@BillDubuque representative democracy is not dictatorial.

At least that's my opinion. Now, I do happen to know some people that mostly disagree with that, but that's more a fringe opinion, in my opinion.

@quid This is going nowhere productive so let's call it a night. Here's hoping that you will remain open minded and strive to fairly represent everyone on this site - not only those that share your own (extreme) political views. That's what I did when I was a moderator.

@BillDubuque I'll take your word for it. I did not use the site back then.

@quid In fact I probably went a bit too far in striving for compromises, but at least some good things came from it, e.g. the draft editing sandbox to avoid main page bumping. the reopen request thread (before review queues existed), etc.

Yes these are certainly useful resources.

@quid I think that I was relatively clear about my feelings whey I posted the links to the FAQ about posting context. To reiterate, there new users are told that they need to include context. There is a FAQ thread on meta which is linked form the help center which indicates the necessity of context. There are less than a dozen standard justifications for closing questions, one of which is "no context".

If anything on this site is "policy", that seems a good candidate.

More generally, I would understand anything in the Help Center to be site policy.

The Code of Conduct also likely falls under site policy.

And frankly, @BillDubuque, I do not understand your unwillingness to give even a single concrete example of any sort of behaviour which goes beyond "personal opinion".

@XanderHenderson There is no "unwillingness". I already explained my view, viz. these matters are handled by how people vote. There may be patterns that wax and wane but these ephemeral patterns should not be confused with "site policies". SE gives everyone who has earned the privilege the right to make their own personal decisions on these matters. You do not have the right to take away those privileges by declaring your personal opinion to be "site policy".

Whether or not the voting patterns of the masses is wise is another matter. But the platform is founded on such democratic principles.

@BillDubuque I don't understand how "policy" is exclusive of "democracy".

I feel like every time I open up CRUDE, there's some philosophical discussion of the purpose of rules on the site.

It is site policy to close questions which lack context. This is a policy which has such overwhelming support both within the community and from SE at large that it has been codified into the tutorial, help center, and standard close reasons.

@user21820 You still have not explained precisely what you mean by "site policy" after numerous requests to do so. As far as I can see, it means "what Xander thinks is best for the site"

"...it has been codified into the tutorial, help center, and standard close reasons."

@XanderHenderson No, that is merely the personal opinion of some users (and one that did not exist for many years on the site)

It is not my opinion that the context policy is outlined in the help center, the tutorial, and the standard close reasons. These are facts.

@XanderHenderson More *personal opinions". Who wrote them, founded on what?

@BillDubuque A policy is a course of action adopted by a community. It is clearly stated in the tutorial, help center, and standard close reasons that context is required. This is a policy which was codified at some point in the history of the site. The process adoption is irrelevant, and it is not just "personal opinion" that these documents exist.

At any rate, this is clearly going nowhere.

I have better things to do with my time.

Good day.

@XanderHenderson Best of luck with your personal opinions Hopefully they will not sink the site any further (e.g. your vote to delte above on a question way outside yoru expertise, questioning the dentoation of "2" in a ring)

@Xander How would you feel about a "policy" that you can only vote to delete in tags where you have demonstrated some expertise (e.g. by gaining certain rep)?

On MathOverflow Meta, but related to this site: When we close questions and suggest MSE, should we link to their How to Ask?

@BillDubuque SE does not follow that extreme laissez-faire viewpoint. That is a fact which can be observed, for example, by the fact that moderators can overturn closures, deletions etc.

You may dislike that, object to that, or think it is an absurd. But that is how the system works. And people get suspended for not following policies of various natures (for being disruptive, making low-quality contributions, being rude etc). That is what happens.

This is how a representative democracy works like (emphasis again on democracy). You seem to want a complete direct democracy, and think that it would be best. That is a personal opinion.

And to claim that any of this is dictatorial is to fundamentally misunderstand what is democracy, or to just naively follow the etymology literally.

@AloizioMacedo Moderators should be "moderate" not "dictators". Sure - moderator powers can be abused, but that is beside the point (and tangential to what is being discussed above).

@BillDubuque Yes, but... how is this related to my comment? Do you think that overturning closures/deletions/etc is being a dictator?

@AloizioMacedo I don't care to complicate the discussion by going down even further tangents.

You say "X". I say that "X" is inconsistent with how the system works. I don't understand what is a tangent.

