user5198: Seriously, does "Be Nice" = "Be Mean" on this site?
Sometimes I just have to shake my head at the lack of simple kindness shown on this site.
What pushed me over the edge into posting was this question. Some poor soul wants to know if a technology is safe. That gets them 4 down votes and 2 close votes without any helpful advice whatsoever. What's worse is the close reasons are that the OP is seeking medical advice. This seems to be commonly used as a cover when one can't close for failure to show research. Maybe it's just me, but I don't know how this can be considered a request for medical advice. I've seen people comment on Giant Hogweed/Water Hemlock (here, and in a comment to an identification question here, and that is only the very very tip of the "medical" iceberg (which I notice probably because of my profession.) It seems a double standard to me.
How hard is it to be nice? This seems to translate easily to how you would like to be treated if you asked a question. Is it how you would like to be treated if you asked a question? (Judging the quality of the question is not an excuse.)
We are often accused of being an unfriendly site, because we can easily be perceived that way. Yes, we all have the same right to down vote and close vote, and I use both of those options liberally, so it's not really about that (or maybe I'm just justifying my voting pattern.)
There are active users who are very kind in their comments and explanations of DV and CVs. It wouldn't be hard to copy one or two of those comments and keep them handy to paste when appropriate.
It's possible that this is the culture that most of the community wants. I really don't know, because I took a fairly long hiatus and missed all the meta posts for years. Is the culture here unfriendly? Is it what most active users want? (As usual, DV my question if you disagree with me.)
It's ironic that I ask this question when I can be quite unkind. What might not be known is that I have a long history with this particular user from when I was a mod on what was then called Health (now Medical Sciences.SE.) Generally I'm not quite so unkind. I hope, anyway.
There was such a to do over the new CoC a while back which caught a well respected moderator in its tangled, sticky web that SE lost a lot of users, including me for a while. Clearly TPTB at SE weren't taking their own advice. Has this been let go of, i.e. are we no longer accountable to be kind?

user61410: I beg to differ!
Some people seem nice, with a friendly fake smile, but you don't know if they are telling the truth.
Some people seem harsh, but they speak the harsh truth.
Truth is usually hard to accept.
Being frank usually hurts people.
But, as an adult, I need truth much more than sweetness.
Just my personal experience on this site and in society.

user16866: For those that think this is an unfriendly site, could you please elaborate?
Without including any specific user names, which of the following are of biggest concern?

individual "mean" users
moderator attitudes
moderator actions
downvoting
close-voting
lack of comment regarding voting decisions
not-nice comments regarding voting decisions
or something else?

Please include in a comment under this post which numbers above you think need to be addressed. You might even rank the numbers from biggest problem to those of lesser concern.

further elaboration is helpful, but -- again -- please do not include specific usernames in your responses.


user16866: Unfriendly? No, I wouldn't go that far. Not universally (especially compared to other SE sites).
Needing improvement? -- certainly!!!
This has always been an issue I've been passionate about across the network (e.g., here and here). It's especially an issue on SO and stats.SE, in my experience, and I agree it's becoming worse here. I think Bio.SE, like those other sites, has slowly devolved from experts interacting with experts to a shrinking number of increasingly exhausted experts dealing with an overwhelming number of bad questions. At some point, I'm afraid, it seems that time to be nice is -- well -- exhausted.
To compound the issue, I think the sense of being a professional community has likewise dissolved here. So few individuals stay engaged, and those that do are increasingly limited (for example, ignoring chat, or meta, etc.). Some of this is due to the exhaustion, while certainly changes in perceptions, priorities, or life circumstances are at play, too. This shift or degradation in sense of community (and an increasing number of one-time posters) leads to a lack of understood commonality/connection from which to form respectful (and nice) discourse. Also, fewer people likely read the rules!
Further, I think across the board, those that do linger here increasingly think of this site less as a professional/scholarly endeavor (or perhaps never did) and treat it more like a hobby (this, again, mostly owing to the points I make above). With that shift in focus comes a shift in attitudes and demeanor. Much of it subconscious. We all act differently in professional settings than otherwise.
I would welcome you, @anongoodnurse, to once again become more engaged here. Sometimes communities just need a good kick in the rear (this post) and then a breath of fresh air. More experts means less work, and more experts passionate about explicitly calling attention to this issue is necessary to rejuvenate our Be Nice culture. I think we should all be calling out perceived issues in one another's behaviors, and certainly raising moderator flags or meta posts helps to broaden the scope and enact some more purposeful change.

