6:02 AM
@amWhy: I'm also as anonymous online as possible, hence my default user name. Perhaps it is safer(?) that way. Even the email linked to my SE account is not my personal one. =)
And by the way did you see my comments in the logic chat room? Any comments on my ideas? =)

@user21820 Suppose that you ran into someone that you could in real life (cough), will you tell them about your "secret identity", and if so, will you be doing that in a rough voice a-la Christian Bale in The Dark Knight?

At what point does repeated, nonconstructive commenting on an answer rise to a "flaggable" offense? I'm referring to fleablood's comments on this answer: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1980911/…

6:20 AM
@AsafKaragila: Depends on who it is.. If it is you I probably don't mind.. so long as it stays secret (hush hush).. =P

@user21820 Well. You can never know if someone can really hold on to a secret. I mean, if I had told you "Oh, I can keep a secret real good, just ask such and such" it would defeat the purpose of properly holding on to a secret.

It's not so important that it remains a secret, but I obviously won't go and tell people that behave terribly to me online
And I was joking about only telling people who can keep the secret hahaha..

@user21820 Ah, I see.
@user21820 I know some people who wouldn't say that jokingly.

Yea not surprising. But I think secrets are best not revealed, as the risk is not worth the 'emotional burden lifting'?
Besides, walls have ears..

@user21820 So do some mice's backs.

6:24 AM
Haha are you referring to that genetic experiment?

@user21820 I may or may not. It's a secret!

I find that mousey secret (but it even has a wikipedia page) morally repugnant.. =(

@user21820 I used it to prove the consistency of some large cardinals.
Constructively, I might add.

@AsafKaragila I don't know anything about set-theoretic mice, so what does that have to do with ears?
Unless it's just a joke with no inner joke..

@user21820 Well, a mouse with an ear on its back is certainly not a trivial mouse. And the existence of a nontrivial mouse implies the existence of zero sharp, which in turn implies at least the consistency of most---if not all---large cardinals which are consistent with L, like inaccessible cardinals, weakly compact, and so on.

6:32 AM
@AsafKaragila But how is it constructive if it already depends on ZF?

@user21820 We constructed these mice. BY HAND.
What is more constructive than that?

I mean the ones in your work on the consistency results haha..

Yes. Me too!

You're not working in CZF right?

No. I'm working in reality.
If we constructed a nontrivial mouse, that's it. Case closed.

6:34 AM
Um so it's a joke.. no actual mathematical result right..

That is correct.
If you look at the tags on that blog post, one of them says "humor".

Of course, simply ZF can't prove Con(ZF), but I really thought you had something else extra in mind..
@AsafKaragila It is easy to tell it is a joke, but sometimes it is hard to tell whether there is any inside joke..

@user21820 Well, if your joke satisfies V=L, then there is no inner joke.
Of course, the existence of a nontrivial mouse disproves V=L, so I guess there is an inner joke here. :)

Har Har..

Now, I have to finish doing this revision quickly, and then go and get a new router. So you'll have to excuse me now.

6:43 AM
Sure, see you around!

5 hours later…
11:19 AM
I can't believe that three people thought that this should remain open.

3 hours later…
2:45 PM
@AsafKaragila Now closed!

2 hours later…
4:22 PM
Argh: two of my legitimate comments here were deleted, one each comment of the remaining answers. The only term that would legitimate a flag, perhaps, would be my use of the word "sucker(s)". If that single word led to deleted comments, I should be able to comment there again, without using a berating term(s) toward the answerer?
That is, I should be able to comment: " So, you are enabling a user who posts a question and nothing else, and wants answers, who cares less of anything else?
Why do I conclude you are an enabler of such behavior? Because you gave the OP precisely what s/he wanted: an answer. So the OP will return, just as s/he returned to MSE after his/her first no-effort, low-quality post having received three answers to reward his/her first low-quality post. OP: "Ahh! This is cool, I can simply input a problem (homework), and I'm sure to get an answer"
Actually, I'd have more compassion for a sucker (i.e. an unintentional enabler) than I do for any willful enabler!.

4:43 PM
@DanielFischer or other diamond-bearing users: One more thing; it seems that I should simply downvote enabling answers, rather than refraining from an immediate downvote by commenting first? After all, if my comments are going to be flagged and deleted, at least I know that a down-vote won't be able to be flagged away. (By downvote, I'm not talking about inappropriate serial downvoting, or targeting.)
Hi, @Did. Can you tell I'm frustrated!?

3 hours later…
7:50 PM
Is there anybody OUT THERE?...out there?...$\small\text{out there?}...\tiny\text{out there?}$
Okay: Request @DanielFischer or @arjafi If you read and don't feel the need to respond to my two comments(above the "out there's?") please delete my posts. Afterall, it is humiliating to talk to the Wall (''out there..." ) and only hear one's echo in response. And, at this point, even if you're yet to read my comments, by the time you do, your answers will have been heard, loud and cliear.

