« first day (1049 days earlier)      last day (2722 days later) » 

12:00 AM
@heather example?
@vzn The one that he just linked
(and they have stated that user policy shouldn't be in use here, over-referencing the be nice policy.)
in Trash, yesterday, by Kyle Kanos
I hear there's some sort of embargo against humans coming into my country, my adopting you may not work.
was deleted.
why, I have no idea.
@heather could you clarify what you mean by that, after you find an example for Shog9?
it clearly has no negativity.
@DavidZ sure. there's a comment a mod made, let me find it.
1 hour ago, by ACuriousMind
@heather Well, see, that's not exactly a correct characterization of how SE works. Yes, there are large areas of site policy that is determined by user consensus and that moderators merely enforce in a janitorial role. However, these are content policies regarding the main site. This is not true for behavioural policies, such as the Be Nice policy - no user base is given the choice to deviate from it, no matter how strongly the users may demand it.
k. so "not true for behavioural policies, such as the Be Nice policy"
no politics is not a behavioural policy, it is a what is on/off topic policy.
that requires user input.
(like everything like that on the rest of the site.)
over and over again you mention the Be Nice policy. so enforce it, and leave politics be, because that's not the problem - the problem is people breaking the Be Nice policy!
@heather I already responded to that above here and here
12:04 AM
@Shog9 just want to say thx for dropping by & contributing am sure there are better things to do around SE, a bit surprised you have time for this :)
@heather That'd be a question for @ACuriousMind. If I had to guess, I'd suggest that immigration bans are perhaps seen as a very sensitive topic right now, such that I spent the better part of last week dealing with folks angry that our CEO decided to say, "banning immigrants is bad".
@vzn I'm trying to be proactive for once
@Shog9 also, "I hate to do this, but I will agree with Duffield, you guys are going crazy with the deleting. Look, you shouldn't shut everything down over the possibility that it could yield a problem. You're moderators, you should moderate the chat not outlaw everything that could somehow generate a polemic. Painting politics with a broad brush helps no one. I find the new rule wide open for arbitrary judgement on your part, and that's never good."
@Shog9 think your meta posts are helpful and isnt it interesting that 1st old one on philosophy seems to nail it already... let me quote that
(comment on meta post)
12:08 AM
> 2. Controversial topics leading to bickering and name-calling. Folks bring up polarizing topics in rooms dedicated to other topics and filled with people who joined for the same. Anger and resentment ensues. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/270587/…
To be clear, I think this stuff needs to be discussed, and strongly encourage folks to do so if they can muster the energy. At the same time, contemporary politics seems ripe for cheap shots and ... strong defenses of poorly-formed opinions ... which is a recipe for hurt feelings and conflict all around.
So, I do think there's value in being ready to bump these to another room, or simply reminding folks to refrain.
That doesn't have to be deletion (indeed, moving to a Trash room is handy insofar as the conversation isn't lost and could in theory be relocated again or simply continued elsewhere)
@heather I think the point @ACuriousMind is making is that there is such a strong correlation between political discussion and violations of the "be nice" policy that it's better to prevent political discussion in the first place, given that our goal is to prevent insults from flying rather than let them happen and issue punishments after the fact.
only on SE (or cyberspace...?) could a new policy rejecting Politics from Physics chat cause so much consternation o_O
@DavidZ that's as may be, but because it is on/off topic, it should have user discussion and input, NOT be just a "mods are gonna do this, here's an announcement".
(like the Be Nice policy)
@heather To reiterate: I would not have deleted that message if it had been a standalone joke. But it started to generate a conversation that wasn't headed in a good direction, so I removed it. Let me also point out that no one has been banned for that incident.
12:11 AM
@heather I would strongly encourage you to put your thoughts together into an answer on ACM's meta post then.
@Shog9 thank you, by the way, for answering my questions and giving input here, I really appreciate it.
@Shog9 i'm planning on it, but coming in, I didn't even understand the mod's stance.
