Backup Room – The h Bar

12:03 AM

@ACuriousMind Of course. The discussion has wandered quite a lot.

@heather No, it doesn't.

@ACuriousMind The point of close reasons, IMHO, is to communicate to OP what they need to do to improve the post.

I keep saying this, and I'll keep saying this as long as others defend the status quo by saying they know what to close.

ACuriousMind

@DanielSank I've agreed to this. Heather did the logical next step to your now almost ancient post by asking for new specific wordings here, but so far, not a single complete set of new wordings has been proposed and the top answer is basically "Users don't read rules, what's the point of changing?" as I read it. So what do we make of that situation?

heather

I might point out that top answerer changed his position (see comments).

quick question - what do you think of calling it the "problem policy" (instead of homework policy)?

(or "specific problem policy")

ACuriousMind

in The h Bar, Mar 29 at 23:29, by ACuriousMind

@heather Everyone comes here with a problem they want solved, I think it's not a good name and would much prefer something like "our policy for calculation requests", but less unwieldy.

Deja vu, as so often, we've been there before

heather

oh...deja vu indeed.

could you focus more on the "specific" part?

the "too specific" policy? and the close reason could be something like "On Physics SE, questions are supposed to both show a certain level of own research and thinking and potential answers are supposed to be relevant or useful to a broader audience. This question has therefore been closed as too specific - focused on one problem with no broader context. Try to reword your question so it is more conceptual in nature."

rob

12:40 AM

← 22 messages moved from Room for David Z and Bernardo Meurer

heather

@rob what are your thoughts on the additions I made to the Let's get things rolling again with the homework policy post?

I completed all the different parts.

rob

← 2 messages moved from Room for David Z and Bernardo Meurer

@heather Dunno, I'll have a look.

heather

okay, cool, thanks.

DanielSank

1:03 AM

@ACuriousMind what we make of that is that the users who are most affected by this, namely those who post crummy questions, don't participate in meta.

and that those who do participate in meta don't care about this issue.

That's my guess.

I've been very, very busy, but I submitted a design to the PCB manufacturer today (a German company, in fact), so I have some time.

vzn

Analysis paralysis

Analysis paralysis or paralysis by analysis is the state of over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation so that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome. A decision can be treated as over-complicated, with too many detailed options, so that a choice is never made, rather than try something and change if a major problem arises. A person might be seeking the optimal or "perfect" solution upfront, and fear making any decision which could lead to erroneous results, while on the way to a better solution. The phrase describes a situation in which the opportunity cost of...

John Rennie

4:51 AM

@heather really? While I have been known to swear I do it very rarely.

DanielSank

5:58 AM

@JohnRennie You talk about testicles and other such things with some regularity.

I mean, I remember asking you for coaching on British vulgar slang on multiple occasions...

John Rennie

I do so in an attempt to amuse. When you made it very clear you weren't amused I stopped. In any case, Heather accused me of swearing, and making jokes about testicles isn't swearing.

DanielSank

I don't remember saying I wasn't amused.

Well, I was not amused that you seem to get away with more than the rest of us, but that's another issue entirely.

Indeed, talking about anatomy seems different from swearing.

John Rennie

So perhaps Heather would like to justify her claim that I swear a lot.

heather

11:24 AM

@JohnRennie, I guess I meant there that you and mods swear, just as much as others might. So I didn't see why Daniel was banned for that.

John Rennie

@heather my point is that I swear only very rarely, and even more rarely do I use really offensive words. You have accused me as swearing as much as everyone else when I don't.

heather

@JohnRennie, I know I've seen you swear, so I took the point a bit too far. Is the gist of what I meant at all clear?

John Rennie

In fact I don't think I have ever said fuck. Can you point to a case where I have?

heather

I see only two recorded uses here (assuming you meant of course in chat)

(the third is you berating someone for using it at someone, so doesn't really count.)

John Rennie

The first is also me berating others for using the word. So that's one recorded use.

heather

11:30 AM

sorry, misphrased: the first is what I was referencing - the third is I think a use of f*** but I dunno for sure.

