Math Mods' Office - 2018-12-09

user131753

3:31 AM

@quid Fair enough.

@gimusi I also think the rollback is unjustified and makes the question worse (whether or not one liked the previous edit in the first place). I will roll it back and leave a comment. If they or someone else rolls it back again, I will flag for a mod.

user131753

@MikeMiller Can you explain precisely your reason(s)?

Mike Miller

The impetus is on whoever claims something is serious. Anyway, I am done spending my time on this.

2

user131753

@MikeMiller Very clever way of saying that you can't explain precisely the reason(s). I like it!

Aloizio Macedo

4:24 AM

@user170039 I agree with quid regarding refering to Alexander. This is the direct response to his inquiry in CRUDE, so he is most appropriate to handle that.

user131753

4:39 AM

Thank you very much for your response @AloizioMacedo. I will be waiting for @AlexanderGruber's response regarding it then.

Alexander Gruber

@user170039 sup

i'm reading the transcript, 1 sec

@user170039 so you are concerned about this comment, yes?

user131753

@AlexanderGruber Actually two (see my last flag also). But let's for now stick to this one.

user131753

@AlexanderGruber Yes.

Alexander Gruber

i think jyrki was just trying to be funny. It's a bit exaggerated.

but he is not targeting any specific users with this. (maybe one could infer some guesses, but he isn't directing it at anybody, I don't think.)

user131753

Note that I am not asking this comment to be removed. I am merely suggesting it to be edited so that it respects Jyrki's intent remains unchanged but the comment remains within CoC.

Alexander Gruber

4:44 AM

@user170039 what rewording would you suggest?

user131753

@AlexanderGruber Please wait a second. Let me think.

Alexander Gruber

@user170039 maybe english.SE could be useful here

user131753

"@AlexanderGruber For the most part I am opposed to dry and homework-y threads. The reason is that such questions rarely add new content to the site. Admittedly I am also extremely annoyed by the fact that they create opportunities for a certain group of persons who seemingly answer virtually any homework questions very quickly by providing what can be easily characterized as textbook answers resulting in upvotes." - or something like that.

user131753

I think that more or less summarizes Jyrki's main point. Isn't it?

Alexander Gruber

@user170039 idk. there are a lot of changes.

i thought you meant just the word circle-jerk.

user131753

4:53 AM

@AlexanderGruber Not only "circle-jerk" but also "local gang of homework automatons".

Alexander Gruber

I would say the latter fairly transparently does not violate the CoC

user131753

22 hours ago, by user 170039

@AlexanderGruber: I know that mods are not supposed to reveal that. But if it was really you (and not some non-MSE mod) then I would like to ask whether the following is also acceptable to referring to a certain part of my fellow users at MSE (also within staying the bounds of CoC), "local gang of deletion/closure/downvote automatons to participate in their hourly circle-jerk of God-knows-what and downvotes".

user131753

@AlexanderGruber In that context read the above comment.

Alexander Gruber

shrug idk. Depends on the context. Said with sufficient vitriol, or directed at a specific person, it would be out of line.

but I've seen worse

user131753

@AlexanderGruber Exactly. That's why I am suggesting it to be edited.

Alexander Gruber

4:58 AM

@user170039 well, i don't think it was said with vitriol, and i don't think it was directed at a specific person.

i don't think it would be good precedent to edit more than just the 'circle-jerk' part of the statement. arguably, that is vulgar, and if it has offended somebody maybe that single word could be changed. but otherwise, i think it is going to have to be an all or nothing thing. either removal or staying in its current form.

user131753

@AlexanderGruber Maybe. But it indeed was directed at a specific "group".

Alexander Gruber

it would not be wise for the mods to start editing chat comments to satisfy the preferences of one party or another. that isn't really what it is for. if it's over the line it should be over the line enough to be removed.

user131753

@AlexanderGruber I am ok with that.

user131753

@AlexanderGruber I agree. Thanks for your patience.

Alexander Gruber

@user170039 it was directed at whatever group of people engage in the behavior jyrki finds distasteful

(i mean mathematically, that is a subset of people, but let's not get techincal here)

it's more a comment on the behavior. he doesn't name any names.

sorry, i just don't think this crosses the line enough to be removed.

user131753

5:04 AM

@AlexanderGruber Indeed. So let me ask, is the following comment also acceptable: "local gang of deletion/closure/downvote automatons to participate in their hourly circle-jerk of question-closure/deletion and downvotes"

user131753

20 mins ago, by user 170039

Note that I am not asking this comment to be removed. I am merely suggesting it to be edited so that it respects Jyrki's intent remains unchanged but the comment remains within CoC.