@heather highlighting areas where you are / were unclear could be useful in terms of reworking the post for other readers too, so don't leave that out.
@ACuriousMind I should hope no one's been banned for that incident. Generally, though, i was in the room too, and I didn't see it going in a particularly bad direction.
@Shog9 okay.
just one or two more questions and then I'll go write the post =)
i said earlier "and with not really any evidence for your side except your word, and NO user input whatsoever in a user input based site, and then an overly strict enforcement of your ban."
generally, there are a few things I'm utterly confused about.
1. the complete lack of explanation of thought process leading up to mod decision
(as i see it)
which has been discussed.
2. the ban of politics itself
(which has been discussed)
3. the lack of user input in a user input based site
(which has been discussed, but not really answered as I'd like)
4. the unclearness of the ban
(which has been discussed)
and finally 5. the overly strict enforcement of the ban
(which has been discussed, but not really answered as I'd like)
could we discuss 3 and 5?
@rob "I've removed two off-topic comments from a user who does not currently participate in chat for reasons unrelated to our discussion here. I'm hoping this discussion can remain on-topic for current chat participants." - removing the comments from JD - really?
I don't see why that was necessary.
@heather They were off topic.
Irrelevant to the topic of the post.
@DavidZ they were very on-topic.
they were disagreeing with the idea behind the meta post.
12:20 AM
@heather as a general rule, you should assume that anything posted to meta is up for discussion, since that is its purpose. Lots of folks get twisted up about this, and there are ways to phrase a post such that this is reduced... But strictly-speaking, such measures are unnecessary - unless a post is locked, you're free to (and encouraged to) post your thoughts as an answer so that your voice is heard.
(If I knew how to make this more obvious, I would)
@heather no, that's not how I saw them at all.
@heather No, they were just quoting the post and then alleging he has been unfairly banned with no critique or input towards the post.
@Shog9 i'd argue that this post was phrased in that way, and the fact that this post was posted a few days after the policy was put in place further reduces that.
@ACuriousMind there was a bit of it arguing against the policy. Bernardo's comment references it as well, so it wasn't even a clean delete.
@heather I don't... Really consider this overly strict, but I may be callous; I generally just delete (vs. move) discussions I feel are problematic, so this actually strikes me as a fairly light touch.
@heather I hate to throw another thing into the mix, but I'd like to get your perspective on this: when exactly was the ban put into place?
12:22 AM
@Shog9 to rephrase: overly strict for the lack of the meta post or any official statement on the situation.
@DavidZ i'd be hard pressed to give a time, those in the mod only chatroom have a better transcript to go off of, but day before yesterday, i think, if my memory hasn't gone off it's rocker.
i just want the mod input on user input on this anti-politics policy going forward. is it going to be in there or no?
and further how exactly the ban is going to be enforced (mod input please)
@heather I've already admitted multiple times that communication was poor and I honestly didn't think we needed to make a big deal out of this "ban" until we noticed the considerable backlash from the users. Live and learn.
@heather ah, I see
@ACuriousMind this isn't me criticizing you. this is me criticizing the mod team's actions in this situation. i just want to make that clear.
if it comes across that way, please let me know, and I apologize.
@heather Ah, I'm not taking this personally. I'm saying your criticism in that regard is valid and I'm trying to explain why it happend that way.
@heather If you can't identify a time, was there even a particular event that marked the start?
It's precisely the thing, the fact that I have access to the mod chat transcripts prevents me from seeing the sequence of events as others (non-mods) perceive it.
12:28 AM
@ACuriousMind okay. well, thank you for the explanation, but the problem still stands, and it still needs to be rectified. the meta post now that it's posted still needs serious clarification before it can even really be a fully viable policy. i'm guessing there will be multiple posts against the circumstances and the general evidence and you'll have to make a new post with your new more specific policy once you have it and then people can really argue in earnest.
@Shog9 Right, this is why we object to banning "politics". It's really that simple: the wording is imprecise.
