# Why is this type of post accepted?

From the "What's Meta" page:

Meta is for...

• ...Aviation Stack Exchange users to communicate with each other about Aviation Stack Exchange (asking questions about how the websites work, or about policies and community decisions)
• ...Aviation Stack Exchange users to communicate with Stack Overflow the company (posting bugs, suggesting improvements, or proposing new features), and
• ...Stack Overflow the company to communicate with the community (soliciting feedback on new ideas or features, or discussing policies that affect the whole network)

From this meta question: What is aviation meta for?

Meta is for questions or discussion about the Aviation SE site itself.

So when I see posts like this (or this) I cannot keep myself from wondering how do they fit within the scope of a meta.se site. I admit that I might be a little strict here: I have some doubts also about this kind of posts, but in the end I see how they could fit in the third category.

But when speaking about the posts that prompted this question, given that also the OP says that the tag was selected because there wasn't a tag for "handshakes-all-around" (i.e.: it's an onanistic post), I do not see the value that they bring to the site.

And yet, they seem to collect a fair amount of upvotes.

Can someone enlighten me on the reasons for which this kind of posts is encouraged?

• The real question is, if you think that those are off topic, why didnt you just VtC? – Jamiec Feb 24 '16 at 13:09
• @Jamiec because it's not the first and because it has gathered a fair number of upvotes, so I want to understand. – Federico Feb 24 '16 at 13:19
• But out of the 3 you've linked, one is deleted (lets ignore that), one is clearly not a question and the last is an old one trying to advertise chat (forgivable, maybe people really didnt know chat exists). In any case, all are off topic, and should be voted to be closed. There is nothing to discuss - esentially this question is making the same mistake you're complaining about. – Jamiec Feb 24 '16 at 14:02
• @Jamiec and they have plenty of upvotes and moderator support. I am asking to discuss this, if you cannot see the difference, I'm sorry, I am not able to help you. – Federico Feb 24 '16 at 14:26
• I don't understand why this question has been down voted, it is a perfectly reasonably question that deserves an answer. – Jay Carr Feb 24 '16 at 21:35

Oh for the love of... Look, folks, it's okay to have a little bit of fun in Meta on occasion. A funny post (in Meta at least), every now and again, can be just fine. Most of us in here are committed users, we know the purpose of the site, and we know when thing are going too far. When they do, we downvote. When it's just a post on occasion..we give it a sly smile and vote it up a bit.

Some might respond, "yes, but if we allow meta to devolve into nothing but humorous posts, we're just going to become a poorly designed reddit. Where do we draw the line?" My response to that would be: The community is self regulating. Keep in mind is that Meta is somewhat community driven (as opposed to the main site, which is strictly Q&A). Most people who post and answer in here can recognize each other's names, and want to be friendly (even humorous) on occasion.

I guess what I'm saying, in the end, is to have some faith in the users of Meta. We may get a little silly on occasion, but only within reasons before the downvotes start to fly :).

PS- To be clear, no, none of these arguments are true for the main site. The main site should be rigorously policed for off topic questions because the vast majority of posters are transients who don't fully understand the purpose of the site.

It is my opinion that Meta is different, but I don't want anyone taking my logic regarding meta and misapplying it to the main site...that's all I'm saying.

Can someone enlighten me on the reasons for which this kind of posts is encouraged?

I won't speak for "this kind of post", but I can tell you why I made this specific post.

1. I chose to post because I decided the potential good was greater than the potential harm. I didn't intentionally set out to violate the rule or the spirit of Meta. If I had been certain the post was inappropriate, I wouldn't have submitted it.
2. I think that if something is worth saying, and nobody else will, then I ought to.
3. I think that good deeds should be recognized, even if it's just by one person.
4. We're all volunteers here, and I believe that sooner or later everyone needs to be reminded that their contributions matter and that they're valued.