@BillDubuque That is a strange view. Why do you defend someone who willfully threatened an innocent grad student is beyond me. The said grad student did not know that MH's threat was empty. And, whether my way of discussing the matter follows your imaginary debate club rules has no bearing on this site.

Arthur had doubts about the wisdom of having this room. Sad to see him getting it right.

@JyrkiLahtonen Personally, I think that on several occasions this room proved to be useful. (And the above exchange could happen in any room or in comments.) On the other hand, I remember that for some period of time this room was deleted. (It was some time ago, back in 2017.)

@JyrkiLahtonen Why do you continue to claim I said things that I never did? I did not "defend someone...". Please read what I actually wrote above.

@Jyrki If you continue to make wild guesses about the motives of your political opponents then you will never understand them. Please stop attempting to read between the lines. You are almost always wrong when you do so.

@JyrkiLahtonen "Imaginary debate club rules"??? What are you smoking over there?

@BillDubuque Whenever you fail to convince the other party you fall into the habit of accusing them of violating some strange rules. And, exactly where did I speculate about somebody's motives? The only speculation I now remember is your speculation about why I failed to see your claim that some former moderator (whom you were unwilling to name) damaged a cheater (who you were unable to name) more severely than MH ever damaged Zachary Selk.

And, that was something you said in MH's defence proving my other point.

And, FYI, I have never smoked any controlled substance.

And this should be the last response you get from me. This discussion is a waste of my time.

@JyrkiLahtonen Yes, when you contine to somehow read things I never said then it is clearly is a waste of time. You speculated that my point was to defend MH's actions when in fact my point had nothing at all to do with that. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

@BillDubuque So you agree that MH's actions were indefensible. Thanks for the confirmation. It's all I wanted to hear.

@JyrkiLahtonen Yet again something I never said. Since you continue to put your words into my mouth there is no point in continuing. Clearly you are no tintereste in rational argument.

@Bill I am just mirroring your tactics to show how futile they are.

@JyrkiLahtonen You certainly are not mirroring me. Rather your're continuing your old shenanigans...

Nobody's interested in those. Early in my tenure Robjohn reminded me that your policy positions may be more popular than what can be superficially seen in meta. Something I have tried to keep in mind. But your antics make it extremely hard.

@JyrkiLahtonen Your problem seems to be that you think you know others better than they know themselves. As such, I'd be wasting my time explaining further - just as in the past when I tried to convince you that I am not motivated by rep - but you adamantly refused to believe it . There is no hope in having a rational discussion with you when you behave that way. The "debate club" stuff is just as strange - give it a rest.

If you are unable to rid yourself of these preconceptions about others (that are way off the mark) then you will never have any hope of understanding the points they are trying to make. It's that simple.

math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/31619/780640

For the records: this answer on meta was now deleted. As an answer to the question under the discussion tag, I fail to see why it need to be deleted.

Somebody certainly targeted me and downvoted every single post I made on meta. While downvoting usually means disagree, there are ones that have nothing to do with opinions.

Two mods answered the question. And now this post was closed as opinion-based. Does it mean that the answers are merely opinion-based as well?

@T.S I don't think it was necessary to delete it. I restored it.

For the closure of the question, the post is arguably rather openended and in part based on a false premise.

I personally, even before I was a mod, would rather not vote to close much on meta, but I can see why somebody would vote to close that question.

As for reports for targetting, it is better to raise this via a flags not in chat. That said, voting on meta is very free, with your sample size there is virtually certainly nothing actionable there.

But I'll have a look.

@T.S a note on this, while that's actually said frequently it's a gross oversimplification, and actually far overgeneralized from its original perimeter. Further and more pertinently, it is of course not the only reason to down-vote. If somebody asks a technical question about the workings of the site, and somebody else provides an answer that I consider as low quality (wrong, besides the point, dupe, etc) obviously I can downvote it.

@JyrkiLahtonen QUOTE you at least threatened to write to a grad student's department head unless they change their mind about site policies and started agreeing with you. END QUOTE I said I had contemplated writing a his department about abusive behavior about which the moderators would not even acknowledge having received reports. He and other members of that clique would not disagree respectfully, by arguing or discussing, but rather they forbade discussion of certain topics by anyone.

@JyrkiLahtonen QUOTE unless they change their mind about site policies and started agreeing with you END QUOTE That is not even remotely honest. "unless they stopped enforcing a prohibition against anyone discussing the issue" is not even similar to "unless they started agreeing".