@DavidZ i will need to really go through the transcript, and i will do so, but i can't really right now...dinner's gonna be ready at any moment. i promise i will do it in the very near future though (it will probably be mentioned in my meta post-to-be).
@DanielSank, welcome back!
lots happened while you were gone.
@heather Of course the post will be edited after we've collected input. You and Daniel already have given feedback what needs to be worked on. I'm not planning on updating it until after the chat session though in order to get feedback from more users.
the great and powerful Shog even came =)
@ACuriousMind ugh, stupid school...i wish i could see this chat session.
i can read the transcript, but of course i have objections and want to take part in the discussion.
ah, well.
so, sorry, but mods: mod input on user input on this anti-politics policy going forward. is it going to be in there or no? and further how exactly the ban is going to be enforced?
@heather oh?
12:31 AM
@DanielSank that sort of constructive criticism would, I'm sure, be welcome as a response to the meta topic, ideally fleshed out with examples.
Again, my reading of the post is that this isn't "prohibition" so much as... Care. But how this ends up being applied - and communicated - should be something y'all can work together to decide.
@DanielSank yup.
@Shog9 Sounds nice and fuzzy. Do our mods agree?
@heather no problem, you can get back to me later. I have to go myself.
@DanielSank no comment on that one just yet
^ see?
@DanielSank they also participate.
12:33 AM
@heather What do you mean "is it going to be in there or not"? We're not offering you to give feedback just in order to ignore it. Whether any particular user proposal is going to have impact I of course cannot commit to.
I'll be back later to catch up on the discussion
@DavidZ thanks, good night
mods: you are being non-committal here. you are our mods! tell us what you're going to do. don't hide it.
@heather As for how this policy is going to be enforced - with the moderation tools, mainly moving undesired conversation out of the h bar. If there's a dedicated chat room for politics I'm happy to move it there instead of to the trash, unless of course it would be otherwise deletion-worthy for breach of Be Nice.
thank you.
@ACuriousMind and at what level does banning get into play?
at how big of a mention of politics do things get deleted?
@ACuriousMind sure, but you said earlier that user input wasn't going to be a thing here.
@ACuriousMind You need to define politics. I'll stop repeating that when I see a half-decent definition, in writing, in a meta post.
12:37 AM
it was a perfectly reasonable question "is it going to be in there or not."
@heather Only for breaches of Be Nice or repeated bad faith attempts to have politics conversation. (And yes, bad faith is a subjective judgement. We judge bad faith daily in other matters on the site, this is also what moderators are elected for)
This whole thing reminds me of the homework policy discussion. We have a policy. The users pointed out that it's poorly written. I gave a specific example of an improvement. You guys mostly ignore it. Come on, guys.
@DanielSank Yes, I heard you. You can understand that I cannot simultaneously converse here, search for references/links and draft a spotless definition right now, right?
@ACuriousMind yep
@Shog9 Not so sure:
6 mins ago, by David Z
@DanielSank no comment on that one just yet
but i'd also like to point out that you're being very dance-around-the-issue-y here, at least in my view @ACuriousMind.
::daniel juggles all the things with his 8 arms::
12:40 AM
@DanielSank be a little careful with strict language, particularly for "off-topic". Everyone asking off-topic questions thinks they're the exception, and some will happily play lawyer all day trying to find a loophole in the description. Go too far down that road, and you end up with a definition that's useless for anyone who just wants to know what's on topic.
@heather No, I said we're asking for user input. I said this is not an area of user-sourced policy because it's (in my view) inextricably linked to the Be Nice policy. Maybe that distinction was not the best one to make here, because I realize now that my model of what "user-sourced policy" is probably not what you think, and tangential to the issue.
this whole thing's a mess
So instead of trying to find a rigorous definition for "politics" (or "sexual innuendo" for that matter, although I'm not seeing so much grief there currently), consider spending the effort instead on defining what the purpose of the h-bar is.
the distinctions the mods are making are not obvious to anyone here.
so when the chatters draw the obvious to them conclusion, the mods disagree, cueing madness.
