> Moderators used to edit my posts and reword what i wrote, which is unacceptable. My posts were absolutely peaceful and not inflammatory.
99.9% probability the people who made those edits a) were not moderators; b) were acting completely in accordance with established policy (please read: "Why do clear, accurate, appropriately detailed posts still get edited?" https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/403176)
Why do you think you should be the one who gets to decide whether that's "acceptable"? The site existed before you came to it, and it has goals, purposes and cultural norms established beforehand. It's your responsibility, before using any site on the Internet that accepts user-generated content, to try to understand the site's and community's expectations for that content.
On Stack Overflow, the expectations are:
1. You license the content to the site and to the community, and everyone is allowed to edit it. (This is also explicitly laid out in the TOS.)
2. You are contributing to a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for the programming community: a catalog of questions whose answers can be useful to many people, not just to yourself.
3. Content is intended to be matter-of-fact and right to the point, and explicitly not conversational. You are emphatically not participating in a discussion forum.
What "tone"? Why is it unreasonable to say these sorts of things about Stack Overflow, or about any community? How is "your questions and answers need to meet our standards to be accepted" any different from "your pull requests need to meet our standards to be accepted"?
It's hard to explain, but immediately clear to enough people that it explains why so many people aren't sad to see SO fall on hard times.
I get that there have to be some rules, but it comes across like you derive some sort of satisfaction in enforcing rules. Successful sites with user moderation start out with a big population of people who will tolerate the rules in order to participate in the goal of the site, but eventually they end up dominated by people who feel that the very act of enforcing rules is an important contribution. All of the talk of "community" comes across as a thinly veiled version of Cartman's "Respect my authority" from South Park.
Man, if this was irl, you'd be punched in the face or ostracized. That's a quick way to assess if your tone is right.
If you don't have a mental capacity to do that (nothing against you, some people are just born that way) — I pity you, but still, try to be 'helpful' over 'correct'. That's how civilization is built.
Wikipedia also have this problem, with moderators using some 'wiki-speak' jargon to 'win the comment battles'.
99.9% probability the people who made those edits a) were not moderators; b) were acting completely in accordance with established policy (please read: "Why do clear, accurate, appropriately detailed posts still get edited?" https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/403176)
Why do you think you should be the one who gets to decide whether that's "acceptable"? The site existed before you came to it, and it has goals, purposes and cultural norms established beforehand. It's your responsibility, before using any site on the Internet that accepts user-generated content, to try to understand the site's and community's expectations for that content.
On Stack Overflow, the expectations are:
1. You license the content to the site and to the community, and everyone is allowed to edit it. (This is also explicitly laid out in the TOS.)
2. You are contributing to a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for the programming community: a catalog of questions whose answers can be useful to many people, not just to yourself.
3. Content is intended to be matter-of-fact and right to the point, and explicitly not conversational. You are emphatically not participating in a discussion forum.