@AloizioMacedo I have no clue what you are talking about. The discussion above had nothing to do with diamond moderation.

We may have different views on how diamond moderation should be performed, but that is far beside the point.

@BillDubuque That is not exactly true, given what follows of this exchange.

@AloizioMacedo Does that mean that we agree on that? That would be pleasant to know. One of the problems with past moderation teams was that there was not always a good (representative) balance of opinions on contentious topics.

In any case this is veering way off-topic here so maybe the discussion should be moved to another room. Suggestions?

Maybe to "whatever quid?

We can go to Math Meta.

@BillDubuque What I meant is that the conversation is indeed related to diamond moderator, as the exchange shows.

@AloizioMacedo Yes, but it is not what I meant in the earlier discussion.

The point is that moderators enforce the policies, so it is crucial to understand what you mean by "moderators should moderate, not dictate", which you do not explain (shruging such explanation off as a tangent). The need for such explanation is particularly important since you have qualms with the concept of "policy" on the site and also when you make statements that make your definition of democracy unclear.

@AloizioMacedo What precisely do you mean by "policies"?

If only you were around long ago to see all the debates on these matters on meta in the first few years of the site...

(ephemeral) popular opinions are not "site policies" (and often are not wise, esp. when their genesis is reactionary)

@BillDubuque Formally (in a somewhat mathematical sense which I'm sure you are familiar with), it is what moderators agree to take enforceable action upon. Just like "laws" are whatever institution is responsible for making them (e.g., congress) where you live in agree to take enforceable action upon.

The reality is of course more complex. Such institutions must be attentive to and in symbiosis with the reality of the community in order for it to work properly etc. But that doesn't change the definition above, and the reality that they exist and are taken action upon.

@AloizioMacedo Then, unfortunately, you and I strongly disagree on the role that diamond mods should play.

SE daimond moderators are meant to be exception handlers, not policy makers

@BillDubuque That is fair. But the system agrees, and this is not dictatorial. If you consider it as such, then you do so as well for any representative democracy. (Which is the overwhelming majority of styles of democracy around the world.)

@AloizioMacedo I have no idea what you mean by the "system agrees"

@BillDubuque What would be exceptions? Under your point of view, isn't any vote (up/down/close/delete/reopen etc), say, the rightful display of the personal opinion of someone?

SE gave us a platform with various software-constrained capabilities They can be used for good and for bad. Hopefully you prefer the former. There is really not much more to be said than that.

@AloizioMacedo Do you think it is good for the site to force your personal opinions on other mathematicians, including those far more experienced than you?

@BillDubuque No, but I don't understand how this question answers or even relates to the one I made.

@AloizioMacedo It wasn't meant to be a reply to that comment.

Exception handling without policies is much closer to a dictatorship than making policies. You realize that, right? At least, as long as we have moderators or forces capable of imposing sanctions and restrictions. (Of course, you could be against the existence of moderators. But well, they exist.)

@AloizioMacedo The "policies" are defined by the software platform design.

@BillDubuque That doesn't make much sense (or perhaps I have misunderstood). So whatever the software allows me to do, I can?

@AloizioMacedo Well, technically, certainly you can

@BillDubuque Okay. So whatever the software allows me to do regarding closure/deletion, I can?

We may differ in what is considered an "exception" that requires (diamond) mod handling

@BillDubuque Maybe, which is why I asked what would be exceptions.

@AloizioMacedo Not an easy question to answer - there are diverse views from past meta discussions. My personal view is that mods should let the community try ro resolve these matters in as much as possible - only intervening in very extreme cases in order to keep the peace.

@BillDubuque What prevents me from, say, going to the profile of each one on this room and closing all their questions/answers (other than I having no interest in doing that)? The fact that we have policies. Or you would have to rely on good will alone. This would be a dictatorship.

Of course, you can say that policy X or Y are bad. And these are valid discussions. But to dismiss the existence of policies is ludicrous, and inexistence of policies together with the existence of a group with sanction capabilities is very close to what a dictatorship is.

To be clear: you can tell us (moderators) that we are enforcing policies without hearing the community well enough, or that the policies are outright bad. But to dismiss the existence or need of them goes against what you seem to defend, in that it points to a dictatorship. (Again, as long as there are moderators.)