> Note that this ban on political discussion is of course subject to common sense, and subordinate to its goal of prohibiting inflammatory discussion. You will not be banned for mentioning the newest EU regulation on cucumber curvature, or curiously asking what political structure another country has, etc. It should be pretty evident in most cases whether a given topic has the potential to be inflammatory or not - if in doubt, make another room for it or just ask.
...that should probably appear sooner in the post
12:45 AM
@Shog9 In what capacity should I do this? Similar reasoning turned what had been a reasonable focused discussion about our homework policy into useless navel-gazing about the "purpose" of our entire site. The result was that nothing useful happened and everyone got sick of the whole thing.
@Shog9 but the thing is, it isn't evident, to anyone.
@DanielSank well, what is the purpose of the site?
common sense and politics got us into this mess in the first place.
If you have to think about that, I'd say that's a bigger problem.
@Shog9 I don't care to discuss it because it's not relevant to fixing our homework policy.
12:46 AM
@Shog9 answering good questions about physics.
@heather to what end?
for making the internet a better place to get answers to physics questions.
@heather what's wrong with all of the other physics forums that have folks getting answers to physics questions? IOW, what problem are you solving here?
@heather Not exactly sure what you refer to, but I'm being a bit evasive because I don't want to commit to new strong statements in a real-time chat. It took time to write that meta post and it will take more time to improve it and respond to your criticism. As Daniel said, language matters and I don't want to get pinned down on something I typed out in a suboptimal manner in a few seconds.
@Shog9 Who cares? The site exists. People use it. It's obvious a good thing. Why do we need to come up with a definite "purpose"?
@Shog9 The SE format is just plain better than conventional forums. We all know that.
12:47 AM
@DanielSank that's why you can't agree on a homework policy.
@Shog9 other forums don't have good experts/way to answer, and SE is best.
@Shog9 uh, wat?
@Shog9 I disagree, actually.
(That's not primarily because I dislike getting pinned down but because it would make this already apparently confusing issue even more confusing)
SE is better because answers are ordered by value, not by chronology.
@ACuriousMind fair enough.
12:48 AM
Also good Google juice and community moderation model that makes sense.
Trivia: TeX gets just shy of 50% of its questions from universities, the highest % of any site on the network
They're followed by Mathematics at about 35%
@Shog9 Look here. We do agree on a way to improve the homework policy.
But the mods preferred to discuss the site's purpose in the Universe rather than just make change. This baffles me to no end.
This site gets about a quarter of its questions from educational institutions
Why we're talking about this, I've already forgotten :-\
12:51 AM
I'm presenting this trivia because David Robinson dropped it in an internal chat room earlier and I thought it was interesting, but also because I think it has a direct bearing on how pressing the question of homework is to a site.
very much so to us?
because < university
more highschool self learner homework type question asking people?
@Shog9 As clearly argued in the highly upvoted post I linked, part of our problem is that what we want to reject with the "homework" policy is not homework.
@DanielSank Did you not just tell me that you think votes on meta mean "usefulness" rather than agreement? You can't have it both ways.
@ACuriousMind I got upvotes on an answer.
You got upvotes on an explanation of SE chat policy.
So I can have it both ways, because they both make sense and are not at odds.
@DanielSank Right. We ended up making a similar call on Stack Overflow way back when; the problems that "homework" often exhibits are just as much problems for any question that exhibits them.
They're problems because they result in questions that have no further utility
12:53 AM
A: Replacing the homework policy 1b: what is our scope anyway?

heatherI agree completely with ACuriousMind's answer, so I won't go into that, but simply expand on what main reasons I see things being closed as (or should be closed as). These are of course just my opinions, and I would welcome explanation of disagreement in the comments. Close Reasons Not Enough E...

@Shog9 Yes well, what's your point?
