@amWhy the idea you propagate that moderators support incorrect mathematics out of loyalty judges itself.

@ArcticChar the ex-mods is really a red-herring there. If it falls through the cracks early on it might well stay that way.

FWIW neither of the two users was a moderator when it was accepted in the first place.

That the user answering did not follow up on the comments on their answer is on them.

@quid I said nothing about mods supporting incorrect math. I was addressing the fact that mods support other mods' misbehavior and poor judgement calls. Don't read notions into what I write, @quid, that aren't there.

@amWhy to avoid further confusion what exactly do you refer to.

It clearly looks as if you think that one moderator did purposefully not acknowldge the fact that another moderators answer was incorrect out of loyalty. This does amount to supporting incorrect mathematics out of loyalty. If you meant something else than explain what you meant. @amWhy

@quid ::*Hears menacing growling; chooses to give source of growling some time to cool down*::

@amWhy alright you can certainly have some time to come to grips with the fact that you wrote something that you cannot defend.

If you want to pretend that I menaced you here; again, it would be helpful to be explicit.

Your discourse follows a somewhat typical conspiracy-theory narrative.

@quid Please chill out. You take yourself way too seriously, and you are about as stubborn and insistent that you are always right, when you butt heads with someone, as is anyone on this site. And stop reading more into my one comment, than was expressed. I've already clarified what I meant. If you won't accept that, that's on you. Now please, let it rest and move on. You're making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Of course, if you need to have the last word, be my guest, ...

...but I will not participate any further in any exchange of comments on this matter. Enjoy your Sunday ;D, @quid! o/

@amWhy I will not engage in any further casual exchanges with somebody that has no qualms to write random smears.

@quid Now you are behaving poorly. That is not what happened, and you personally let countless users who actually do smear others, without doing anything. I'm terribly surprised at how personal you've let this become, and in a public arena. I'm not clear how trustworthy you are to keep such matters at a private level. Alas, See you!

@amWhy if this were actually true, you'd be more careful to pile on. But since you know that I am actually trustworthy and professional, you feel at a liberty to continue.

@quid You malign me regularly, publicly, to overcompensate for perceived bias in my favor. And now you blame me because you didn't like what I had to say about the moderator alliance your all observe? You are a piece of work. Trustworthiness is not binary. I have come to trust you with some things, but not all. Mods are humans, and to pretend they don't make mistakes is absurd. Our conversations over time are littered with my apologies to you.

Rarely do you acknowledge making a mistake to me. I'd prefer you'd accosted me personally in a private setting, in which I would have responded. But since you do not protect my privacy, I have a right to challenge you publicly. I would suggest you move this discussion to a private space; because I think I'm the one behaving like the mediator you, not you.

@amWhy " Mods are humans, and to pretend they don't make mistakes is absurd." Yes, and no one claims otherwise. Only you claim that we the moderators think, or pretend, otherwise. And, this not only as regards subjects of moderation but also mathematical answers. This is an outlandish claim.

@quid I never said anything about mathematical answers!! or mistakes mods make in them (happens to all of us). Until you can see that reality, you're way to fixated on a false interpretation, and ruminating about it. Your claim that I said that is outlandish and slanderous! I've never seen you this irrational, @quid, and it scares me, to be honest. Continuing this conversation would merely enable you to fixate and ruminate and embellish your outrage about ...

@amWhy what did you mean then?

It is about an accepted answer.

...something I never said, never even thought!

@amWhy Arctic Char asked why there is a wrong accepted answers. You said because moderators protect each other.

The wrong answer is accepted 'due to the unspoken alliance all mods' etc.

That is what you seem to claim.

If you wanted to claim something else than maybe explain what you wanted to claim instead of saying I did so already.

At least point out where you did that.

Arctic Char asked by the answer wasn't unaccepted, despite later learning it was in error. Moderators, like all users, develop connections between the users they interact with regularly. That moderators are just as biased in acceptances as are all other users, that is not the alliance I was speaking of.

@amWhy how is the (perceived) alliance relevant then?

What specifically do imagine was the thought process?

This phenomenon was on my mind, and I'll admit that my comment was out of context, given the conversation. So I can understand why it was interpreted in the way it was. @quid I have a tendency, when speaking, say e.g., my brother, who discusses phenomenon or data A. I often can relate, and say so, and we talk, and then propose my thoughts on phenomenon A, which I see connected to phenomenon B (which he can't always understand, in terms of the jump).

It's even difficult to phantom for me what you think happened there.

@amWhy you said "That's due"

This postulates a direct causality.

@quid I wrote more, but it exceeded the word limit. But @quid, I don't think, given your conviction what you think I meant to say, you're every going to be happy. I'm just floored at how often you've suggested I can't let things go; and here you are spinning your wheels, my words going in one of your ears, and out the other. You've made up your mind, @quid.

