0
13:21
3 hours later…
16:00
-1
16:25
I don't see the harm in letting people of various styles, seniority and seriousness level participate in this site. "Crank" posts can be valuable sometimes as long as they are not offensive. The problem I noticed with your attitude is more directed towards beginning users and a tendency to long futile arguments. As a moderator you should be an "enlightened educator" and not a police man, because cstheory is too small as of now to repel people away from this site. I hope that the next moderators would be much more calm and laid back. — Dilworth Jan 26 at 5:56
Another very alarming attitude is that you sometimes attacked personally users or referred to their perceived capabilities instead of concentrating on the content of their posts. I hope that future moderators know that this is not a legitimate approach. — Dilworth Jan 26 at 6:01
I don't think it is legitimate to tell someone you don't really know, after reading two or three sentences of his, that he or she lacks anything (or that they don't "have mathematical maturity", or that "they are not experts in some field", etc). Moderator should moderate not judge people. In rare cases, if you think someone doesn't know something specific you can ask him or her politely if they know this and that. But the rule in my opinion should be that no personal remarks what so ever are made by moderators. — Dilworth Jan 26 at 7:50
It is interesting that you exercise the same faulty behavior even here. You question or insinuates that I'm not familiar with the term "mathematical maturity", you "enlighten" me that this is a term "used in academia", as if you are an authority or a representative of "the academic world", and it seems that it doesn't even occur to you that I'm well familiar with this term and with the academic world. — Dilworth Jan 26 at 10:00
To make it clear again: I think your attitude was problematic not to some "cranks", but to beginning users as well, and other users. To give a small example from my case, after I expressed some disagreement with your decision to close a question (your opinion was also in contrast to other moderators) you engaged in a lengthy argument in which you referred to the fact that "I'm a new user here" which is the "reason" that I don't understand this or that. As I said before, it is illegitimate of a moderator to judge people (prematurely in this case) or to speculate what they know or do not know. — Dilworth Jan 26 at 10:07
@Artem, I don't see this as an isolated example at all. If you notice carefully, you see that this futile argument with Kaveh that you refer to started much after Kaveh's wish to close the question was not realized. So this attitude of engaging in long arguments, with sometimes harsh judgmental words, is not only illegitimate from a moderator in my opinion, but also complete counter-productive in this (and other) cases, because the question was already not going to be closed. — Dilworth 2 days ago
Also, I don't agree with your description that Kaveh needed to "repeat himself over and over again". First, I understood quickly what his aim and intention is. Second, what he repeated was false in my view, as I tried to explain to him. And third, he certainly did not "need" to repeat anything, because as I said above the discussion came much after it was obvious that the question is not going to be closed (in contrast to his wish). — Dilworth 2 days ago
Let me stress that I'm commenting here not because I enjoy it, but because I wish the next generation of moderators would understand that even slight impoliteness, offending or condescending tone, personal judgments against question's posters etc. is counter-productive and will likely to hurt this site. This sentiment of mine was also expressed (from a different perspective) by other posters, including senior participants, like Noam Nisan and others. — Dilworth 2 days ago
dilworth some backstory. sortly after joining this group 2yr ago one of my 1st questions to the group was closed (maybe the 1st), so went into meta to figure out "what was up" and did a lot of datamining on closed questions.
dont recall exactly the response (its been awhile), but think the post got deleted by kaveh or something.
so there was indeed some "upset" wrt rep in 2nd place with AK performing significantly above his rep.
to me this shows that his high profile outside the site on his blog translated into votes on the blog.
it is also possible re all his publicity in his blog, some users on the site found tcs.se via his blog in the 1st place.
but also, pointed out above that AK had more votes on his meta questionnaire than anyone, signifying significant support (even with a low vote count/sample here... maybe still representative?).
17:09
19 mins ago, by vzn
to me this shows that his high profile outside the site on his blog translated into votes on the blog.
my attitude on all this re: meta. hope that the moderators will check it out regularly & and vote & at least occasionally comment there. the prior moderators had a very mixed attitude about meta.
k. was highly engaged on meta but also would itchy-trigger-finger zap stuff there too afaict (same like main site).
[it is still not clear to me if low voted main/meta posts just get deleted automatically by se, or if they are deleted by mods or what. would like to know the specifics of that]
for me, a few things to think about. am amused that currently more ppl have voted for me on meta to change my writing 16 than voted for me in the election 14. HAHAHA thats pretty ridiculous.... some kind of zen lesson in there somewhere? =D
also, will always wonder if posting my mod ideas to meta would have helped with voting, but will never know. [it could have hurt too.]
(ahem) the 14 votes is below my rep-based-expectation but it does show theres a small but non-negligible minority/contrarian faction on the site, but possibly not very vocal (or active on meta etc, ie not nec visible by their actions such as voting/writing on site!). wow thats interesting/way cool
frankly... prior to election thought there was some nonnegligible possibility of getting ZERO votes and am sure some of my condescending opponents thought likewise.
anyway, this site is quite fascinating because the massive voting apparatus is a remarkable, at times amazing constant reality check & feedback mechanism on all our behavior/participation here.
18:18
1 hour later…
19:57
hi all re earlier comments. election is over and there was not much luv expressed in meta for my candidacy, but did get a respectable showing anyway! thx for your support! please upvote this comment if you regard yourself as openminded & might have voted for me if you liked my answer to this question & it could have chged your vote and/or would further support me writing up my ideas/views on moderating this group and cyber groups in general. on other hand will hereby generally refrain from further musing on the subj in meta unless some threshhold of votes is reached. — vzn 2 mins ago
to you mystery 14 voters, if you want to win more around here with me as your leader plz engage with meta discussions on this site & liberally upvote there, feel free to chat with me, favorite my comments in chat(s), etc
-3
also you can take a look at my favorites in meta to see what issues concern me on the site & where leaning on future "new" directions.
« first day (15 days earlier) ← previous day last day (1 day later) »
Transcript for
Jan28
Jan '1429
Jan30
Theoretical Computer Science 2014 Ele…
Open Discussion for cstheory.stackexchange.com/election/2
