@JyrkiLahtonen You look cool in your Christmas hat.

@MartinSleziak There is a bot called Pseudohuman in some rooms, in case you haven't seen that before.

@BillDubuque of course the answer to such a question then might not reflect the reality of the situation.

@quid Of course you already have the answers above. That you choose to ignore them and presume that you know someone's motivations better than do they speaks volumes about your true motivations.

@BillDubuque shouldn't you, instead of making guesses about my motivations, instead ask me about them? ;-)

I'll leave it to interested observers to draw their conclusions. See you!

I am nobody on Math SE, but I think there's lots of sarcasm in this room. Would be nice if everyone just chills. =)

@quid Best of luck with your mind reading skills.

@JasperLoy Looking at this stackoverflow.com/users/7748297/pseudohuman and github.com/Jenna3715/ChatBot I'd guess that this bot was done by a different persone.

Maybe I should have linked chat profile, too: chat.stackexchange.com/users/285885/pseudohuman?tab=recent and chat.stackexchange.com/users/285885/pseudohuman

"speaks volumes about your true motivations" Hmmm... Hidden motives, riddles in the dark, sinister plots... One loves them!

Quite a lot was said about motivation - which actually probably do not matter. As long as user does useful stuff for the site (all at least they are not disruptive to the site), it does not matter too much what motivates them to do so.

Of course, various people might have various viewpoints on what is useful/harmful for the site and what actually goals of the sites are. This was discussed quite a lot - for example this post on meta: What is the purpose of this site? (Which is easier for me to remember, since I posted it.)

And the increased activity originally started with some discussion about PSQs and best practices on the site and similar stuff - as you can see by looking at some of the starred posts, just two as a random sample to show what the discussion was about a few days ago: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/47964455#47964455 and chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/64952?m=47964455#47964455

Perhaps getting closer to the original topic and discussing what stuff on this site needs improvement and how it can get better would be more productive.

After all, many people here have their say about the topic motivation (and lot was said on meta, too) - and it seems rather unlikely we are going to agree with each other. (Which is perfectly find, people have different opinion about things.)

@MartinSleziak The two chat links are identical :)

My bad. In any case, I wanted to give more or less random example of some messages from previous days - to give some feeling what the topic(s) was there. The same thing can be achieved by looking at the starred post and scrolling down a bit or looking at the transcript from a few days ago.

In any case, the links I intended to post were chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/47964455#47964455 and chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/47967486#47967486

As I've mentioned, there is nothing too significant about these two specific messages - I just wanted to pick two messages from which one can get a feeling what was discussed here a few days ago.

@MartinSleziak Do you really think it does not matter that some experienced users (who should know better) continue to misunderstand the motivations of many of the most prolific contributors (and best teachers) so greatly that the insinuate that they are "rep whores", "automatons" etc. Such ad hominem attacks have persisted for many years in the meta battles. These ugly tactics have served to divide the community when instead we should have sought compromise that unite it.

Due to such (and related matters), we have lost many of the best and most prolific teachers, and the brain drain will only continue if these matters are swept under the rug.