@quid You like to make the world dichotomous. I am suggesting that mods and users aren't all that different, and while "voting circles" may be branded "absolutely most sinful and morally corrupt". But moderators operate a a closely connected, protected, private sanctuary, and the same sorts of factors, (loyalty, friendship, believing the best of one another, operate in each case. To pretend mods are not subject to such biases and alliances, never articulated, just intuited, never deliberate,

@amWhy that comment was intended before the reply. You said "That's due" (the not changing of the accepted answer) to some alliance. Now, I inquired about that. First you said I got it wrong. Then you replied it was not at all about the accepted answer and you just wanted to share a general idea. But you wrote "That's due" which leaves little room of interpretation. Right we all make mistakes but then own yours and don't continue to put it on me.

but in fact influential on subsequent behavior, is beyond naive. It is downright irrational to deny, and arrogant to assume everything you do is objective.

@amWhy the accept happened half a year before either of the two was a moderator

@quid You do too, @quid, and don't put yours on me. I am far more often genuinely humble than you rarely are.

@amWhy yes, but how does this apply to the specific case? A user C asks a question a user M answers it. C accepts the answer of M. Half a year passes. C and M become moderators. Still half a year passes. A user M2 shows up, mentions to M that the answer is incorrect and posts a separate one. Nothing happens.

To construe this as being a consequence or even related to C and M having both becomes moderators is just incomprehensible to me.

It was not even that one moderator accepted (maybe carelessly) another moderator's answer.

Neither of the two was a moderator back then.

@quid My comment was not a logical argument. Natural language cannot very well convey logical arguments you subject casual and informal conversation to. If I had wanted to make a logical argument, I would have created predicates, constants, variable which I'd quantify, make a key, and then written in mathjax. Quid, please stop perseverating and obsessing compulsively and ruminating. You need to learn when to let go.

I will not return to any further ruminations you keep recycling on this matter.

@amWhy Natural language or not "that's due" indicates quite clearly a causality. I take it you did not mean to imply or see any causality at all with the specific event but just jumped on the opportunity to write generically in a negative way about moderators. That's not great but relatively better.

There is no need to raise mod flags to explain what is or is not suitable to be said to a moderator.

Mr. @quid , if you last reply is for my flags I accept it. Of course, but I think that you're wrong. Best weekend.

@quid What are you talking about now, @quid? The flags I raised today were about downvotes on posts. I assume you are referring to an earlier flag. Thanks for the info, but I expect you to speak to me in a more civil tone. If you can't do that, don't talk to me at all.

@amWhy that was not directed at you. It was about chat flags getting raised here during the conversation. If you want, I defended you right to speak to me as you see fit with that comment.

Please, I don't know when is scheduled the third act, ping me, while I am not understanding nothing (maybe it is due a cultural barrier), this seems interesting about how should to finish this.

@user250478 what does this refer to?

I'm not going to make my comment or my flags more explicit. It is not required @quid

@user250478 indeed it is not required. One wonders why you comment at all.

@quid This is the best summary of what actually transpired, @quid. It was not appropriate for me to comment then or there, as I've said. And I understand why you were alarmed. But when you want to understand others' actions, grilling them relentlessly, and throwing in a hefty amount of undermining them along the way, is not an ideal route to do so. I am sorry for disturbing this room and upsetting you. But that was not my intent, just as I am trying to trust that your intent...

in responding to me, was NOT to hurt me. I really do not at all enjoy arguing with you, @quid. In any case, I hope the rest of your Sunday is not as stressful.

(@quid Oops, it's almost Monday for you! So I hope your sleep well "(tonight) tomorrow" ;D

@quid If you want a "night cap", come on over to the Cafe and Tavern. (I will refuse to serve you coffee until you wake up tomorrow!) ;D You can help us determine any missing words from letters in COMPUTER/COMPUTERS

@amWhy thank you for coming back to this. The intent was not hurt you; the intent was to express opposition to the initial comment, which I think could not just be left unaddressed.

@quid I understand. Really. Now I have another concern: a meta post about a matter that only moderators can handle: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/32546/…. I've offered understanding and compassion to the user, and suggested the posts of concern need to be flagged for mod attention (ideally in a few posts, each with multiple links). I simply mention it here in case mods see this first, prior to visiting meta.

Correction, @quid: The links on the meta post seem to be multiple user profiles of the same name, many with questions and posts. In any case, this should have been a flag to a moderator.

@amWhy yes thanks, we agree.

Update, @quid Seems the meta post was deleted by Aloizio.

@quid Yay, we agree! ;D

Actually, we agree on most things, @quid! ;D