@AloizioMacedo Again, the prior discussion had absolutely nothing to do with diamond moderation.

@BillDubuque It does. Again, diamond moderation is precisely what enforces the policies, which the discussion was all about. And policies are what effectively bound the moderators not to be dictators, which is what you recursively defend.

@AloizioMacedo But opinions popuiar in some (highly organized political) chatroom is not "site policy" (whatever it means). And it is highly insulting to those with other (arguably more wise and moderate) views to constantly have to defend against such unfounded claims (which are often employed to mislead newbies)

@user170039 I think the problem here is most likely that the word "context" has been overloaded across time.

@user170039 Not really, it is a significant part, because context is whatever makes a question relevant to the community. For some, a question with a difficult integral is context in and on itself, for example. Most of the disagreement comes from the fact that people have varying degrees of what they feel contribute relevantly to the site. This is what gives rise to the conflict.

But the most important thing which I wanted to address from Bill's comments is not the comments about lack of compromise, or something similar. There may (or may not) be validity to those claims. I wanted to talk specifically about his point of view on policies of the site.

@user170039 It is a real issue if someone does not acknowledge the existence (or need) of policies.

@user170039 That is an attempt at rhetorics. Bill recursively avoided defining "policy", explained that his "view [is that] these matters are handled by how people vote", and that the community and moderators have at best an observational aspect against those dynamics. Explicitly, he also disagrees strongly with SE diamond moderators being (among other things) policy makers, in a sense analogous to how "laws" work.

@user170039 I don't understand. "Someone not acknowledging the existence (or need) of policies" is a real issue.

@user170039 For example, "these matters are handled by how people vote". At least regarding voting, this (given the context of the question made to him) says that the only thing that should exist is the result of an individual assessment with each one. "There may be patterns that wax and wane but these ephemeral patterns should not be confused with "site policies"" says that we can at most observe things (again, given the question).

The response to this comment also serves as a quote.

Sorry, I have to leave now. I'll probably be back later.

@AloizioMacedo It is not I who claimed that CRUDE's opinions are "site policy" so it is not my duty to try to define "site policy". It was Xander Henderson who made that claim.

@BillDubuque Perhaps you are over-interpretting the meaning of "policy"? A policy is a plan of action followed by an organization. Among those who have bothered to register a vote, there is unanimous support a policy requiring context. This policy has been more or less officially codified via the tutorial, help center, and close dialogs.

@XanderHenderson There is almost a decade of discussion on such matters on meta. Picking an isolated answer doesn't imply much.

@BillDubuque Would you like me to just get off of your lawn?

Do you pine for the old days, when things were better?

The fact that the policy has a history is irrelevant.

@XanderHenderson No, I'd like you to be more respectful to those who don't share your very narrow-minded views.

That is the current policy, both de facto and de jure.

@XanderHenderson Please, we can do without more personal opinions.

@BillDubuque You consistently fail to show respect for anyone else on this site, on the basis that they weren't here 10 years ago.

You are imperious and dismissive of others.

You have not done anything to earn respect, and have acted in a way that significantly erodes it.

I am tired of your bad faith style of argumentation. Good day.

@XanderHenderson Sorry, i can't read your mind. If you are going to somehow find offense when I mention that something has a long history then I don't know what to say. Why should I have to walk on eggshells to mention pertinent history?

@XanderHenderson I see nothing at all "imperious and dismissive" in my remarks. But I do see plenty of that in CRUDE when I and others question destructive actions there. As such, I think your remark counts as one of the most hypocritical claims I've even seen on this site.

"even" -> "ever" above

@user170039 I repeatedly asked that yesterday.

@user170039 Let's take that as granted (i.e, that the problem is just a disagreement on the definition). In any case, what I defined is what effectively happens, regardless of the name. As I said, he can think that "what effectively happens" is a suboptimal thing. But it is what it is. Not acknowledging that is living in illusion and denial, and just being disruptive with no objective.

However, taking that as granted is being generous. If the problem was a matter of definition, one should try to fix the definition. There was no attempt at that. (The opposite, actually: a rather obnoxious evasive maneuver.)

And it is clear that Bill seems to favor a one-hundred percent direct democracy approach, at least regarding question closure/deletion etc (exact quote), which he must understand is not how things work.

← 164 messages moved from CRUDE

Oh god, I definitely don't have the patience to read through all of this.

