@DavidZ @ACuriousMind @Qmechanic I am curious about a point of site policy. I find this post offensive. Does that matter, i.e. should the post be removed or the user "punished"? How does the hypothetical "reasonable outsider" view this post?

@DanielSank I agree with you the post is mildly offensive and have removed the unnecessary antagonizing of quantum computing researchers on a post solely intended to solicit AMA questions.

@ACuriousMind I'm not sure removing the links was warranted as they supported the claim that quantum computing has been promising a lot for a long time.

but, whatever. I learned something about the meaning of "offensive" here. Thank you.

@DanielSank I didn't lock the post; if anyone wants to put the links back in without implying an entire field of researchers is incompetent, they're welcome to do so

@ACuriousMind FWIW I don't think he implied we're incompetent! To me the post mostly said that pop-science reporting has overblown the promise of the field, and that some of us have been too optimistic about when we'd have something usable.

That's a bit away fro calling us incompetent!

I found the post offensive because it indicated either a lack of research effort or a judgement that scientific knowledge from our field is worth less than scientific knowledge from others.

@DanielSank I read the lines about jobs for researchers that promise jam tomorrow as precisely the implication that they are incompetent and cannot do anything but give promises they cannot deliver on. What you said was certainly also in there, but "pop-science has overblown the promise of the field" would not have qualified as offensive in my eyes.

@ACuriousMind This is very, very interesting. When I read the bit about "jam tomorrow", I took that as someone having focused on the bad reporting and not enough on what the actual research articles say.

At the same time, certain academics certainly may be guilty of promising "jam tomorrow" at certain grant review meetings. John isn't wholly wrong.

The part I saw as offensive was the lack of research and/or fair judgement between fields. I didn't perceive any real unwarranted attack on quantum computing researchers themselves.

This is very interesting to me, because I'm beginning to understand differences in what you and I consider offensive and how this could influence decisions made about chat moderation etc.

@DanielSank Lack of research strikes me as something bad, but not as offensive in the sense of "attacking or demeaning people".

In any case, this was only a mild instance, which is why I just edited the post instead of using any of the more severe tools available for being rude or abusive.

@ACuriousMind Indeed. I'm not sure the post really did attack or demean. Maybe it did. Hard to say. In any case, I find argumentation in bad faith offensive because I feel like "you do not value my time as much as your own, for if you did you'd do more research and come here with a more well-formed point to discuss".

Isn't it interesting how people react differently to things? :)

@DanielSank Then you're using "offensive" in the "I feel offended" sense again, which I thought we'd discussed is not very useful.

I understand your reaction and I also dislike such behaviour, but that is not what is meant by "being offensive". I'm beginning to believe the main problem is the overloadedness of that word.

@ACuriousMind Yes indeed. In normal English, people refer to a fart as "offensive" too.

If offends the senses, quite literally.

@ACuriousMind Yes, the thing you call "offensive" is a thing worthy of its own word and worth of being not tolerated on the site.

guys, think editing JDs meta post bit )( heavy handed. anyway DS are you aware? hes blocked in chat for 1yr. what more punishment do you want? dont you think thats heavy? think this is excellent chat topic debated by top experts in the field (QM computing viability) but JD is just blowing off steam on the site, maybe partly because he has no place to chat. btw wouldnt it be possible/ more appropriate to just block him in one room (main physics room), or is that not possible by SE architecture?

@vzn The purpose of Stack Exchange is not to provide people a place to blow off steam. The world is bigger than our website.

@vzn Which of the several points you just made would you like to discuss?

I can handle exactly one topic at a time.

> DS are you aware?

Sort of. I probably knew that, but don't think about it on a regular basis.

> what more punishment do you want?

Uh, none. I never called for additional "punishment". I have no idea why you're asking that.

> don't you think that's heavy?

I have no opinion about the heaviness of his suspension because I don't know why he was suspended.

> think this is excellent chat topic debated by top experts in the field (QM computing viability

Really? Top experts debate whether or not quantum computing has produced diddly squat? I didn't know that.

@DanielSank try reading the dyakonov article cited. nothing personal against you DS, think youre a top pioneer in the field & google may be succeed as worlds 1st quantum computer company. arent you familiar with JDs long history of playing devils advocate/ agent provocateur? & taking the bait? by his own admission he doesnt have a physics degree. hes interested in practicality of QM computing in his post which is debated in the top scientific journals daily!

@rob not disagreeing, but something to add to that— its an open site for physics, with many key elements of social media. some ppl are passionate/ knowledgable/ self-educated about it even without the standard indoctrination.