@DanielSank I see, fair enough
@DanielSank My point is, identify the problem.
@Shog9 Did you read the meta post? I did identify the problem.
And it's highly upvoted.
@DanielSank So did ACM:
> So, there has been considerable dissatisfaction with recent moderator actions in the h bar, physics.SE's main chat room, at least in part because people feel they have not been properly informed about the rules, policies, and consequences of violating them.
12:54 AM
this conversation has made me want to write, like 3 meta posts
@Shog9 Yeah, that meta post was good!
Now, you may not agree that that's a problem, or you may disagree with the solution.
@Shog9 there's a significant difference between the type of upvote (usefulness vs agreement) and the number of upvotes (6 vs 20-some)
But that's why there's a meta discussion, so that you can do that.
@heather well, also the age
4 hours vs. whatever
@Shog9 there are meta posts leaning more towards announcement. ACM's is that type. it is less discussion-y than daniel's.
12:55 AM
Not sure what you're getting at, Shog.
Score on meta is always less interesting than the discussion anyway
@Shog9 sorry, losing track of your argument.
@Shog9 That sounds like a cop-out. If someone proposes a specific change and it's upvoted with no discussion, isn't there a clear call to action?
::pulls teenager card::
@DanielSank maybe? Or maybe it's a sign that almost no one cares.
12:57 AM
Daniel's answer clearly should've been implemented.
there's no going around that.
I haven't been following the discussion lately
@Shog9 That's another cop-out, IMHO.
Why are we talking about this? I forgot.
then i really am not following your argument (let alone what your argument even is)
@DanielSank you were using it as an example of why you shouldn't bother expressing your opinion on the chat policy meta post?
@DanielSank I recall that we talked about this way back and I have to admit that I plain forgot about it.
@heather When I wrote "Although this meta post doesn't ask a question, your input is of course welcome. ", I meant it.
12:58 AM
And, back to the chat policy discussion... The problem to be solved called out in the meta post is an opaque system for moderators to decide what's appropriate, and the proposed solution is a set of rough guidelines for topics that are likely to cause problems.
@ACuriousMind I've discussed it with you. I've discussed it with DZ. I've brought it up over and over over the last year and nobody seems to want to do anything.
Both can be discussed, of course.
It's so frustrating that I gave up.
this whole system is frustrating for anyone who wants to make a legit complaint.
this conversation: a prime example.
Forget complaints, I offered a constructive change and the mods buried it beneath a safari of useless navel-gazing.
That was frustrating.
I'm ranting. I should leave.
1:00 AM
i should as well. sorry.
i'm gonna read the federalist papers, have dinner, write my meta posts, and be done.
@DanielSank see you, thanks for discussing this.
@heather Sorry, how? I've said that several points made here are valid, and that they will be addressed. Can you be more specific what you expected to come of this?
i'll be floating in here.
You have to understand that I can't commit to any change right here and now because the meta post is a few hours old and I have no idea how the broader userbase views it yet.
1:02 AM
@ACuriousMind i feel like 10%+ has been the mods saying "yeah, we needed to do that" like, come on, did you guys think this through? if this many of my complaints make sense to you! and then 80%+ is like you guys arguing so hard and making excuses to things that I thought made a lot of sense, and doing it in a way that I feel like isn't even you listening. i'm sorry, i'm tired/hangry/ranting, but that's how I feel.
@ACuriousMind the broader userbase is in here and in the comments and in the hbar and everywhere and everyone that's said anything has opposed it!!!
::takes deep breath::
okay, I really need to break now, or i'm gonna do something stupid.
i'll come back later.
1:32 AM
okay. i'm gonna write my meta post now.
i've calmed down significantly.
1:46 AM
@heather If we want to know the opinion of majority of the users on the PSE site then I would recommend giving options in form of answers (for example - "upvote if you want to allow discussions on politics" and another answer saying "upvote if you do not want to allow discussions on politics"...you can elaborate on that).