John Rennie

And even that is not swearing in the usual sense since I used the phrase fuck up to mean make a mistake

heather

anyway, you clearly are right - I won't be nitpicky.

I apologize.

that was clearly a misrepresentation of the situation.

John Rennie

You also slandered me in the Bernardo/DavidZ chat room.

heather

If you'd like, I can go back and ask a moderator to delete any such comments in the transcript.

@JohnRennie, let me see, one moment. I will assume I was in the wrong there as well, I'm just curious what I said.

Kenshin

what's the gos

heather

11:33 AM

ah, that comment. Again, more extreme than it probably should have been. But there, I'd point to your numerous references of items, um, below the belt - there I was specifically thinking of one conversation between you and 0celo where you guys were talking topology and referenced spherical objects and 0celo got kick-banned or something, and you did not.

that may have been due to someone flagging, so again not really your fault.

I need to be more careful of what I say, clearly, especially in the heat of the moment. I apologize @JohnRennie, and I hope it comes across as sincere.

John Rennie

Do you not think that if you want to take the moral high ground you need to pay attention to what you say from there?

heather

certainly.

John Rennie

Thank you.

heather

do you want me to ask a mod to delete those?

Kenshin

There's no such thing as moral high ground

there is only actions and repercussions

heather

11:35 AM

they certainly do not add anything positive to the discussion.

John Rennie

@heather no, I just wanted to point out that everyone has feet of clay

heather

@JohnRennie I'm sorry, I'm not sure I get the analogy...

Kenshin

basically remove the log from ur eye before looking for the splinter in another's eye

heather

ah.

Kenshin

Heather, you should understand that fairness isn't a natural right

in the real world, the powerful will rule the less powerful

John can do what he wants here because he is one of the "powerful"

that said, I don't believe John's behaviour is ever out of line

ACuriousMind

11:56 AM

@Kenshin That's not true, if John's behaviour would be considered inappropriate he would be removed as a room owner (as it happened to Chris White before he left).

Kenshin

@ACuriousMind John has more flexibility than the average user

He is the top user of Physics.SE

he has many friends

he has social and political power here

yes his power has bounds

but he can get away with more than what your average user can if he chose to

ACuriousMind

@heather I feel like I've said this often enough, but in case you haven't heard it from me or someone else: The issue is not with the words themselves, but with how they are used. There are (at least) three possible users of profanity: For emphasis at objects: "What is that fucking thing?", for emphasis at people. "What the fuck did you just say?", for insults at people: "Fuck you!". The first is generally fine, the third is completely off-limits, and the second is borderline.

Kenshin

@ACuriousMind to add further comment, John is so powerful he helps shape the culture of what is deemed "appropriate" and "inappropriate" behaviour

John Rennie

5:41 PM

@Kenshin Look upon my works ye mighty and despair.

heather

8:34 PM

@ACuriousMind where do you think Daniel's use would fall (curious)?

(and no, I haven't heard that - thank you.)

@Mithrandir "something that has lots of negative connotations.." - maybe it's just me, but that's worse than what @0celouvskyopoulo7 said. Jihad has many meanings, and different sects believe different things. You almost sound as if you automatically associate that with terrorism or some such issue. If I believed in Islam, I think I would find that very offensive.

@Mithrandir Okay, that's just ridiculous. You're not going to humor a troll who comes in and says that mods offend him.

ArtOfCode

@heather We're not going to start talking about an issue that was over and done with two hours ago.

Take it to Physics Meta if you must, but I'd recommend just letting it lie. It's dead already.

heather

@ArtOfCode it's an issue of moderation. You can't just keep avoiding these issues.

ArtOfCode

← 5 messages moved from The h Bar

heather

further @ArtOfCode it was ended because, as far as I can tell, someone was suspended.

the issue was "over and done with" because someone was kept from talking.

ArtOfCode

Indeed. And that would have been a good point to leave it be.

heather

8:46 PM

Curious: do you want to suspend me or block me from chat merely because I'm asking these questions?

