Return to Answer

Scope of this answer

This answer only addresses the particular situation that the OP says provoked her question — the lack of advice (in the form of lack of comments) in downvoting and voting to close a previous question, and the reason given for the close votes. Her first sentence implies to me that she considers this to be “not nice” and “mean”. Whether or not this was intended, it is a reasonable interpretation of what was written, and as I was one who downvoted the question I will not let the implication go unchallenged.

That is the limit of my answer. It does not address the general question of the friendliness of this site, nor, because of its scope, does it invite dialogue in the form of comments. Of course, list members are free to make comments, but I will not reply to them. Comments that satisfy the SE criteria of “ask(ing) for clarification or add(ing) more information” will be considered and, if necessary, edits made to this answer. I will not be provoked into replying to comments that I regard as violating the SE code of conduct, but will follow the SE guidelines and flag them to the moderators.

N.B.
Any criticism in this answer is criticism of the arguments of the OP, not a criticism of the OP herself. Any use of words such as “reject” is solely as defence against general remarks which could reflect on me personally as a down-voter and close-voter of the question mentioned. In rebutting arguments it is necessary to maintain that they are incorrect, but this should not be taken personally.

Answer

The term “Be nice” was at one time part of the Code of Conduct, but this has now been replaced by a list of what is regarded as unacceptable behaviour:

• No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language
• No name-calling or personal attacks
• No bigotry
• No harassment

Thus “not being nice” is defined by SE in terms of unacceptable comments, and clearly does not embrace refraining from commenting.

I understand from what is written that by being “mean” the OP means other than unacceptable behaviour as defined by SE: instead she regards it as a “lack of the kindness” in failing to explain the reasons for downvotes and votes to close. Whether or not I have understood her correctly, I think it necessary to make the following point. It has been pointed out numerous times by list members and moderators that some people choose not to provide explanations in comments because of the antagonistic responses they have received from both posters and other list members who have their own definitions of “unfriendly language”. That was why I did not comment on my down/close votes and I resent any suggestion or implication that this behaviour is “mean”.

The other criticism of the votes to close made by myself and another list member was that a question about a technology that could “Harm human body or food” could not be considered a request for “health (not medical) advice”. As this clearly means “if I use it will it harm me?” it seems eminently reasonable to regard it as a request for health advice. I categorically reject the implication that this choice was “a cover when one can’t close for failure to show research.” It was not.

Scope of this ‘Answer’

The title of this question asks what “be nice” ‘means’ to “you”, and is followed by an opening sentence asking whether it means “be mean”. From this — and the subsequent content — I conclude that the question is about the friendliness of the site, with the poster suggesting that it would be less unfriendly (she writes that the site is often perceived as unfriendly) if (among other things) down-voters or close-voters explained the reasons for their votes in comments to the poster.

That is a valid topic for a discussion on Meta, although I choose not to engage in it. My reason for posting an answer is because the poster cites a concrete example of behaviour “lacking in simple kindness” (and as it follows from the first sentence, presumably “mean” behaviour), and makes a remark that I interpret as meaning that the reasons given for closing are dishonest. I was one of those who voted down and voted to close this question and this answer is a statement of rebuttal.

Clarifications

1. The term “Be nice” was at one time part of the SE Code of Conduct, which has now been replaced by a list of what is regarded as unacceptable behaviour (see Appendix I). Thus, the term has a specific as well as a general meaning.

2. By US dictionary definition (the poster is from the US) the word ‘mean’ is pejorative (see Appendix II).

Statement

1. (a) In terms of the SE Code of Conduct, there is no requirement to provide explanations for down-votes or close-votes. It has been pointed out numerous times by list members and moderators that some people choose not to provide explanations in comments because of the antagonistic responses they can engender. That was why I did not comment on my down/close votes, especially as if, as I expected, the question were closed as a request for medical or health advice, a boiler-plate explanation would automatically be appended.
   (b) In terms of the common English meaning of the words, I resent any imputation that not commenting in this case was ‘mean’ or reprehensible in any sense.

2. My reasons for interpreting the remarks about the reasons given for closing as imputations of dishonesty are this statement:

   “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. … I don't know how this can be considered a request for medical advice.”

   (a) The SE wording for this option to close is “Personal medical questions and health advice”. The poster asks whether a particular technology “can harm human body”. This clearly means “if I use this technology will it harm me?” and I fail to see how it can be regarded as other than a request for health advice.
   (b) The suggestion that this is “a cover” because some other reason to close cannot be used is completely unjustified. I resent it and categorically reject it.