@AloizioMacedo You wrote "obnoxious evasive maneuver" ... do you think that's a constructive way to refer to those whose opinions differ from yours on these highly subjective matters?

So much for hoping moderators might be "moderate". Fanning the flames is not moderate.

@BillDubuque That quote is a personal assessment of a non-constructive (imho) way of handling a simple inquiry (i.e., via evasion).

@AloizioMacedo Maybe you should try to read more carefully and show more respect to your peers

If you find it disrespectful, I can remove it. It was intended to illustrate that you dragged the discussion instead of answering a simple inquiry. The important part was actually the "evasive". The "obnoxious" refers to the dragging.

@AloizioMacedo Again, it is not my duty to explain Xander's Henderson's personal definition of "site policy"

If you want to engage in a minimally constructive conversation, you should attempt to fix the definitions of the words used in the conversation. Regardless of who started using them.

And you were asked what is yours several times, not Xander's.

@AloizioMacedo That might be possible, but not in CRUDE, where everyone whose opinion differs from the popular ones there must suffer through endless ad hominem attacks.

@AloizioMacedo Again, not my responsibility since I don't make unfounded claims that my personal views are "site policy".

@BillDubuque So you think that CRUDE lacks good conversation practices, and then because of that you find it justifiable to insert another one?

@AloizioMacedo I have no clue what you refer to. Please be precise

"good conversation practices": Not making ad hominem attacks. "another one": not trying to fix definitions.

@AloizioMacedo Where do you think I made (another) "ad hominem" attack?

@BillDubuque That is not what I meant. What I mean is: there are good conversation practices. Among them: (1) Not making ad hominem attacks, (2) Trying to fix definitions regardless of who started using them. Then, according to you, CRUDE lacks (1), therefore you don't need to abide to (2).

@AloizioMacedo Where in the world did that "therefore" come from? My original point was only to emphasize that Xander's claims about his opinions being "site policy" is unfounded.

In any case, I've had enough CRUDE nonsense for today (actually for a lifetime).

You explicitly say that it is not possible in CRUDE to abide to (2), because people make (1). Since that impossibility is not literal, it follows that you simply do not want to (or is not able to) abide to (2) because people make (1).

@AloizioMacedo I don't know why you are so confused about what I believe, but my patience is long ago exhausted. Have a good day.

Hello

Can I ask a very simple question?

Why is this a valid question? −7−7=x

I mean it doesn't make sense, and not clear if the second - is an operator or negation

Are you sure this is the right chat for this question?

But, quickly, note that the first - is negation, and the second is subtraction, since negation only occurs at the beginning of an expression or after another operator.

Ah, meta!

Why is the answer -14 then?

(-7)-7=(-7)+(-7)=-14

Ok, why is that + omitted?

Because it's subtraction?

a-b = a+(-b)

This makes no sense. If it is subtraction, then the answer should be 0 no?

-7 minus (+7)

Yes

-7 - + 7 = 0

When you subtract, you move to the left by whatever number you are subtracting

You start at minus 7, then move 7 to the left

Wait, if a number doesn't have a minus symbol before it, it is assumed a positive number right?

like 7

Yes...

-7+7=0, -7-7=-14

Mhm

in reality, -7-7 is -7 - +7 = 0

(-7)-7 = (-7)+(-7) = -14

What do you mean by in reality

-7 - +7 = -14

We don't write +7 to represent positive 7, but if we did.

-7+ +7=0, -7+ -7 = -7 - +7 = -14

-7 - -7 = 0

Also, -7-7 is a syntax error in the calculator

Well, let's correct each misconception.

On your calculator, there are different buttons for negation and subtraction.

While on your computer, there is not

Note that the first - is negation, the second is subtraction

Yeah

Second, you start with a debt of -7, then you add 7 more debt. That ends you with 14 debt

Subtraction adds debt

(Except when you are subtracting a negative number, as adding negative debt is like removing debt.)

Wait, you said "then you add" ... there is no addition, because the second - is an operator, it does not negate the second 7.

I know this feels like I am trolling,

It definitely feels like you are lmao

but I am not, I am going over the maths I have forgotten on khan-academy and this confused me

I think revisiting basic addition/subtraction is in order. Try doing it yourself, I don't think I can convince you. You need to convince yourself.

@BillDubuque that's not all there is to it though. For example, it seems to be widely agreed on that targeted voting of various forms is not allowed.

By the way, are you in favor of moderators taking action against (clearly) targeted voting?

@quid I think he quit for the day lol

Yes

@DonThousand SE chat is asynchronous.

Is the first one a short-form of the second one then?

Well, it is the definition of subtraction, yes

Either way, a value of 14 is nowhere to be seen

I think playing fortnite has done some damage to my brain :)

"{negative seven} {minus} {seven} = 0 " no that's -14 but {negative} {seven minus seven} = 0

In that sense indeed the value of -7-7 depends on precdence of operators.

@quid I have no problem with exception handling. Some advice on that though from when I was a mod: strive to find out the reason for the (perceived) targeting (e.g.. engage the user in conversation) since this local behavior may be tied to a more global problem (and occasionally it may even be unintentional). So don't shoot first, instead inquire first. That usually ends up with much better results.

It can't be negative because -7-7 is invalid. You need at least one of the arithmetic operator to calculate/compute any number

If it is minus, then the second 7 is positive, hence the answer is 0

I get it, -7-7 is actually a short form of -7 + (-7) it makes complete sense now

@samayo it is negative seven. You said it yourself it is "negative seven" "minus" "seven" You have negative seven and then subtract seven. This gives negative 14.

If I owe you seven dollars and and you then lend me another 7, then I owe you 14. If you think I tend owe you nothing, would you lend me some money please? Twice of course!

The problem is in -7-7, it is hard to know if the second - is minus, or a negative

that is where I was confused

I still am, but I am thinking this must be some new age maths .. practice .. thing

@BillDubuque why is this legitimate? If everybody is free to vote as they see fit, how can we justify to get involved?

The criterion being it being atypical behavior, ie an exception, strikes me as not ideal.

@quid If is is not handled by the script then it may require exception handling.

No doubt deciding how to define "targeted" is tricky. But this too if far from the topic at hand.

@BillDubuque if a closed question is not handled by the auto-delete script it might also need exception handling.

@quid I don't see any analogy being closed questions and targeted voting.

@BillDubuque the analogy is that there is a script for both.

@quid So what?

@BillDubuque you seem to legitimize mod action on targeted votes by the existence of a script.

@quid The community doesn't have the power to do anything about targeted voting so it may require exception handling. The same is not true for closing and deleting. Wasn't that distinction obvious?

@BillDubuque but why should anything be done about targeted voting at all?

As you mention yourself certain forms of targeted voting seems so natural to some that they even do it inadvertently. Why is it legitimate to interfere with those users way of interacting with the site?

@quid Please be more careful - that goes much further than anything I said above. In any case, if you have a point to make then please do so instead of beating around the bush.

@BillDubuque the implicit point is to establish that manifestly there are rules/procedures/whatever on the site that limit or go beyond a simple 'everybody votes however they see fit'. It's not clear to me why you seem to have difficulty to acknowledge that.

@quid That such a vague claim that I don't even know how to begin to reply to it. But no such reply is needed because the prior discussion concerns only a very specific case that is very different from all of the tangential topics you raised.

You simply could acknowledge that that's the case. I mean there even would be a simple fall-back, namely, that yes there are and should be such rules but they should not go so far as to limit the type of content that is acceptable beyond enforcing most basic compliance to the subject.

@quid I have no interest in discussing that large can of worms that you opened up. Only the very specific case that I mentioned. Please stay focused on that topic.

@BillDubuque which case? Targeted votes, context, something else?

@quid Xander Henderson's unfounded claims about context and "site policy".

@BillDubuque Thank you for the clarification. I don't find them entirely unfounded, but that's maybe something one can disagree about. It's certainly less clear that it's an enforceable policy than for some other things.

@quid Users can vote as they please on these matters. Nothing more - nothing less period

@BillDubuque I think that's an exaggeration.

@quid Correction: it's a basic design principle on which the entire platform is constructed.

In fact - as I hinted above - I wish that there was more system policy here, i.e. that only users who have demonstrated sufficient competence in a tag had the privileges to vote to close and delete in that tag. But, alas, we'll have to wait for a much better designed system to eradicate the nonsense caused by that design flaw.

Do you still have the project to build it yourself?

@quid It's currently in limbo (some contributors had less free time than they initially hoped would free up)