@EmilioPisanty I think, you have some deeper reason, what you can't or won't admit clearly. I think, I can suspect this reason quite well. I don't think that you will ever admit it. So
@peterh Some deeper reason for criticising the ways in which you keep setting back the community conversation? Basically, that you keep setting back the community conversation.
In the specific ways as and when I bring them up to you.
If you do stuff that's harmful, I'm not going to keep quiet about it.
@EmilioPisanty I have only an ask and a suggestion. In this Universe, we have nearly zero contact, and on the PSE, you are much heavier than me. I can't and won't cause any problem for you.
@EmilioPisanty I don't keep setting back the community conversation. I give psychological support to people in a stone-hard environment. I give them tips and tricks, ideas and concepts, intellectual munition, and I think I am doing this for good. What I can't understand, what is the problem with it?
@peterh When that's what you do, you'll find me supporting you.
When what you do is to take someone in an obviously agitated mental state, who has already explicitly stated that they have a psychological condition that requires us to provide extra care, and who has just been suspended (presumably) for antisocial behaviour, and then you tell that person to go and emulate one of the most antisocial people in this site (and one who's also currently suspended, no less - because that's going to make it simple for OP to understand)
then you're going to find me taking your claims that you're
> give psychological support to people in a stone-hard environment
and calling BS.
You're setting up this person, whom you're pretending to help, for harm.
@EmilioPisanty Yes, this is why am I talking about. I see 4 accusations, all of them are false, and simply provably false, but they are many, and you are a big gun here while I am not.
@EmilioPisanty So, if you won't explain the real reason of your crusade, then we will remain where we are. You will always attack me, and I will always defense. Maybe you can reach some suspension for me, but it is more probably, that you won't. You lose a lot of time, also I lose a lot of time.
@EmilioPisanty I think it doesn't worth its value for none of us.
@EmilioPisanty People coming for help to the meta, need to get some help. Stone-hard rationality won't work. There will be always topics what you don't like, there will be always people what the majority don't like. They need to hear friendly voices, too.
@EmilioPisanty For example, if someone complains against his first, week-long suspension, the most upvoted answer is typically an explanation, why he deserved it and why is it okay on the rules. It is true, logically, but communicating only this is a bad strategy.
There's also an antisocial behaviour in past edits by OP that needs to be addressed now, before it keeps growing, which is why my answer is phrased in the stern tone that it is, but that friendly voice is an extremely welcome component.
@EmilioPisanty Someone need to also explain, that the real problem of an 1w suspension is that the next will be at least 1 month. So the OP will know, where he is in the system.
you've got someone who's in mourning over the loss of 50 rep, and you're showing them an example of someone who frittered away a 500-rep bounty on a whim, just to support a rant?
@EmilioPisanty I think my comment tried to give him some solace, and I've also tried to motivate him to write more post. Well, and to try to learn physics.
that's like walking up to someone who had $75 and suddenly lost two-thirds of that, and pointing out the guy in the corner who's burning hundred-dollar bills
how is that at all helpful to OP?
let alone the huge burst of information in the thread you've linked to. That's an enormous Q&A thread, with a hell of a lot going on, with an OP who's repeatedly shown hints of trouble reading extended text
why not link to something cleaner and shorter and with a simpler message that will be easier for OP to understand easily?
There are tons of examples of similar threads posted by people with constructive, receptive attitudes
if you're really trying to help, why not link to them? why link to one of the most conflictive persons on the site?
@EmilioPisanty 1. I don't really believe that it was really unintentional. 2. I didn't explain it to the OP, but the answers get 2-3 ups on the PSE. So, if he learns enough to write answers, he can easily get that rep back.
@EmilioPisanty I admit that it is not a very good question, but it is probably not visible for the OP of the meta post on its current knowledge level. I don't think that this question was asked with some negative motive.
@peterh The question you've provided will do nothing beyond confuse OP, and help set an unrealistic expectation of how bounties should work.
The reality is that the bounty you've linked to is an exception, mostly driven by HNQ fuel. Linking to that as the example to look up to is just setting an impossibly high bar for OP.
You're saying, in effect, "look, if you don't get your rep back, then you suck at asking questions"
@peterh probably, yes.
but that's completely besides the point.
There's hundreds, if not thousands, of bounty'd questions on the site. Why pick one of the examples that's most likely to give OP a warped impression of how bounties work?
That's the question I asked of you at the start
and the only answer you've given is "oh, I didn't think about it very much"
@EmilioPisanty It was an example that bounty rep loss is not so important. I am also not sure, that the bounty was really accidental. I don't think that it was a bad example. But your examples are not okay - it shows all bounties, and not only the ones where the rep loss was reversed by upvotes.
@peterh Try this, then. Surely you can provide multiple examples that give a simpler, more focused message that OP actually has a chance of understanding.
and which didn't get on HNQ, so that you're not creating unrealistic goals or warped expectations about how the system works.
Surely you can find OPs in that query that the meta post's OP can actually identify with.
(Or are you seriously claiming that that user is going to be able to identify with the JD question? particularly keeping in mind the comment by that user that I linked above.)
@EmilioPisanty Meanwhile, also I've created a query, but it shows a lot of questions which were upvoted probably out of their bounty. I think only the votes between the bounty open and close time should count.
@EmilioPisanty This query will be long, also the bountyclose votes should be counted which were casted to one of their answers.... eerrgh, I could do it but now I am sleepy
@EmilioPisanty You are a hardcore researcher, the world will be worser if you waste your time for flamewars. I won't suck your energy any more. Have a good night!
Are you comfortable with maintaining such a low level of physical intimacy up until the point of marriage? While I agree that as a "test" asking for that kiss knowing she doesn't want to until marriage was the incorrect move, I'm not sure of the cultural norms in maintaining such a strict "physical intimacy barrier", and if not the cultural norm, it's something that you may want to consider - especially if marriage would be many months or years away. — Philbo54 secs ago
By that I mean that asking for a kiss would not be considered anywhere near "only wanting someone for their body" between a boyfriend and girlfriend in most cultures I'm aware of (and am assuming its not taboo considering you asked for it), and you may be in for a rougher time down the road if just wanting a kiss from your girlfriend is now negatively affecting your thoughts, feelings, actions, and behaviours. — Philbo1 min ago
Thats the thing. If I was a normal customer of his I would never save this money. It is like getting a deal which includes 20 % fee, without the fee. — Croolman7 secs ago