Resolution

It is conceivable that the poster did not intend to imply that the down-voters and close-voters in the example that provoked her question acted in a reprehensible and dishonest manner. If that is the case the only solution is to remove the example from the question. Disclaimers in comments are not enough — in the question as it stands the implications are clear to me and, I think, the average reader. If the paragraph is removed or replaced, this answer/statement will become redundant and will be deleted.

Appendix I: Stack Exchange Code of Conduct

This is described in terms of unacceptable behaviour:

• No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language

• No name-calling or personal attacks

• No bigotry

• No harassment

It lists what not to say or do in comments. It does not include refraining from commenting.

Appendix II: Dictionary definitions of the word ‘mean’

Merriam-Webster

: lacking dignity or honor : BASE

The Free Dictionary

1. a. Lacking in kindness; unkind
   b. Cruel, spiteful, or malicious
   c. Expressing spite or malice
   d. Tending toward or characterized by cruelty or violence
   e. Extremely unpleasant or disagreeable
2. Ignoble; base:

Scope of this answer

This answer only addresses the particular situation that the OP says provoked her question — the lack of advice (in the form of lack of comments) in downvoting and voting to close a previous question, and the reason given for the close votes. Her first sentence implies that this is “not nice” and “mean”. As I was one who downvoted the question I will not let this go unchallenged. That is all. This answer does not address the general question of the friendliness of this site, nor does it invite comments unless they “ask for clarification or add more information”, are free of personal remarks and confine themselves strictly to this answer.

N.B.
Any criticism in this answer is criticism of the arguments of the OP, not of criticism of the OP herself. Any use of words such as “reject” and “resent” are used defensively against general remarks which could reflect on me personally as a down-voter and close-voter of the question mentioned. In rebutting arguments it is necessary to maintain that they are incorrect, but this should not be taken personally.

Answer

The term “Be nice” was at one time part of the Code of Conduct, but this has now been replaced by a list of what is regarded as unacceptable behaviour:

• No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language
• No name-calling or personal attacks
• No bigotry
• No harassment

Thus “not being nice” is defined by SE in terms of unacceptable comments, and clearly does not embrace refraining from commenting.

It would seem that by being “mean” the OP means other than unacceptable behaviour as defined by SE: instead she regards it as a “lack of the kindness” in failing to explain the reasons for downvotes and votes to close. However, as has been pointed out numerous times by list members and moderators, people choose not to provide explanations in comments because of the antagonistic responses they have received by both posters and other list members with their own definitions of “unfriendly language”. That was my situation and I resent the associated behaviour being described as “mean”.

Two list members were of the opinion that a question regarding whether a technology could “Harm human body or food” was a request for “health (not medical) advice”, an opinion that the OP regards as unreasonable. As this clearly means “if I use it will it harm me?” it seems to me perfectly natural to regard it as a request for health advice. I categorically reject the implication that this choice was “a cover when one can’t close for failure to show research.” It was not.

Scope of this answer

This answer only addresses the particular situation that the OP says provoked her question — the lack of advice (in the form of lack of comments) in downvoting and voting to close a previous question, and the reason given for the close votes. Her first sentence implies to me that she considers this to be “not nice” and “mean”. Whether or not this was intended, it is a reasonable interpretation of what was written, and as I was one who downvoted the question I will not let the implication go unchallenged. 

That is the limit of my answer. It does not address the general question of the friendliness of this site, nor, because of its scope, does it invite dialogue in the form of comments. Of course, list members are free to make comments, but I will not reply to them. Comments that satisfy the SE criteria of “ask(ing) for clarification or add(ing) more information” will be considered and, if necessary, edits made to this answer. I will not be provoked into replying to comments that I regard as violating the SE code of conduct, but will follow the SE guidelines and flag them to the moderators.

N.B.
Any criticism in this answer is criticism of the arguments of the OP, not a criticism of the OP herself. Any use of words such as “reject” is solely as defence against general remarks which could reflect on me personally as a down-voter and close-voter of the question mentioned. In rebutting arguments it is necessary to maintain that they are incorrect, but this should not be taken personally.

Answer

The term “Be nice” was at one time part of the Code of Conduct, but this has now been replaced by a list of what is regarded as unacceptable behaviour:

• No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language
• No name-calling or personal attacks
• No bigotry
• No harassment

Thus “not being nice” is defined by SE in terms of unacceptable comments, and clearly does not embrace refraining from commenting.