If we just write a meta post we will never have a way of understanding what the broader community prefers. The votes on the respective opinions will serve as a hard proof of what the community really wants.
okay, I can do two posts or something.
Yeah, that will be better. Keep them short and to the point :).
@anonymous Writing answers with different opinions is good. That you upvote them if you agree, however, is always implicit, and they shouldn't just consist of a position, but also of a reasoning for it. Meta is for discussion and doesn't do well with polls - you always get people downvoting the polls when they're just supposed to be upvoted, you get other people offering opinions or thoughts which might detract attention from the poll-type answers, etc.
@ACuriousMind I feel it is okay to list down the two opposite opinions in form of answers (obviously with justification). Then allow them to freely upvoted as well as downvoted. After a certain period of time we can have a look at the result.
We need not instruct the users to only upvote or only downvote. They can upvote the opinion of their choice and downvote the other one.
I would also urge you to not try to turn this into a mere poll because it's not about popular vote, it's about arguments. As Shog9 said above, what's valuable about meta is the conversation, not the vote totals as such. If you present a good argument many agree with, it will be upvoted, if they disagree with your stance, it will be downvoted. There's not really a reason to offer the contrary opinion as a sort of advocatus diaboli when people can just downvote what they disagree with.
We've tried the poll-type thing before e.g. here and I'm sure you agree the two poll-type answers are those that give the least valuable information there.
(If you didn't intend that sort of answer, just ignore me)
2:00 AM
@ACuriousMind That post isn't a very good example of a poll. I meant a poll which offers solid justifications and arguments in favor of each stance.
That sounds like...business as usual to me, then. In that case, one shouldn't write the post for the contrary opinion because the subconscious bias to present the position one doesn't agree with as weaker is strong and hard to control.
Let someone else write it. If the contrary opinion doesn't appear, that also tells us somethiing.
@ACuriousMind Well, yes. That is a good point. So perhaps someone with an opinion contrary to heather should write the post about the opposing opinion.
@heather Please note ^
I/Daniel/Heather/Bernardo are on the same page. So I guess someone from the mod team will have to write the opposing opinion so that we can have an effective poll.
@DanielSank BTW that wasn't the mods' idea, actually. It was proposed by Jim and implemented by heather. (Though I suppose this is departing from the main topic of conversation)
2:24 AM
@DanielSank lol "navel gazing" vs purpose of site...
@DavidZ Good point.
I criss-crossed the experiments about how the close reason is used with the post about the site's purpose.
3 hours later…
5:15 AM
fyi/ re more on (SE) chat philosophy/ etc vzn1.wordpress.com/chat
7 hours later…
11:49 AM
Q: Error Analysis in Experiment

Alpha RomeoI am trying to calculate transformer ratio of an unknown transformer by measuring primary and secondary voltage. I have 2 standard voltmeter with small error. My job is to take the 4 readings and find the transformer ratio. ignore all labeling My manual says that for each individual reading, ...

12:12 PM
Please see this answer and up-vote:
A: Chat and the moderation thereof

KenshinMy view is that the h bar should be a place where the users of Physics SE can hang out and discuss any topic under the sun with other users of Physics SE while maintain respect for one another. Physics is likely the most commonly discussed topic, but I don't think topics that aren't physics rela...

2 downvotes already for promoting freedom?
c'mon, let's make the h bar great again
yay 2 more upvotes
7 messages moved from The h Bar
We've already got a lot of discussion in this room, please don't spread it over different rooms as that makes it even more confusing to follow what's going on @Kenshin
12:47 PM
@DavidZ though I should point out that was a mod-supported line of action.
I'm currently curating a list of (in my view, obviously) notable messages from yesterday's chat because I don't want it to get buried in the transcript and have the same conversations all over again. Smart ideas for making that list accessible? It's a bit disjointed and piecewise to be useful as an answer to the meta post, but I'm not coming up with better ideas.
put the messages in a frozen chatroom and link to it? dunno if that's possible. (making a copy of the messages)
Eh, I fear they'll look too much like a conversation in chat, when they're really more like "highlights".
hmm, fair point.
meta post seems best then.