I want to know.

ArtOfCode

No.

heather

Why are you frustrated that I'm asking these questions about why moderation was done the way it was done?

ArtOfCode

Ideally, I'd like you not to kick already-dead issues. It only encourages them starting up again.

heather

Ideally, moderation would be done perfectly, and no one would have too.

ArtOfCode

If that's not going to happen, then bring your questions here or to the meta site.

heather

8:49 PM

Why was @0celouvskyopoulo7 banned?

ArtOfCode

Because he insisted on doing something he'd been asked to stop doing, and then on arguing about it, and then on trying to rules-lawyer his way around it, all while being disrespectful of the opinion of someone who felt it was offensive.

And while it wasn't me who issued the suspension, I support the decision.

heather

if you looked at it from a different perspective - for instance

ArtOfCode

I don't.

heather

if you considered that maybe he wished to explain why it was okay for him to do so, and was frustrated that the rules had changed on him.

ArtOfCode

I look at it from the perspective of keeping the chatroom a friendly environment for everyone.

heather

8:53 PM

@ArtOfCode if you don't look at things from other people's points of view, I dunno how you get anywhere. That's just as important.

Besides, the whole thing started because someone flagged it and "was offended". There are troll flaggers out there. No one was verbally upset.

rob

@heather You can't use "no one complained in the room" as a barometer for "no one was upset", nor for "no one should have been upset."

heather

@rob, sure. i'm just pointing out the possibilities.

consider also that most people consider the flagging system messed up - it shows no context whatsoever, etc. if something was flagged and the flag was approved, that doesn't necessarily mean it was offensive.

ArtOfCode

@heather Yes they were - they issued a custom moderator flag stating that explicitly. That they didn't say it in the room (possibly because they were worried about the reactions of others, which I wouldn't blame them for) has no bearing.

heather

my next thought, then, if someone was definitely offended, is this:

DanielSank

I have a small complain about a moderator. This meta post suggests working things out at a low level, if possible.

heather

8:56 PM

@ArtOfCode if one person is offended, but most other people are gaining something from the conversation, you wouldn't necessarily end the conversation, would you? with a more extreme example: if someone was offended that someone was talking about the physics of the atomic bomb, because they are anti-atomic or something, but it was an interesting, lively, and calm discussion, would you end it?

DanielSank

In order to work in good faith, I'd like to work this out "locally".

heather

@DanielSank, just to clarify, this is separate from what I'm talking about, right?

DanielSank

So, @rob @DavidZ @ACuriousMind, did anything come out of the discussion with SevenSidedDie yesterday?

@heather Correct.

I would like to know if he admitted fault in escalating yesterday's discussion, and for generally verbally treating several other users like trash.

I did not feel he was discussing the issue at hand in good faith.

ArtOfCode

@heather It depends on context. Potentially, if there's a good discussion going on on a relatively non-controversial topic, for a limited time, and only one person is offended by it, then we might be open to asking that one person to avoid chat for a couple hours to let the discussion happen.

This particular instance did not check most of those boxes.

heather

@ArtOfCode well, in this case, I'd argue that people disliking JEE is relatively non-controversial - some people do, some people don't, only one person was offended, and it was a conversation that probably would not have gone on for much longer if you had not interfered.

DanielSank

9:01 PM

^

ArtOfCode

Disliking it is one thing. Comparing it, intentionally or not, to a concept that, for better or worse, a large proportion of people associate with religious war, is entirely another.

And yeah, it might have stopped, but it had clearly happened before - and encouraging repeats of something that someone is offended by is not a good idea.

heather

I'd argue that your/the person's immediate interpretation of "jihad" (hopefully it's clear I say that in good faith) as something referencing terrorist-ness, or something like that, when it has many more meanings, is just as offensive if not more so than the original reference!

rob

@heather I disagree. I can elaborate, but you have to remember that I'm slow at typing.

heather

sure.

one more comment:

When @0celouvskyopoulo7 tried to explain generally as I have above, or with his own lines of reasoning, more mods came in, further raising the emotional level in the chatroom, all negatively referring to the incident - I mean, you made it a much bigger scene than it would have been if there was only one mod involved. Then as he's trying to explain why he said what he did and why he disagrees, he is banned.

rob

First: that exact locution ("JEEhad") has been flagged, removed, and led to chat suspensions the past. Ryan should have known better.

heather

9:05 PM

okay.

