophy and environment of this site. The community can't even agree on what kinds of challenges it actually wants on this site, and the moderators really need to be the ones to step up and flat out state what this site is all about; the moderators should -not- be the ones participating in these debates. The diamond carries with it a responsibility to set the tone of the site, and users (like me) place a lot of weight on what you have to say; when you can't even clearly define or agree on what this site is about, it manifests as a general lack of coherence, direction, and etiquette in the community you are responsible for.

In any case, I do have some potential ideas for more organized close reasons and some other general suggestions, but after seeing other people get turned away from this site, and finally experiencing it for myself (and the -2 downvotes on every answer -- you guys should be ashamed, and hey moderators, jump in and adjust those users privileges accordingly, throw it down for a change -- look at the good natured fun and creativity present in every answer on that question, and convince yourself that the PCG philosophy is to stop that in the act, and to create an environment where users downvote those answers -- you have a problem that you need to fix if this site ever hopes to get out of beta), I think that my PCG attention span ends at roughly the same point as the period at the end of this sentence.

Answer 1

PPCG in three acts

---

Act 1: Happy Times!

2011 - Nov. 2013

Not much traffic on the site, but our small community is happy and thriving, and when a new question is posted it's almost always high-quality and enjoyable.

Act 2: The Dark Era

Dec. 2013 - Jan. 2014

Systematic invasion and sneak attack of the site by code-trolling. Within that one fateful month, the site was devastated, with tons and tons of code-trolling trash posts bombarding the site and new, uncomprehending users blindly upvoting and answering them.

Act 3: This Means War

Feb. 2014 - Mar. 2014

In early February, code-trolling was almost completely under control, and had brought out the next ugly beast: popularity-contest. Not the tag itself, but the low quality questions, the "I'll just slap on pop-contest and call it a day" type.

So we began a war on popularity contest, and it continues today.

---

To address your points in order, now:

• "But why was it closed? Because...": Unfortunately, some users may misunderstand the reason that we're closing some of these, but speaking for myself and probably many other meta regulars, I have not yet cast my close vote on that specific post.
• "Further, not one, but": That's quite unusual, and it's certainly a misuse of the voting system, but should you really let two rogue users bother you this much?
• Item 1 in your list: Only because we need to get some of the trash low-quality posts off of our site. I'm all for adding a few new custom off-topic close reasons to help with this.
• Item 2: See Act 2. The flood of new users in December has left the community divided.
• Item 3: No no no no no. Moderators should do as little as possible! Moderators are the janitors and the human exception handlers of the site, and I really admire them for being so hands-off and letting the community go its own way. If it weren't for them being so relaxed, popularity-contest might not even exist today!
• "hey moderators, jump in and adjust those users privileges accordingly" - That's not even possible. It's not even possible to find out who those users might be.

I think you just need to calm down, step away from the computer for a few hours, and let this cool down for a while. Maybe go outside. It'll help.

Answer 2

First, thank you for voicing your opinion. This is the way in which our community grows, by having its users express what they want and don't want to see here.

Second, a community is ever-evolving, and its expectations of what fits the site or doesn't likewise is. In the early days of the site (2011 to 2012), popularity contest questions were not considered acceptable. But since then, such questions have gained popularity (har har), especially with the introduction of code trolling. So whatever opinions I have about popularity contests (and they are well known and frequently articulated), there is no turning back the clock.

Third, there is an important principle about moderation at Stack Exchange. Moderators are supposed to enforce the will of the community, not their own personal opinions and agenda. (Though, of course, moderators are also members of the community and are entitled to have an opinion too.) Furthermore, they are supposed to be generally hands-off, and not get involved in close/delete votes (leaving them to high-rep users instead) unless a post is egregiously off-topic (e.g., "send me teh codez") or offensive. This is all detailed in A Theory of Moderation, which all moderators are expected to abide by:

We believe deeply in community moderation. That’s why we appoint Pro Tempore Moderators and, ideally, democratically elected community moderators for every site in our network. But what do community moderators do? The short answer is, as little as possible!

(Emphasis in original.)

Moderators do not have the ability to see who downvoted which post. Serial downvoters (and serial upvoters) are detected by the system automatically on a periodic basis and their votes will be nullified automatically. So such actions have very little long-term effect.

You have clearly thought a great deal about the mechanics of the site, and I appreciate your sharing of these thoughts. Stack Exchange might not be the right venue for implementing these ideas, and I understand your frustration and wish to be elsewhere. I wish you the best, wherever your Internet travels take your next.

Answer 3

OK, calm down. Have a cup of tea :-)

A few observations:

1. PCG is anything but a "desolate corner" of the SE network. The latest stats at Area 51 show that its performance is excellent in all respects, except for the number of questions being asked per day.

2. There may be a few people who don't like them, but the PCG community is generally in favour of keeping code-trolling questions. I certainly don't see any reason to close the question you mentioned.

3. In fact, a recent status report by a Stack Exchange community manager mentioned that the appearance of code-trolling questions has greatly improved our site traffic, and that the introduction of new puzzle types should be positively encouraged. (I've put those bits in bold text to make sure everyone can see them.)

4. If a question has been unfairly flagged, a brief post to meta can work wonders. There's really no need to rant.

5. Inexplicable downvotes do happen (someone recently downvoted all the answers to this question, for example), but are always kept in check by the other votes. Don't worry about it.