(answer to your post.)
too bad there's no way to see in that case who supports which side.
That particular post isn't intended to be there to judge how people think, it's there to inform people about discussions and arguments that have already happened. I want to avoid the groundhog day scenario where the same conversation happens over and over again with different users but the same points made.
12:59 PM
oh, okay.
Which post is the one where you judge people
@Slereah, hmm, what?
1:37 PM
Digest from yesterday posted here.
3 hours later…
5:02 PM
@heather Which just goes to show we do take community input sometimes ;-)
5:43 PM
lol great to see all the action in responses now on ACMs meta post, & was looking fwd to but dont see anything even in comments by very-vocal-in-here heather yet :| meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9596/…
@vzn Probably heather has school today :). And, on the other hand I guess the issue is already settled.
1 hour later…
7:12 PM
@anonymous what issue is settled? btw lol at your dislike of my children metaphor :P
@vzn The "politics" issue :)
@anonymous some new development? not following
in The h Bar, 2 hours ago, by ACuriousMind
Since we have received little to no truly positive feedback my impression is that the main attitude here is that we should not try to have such a guideline as "try to stay clear of politics", regardless of what "politics" exactly means. Unless this changes in the next day or so, I think the next step will be to mark the meta post as a failed experiment and return to solely enforcing the Be Nice policy as such
Have a look !
@anonymous wow amazing o_O ... a seemingly rare event on SE where mod(s) yield to users... :O
@vzn Ya! I guess the mods were too bored and just let it be :)
7:15 PM
@anonymous lol have rarely seen the mods this involved, it took quite a bit of (meta!) effort :P
hehe...indeed....! It was revolutionary.
I am happy things are settled now.
@anonymous indeed a small )( revolution. was defending politics myself in main chat quite a bit. to me science has a significant amt of politics in it. as maybe this whole brouhaha attests.
Yep. Are you a student ? What is your field of study? @vzn
@anonymous graduated BS software engr long ago in galaxy far away, specialize(d) in Computer Science. my blog vzn1.wordpress.com ... are you a student? what country?
@heather my sincere amazement/ congratulations on leading a successful revolution & not even writing a single comment to meta :P
@vzn Oh great. I am in high school (will be in college in few months). Country- Kuwait but am an Indian.
Which country are you from ? @vzn
7:23 PM
@anonymous USA. what do you want to study in college? are you gonna go in kuwait?
@vzn Engineering in electronics or mechanical engineering most probably. Physics is the second option on my list. :)
No I am trying to get in an Indian university or US/Canada university
However as most of family members stay in India I'd probably go there
I have applied to several US and Canada univs too
In Kuwait we don't have good universities
@anonymous interesting were you born in kuwait?
@vzn Uh no. I was born in India. My father had got a better job offer in Kuwait so we shifted few years back. However, I frequently visit India( we have a house there).
@anonymous have you met bernard? he has probably been involved in some electronics hacking iirc... wants to be something like computer/ hardware engr
@vzn Indeed. He is a good friend! I've heard about that
7:33 PM
@anonymous so welcome to the club & hope you have fun
@vzn Thanks a lot ! See you around :D
3 hours later…
10:36 PM
hey, so what I did mean was the "sexual innuendoes" section, i just didn't quite want to say as much.
> Sexual innuendo: The Be Nice policy, as a subset of not being a jerk explicitly calls out "[i]nappropriate language or attention. Avoid vulgar terms and anything sexually suggestive. Also, this is not a dating site." Once again, remember chat is public and the minimum participant age is 13. Don't say anything to another user that you wouldn't say to a 13-year-old while their parents are standing right next to you (possibly with a large baseball bat if that helps your decision process).
while it hasn't received nearly as much attention as the politics ban, there have been a few comments against it.
oh, and side note: some mod may wish to change the room description to reflect the change to "discussions on policy".