"should have" - was he present for these past incidences?

DanielSank

@heather That needs to be understood better.

heather

@DanielSank what do you mean?

ArtOfCode

@heather He was not "explaining what he did". Explaining yourself takes the form of a few messages stating intentions, not several pages of transcript complaining and attempting to find a way around the rules.

DanielSank

@heather Escalation. I think we all need to understand escalation and how to not do it.

heather

@ArtOfCode um...by that logic, i'm going to get banned in a minute. I'm "complaining" and "attempting to find a way around the rules" - though I'd phrase it as bringing up a few counterpoints.

Automatically seeing something as argumentative and lawyering isn't a good response - it's better to think of it as being defensive and trying to explain one's actions. When someone in power questions you, you naturally get defensive.

rob

9:07 PM

Second: when a moderator attempts to de-escalate, the right response is to de-escalate. Digging in is a way of continuing to engage. If the issue is important, we can always come back around to it later, or in a different venue.

heather

More mods come in, you get more defensive.

@rob may I point out it takes two to make a conversation.

ArtOfCode

@heather No, you're voicing your disagreement. What you're doing is constructive, whether I agree with it or not. What 0celo was doing was saying "you're wrong, what I'm saying is okay", and then saying "the flagger's opinion is wrong", and then "But I can do this other thing that's basically the same but I say I mean it differently, right?". That's not constructive.

heather

@ArtOfCode reading through it I didn't see it like that - though in the heat of conversation I can see how it might have appeared like that.

of course, that's my opinion.

DanielSank

I think, often, the mods see exchanges in chat as more heated than they really are.

That's just an impression though.

ArtOfCode

@heather Yes, but if a moderator disengages with that discussion, the user they're attempting to de-escalate will 99.99% of the time take that as "I've won", and continue doing what they were doing. That's not my opinion, that's my experience and that of many others as a moderator.

DanielSank

9:10 PM

Like yesterday @rob was telling me to chill out etc. when I was feeling perfectly calm.

His message actually made me feel less calm.

This is no bueno.

heather

@ArtOfCode Um. I think you're taking these less like constructive discussions and more like battles.

win/loss isn't important.

rob

Third: even people who interpret "jihad" in the sense of "divine struggle" have to deal with its more common English-language interpretation of "irrational holy war." Somewhere in the archives of the NPR storytelling programs is a Muslim woman who lost her nine-year-old son in an airport. Her first reaction was to find an open place in the airport and holler out his name --- except his name was "Jihad," and she was wearing a headscarf, and didn't want to be pointlessly arrested.

DanielSank

Yes, well, can we please not assume that our chat users are poorly informed?

ArtOfCode

@heather When a moderator tells a user to stop doing something, unless you get a remarkably receptive and constructive user, it is a battle, like it or not.

heather

@rob sure. but is it our job to deal with these more biased meanings? we should be striving to defeat those biased meanings and point out the other ones!

DanielSank

9:12 PM

@ArtOfCode That's a bad attitude IMHO.

You're not wrong, but it's not a good attitude.

heather

^

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank It's not an attitude - again, it's a fact. And it's a fact that moderators have to deal with and take into account.

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode It's an attitude.

Allow me to explain.

ArtOfCode

I'm listening

heather

side note: IMO if you treat it like a battle, you pull out the big guns. if you treat it like an argument or a conversation, you have a civilized discussion. consider you might've pulled out the big guns on @0celouvskyopoulo7

ArtOfCode

9:14 PM

@heather I let that discussion go on for several pages of transcript. That's far longer than it would have gone on if I'd pulled out the big guns.

