EE - Ask a Moderator - 2016-10-08

« first day (1903 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1529 days later) »

9:26 PM

Hello

Would you like to speak about your unresponsible use of the rep you have been given by the community

irresponsible *

Okay well you invited me here

One thing I would love to talk about is how exaclty the question can be shut down, except that you have the power to do so.

The help center states the rules for posts, which mine completely comply

You even answered the post, without voting to close. But when I criticized your answer, you took personal insult and then decided "this is not worthy of my site!" And voted to close the question. Your objectivity is clearly shown here. When you did not know my thoughts about you, the question was okay. When I showed to you that I thought your opinions were stupid, you decided that it was time to close the question.

I don't see how a logical person can come to any conclusion other than that you abused your power to arbitrarily close my question because I did not like your answer. If you were a true judge you would have closed the question upon reading it. But instead you waited to hear my response to your answer (which presumably if it were of approval and subjugation the answer would not have been voted to close) before deciding for yourself. It is very pathetic. I would be quite interested in the defense.

@DaveTweed: I thought this was a direct channel with Dave Tweed. Just for the record, he is the person I am speaking to.

10:30 PM

@jbord39 I waited to close the post in order to give you the opportunity to turn it into an actual question. Instead of doing so, you chose to attack me personally, becoming rather abusive in the process. Remember, the first rule of conduct here is be nice, even above any consideration of topicality.

We require all exchanges here to be civil and professional, both on the main site and on the meta site.

It is an actual question, and has always been so. And is it "nice" to close a question for reasons which does not violate the quoted reason?

@jbord39 So what do you want us to do?

All I have done is bolded and italicized the original questions there, which I guess you glossed over

It's one thing to call my ideas "stupid" -- that's perfectly fair. But to repeatedly call me "pathetic" is an ad-hominum attack, which is not allowed.

I did not call you pathetic, if you read. I called closing a question after I criticizie your answer as pathetic

It shows abuse of your rep

I dont know how this is even arguable

10:33 PM

@jbord39 So what do you want us to do?

I want the question to nto be closed??

I want real discussion about why a MCU solution is forced when it is not needed. That was my only reason for starting the question

Why do you keep harping on reputation? It's my status as a diamond moderator (elected by the community at large) that gave me the power to do that.

What do you mean why am I harping on it? It is only through your rep that you have the power to vote to close even.

@jbord39 Okay. I can clean out the comments from under the question, then reopen the question.

If I do that, will you behave? That includes not calling people pathetic, and being careful in general.

I am only pointing out the fact that you are not being objective in wielding the power

I did not mean to attack you personally, I disagreed with your question and you voted to close

I appreciate all your insight into the design and analysis of engineering problems

10:35 PM

The whole question about MCU solutions being "forced" seems to be entirely in your head. Even on the relay-click question, only one of the several solutions (and one comment) went in that direction.

Which is what I come to hope for on this site. And the question was voted to close. Another version was downvoted whcih I deleted

after getting higher rep I tried to ask the question again hoping to get real answers (the one you see). none came, and it was closed. Eventually I found out a solution on my own

And in regards to the relay question, when I created the meta post that was all that was there (except my answer). Frankly I don't care about my answers upvotes, I think Spehros is much better. I just posted it to be an answer other than MCU (which was all that was there at the time, apart from comment also about MCU).

And, perhaps my views are unfounded. That is completely possible. If so, I was hoping someone would make an answer discussing that. But, just blindly voting to close is a not a good solution to me.

something like "well you see, it might seem like we push MCU a lot, but it turns out that I have seen this problem before. And these are the issues that you may run into if you try to avoid the MCU: A,B,C." Instead of "you are wasting my timne, use a MCU and grow a brain". I literally got mocking comments regardint the MCU from 100k+ rep members

It was not a blind decision. I engaged you in conversation first, but I still had only the information you've provided (profile, previous questions and answers, etc.) to go on. I can't read your mind

And the MCU-less solution was never 'debunked' or any actual engineering fundamental errors mentioned.

I honestly feel like I have expressed here in detail exactly what was expressed in my question as well

I do see the necessity of MCU

Well, Dave, you did say that I was uninformed or not well thought out or something along those lines. When my question was in fact well thought out enough. I just wanted specific implementations for sending wireless data at a very slow data rate, at ~50ft through limestone walls

if you can come up with a better specification for my problem please tell me

but "using a MCU' does not answer any of those problems. I still need a carrier frequency. and I still need an encoding scheme. Its just done via code instead of through circuits

and you in your own response in this meta post criticized that question. what is wrong with it except that I asked to avoid MCU? What is not simple or elegant or robust about the HT12E/D solution? there is nothing mentioned. just an attack on the question as being "not well thought out"

in what way??

please englighten me, but I don't think belittling is going to do much

10:56 PM

@jbord39 I'll try to fill-in for Dave. I'll read your posts and the copious amounts of insight that you've posted as comments. That would take some time.