I understand from what is written that by being “mean” the OP means other than unacceptable behaviour as defined by SE: instead she regards it as a “lack of the kindness” in failing to explain the reasons for downvotes and votes to close. Whether or not I have understood her correctly, I think it necessary to make the following point. It has been pointed out numerous times by list members and moderators that some people choose not to provide explanations in comments because of the antagonistic responses they have received from both posters and other list members who have their own definitions of “unfriendly language”. That was why I did not comment on my down/close votes and I resent any suggestion or implication that this behaviour is “mean”.

The other criticism of the votes to close made by myself and another list member was that a question about a technology that could “Harm human body or food” could not be considered a request for “health (not medical) advice”. As this clearly means “if I use it will it harm me?” it seems eminently reasonable to regard it as a request for health advice. I categorically reject the implication that this choice was “a cover when one can’t close for failure to show research.” It was not.

Scope of this answer

This answer only addresses the particular situation that the OP says provoked her question — the lack of advice (in the form of lack of comments) in downvoting and voting to close a previous question, and the reason given for the close votes. Her first sentence implies that this is “not nice” and “mean”. As I was one who downvoted the question I will not let this go unchallenged. That is all. I am not interested in addressing the general question of the friendliness of this site, nor do I wish comments unless they “ask for clarification or add more information”, are free of personal remarks and confine themselves strictly to this answer.

N.B.
Any criticism in this answer is criticism of the arguments of the OP, not of criticism of the OP herself. Any use of words such as “reject” and “resent” are used defensively against general imputations of the OP which reflect on me as a down-voter and close-voter of the question she mentions. In rebutting arguments it is necessary to maintain that they are incorrect.

Answer

The term “Be nice” was at one time part of the Code of Conduct, but this has now been replaced by a list of what is regarded as unacceptable behaviour:

• No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language
• No name-calling or personal attacks
• No bigotry
• No harassment

Thus “not being nice” is defined by SE in terms of unacceptable comments, and clearly does not embrace refraining from commenting.

It would seem that by being “mean” the OP means other than unacceptable behaviour as defined by SE: instead she regards it as a “lack of the kindness” in failing to explain the reasons for downvotes and votes to close. However, as has been pointed out numerous times by list members and moderators, people choose not to provide explanations in comments because of the antagonistic responses they have received by both posters and other list members with their own definitions of “unfriendly language”. That was my situation and I resent the associated behaviour being described as “mean”.

Two list members were of the opinion that a question regarding whether a technology could “Harm human body or food” was a request for “health (not medical) advice”, an opinion that the OP regards as unreasonable. As this clearly means “if I use it will it harm me?” it seems to me perfectly natural to regard it as a request for health advice. I categorically reject the implication that this choice was “a cover when one can’t close for failure to show research.” It was not.

Scope of this answer

This answer only addresses the particular situation that the OP says provoked her question — the lack of advice (in the form of lack of comments) in downvoting and voting to close a previous question, and the reason given for the close votes. Her first sentence implies that this is “not nice” and “mean”. As I was one who downvoted the question I will not let this go unchallenged. That is all. This answer does not address the general question of the friendliness of this site, nor does it invite comments unless they “ask for clarification or add more information”, are free of personal remarks and confine themselves strictly to this answer.

N.B.
Any criticism in this answer is criticism of the arguments of the OP, not of criticism of the OP herself. Any use of words such as “reject” and “resent” are used defensively against general remarks which could reflect on me personally as a down-voter and close-voter of the question mentioned. In rebutting arguments it is necessary to maintain that they are incorrect, but this should not be taken personally.

Answer

The term “Be nice” was at one time part of the Code of Conduct, but this has now been replaced by a list of what is regarded as unacceptable behaviour:

• No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language
• No name-calling or personal attacks
• No bigotry
• No harassment

Thus “not being nice” is defined by SE in terms of unacceptable comments, and clearly does not embrace refraining from commenting.

It would seem that by being “mean” the OP means other than unacceptable behaviour as defined by SE: instead she regards it as a “lack of the kindness” in failing to explain the reasons for downvotes and votes to close. However, as has been pointed out numerous times by list members and moderators, people choose not to provide explanations in comments because of the antagonistic responses they have received by both posters and other list members with their own definitions of “unfriendly language”. That was my situation and I resent the associated behaviour being described as “mean”.

Two list members were of the opinion that a question regarding whether a technology could “Harm human body or food” was a request for “health (not medical) advice”, an opinion that the OP regards as unreasonable. As this clearly means “if I use it will it harm me?” it seems to me perfectly natural to regard it as a request for health advice. I categorically reject the implication that this choice was “a cover when one can’t close for failure to show research.” It was not.