DanielSank

Suppose a guy is skateboarding on a park bench and suppose this is against the rules. A police officer comes by and says "do not skateboard on the bench". The guy keeps doing it. That's not a battle yet. The guy is ignoring the officer, which is illegal, but it's not a battle. If the officer raises his voice, or approaches menacingly, or whatever, then you've got a problem.

ArtOfCode

I would also note that I was fully expecting to discuss it further - I wasn't the one who issued the suspension.

DanielSank

The officer could very easily stand there and write out a citation and verbally announce "I am citing you, and it will cost you $150. If you wanna avoid that, then stop".

That's going to get a lot of people to reconsider their actions.

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank but when the skateboarder says "but I can skateboard if I turn my skateboard sideways, right?" and "your opinion on me skateboarding here is wrong", then it becomes a battle.

DanielSank

On the other hand, the officer could walk up to the guy and physically remove him from the bench.

ArtOfCode

9:16 PM

@DanielSank So what's my equivalent of a citation?

heather

@ArtOfCode to clarify when I say "you" i refer to the mods involved then.

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode I could become a battle if the officer is so ignorant of his overwealmingly greater power that he forgets that he doesn't have to fight.

@ArtOfCode I'm not sure because I'm not a moderator and I haven't sat down to flowchart how I'd deal with this, but perhaps the equivalent in this case would be to set up a side chat and discuss with the user for ~5 minutes or so.

Explain the reasons for avoiding the topic and ask for their opinion.

heather

Also, do it one on one, out of the main chat, probably.

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank Why would that be any more productive than discussing in the room?

heather

Then you avoid any further offense, you deescalate, and you get everyone more calm

ArtOfCode

9:18 PM

@DanielSank I did the former, and was given the latter.

rob

@heather Using a term with a mixed interpretation to describe a thing that you don't like is not a way to spread information about its positive meanings.

DanielSank

If you can't come to an agreement in 5 minutes of good-faith discussion, then tell them "Ok, it's too bad we haven't agreed yet. If you mention this again you'll get a suspension, but we can talk about this issue tomorrow again if you'd like".

heather

@rob fair enough.

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode Just to get it disentangled from other discussions. That's all.

Also, people are a lot more defensive if they feel they're being criticized in public.

You should know that.

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank Okay. IME that doesn't make much difference at all, but I'll keep it in mind.

DanielSank

9:20 PM

If you call someone out in the main chat, they're going to have an extra thing on their mind: "I need to defend what I did to 1) save face, and 2) set an example for other users".

@ArtOfCode See above comment.

heather

Consider this - when a conversation involving someone's opinion is had, they shouldn't be suddenly stopped and suspended for a significant amount of time.

DanielSank

I think you guys would benefit a lot by considering some good ol' human psychology here :)

heather

Toward the end of @0celouvskyopoulo7's conversation, there were multiple mod comments for every one of his comments - that's kind of overwhelming.

DanielSank

^

heather

I guess I'm arguing here that you at the very least shorten his suspension.

DanielSank

9:21 PM

10000X that

When the mod flood comes in and tells you you've done something wrong, it feels very bad.

When I got suspended yesterday, I felt like shit.

ArtOfCode

@heather Problem is this. Yes, it's a discussion. But it's a discussion with a fixed conclusion - there is no version of it where the user's view is accepted as "right". It's a mod saying "this is how it is" - and yes, sometimes we have to do that. It ain't a particularly pretty part of the job, but it's necessary.

DanielSank

I didn't understand what I'd done wrong. I thought a mod was just pissed at me for no reason.

heather

i know i got a bit overwhelmed yesterday when all the mods started flooding in, and when it was timed out, i got....very upset.

(also what DS said)

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode That works for machines, not humans.

ArtOfCode

If the user we're discussing it with refuses to listen to what we're telling 'em, there's not much we can do.

DanielSank

9:23 PM

If you want the best outcome, you need to let the other person have their say and it's best if they come to the conclusion that they were in error.

heather

@ArtOfCode um. it's in a gray area. and this is where we go back to my conversation yesterday. policy, especially in the gray area, is determined by users.

