Timeline for How should we handle answers that predate standard loopholes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 1 at 14:27 | history | rollback | Wheat Wizard Mod |
Rollback to Revision 4
|
|
| Jul 31 at 23:38 | history | edited | Lucenaposition | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 28 characters in body
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | Community Bot |
replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | Community Bot |
replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | Community Bot |
replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 30, 2016 at 15:42 | comment | added | Dennis Mod | @Mego Answers that were always invalid should be deleted even if they were posted before out policy. This makes sense because they were always invalid, we just hadn't decided what to do with them. However, answers were valid when they were posted but later get invalidated by a new rule should not get removed. This distinction is also one of the reasons we close and/or lock questions that fell out of scope: the existing answers get to stay, but new ones are lo longer accepted. | |
| Sep 30, 2016 at 14:30 | comment | added | user45941 | I'm still confused by this answer... This other answer by you seems to say the opposite. | |
| May 9, 2016 at 23:51 | comment | added | Alex A. Mod | The use of built-ins actually was an accepted standard loophole for a time. It has since lost support and dropped below the threshold for being considered a loophole. Most of the loopholes aren't as "controversial" (for lack of a better word) and have remained solidly positive or negative overall. | |
| Apr 29, 2016 at 3:45 | comment | added | user45941 | @Dennis Allow me to clarify, then: high-quality contributions don't end up on the standard loopholes list with support (a significantly positive overall score). | |
| Apr 29, 2016 at 3:29 | comment | added | Dennis Mod | @Mego That's debatable. Imagine the Using built-in functions to do the work proposal finally getting enough support to be considered a loophole. Should we just mass-delete all answers that use built-ins? | |
| Apr 29, 2016 at 3:25 | comment | added | user45941 | @Dennis If it was a high-quality contribution, it wouldn't have ended up on the standard loopholes list. | |
| Apr 29, 2016 at 3:24 | comment | added | Dennis Mod | @Mego I was just going along with the the original wording of the loophole thread, but fair enough. The questions that should be asked is Was this a high-quality contribution when it was posted? If the answer is yes, the post shouldn't be deleted. | |
| Apr 29, 2016 at 3:21 | comment | added | user45941 | "Funny" is too subjective of a criteria to use for moderation purposes | |
| Apr 28, 2016 at 7:56 | comment | added | John Dvorak | Using trigraphs for obfuscation was never funny. | |
| Apr 26, 2016 at 23:43 | comment | added | Dennis Mod | Maybe so, but I don't think there's a single course of action that is appropriate in all cases. | |
| Apr 26, 2016 at 23:35 | comment | added | Alex A. Mod | To me this seems only marginally less problematic than handling them on a case-by-case basis. | |
| Apr 26, 2016 at 23:32 | comment | added | Alex A. Mod | We can lock for content dispute rather than historical significance since the content is... disputed. | |
| Apr 26, 2016 at 23:28 | history | answered | Dennis Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |