Dropping in to acknowledge I've received these pings. Right at this moment I am occupied with another matter; I'll take a look at them in a little while.
user131753
@AlexanderGruber Sure. I just wanted to let you know about it because other impartial mods hardly visit the room.
@BillDubuque Sorry about running overly personal last time we argued about this. Let me explain the allegations of rep farming (when it comes to gamification): 1) SE wants us to play the rep game - we don't really have the option to sit out. 2) Therefore it is natural to ask for a level playing field. 3) Users wanting to answer homework questions and other low-quality questions can be seen to seek an unfair advantage in the rep game.
2
4) So objections to quality control can be seen as attempts to protect this unfair advantage. 5) When we have to deal with verbal communication only, they will be seen as such. 6) I believe that many users don't answer those questions with a view of maximizing their score. 7) But when such users repost the same answers (instead of directing the traffic to older questions) it is difficult to believe their sincerity. Particularly when they oppose the removal of the said post.
8) And from the rep game point of view the motives against deletions are really irrelevant. Those users simply want to keep this unfair advantage.
Of course, it would be simpler to just abolish rep points altogether, but we cannot make that decision.
And, I don't think "playing the rep game" is what this site is all about. But we cannot ignore that game entirely.
@JyrkiLahtonen Not at all relevant to the above. But since you mention it, I strongly disagree with your argument that we must play the rep game. Many of us completely ignore rep. Rather we are here only to share our knowledge and love of mathematics. If you have somehow managed to get your ego hopelessly entangled in some gamified web site then that is your problem - not mine.
@BillDubuque I don't play the rep game much, but I do want it to take place on a level playing field. The point is that there is a discrepancy between 1) you stating that you are not interested in rep, and 2) you systematically supporting policies that maximize your chances of gaining more rep than those who want the site to concentrate on quality. But, we have been there before. I don't have anything new to add at this time.
@JyrkiLahtonen There you go again - wrongly denigrating your political opponents based on your bizarre misunderstandings of their motivations. Again rep plays no role whatsoever in anything that I do here (just as it did not on sci.math, Ask an Algebraist, etc). Please stop projecting your own rep entanglements onto others. Your guesses are - again - way off the mark (and rude to boot).
And, btw, again at least one post has been unstarred above. The stars here are as meaningless as rep on the main site (if not more so). But that's probably not news to anyone who pasy close attention
Regarding the (un)starring stuff, I think it might make sense to at least state when something is unstarred. The pin-board of this room often served a relevant purpose, in that sense there can be some practical merit to unstarring stuff that's not really important but got starred for approval.
However, if some comments should get selectively unstarred, while others do not, this is not a leveled field for discussion anymore.
2
Of course, if the room owners decide that lately there is too much discussion in this room, they can also decide to curb discussion altogether.
To be more specific, I think it'd be alright to say "we do not want to discuss this subject here (anymore)" or even "we do not want to hear these objections here (anymore)" and enforce this. Yet, once discussion is admitted it should be allowed to unfold evenly.
More echo chambers is not what the world needs. Neither are debates where decibels decide the winner. A discussion where both sides of the argument are seeking a way forward *together*, now thàt would be something.
@Lord_Farin I couldn't agree more. How can one go forward when the other side insists that they know you better than you know yourself, and uses this "knowledge" to weave webs of nonsense, include bizarre conspiracy theories. In case you missed the latest one, have a look at this doozy which definitely wins the award for best conspiracy theory against me ever composed on the web. Not surprisingly, that nonsense got starred.
@Lord_Farin in principle the purpose of this room is not general discussion but at best highly localized one about one post at a time. Thus taken strictly it's all off-topic.
@BillDubuque In fact the general tone in this room has brought me to reprioritise my involvement here.
@quid Agreed, generally discussion about policy should be relegated to meta. But then, extended discussions ought to take place in chat. This room seems a reasonable place for that.
@Lord_Farin yes and no. I don't personally mind (in any case I am 'part of the problem'). The discussion does seem to distract from the technical purpose of the room, though. There'd be plenty of other rooms for discussion. Like Meta Math Chat, for example.
But, as quid says, I don't much mind somewhat more meta discussion here, as long as it is, more or less, about how to deal with answers and questions which may need some extra attention.
If this room truly intends to welcome everyone then there needs to be someplace where we can discuss meta-level issues, such as said highly biased unstarring of comments critical of the room owner(s) and their political views.
Alas, in its current state, it is very far from welcoming users whose views don't align with the room owners.
Let's see. When somebody who is allegedely not interested in rep (or some other form of attention) copies their old answer, their reaction is to post yet another variant. OTOH, when somebody who is allegedly hopelessly entangled with rep game reposts an answer they have the discipline to turn the duplicated piece into CW.
@JyrkiLahtonen That's another doozy Jyrki. I'm sure I post far more links than anyone else on this site. Whether or not I choose to link to a supporting theorem or include a copy depends on many factors - none of which have anything at all to do with rep. Agaisn, please stop pretending that you can read my mind. And please stop attacking your political opponents - that is not constructive.
Yet more evidence above of just how unfriendly this room is to those of opposing views - unceasing personal attacks based on grave misunderstandings of the motivations of others. Will it never end?
I want to prove that every tournament contains at least one Hamiltonian path.
(This question has been asked and answered here Prove that every tournament contains at least one Hamiltonian path.
but the solution uses induction and I need to prove it without using induction).
I'm also not allowed t...