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank No, it works for humans too. That happens, here in chat, regularly. Mod tells user to stop doing something. Mod sometimes has discussion with user about it. User stops doing thing.

heather

user opinion is impressively important.

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode I'm confused but I think we're agreeing.

ArtOfCode

@heather There's where I have to disagree. Gray areas are determined by moderation. Users are capable of making them black or white areas, but until then the moderation determines how they are handled.

heather

9:24 PM

@ArtOfCode you said you were expecting the discussion to go on for longer. why'd you agree when it was cut off then?

@ArtOfCode ::insert all the arguments I made yesterday here::

and this is why I was upset you guys were just trying to move on from the question yesterday. it's important.

ArtOfCode

@heather I was willing to discuss it for longer to give 0celouvsky a longer chance, but even at that point I could see it wasn't going anywhere. Someone else came along and decided 0celo had had enough of a chance to listen, and suspended him because he wasn't.

DanielSank

Yeah it sounds like you guys did the right thing.

On a larger scale though, I think y'all would do well to try to avoid escalating these situations, and perhaps employing a little Socratic method where possible.

heather

I think he should've gotten more of a chance to defend himself.

I'm sorry, but overwhelming someone in front of the people they regularly talk too and then suspending them mid-conversation doesn't seem very useful to anyone.

ArtOfCode

@heather Unfortunately, that's not up to you. Yeah, that's not a pretty thing to have to say to you either, but until you have a diamond, that decision lies with the moderators.

DanielSank

There does seem to be a lot more discontent aimed at the mods than there used to be and I think it's because of a perception that the mods are being irrational. If you wanna keep doing what you're doing but not seem irrational, you gotta talk it out.

heather

9:27 PM

^

ArtOfCode

You're welcome to question that decision on meta, but the decision is taken by moderators.

DanielSank

Yeah yeah the mods are always right.

heather

::facepalms:: the whole point of this is that it should be based on community created policy. "the decision is taken by moderators" is such a "I'm always right, move on now" comment.

DanielSank

We know that. We're just asking you guys to give yourselves more of an opportunity to not look like you're getting your ego problems out on users here.

Cuz that's what it looks like more and more.

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank No, not always right. Always deciding - important distinction. Mods make the decisions. If you think they're the wrong decisions, you're welcome to question them - that's why meta exists - but you don't take them.

DanielSank

9:28 PM

Even though I agree with most of the suspensions, the tone that's been taken recently is really bad.

@ArtOfCode fine

@ArtOfCode You know what though, what you say there is actually BS because often the mods explicitly refuse to discuss this kind of stuff.

Particularly suspensions.

So don't tell me I'm free to take it up on meta, because I'm not :)

ArtOfCode

@heather And my point is that it is. Moderators take decisions that are based on community created policy. If the decision isn't in line with what the community thought the policy was, the community can and should question the decision on meta and refine the policy.

heather

you make these arbitrary distinctions, conversations go nowhere with you all, and it always ends up with the mods never apologizing, never reconsidering. that sort of thing is what makes people upset.

DanielSank

(I am getting kind of frustrated because I feel you are trying to pull the wool over my eyes here)

heather

^

DanielSank

I will endeavor to not be frustrated, but you will please not lie to me.

ArtOfCode

9:30 PM

@DanielSank well - I can't deny that, but I will say that it's because of the policies that govern us. SE doesn't allow us to talk publicly about suspensions. I personally would be okay with doing it, but obviously I'm not going to ignore SE for that.

@DanielSank I'm not lying.

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode Fine, but then don't feed me obvious falsehoods to try to win an argument, ok?

@ArtOfCode Uh... you said I'm free to take it up on meta. That is plainly false.

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank You are welcome to take it up on meta. Whether you get a response is slightly questionable, but that's down to policy governing moderators rather than whether the moderators want to respond.

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode Oh come on.

You are no longer discussing this in good faith, my friend.

heather

Again: this sort of thing is what makes people upset.

DanielSank

You're telling me to shout into the wind.

