@BalarkaSen BaSe dont want to see you leave hbar, but would like to see you take some )( more personal responsibility for some altercations/ bad feelings. as for mgt, within the room + wider on SE level, do think it at times it leaves something to be desired, they admit it themselves. sometimes dislike "mod vs nonmod" splits that play out. reminds me of infamous "stanford prison experiment" o_O newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/…

Look, I'd very much like to keep chatting to the people in Mathematics because conversing there has been essential to my learning process. hBar was mostly a passtime as I talked random schtick to people of various interests there. I think it's much more trolly in nature, and has brought a fair share of ill-intentioned flags on my account. Since the moderation is purely judging a user's authenticity based on their raw suspension history, fuck that, hBar isn't worth my time.

I have no intention to be banned out of SE for an arbitrary number of days for arbitrary reasons. I have given this discussion more than the time and effort it deserves, so I'mma nope out of it.

lol Physics as a "random schtick of ppl of various interests..." o_O :\

as for "authenticity judged based on raw suspension history," that ofc applies cross-room SE, but if you feel you get less "troll flags" elsewhere, thats not entirely inconceivable to me, can relate to that some )(, more power to you... :\

If I'm reading this right, it seems like some people may have the impression that long-term chat suspensions can be issued based solely on the number of flags someone has received, without regard to what actually got flagged. But that's not how it works, at least not among the Physics mods.

@DavidZ but that's literally the conclusion that was drawn

did you not read the whole conversation?

cf. acm

@vzn he said hBar not physics. and he said he talks random schtick to people with various interests not a random schtick of people of various interests.

@DavidZ suspensions are subjectively issued by mods based on general rules eg "be nice" and more specific aspects (nitsua6s "old style law") & based on history. thats clear. mods can use any criteria they choose to issue suspensions. those criteria are not revealed nor are individual deliberations which may/ may not take place. suspensions are very rarely reversed/ revised. suspensions will be more strictly escalated based on chat history, that is the new policy announced by SE mgt.

@Eulb ok, maybe misread that. had to look up dictionary defns. thought he meant (4) dictionary.com/browse/schtick?s=t

> (4) One's special area of interest or activity; bag, scene: Post-post literary theory is not my shtick (1968+)

@BalarkaSen If it makes you feel any better, I'll be judging your authenticity based on conversations we've had. Since math's main room is in my favorites, I suppose I'll be seeing you 'round there occasionally. Be well.

re suspensions, there will be no info about which mod or combination of mod(s) decided the suspension, whether they are a room (site) mod, an other site mod, or a SE mgr etc. any SE mod can issue an up-to-1 year suspension at any time. SE mgrs can issue longer than 1yr suspensions.

@heather Not my points, sorry to give that impression. It's a post that's been linked to me by SE staff a couple of times.

@Eulb I was kind of hedging because I wasn't totally clear on what went on in the earlier conversation nor what conclusions people did draw from it. I'm trying to set the record straight by saying directly that we do not issue suspensions solely based on the number of times someone has been flagged.

@vzn Some of what you're saying is either misleading or incorrect. I'll remind you that unfounded speculation is severely frowned upon.

@DavidZ ofc plz correct anything you feel like for the record if you want to decrease misconceptions with real facts. those are my understandings based on observations of over ½ decade participation on SE & misc chat rooms.

@vzn When you post your observations, make sure to identify them as such.

@DavidZ ok! stand corrected! caveat/ fineprint: these are my observations

I mean, it doesn't matter now for that case, but in the future, do it in the same message where you make the observations in the first place.

@DavidZ ok!

This is actually a strategy I've found useful for keeping conversation friendly in general: make it clear when something is your opinion or your individual perception. Or if you have a source for something, mention the source (e.g. "according to ..."). I think sometimes this saves people from feeling like they're being attacked for not believing what you're saying. (in this message "you" is general, not specifically you vzn)

@ACuriousMind would like to see an actual instance of that hypothetical example

@DavidZ maybe you don’t.

anyway is 0celo7 going to be unsuspended or what? @rob @DavidZ @ACuriousMind this is pretty lame and also ridiculous.

@Eulb We don't discuss individual suspensions in public.

okay well actions speak stronger than words anyway.