@heather The part that is quoted from the general SE policy is definitely in force, of course. The rest of it, I would take as a reinterpretation of the same thing, so in that sense, yes, that still applies, but I suppose we should really wait for @ACuriousMind to chime in before taking that as gospel.
People have widely varying opinions about what they'd say to the 13-year-old child of parents carrying a large baseball bat
that's true, yeah =P
i just didn't know and wanted to clarify, because most of the rest of the meta post seems to be...removed from effect, basically.
@heather We could, though I'd point out that the main purpose of this room is still to be a backup for when the h bar is busy. The fact that we want to put policy discussions here rather than there is sort of a special case.
@DavidZ, curiosity: why move it from there to here? moving it away = less input from chat members.
which seems to me like a bad thing.
@heather There has been some concern about that. It's part of the Be Nice policy, but it's never really been a point of contention. I also think that violations of the spirit of that policy are rare. Different cultures disagree on what is appropriate for "children" of different ages and god knows I'd have hated it to be patronized like that.
10:45 PM
@ACuriousMind true. I'd just say leave it at the Be Nice policy, because everyone "gets" the fundamental idea, and I should hope will at least understand being told to step back a bit.
@heather Because it disrupts ongoing conversations in the h bar, for one thing. And also, it's kind of the same reason we thought about banning political discussion there: people (can) start berating and insulting each other. After all, this is politics, just the politics of this community rather than of IRL governments.
@DavidZ but for when conversation wishes to go towards policy?
@heather I dunno, if everyone got the fundamental idea of "be nice", we wouldn't need moderators, now would we
@heather Then people can come here
Like the "politics" part, it was more meant to be a guideline to try and not make sexually charged statements rather than a total ban on anything remotely sexual
significant policy discussion has happened in the hbar before @DavidZ
10:46 PM
@heather Yeah, and now it can happen here.
@ACuriousMind I'm sorry, but your ban on politics was not "try not to make political statements" it was a ban on anything remotely political.
I realize now that communication in that regard has utterly failed. I'll put together a post mortem post discussing that tomorrow.
but anyway, I have no arguments with your ban on all "that" stuff, so =)
@heather I mean, it could still happen in the h bar, we're just sort of encouraging people to bring it here, as you and I did now
@ACuriousMind okay =) I'm still typing up that meta post, if it's alright that I'm still posting it after you agreed to step back on it.
(the response to your meta post, not a new one)
@DavidZ okay =) just curious.
10:52 PM
@heather FWIW, looking back at rob's proposal, there is a certain subset of chat that we do particularly want to keep out of the h bar, and that is people complaining about how the moderators are abusive and overreaching and should be removed from power and so on. (That's not really policy discussion, it's discussion of moderation)
@DavidZ ah, I see.
Not that people can't complain about the mods, of course, but it's kind of pointless to do it in chat. Plus it tends to trample out existing discussions. We're not interested in prohibiting people from complaining about us entirely, we just want to keep it from being disruptive.
curiosity: if you were to list the things that annoyed you most about me when I chat with you are try to discuss policy with you or whatever - what are they? I ask because I want to know what is irritating about me.
i know i can sometimes be a pain, so i just want to know what exactly i am a pain about =P
@heather what makes you think there's anything irritating about you?
Because I can't really think of anything
at least, nothing beyond what I find irritating about people in general
@heather Sure, feel free. The meta post is there to gather feedback, and linking to your meta post instead of your chat messages saves me quite a bit of time.
@heather Nonono, please don't feel you are a "pain" for speaking your mind. You have been completely civil in all your contributions and if all our users were as considerate as you, our job would be a lot easier.
11:00 PM
I was actually thinking last night how great it is that we had an intense conversation about site policy without anyone becoming rude or insulting, at least not that I noticed.
okay. well, just making sure - I don't want to be a crazy objectioner =P

« first day (1049 days earlier)      last day (2722 days later) »