@heather Yep

ArtOfCode

9:31 PM

@DanielSank I am, actually. I'm giving you what my view of the system is.

DanielSank

I now feel I am being treated like a dummy.

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank then you have my apologies for that, but it wasn't the intention.

heather

he's offended, won't you delete your messages? (joke)

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode I see. You are informing me that I am able to go make a meta post that the mods are specifically required to not respond to?

heather

@ArtOfCode ah, yes. I can go to meta, make a post, and no one with any real power or idea will respond. very useful.

ArtOfCode

9:33 PM

The way I see it is that you're welcome to go make a meta post on {insert topic here}, whatever you like, and the moderators will respond if they can. If not, you'll likely get an answer saying "sorry but I can't, because SE policy".

heather

in fact, i'll probably get a nice stock "we don't talk about suspensions" answer that's been said a billion times.

@ArtOfCode yeah, what's the point of making the meta post then?

me: I'm frustrated!

mods: Too bad.

that's basically what that would do.

ArtOfCode

@heather It depends how you phrase it. Sure, if you're asking about 0celo's suspension in particular, you probably won't get a response. If you question or suggest something about, in general, how moderators respond to situations, or about a policy that you think is a gray area, then you likely will get a response.

(oh, and I meant to say this earlier: I'm not going to reduce the suspension, because it was applied by a CM).

heather

@ArtOfCode goodness, this is going in circles. I'm talking about it here and you're not giving much of a response. How's going to meta going to improve that?

@ArtOfCode, which CM?

(curious)

DanielSank

This is fine.

I understand.

ArtOfCode

@heather Shog

DanielSank

9:36 PM

Thanks, @ArtOfCode.

heather

@ArtOfCode ...and there went my idea of talking to em.

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode Ahahahahaha that explains it.

Shog is probably really sick of 0celo

Well folks, pack it up. Nothing more to see here.

ArtOfCode

His history ain't shining, to be fair

heather

::sighs::

just because you have a bone to pick with someone doesn't mean you escalate it.

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode You know what's funny though? Other users do stuff I find a lot more against the rules, but they do it while kissing the rules' asses in a way that keeps them out of trouble.

heather

9:37 PM

@ArtOfCode it ain't shining, but it ain't black, either.

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank got specific situations in mind? With links for bonus points?

DanielSank

0celo's "problem" is that he's really honest about how he presents himself.

@ArtOfCode Of course not, but if you really care I'd be happy to send you a list in a week.

(I still have my old list of all the wrongly closed engineering questions. Fortunately I didn't need it because everyone shaped up)

heather

@DanielSank, might be good to create that list anyway, for reference.

DanielSank

@heather I don't like hoarding evidence "against" people without a really good reason.

rob

@DanielSank I'm interested in this list.

heather

9:39 PM

this issue seems to come up a lot @DanielSank

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank Yeah, go for it. Genuinely, I'm interested to see what you're thinking of. Obviously I can't guarantee to agree with you, but I'll at least take a look and explain why I don't - or see if I can do something if I do.

DanielSank

@rob Examples of people not being nice?

@ArtOfCode A lot of it comes down to what you think the "be nice" policy means.

rob

I don't expect to act on old things from the past, but I can using it to be more even-handed (or more transparently even-handed) in the future.

DanielSank

I think we have several users (one of them a mod) who is not "nice" on a pretty regular basis.

Part of the problem here is that I'm pretty sure that if I present that case, I'll get a shitstorm from you guys and the other mods.

We'll see.

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank To myself, I say it means respecting people around you. That doesn't translate well, though, because respect is kinda subjective too.

DanielSank

9:41 PM

@ArtOfCode Ah yes, the vagaries of language.

heather

@DanielSank this. why i keep arguing users need to be more involved, and the mods less, with deciding the gray zone.

DanielSank

I think part of what I have in mind is when one user talks to another one as if the second one is an idiot.

I find that not nice. I don't know if others do too.

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank I'll promise you a calm statement of my view of your concerns.

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode Very well.