I'm not going to do a blow-by-blow analysis of what's happening. But I'll try to analyze the general theme(s), if I can.

lol.

fair enough

I don't really want to have a personal argument. I opened the post on meta as an open discussion of whether this is a real phenomenon or not

@jbord39 It is a phenomenon, certainly. Let's look at it as a techno-economic phenomenon.

(Perhaps, the subject lends itself better to a chat conversation than to a meta post.)

@jbord39 You say the question was "well thought out enough", but there was no evidence of that in the question. In the absence of explicit information, anyone who wants to respond has to fill in the gaps based on prior experience -- both in the application area you're asking about and in the area of dealing with people who have asked similar questions on the site. You can't blame them for coming to the wrong conclusion if you haven't given any contrary evidence!

Dave: What information was not in the question?

And to talk about the more general issue -- there's little reason NOT to use an MCU, especially for one-off projects. They are readily available, cheap and easy to use. And the ability to customize the functionality when you run into an issue is hard to beat!

@jbord39 The information that you had already thought about the issues that responders were raising.

11:07 PM

Sure, and that is a great answer!!!

But I did not get that answer. I got an answer that <paraphrasing> "your old posts were ill-conceived".

@jbord39 That's just a different way of saying the same thing!

But, an MCU in an outdoor unshielded situation is liable to all sorts of damage

which is why I wanted a MCU-less solution

@jbord39 No more than any other chip based on the same technology...

I just globbed hotglue on the HT12E/D and it has survived full rain

You could have done that to an MCU, too.

11:10 PM

So it is an alternative solution. Mine works fine regardless and was simple

I am not saying MCU is not a good solution

And that is not what I started the meta post primarily about. the post also linked another question

Nobody says your solution is wrong, either.

and I have noticed many other similar posts which I have not mentioned because I did not note them exactly

"if you can show me a schematic of a car key that uses something else to generate a preamble, then a high integrity address followed by a status byte followed by an error check code then I'll remove my comments and take up a course in understanding radios better. On the other hand, don't bother because I'm not bothered about giving you help."

I mean, come on. The solution was simple and even less area than an MCU

plus what am I going to put one MCU + transmitter at one end and one MCU plus receiver at the other? when I could JUST use transmitter/receiver without the MCU

THere is no point

I still don't see the point. ALl it can do is encode. I still need the transmitter. So it is trading a simple direct solution for a complex arbitrary one

But regardless this is a tangent

@jbord39 You need to consider the possibility that your vision is somewhat selective, based on your own interests. There are literally thousands of questions and answers on this site that have nothing at all to do with MCUs.

The meta post was just meant to examine why

Sure, and that is possible

I am certainly biased

I created the post as a question/discussion about it. everything you are saying here would make great answers

All I took offense at was the closing of the question

The problem (for me) is that no one else seems to see "MCU forcing" as an issue at all. Working it out with you directly in chat seems to be a more effective use of resources.

11:16 PM

Why was my question voted to close other than me requesting to avoid an MCU? The reason "too broad" was arbitrarily chosen out of I guess a checkbox required to vote to close when your rep is high enough

Others joined in. But I cannot see how it could possibly be "too broad". I explicitly stated my requirements, which were very simple. Low data rate. 50 feet. Through limestome wall.

24 people have viewed your post so far, and not a single one has up-voted it in agreement with you.

And what is the usual ratio of views to upvotes/downvotes?

especially in this thread

probably 20:1 or more

on top of that, should we just blindly follow the mob after two hours?

No, but because you who have high rep viewed it first (as high rep users are always going to view the meta posts first) you closed it because i offended you

when I called out this error you start to grab at other arguments: "no one else upvoted it"

"you attacked me personally" no i called what you did pathetic which I stand by

You are a subjective judge who answered the question and waited for me to respond to your answer to decide to close it

No, as a moderator, I was explicitly notified of your meta post. I closed it because you attacked me, not because I was offended.

You can garble all you want, never responding to my arguments. Instead you make strawman arguments about upvotes

I did not attack you, you voted to close at my first comment

"And it has stood up the rain quite well. I did not feel the need to state every design constraint, and instead summed it up with "avoiding MCU if possible". And many users poo-poo'd the idea that I would even consider avoiding a MCU. Well, the HT12E/D has survived 3 texas downpours and a couple months of texas summer heat without any problems. "

"Unfortunately no one on this site even mentioned these seemingly ubiquitous IC's. I did not come here to receive a lecture. My perceived "lack of big picture" is really just an overall snap judgement, most likely based on my low rep"

Do you lie when it is convenient for you?

Where did I attack you

ANd, the only other comment before the closing of my question:

"Yes, I don't care which one activates the switch. It is a dead-ass simple wireless motion sensor which needs to only light up when any of the triggers are switched. There was no need to distinguish which transmitter sends the signal. And I did think of that."