5198: <p>Seriously, does &quot;Be Nice&quot; = &quot;Be Mean&quot; on this site?</p>
<p>Sometimes I just have to shake my head at the lack of simple kindness shown on this site.
What pushed me over the edge into posting was <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/107331/5198">this question</a>. Some poor soul wants to know if a technology is safe. That gets them 4 down votes and 2 close votes without any helpful advice whatsoever. What's worse is the close reasons are that the OP is seeking medical advice. This seems to be commonly used as a cover when one can't close for failure to show research. Maybe it's just me, but I don't know how this can be considered a request for medical advice. I've seen people comment on Giant Hogweed/Water Hemlock (<a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/77587/51980">here</a>, and in a comment to an identification question <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/a/36183/5198">here</a>, and that is only the very very tip of the &quot;medical&quot; iceberg (which I notice probably because of my profession.) It seems a double standard to me.</p>
<p>How hard is it to be nice? This seems to translate easily to how you would like to be treated if you asked a question. <em>Is it how you would like to be treated if you asked a question?</em> (Judging the quality of the question is not an excuse.)</p>
<p>We are often accused of being an unfriendly site, because we can easily be perceived that way. Yes, we all have the same right to down vote and close vote, and I use both of those options liberally, so it's not really about that (or maybe I'm just justifying my voting pattern.)</p>
<p>There are active users who are very kind in their comments and explanations of DV and CVs. It wouldn't be hard to copy one or two of those comments and keep them handy to paste when appropriate.</p>
<p>It's possible that this is the culture that most of the community wants. I really don't know, because I took a fairly long hiatus and missed all the meta posts for years. Is the culture here unfriendly? Is it what most active users want? (As usual, DV my question if you disagree with me.)</p>
<p><sub>It's ironic that I ask this question when I can be <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/107246/5198">quite unkind</a>. What might not be known is that I have a <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/267094/262486">long history</a> with this particular user from when I was a mod on what was then called <em>Health</em> (now Medical Sciences.SE.) Generally I'm not quite so unkind. I hope, anyway.</sub></p>
<p><sub>There was such a to do over the new CoC a while back which caught a well respected moderator in its tangled, sticky web that SE lost a lot of users, including me for a while. Clearly TPTB at SE weren't taking their own advice. Has this been let go of, i.e. are we no longer accountable to be kind?</sub></p>
 61410: <p>I beg to differ!</p>
<p>Some people seem nice, with a friendly fake smile, but you don't know if they are telling the truth.</p>
<p>Some people seem harsh, but they speak the harsh truth.</p>
<p>Truth is usually hard to accept.</p>
<p>Being frank usually hurts people.</p>
<p>But, as an adult, I need truth much more than sweetness.</p>
<p>Just my personal experience on this site and in society.</p>
 16866: <p>For those that think this is an unfriendly site, could you please elaborate?</p>
<p><em>Without including any specific user names</em>, which of the following are of biggest concern?</p>
<ol>
<li>individual &quot;mean&quot; users</li>
<li>moderator attitudes</li>
<li>moderator actions</li>
<li>downvoting</li>
<li>close-voting</li>
<li>lack of comment regarding voting decisions</li>
<li>not-nice comments regarding voting decisions</li>
<li>or something else?</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Please include in a comment under this post which numbers above you think need to be addressed. You might even rank the numbers from biggest problem to those of lesser concern.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>further elaboration is helpful, but -- again -- <em>please do not include specific usernames in your responses</em>.</li>
</ul>
 16866: <p>Unfriendly? No, I wouldn't go that far. Not universally (especially compared to other SE sites).<br />
Needing improvement? -- certainly!!!</p>
<p>This has always been an issue I've been passionate about across the network (e.g., <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/election/3?tab=election#post-81528">here</a> and <a href="https://biology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3932">here</a>). It's especially an issue on SO and stats.SE, in my experience, and I agree it's becoming worse here. I think Bio.SE, like those other sites, has slowly devolved from experts interacting with experts to a shrinking number of increasingly exhausted experts dealing with an overwhelming number of bad questions. At some point, I'm afraid, it seems that time to be nice is -- well -- exhausted.</p>
<p>To compound the issue, I think the sense of being a professional community has likewise dissolved here. So few individuals stay engaged, and those that do are increasingly limited (for example, ignoring chat, or meta, etc.). Some of this is due to the exhaustion, while certainly changes in perceptions, priorities, or life circumstances are at play, too. This shift or degradation in sense of community (and an increasing number of one-time posters) leads to a lack of understood commonality/connection from which to form respectful (and nice) discourse. Also, fewer people likely read the rules!</p>
<p>Further, I think across the board, those that do linger here increasingly think of this site less as a professional/scholarly endeavor (or perhaps never did) and treat it more like a hobby (this, again, mostly owing to the points I make above). With that shift in focus comes a shift in attitudes and demeanor. Much of it subconscious. We all act differently in professional settings than otherwise.</p>
<p>I would welcome you, @anongoodnurse, to once again become more engaged here. Sometimes communities just need a good kick in the rear (this post) and then a breath of fresh air. More experts means less work, and more experts passionate about explicitly calling attention to this issue is necessary to rejuvenate our Be Nice culture. I think we should all be calling out perceived issues in one another's behaviors, and certainly raising moderator flags or meta posts helps to broaden the scope and enact some more purposeful change.</p>