Alexander Gruber

i already answered that question.

user131753

@AlexanderGruber To which comment are you replying?

user131753

The following one?

user131753

2 mins ago, by user 170039

@AlexanderGruber Indeed. So let me ask, is the following comment also acceptable: "local gang of deletion/closure/downvote automatons to participate in their hourly circle-jerk of question-closure/deletion and downvotes"

user131753

5:10 AM

If so then (for the time being ignoring the "circle-jerk" part) the rest of the comment should be ok because here I focus on the behaviour of a certain group of people and not on specific people. Am I right @AlexanderGruber?

Alexander Gruber

@user170039 i do not think it is a constructive use of our time to discuss hypothetical flags

user131753

Would you mind to answer

user131753

7 mins ago, by user 170039

@AlexanderGruber To which comment are you replying?

Alexander Gruber

i'm not sure what you were asking.

user131753

You wrote,

user131753

5:12 AM

8 mins ago, by Alexander Gruber

i already answered that question.

user131753

Which question were you referring to specifically?

Alexander Gruber

@user170039 this

user131753

@AlexanderGruber If you don't mind would you mind to link your answer again?

Alexander Gruber

17 mins ago, by Alexander Gruber

shrug idk. Depends on the context. Said with sufficient vitriol, or directed at a specific person, it would be out of line.

that plus the lines following

user131753

@AlexanderGruber Got it. Please consider editing "circle-jerk" part of the comment then.

user131753

5:20 AM

Thank you again very much for chatting with me.

Alexander Gruber

no problem

user131753

Also, when it is done, would you mind to give me a ping @AlexanderGruber?

Alexander Gruber

@user170039 upon further consideration, I do not think it is wise to edit the comment at all, for the reasons I mentioned above.

user131753

@AlexanderGruber What? So, "circle-jerk" is acceptable?

user131753

That's really weird.

user131753

5:26 AM

But I understand where you come from.

Alexander Gruber

its figurative use in that particular case is within the standards of informality permitted in chat and within the bounds of appropriateness for that discussion

you're right that it's a borderline case that was worth considering

but ultimately, i do not think the line was crossed.

user131753

Ok.

user131753

I will very shortly write a meta post about it to see the community consensus about this type of comments.

user131753

But it was very nice to hear your viewpoints.

user131753

I will be going now. See you soon.

gimusi

8:38 AM

@MikeMiller Thanks Mike, I really appreciate your intervention and related comment. I also would expect a direct intervention form Mods, if possible, in order to have a more "authorative" indication on that, to call back/warning user302797 to the respect of the basic common rules.

gimusi

8:52 AM

@AlexanderGruber @user170039 I agree partually with both of you, in the sense that I also think that the intention by @JyrkiLahtonen was not directed to offfend some specific user or a group of users but I agree that we should use the chat room for the proper scope and avoiding to use potentially offensive language.

Maybe we should be more severe with ourselves in the limitation of the use of chat room for proper scope, that was essentially the contents of my two post on Meta. In particular on CRUDE we should discuss for Closure, Undeletion,... etc. with short discussions and if necessary opening specific chat fon any other issue (or better by posts on Meta) and in any case deleting possible OT long discussions. That's my point of view on that.

Martin Sleziak

9:09 AM

@user170039 I am pretty sure you follow meta quite closely so most likely you are aware of this discussion. Still I'll at least mention that there was a recent post on meta related to comments in chat and "be nice policy": Why are the user suspension criteria applied for unfair comments on the main site currently not applied for unfair use of public chat rooms?

So I think it might be useful to have at least a brief look at that post - just to make sure that your post is not a duplicate of the previous discussion.

gimusi

9:37 AM

@MartinSleziak Thanks Martin, indeed I was also referring to that post where the same issues have been already discussed a lot. I also indicate that previous post which also could be related. I really think that the proper use of the chat room is crucial for the fair harmony of the community.

Martin Sleziak

Just for others - it is more readable in this format - the post linked in the previous comment is: How to deal with defamations perpetrated through public chat rooms? (And it has a "twin post" on Meta Stack Exchange: How to deal with defamations perpetrated through public chat rooms?.)

Martin Sleziak

10:19 AM

@gimusi BTW after seeing the score of your post on Meta Stack Exchange, it's probably useful to mention that it is possible to get into question ban on that site (unlike per-site metas).

Maybe this post could have some useful advice related to that: How do I participate in Meta and not die trying? And some related stuff was mentioned here: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/9369/2018/10/9

user131753

1:49 PM

@MartinSleziak Thanks for the link. But I have already seen that. Indeed, in the past one year or so, I am following Meta MSE very closely.

quid

4:26 PM

→ 28 messages moved to Martin Sleziak's room

Transcript for

$Mathematics$ Math Mods' Office