Perhaps a few selections from SevenSidedDie's rather unfortunate emissions yesterday would be a good starting place.

@heather, shall I open a Google Drive doc in which to put these shining examples of good citizenship?

(I'm really curious if any of the other mods told him to turn it down a notch in private, because he was out of line yesterday IMHO)

ArtOfCode

Take your time, find what you want to find, and ping me when you've got a link. You'll be able to find me in Charcoal HQ (11540) if I've dropped out of here by then.

I'm gonna be busyish for the next week or so in any case.

heather

9:43 PM

@DanielSank, sure.

@ArtOfCode charcoal hq - which site is that a offshoot of?

ArtOfCode

@DanielSank forewarning: that's probably not a question we'll be able to answer, because of the private nature of TL. I will say that mods are in general pretty good at saying something if they think another is out of line, though.

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode That's good.

ArtOfCode

@heather network in general - it has no parent site

heather

@ArtOfCode oh.

DanielSank

@ArtOfCode To be totally honest, I personally do not find that a compelling argument.

rob

9:52 PM

← 1 message moved from The h Bar

DanielSank

So, I just had a read-through on this whole JEE jihad whatever issue.

rob

@DanielSank Let's continue that here, if necessary, rather than re-hashing in the main room again.

DanielSank

I gotta say, this notion that "someone found it offensive so you have to not say it" seems, to me, to be pretty darn stupid.

@rob Yes, apologies.

@ACuriousMind had a very clear and reasonable notion of "offense" which he kindly explained to me once upon a time.

I would encourage the moderatorship to discuss this and make a meta post explaining their agreed upon notion of offense.

I find boy bands offensive.

heather

that's the other problem, mods aren't consistent. Shog went straight to a long ban, some of you would've kept talking it out, etc.

DanielSank

Seriously. For several reasons.

ArtOfCode

9:56 PM

Honestly, I've spent three hours on this issue already and there are things I need to do, so I'm not going to discuss this more today. If you want my opinion on something, assume I stand by what I said.

DanielSank

If someone mentions the Backstreet Boys and I flag them, I'm pretty sure some mod would tell me I'm not acting in good faith.

@ArtOfCode ciao

heather

@ArtOfCode, have a good day.

DanielSank

So yeah, I think ya'll should explain what you think offense is and how it works, because I'm puzzled.

heather

in @0celouvskyopoulo7's case it seemed kind of like "someone was offended and I am too"

Bernardo Meurer

10:35 PM

Yo @Shog9 What's up with the ban?

Shog9

10:47 PM

@BernardoMeurer if @0celouvskyopoulo7 wants to talk about it, he can find me in the tavern. No one else's business.

Bernardo Meurer

@Shog9 How's he going to talk when he's suspended?

Shog9

@BernardoMeurer he's suspended here.

Bernardo Meurer

On all PSE rooms?

Shog9

The Tavern is a very different place.

David Z

chat.stackexchange.com and chat.meta.stackexchange.com are different; I believe suspensions on one don't extend to the other

Bernardo Meurer

10:49 PM

@Shog9 Alrighty then

heather

@Shog9 I must point out that the reason someone's banned is certainly everyone's business (to a point). I don't want to get in trouble for discussing why I'm being told to stop doing something with a mod.

hence the above conversation between myself and @ArtOfCode among others.

Shog9

@heather if you dig up my last discussion with 0cel... you can probably figure it out. There's a reasonably short list of reasons for suspending anyone - if one or more of them plausibly apply, you can safely assume one or more of them motivated the suspension.

David Z

@heather I think it'd be better to say the reasons why someone might get suspended in the future are everybody's business. The specific reason why someone was suspended, we still hold to be between that person and the mods/staff.

heather

@Shog9 poor phrasing on my part - I "know" why he was suspended, I merely question the worthiness/logic behind that suspension; that's what's important for everyone to know in most cases.

Shog9

@heather I think he could benefit from some time not in chat. And I think chat can benefit from some time without him. We'll see how that works out. Beyond that... I don't know there's much of value I can say.

Transcript for

Backup Room – The h Bar