8:16 PM
@amWhy Well, you know, there's Accept's excellent song "Balls to the Wall".
Maybe there's also one "Talk to the Wall"... I can imagine the same tune working for that lyric.

@AsafKaragila smart *ss!

What? It's a very good song.

No doubt! So is the entire soundtrack for Pink Floyd's The Wall.

@amWhy I didn't delete the comments, though I would have been strongly tempted to. The intended purpose of comments are to (1) request clarification from the author, (2) leave constructive criticism to guide the author to improve the post, and (3) to add relevant but minor information about the post.
Instead your comments were about secondary meta-issues and were not really appropriate. Think in trems of an outsider happening across that question by a Google search. That outsider doesn't care about site policies; they just want to get information.
(I know that someone happening across that post by a Google search is unlikely, but that's another issue entirely.)
There's also the issue of calling one of the the answerers a "sucker", which, though mild, does fall astray of the be nice policy.

@arjafi: Good seeing you here. You haven't answered my question about the northern lights, though!

8:24 PM
@arjafi Then is the only recourse downvoting an answer in such a case? I have always reserved downvotes of answers for those which are incorrect. Or, am I just to ignore altogether such situations?
So "community moderation" is limited to quality of questions, but hands off wrt answers?

@AsafKaragila Vera still gets invited everywhere, and someone needs to take care of the kids. And I used up a conference going to TopoSym in the summer. Sorry, no Aurora borealis for me.

@arjafi :( At least send one pickle with her, I'm down to my last one, which I'm currently saving to "after I submit my post stuff(s)" next month. That means that by the time I reach late January I will exhibit severe withdrawal symptoms.
I'm going to have the spring semester off, I'll see if I can get to Vienna for a couple of days at least.

@amWhy You can leave comments, but if they're flagged, the probability that they will be deleted is positive. No further consequences, though, unless you take it to extremes.

@amWhy To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I don't like the idea of downvoting correct answers just because they are to bad questions. In my opinion (and I stress that it is only my opinion) steps should be taken against these bad questions. (If deleted, the "suckers" do get any rep gained from upvotes/accepts taken away, so it's a some small step in teaching.)
@AsafKaragila I'll make sure she has a pickle stuffed in her suitcase. But just one. ;-)

@amWhy I generally downvote correct answers, only when the question is really terrible. Like openly cheating in exams, or writing things like "URGENT!!!!!11oneone" in the title.
@arjafi That's enough. You know I travel lightly, if I have too many, I might run into problems boarding on the way back... :P

8:35 PM
@AsafKaragila Then maybe I'll give her five, with explicit instructions to give you one, and to eat the other four in your presence!

@arjafi Haha. I don't know anyone who can manage four of these pickles, other than myself perhaps.
And your wife is waaaaay too nice for that.

@arjafi Yes, i get that, and have mostly agreed with that. But when I see repeat OPs who've repeatedly gotten fully answered questions no-effort/no-context questions, it undermines trying to deter them, or deter their behavior. Reinforcement reproduces like behavior far more than does punishment deter it.

9:08 PM
@amWhy I agree that the way the site works now is stacked against those hoping to see better questions. I really don't know how meaningful change can be had. I'm not entirely sure it is possible (though I am admittedly pessimistic by nature).

Well, I appreciate your feedback. I've generally been an exceedingly patient user, and generally get good results when encouraging an OP (questioner) to add a bit of context, or at least, to converse in comments, to take a hint, and run with it; they may ask for feedback on their result...etc, but they're engaged in the whole process. And I do not want to be cynical here.
@arjafi I just happened upon two users today, each of whom asked at least two questions (one I see, now, has asked three today), and neither of them have learned anything (or else ignored what they knew) about how to improve their questions, despite suggestions, questions they left unanswered.

9:40 PM
Oh, look, a @Yemon Choi.

9:59 PM
@DanielFischer: Some users are just godawful. And that is the real reason I won't be a moderator.
Hey @quid

hello @Asaf what's up?

Oh, this and that.
Proposals and whatnot.

Trying to get married?

You?

No.

10:04 PM
To a postdoc position, yeah. :P

@AsafKaragila Well, actually …

@DanielFischer Oh, you will have to trust me that I have.

@AsafKaragila one should not get married to a PostDoc position. By it's very design it's a transient thing.

@quid I am a great believer in the institute of divorce. :D

@AsafKaragila why in the world was it migrated from MO?

10:13 PM
@quid I have no idea. But it's gone now, so it's fine.

What are those magic pickles @Asaf?

@quid Magical pickles!
Spreewaldhof Get One!

10:32 PM
@Asaf I here you're seeking marriage? Doing that and trying to land a postdoc might be a little too much on your plate? :-P

Huh? You misread entirely.
I'm definitely not looking to get married.
I'm only looking for a postdoc.

@Asaf I totally know that ... I'm teasing you! :-Z

And how is that working out for you?

Didn't work, I guess?

@amWhy You guess correctly.
You win a life lesson.
Don't try and tease me. :P