" What is annoying is that every question someone asks is assumed that the OP is a complete idiot unless he has 10k plus rep. Anyway I found this completely simple and amazing solution HT12E/D which is 10x as robust as a MCU implementation and requires a fraction of the power. AND it does distinguish easily between transmitters"

I have not lied, nor have I changed my argument. You're starting to repeat yourself, just when I thought we were starting to make some progress. I'm disappointed.

11:21 PM

SO where is there a personal attack? there is not. YOu are lying to suit yourself.

Dude, you cant even respond to what I just said. You are arguing that you closed my question in response to personal attack. How?

You see the quotes above. What personal attack is ther?

No, I used the word "pathetic" to describe you closing the question AFTER you did it. You are simply twisting time to suit your needs and lying.

And like every other time I stump you, you will go away now for 30 minutes

Just look back through your own comments and see how many times you used the word "pathetic".

AFTER you voted to close dude

Which is the reason you are stating you voted to close

There are timestamps on all of this, you can check for yourself.

The first comment in which I use pathetic (after you leave this comment "If you didn't come here for a response, then you're just whining, and there's no reason not to simply delete this "question".)

is this one:

And I did come here for a response. But that was not a "lecture". I guess that is all you are capable of giving, and when it is logically rebuffed you resort to using your pathetic (yes I keep using that word because it is PATHETIC) power granted by grinding rep instead of actual engineering fundamentals or analysis. It is sickening and pathetic. You are incapable of discussion with others unless they either have high rep or ostensibly bow to the power your 80k rep yields. I was hoping for it to judge each question on its own. But you voting to close when I criticized your res…

You are obviously lying. Right here I quote you in this chat: "I closed it because you attacked me, not because I was offended." Now I ask you how I attacked you, and you say when I used the word "pathetic". Yet, this occured AFTER you voted to close

Do you not see the flaw in your lie?

It is quite tedious and sullying to get into the details like this, but it is necessary when someone tries to bold-face lie. Anyone who sees these posts may check the timestamps for themselves and see the Dave Tweed is a LIAR.

Are you done? All right, I may have misspoken. I closed your question after you commented on my answer, saying that you didn't want "a lecture". Since your question didn't otherwise include any actual question, I concluded that it was just a whine about something that you took offense to, and that it was therefore not appropriate for meta. Your attack immediately after that simply confirmed my decision, and nothing you have said since then has convinced me to reverse it.

As I expected. And it did include questions, I highlighted them so you can see

Since details or nuance seem to elude you ...

Perhaps you could implement a MCU solution to immediately close any post I open

sure, python could do it in a few lines

But instead use an MCU

Maybe it could lie for you too, and when called out just simply deflate and flex your power

You are a liar. You lied many times over the course of this conversation to twist the situation to suit you at the time and to make your argument. Each one I called out was simply brushed off.

I hope I never meet you in a professional setting

I am John Bordelon by the way, so we each have each others names

Both of the highlighted questions are obviously rhetorical -- there is no evidence to support the first, and do you really expect a direct response to the second?

11:34 PM

The original intent has been so twisted by you as to be almost completely obfuscated.

Your abuse of power is my issue

you have then twisted it into my question being valid or not, then even further back previous posts I mentioned

Your abuse of power is directly reprehensible

You are not a true judge and should not be a moderator in this forum. Obviously nothing I say will change this, but it is on record in this chat for anyone to see

You lied bold faced with a chat record to watch you

when called out you squirmed around

The fact that you close my question because I disagree with your own answer is a direct conflict of interest. You quote an arbitrary rule to close the question.

When called out you lie about the timelime and claim that my response to your reaction actually caused your reaction!!!

There is nothing rhetorical about it. You are a very rude and bad moderator. When I called your methods pathetic you twisted it into a personal attack, which if you read it never was

I called what you did pathetic, and the way you abused your power pathetic

The post was to foster an honest discussion, and instead I got the usual dogma

Then in this chat which you invited me to you lie to my face

And they are not rhetorical. You have answered them both already. Frankly I found your answer about them being so cheap and simple as strong.

But you did not include this answer in the post

I really hope you come back and read all of this some day, and try to decide which one of us is really behaving in the more professional manner. I am always aware that everything I type on this site (or any web site, for that matter) becomes a matter of public record, and I act accordingly.

Then how can you bold faced lie?

Can you respond to this?

You claim that me calling you pathetic caused you to vote to close the question. But the timestamps show that I made the comment with "pathetic" in it only AFTER you voted to close.

So how can you merge these two things? Other than by admitting that you lied to suit your own needs.

It is to be expected in most people but is very jading to see in a moderator. Anyway I am only complaining now because you closed my question.

Obviously there are bad people who abuse power everywhere

« first day (1903 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1529 days later) »

Transcript for

Oct '168

EE - Ask a Moderator

A place to ask those little questions that a moderator can hel...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile