whatever, quid - 2018-10-14

quid

12:43

"You are allowed (in the sense of following the rules laid out for the site) to answer PSQs" Actually, I think that in extreme cases it is against the rules of the site. That's not a consensus-opinion though and in any case it is hard to establish. — quid ♦ 4 hours ago

Knowingly answering questions that should be closed according to agreed upon criteria and thus undercutting the processes of the site is at least "not nice," viz. against the rules. Moreover, a default reason for suspension is "low quality questions over time"; I don't see why this should not apply to posts, more generally. Of course one can say that it is not sufficiently agreed upon that PSQs (or which PSQs) should be closed, or that even admitting LQ answers should be grounds for suspension the answers to the PSQs might not be LQ, etc. Thus it's not a consensus opinion. — quid ♦ 3 hours ago

Yes, it's subtle in practice, which is part of it not being consensus. Even I would stop short of suggesting merely giving good answers to 'bad' questions should be considered as actionable rule-violation (If the answers are not so good and there is a fuss made about action against the threads the situation changes a bit though.) — quid ♦ 3 hours ago

The above is something that comes up from time to time.

I don't see how it could be any different than that. Of course if somebody works knowingly against the standards of the site that's against the rules.

They don't have to agree with the current standards and they can argue for change, but they cannot just ignore the current set of standards.

What makes this tricky in practice are several points.

The one is that there apparently still is some disagreement to what extent PSQs are clearly off-topic.

The other is the "knowingly."

That said, and somewhat orthogonally, this is a moderator-to-user situation not a user-to-user situation.

It does not make sense for users to get burned out in some kind of "trench-warfare."

If there is a user that you think persistently goes against the standards of the site, write up a description of it and bring it to our, or my, attention.

Via a flag, or request a room in a flag if it is too long for a flag.

amWhy

I'm not asking so much to combat anything on the front lines; but I will cast downvotes on answers that answer poor PSQ's, and partly because I believe the site has a policy against asking poor questions, and that answering them should be "actionable": (downvotes, normal user-available actions). But of course, for long-standing problems, I would consider flagging, though flags have done little to rectify or alter the behavior of habitual answerers of low quality PSQ's.

quid

13:00

@amWhy Downvotes are fine, but should not be focused on a user. ('Following' a user is not alright.) Comment threads that get long and heated are not. It is fine, even desirable, to tell a user once or twice what is wrong. Yet, then it is better drop the idea of convincing them in this way. It costs a lot of energy and has negative side-effects. (That's a general remark, I reply to you to link the converstaion.)

amWhy

And in the meantime, users who try to vote consistently according to site policies, are regularly, without reproach, called "bullies." So it strikes me that many users do not realize or will not acknowledge that voting consistent with site policies is hardly "bullying".

quid

@amWhy If it bothers you, please, flag it (close in time).

amWhy

@quid I did not say following a user is fine. You're now shifting, which you do from time to time. I need no more clarification. Focus some of your clarification efforts on users who repeatedly bully users in CRUDE, to help them better understand what is site policy about bad questions and answers to bad questions.

quid

@amWhy yes, and I did not say that you said it. :-) I even added a parenthetical. I assure you that it is not clear to everybody, and this causes problems. Thus, I mention it.

@amWhy I do tell users that they cannot call others "bully." A recent instance is documented in the Math Mods' office. If it happens somewhere and it bothers you, please, flag it.

amWhy

13:21

Thanks for the bookmarking above, and providing it on meta, @quid. I will mention that one now suspended user still refers to "unnamed" bullies from meta in his profile. I raised this issue previously, and apparently, because no one is named, and the latitude given to profile statements, it's still there. But if the CoC applies to main, meta, chat, shouldn't it also apply to profile statements, by the CoC advocates' justifications?

quid

@amWhy maybe. Then traditionally the personal profile is the most free of all places on SE. I'll have another look at the profile.

amWhy

@quid I'm not seething angry about it. It's just I think it has inflamed arguments in which he's been currently, at a given point in time, when folks are more apt to check a user's profile (in any intense conflict). I do know that profiles are somewhat protected, but given the newly implemented CoC, many places less "surveilled" are now subject to surveillance, hence my question was more rhetorical, as in, "let's be consistent".

quid

I removed the "This rule is enforced by bullies" which is only present on math.se; on other sites this bit was not present.

I left the rest, which is critical, but I think is alright.

amWhy

@quid I appreciate that. "Critical" is okay; just didn't like the reference to bullies, which he's used in the past, and still seems to have occasional "uptake." The fewer the occurrences, the fewer the uses, is my guess.

Lord_Farin

14:44

Thanks for writing this, quid. I very much agree with what you wrote here and what Jyrki wrote in the answer that you posted this comment to.

In fact I would say that my lack of contribution is in more than part due to the same pattern that Jyrki fell victim to. A systemic solution remains difficult but maybe the time for a sufficient agreement has arrived.

(Partly because the requirement on "sufficient" has been reduced.)

Zachary Selk

15:43

Wow. Answering PSQs is against the rules? I can't say how happy this makes me.

Thank you Quid.

I am frankly somewhat pessimistic about the implementation of this.

But it is very welcome news

quid

16:37

@ZacharySelk yes it's not evident. Also please note the caveats.

quid

16:50

@Lord_Farin indeed, your absence was noted.

Lord_Farin

17:19

@quid Thanks for taking notice. As can be seen from my involvement here, I've not left completely.

I would be happy to contribute to the forging of a compromise regarding PSQ, if such is to be initiated (again). However, from my perspective the situation requires a bit more decisiveness this time around.
It is not trivial to see what would be the appropriate form within the SE model, although I guess similar discussions have been held on the network before.

quid

@Lord_Farin Physics has an anti-homework policy.

Lord_Farin

A possible approach could be:
1. (PSQ-like) questions where OP does not respond to requests for clarification/improvement can be closed.
2. Answers pending 1. can be downvoted/deleted.

quid

I think there is little point in trying to go for something complex.

That was intended before your comment.

Lord_Farin

I figured :)

@quid I am aware, but I don't think this approach will cut it for MSE

quid

I agree.

Lord_Farin

17:28

Maybe it can be made explicit that 1. would be mandatory for all questions (leaving the exact form up to imagination, obviously).

The line of attack from PSQ-defenders could be mitigated easily. Either the question is evidently born out of interest, or the question is closed and prospective answerers can assist in improving and re-opening.

Possibly this would require adopting a more relaxed deletion policy.

(Just throwing some 2c on the table.)

quid

17:43

I think 1. is fine, but I think is covered by "unclear" anyway. If a question is unclear, I close it.

@Lord_Farin the deletion policy must be stringent. We can maybe accord some time. But generally the closed posts ought to be deleted. That's the key point. The point is to disincentivise the answering. That works via deletion not closure (except of course when closure kicks in first).

2

Lord_Farin

@quid In addition to that standing practice, I thus propose that any question that does not motivate its origin or desire for an answer is "unclear" (on the grounds that a mathematical question in a vacuum is hard to answer appropriately, i.e. using the right toolset, pointing out the right generalisations, etc etc)

Indeed, the deletion should be stringent, but not so stringent that there is no time to improve the question.
More controversial would be the proposal to delete answers pending reopening. But this is a maintenance burden screaming for automation.

Mike Miller

17:59

Is this all in response to the gimusi post or are there other recent Mera threads I should catch up on?

Or, better, should I do none of that and spend my productive time working? ;)

quid

@Lord_Farin yes. That's a notion of "unclear" used on other sites.

Lord_Farin

@MikeMiller Started based on that thread, then quid and me wrote some thoughts continuing on Jyrki's post regarding the need for a policy change.

quid

@MikeMiller I voiced my opinion on this already frequently here and there. It just was a good moment to write it up. Another aspect are concerns about "users moderating users" that got some traction lately. Yet if we decide that we do not want that "users moderate users" then moderators must actually fill that role and cannot say we leave it to the community.

amWhy

This has all been a long time in the making. It's not like these ideas are new.

Mike Miller

In this room? I'll read.

@amWhy yes, clearly, but implementation is. So I'd like to follow what was said.

amWhy

18:12

Today was helpful, given @quid's expressed "write-up", which helps to begin to formalize the matter.

Mike Miller

I wonder if I count as part of the cabal given I look at CRUDE once in a blue moon.

I'd like to be in a cabal. Sounds fun.

Lord_Farin

If this chat is public, can it still form a cabal?

amWhy

@MikeMiller That is fine. I was responding to Lord_Farin's comment that the thread "started it" and that quid and they wrote up some thoughts, though much of what has been suggested has been suggested earlier, by Jyrki, in CRUDE, and by countless others.

Lord_Farin

@amWhy Obviously. I was not trying to monopolise the thought process, and this was definitely not how I intended the remark; its scope was merely the chat history and not its content.

Mike Miller

Ah, I misunderstood who you were responding to.

Anyway, I think nobody has caused any harm.

@Lord_Farin Hm, I guess to do that you need an army of users who only read the transcript and never join the room.

amWhy

18:22

@Lord_Farin No problem. I'm glad you're interested and joining in the process of trying to formalize or help articulate policies.

quid

@MikeMiller no not here this room is pretty new. It's spread all over CRDUE, meta, etc. The subject itself occupies (part of) the community since a long while. As @amWhy said Jyrki's point of view is relevant and a catalyst. It was not news to me that he thinks like this; that he said it so pointedly again sparked my reply. (I think it was not news to him either that I think that way.)

There are 300-400 closed question from September with negative score. Likely a decent bit of those could just be purged.

Mike Miller

I was mainly thinking of what led specifically to the "bookmarked" comments above. I have followed most of this up until now and was making sure I did not miss something.

Anyway, thanks to all.

quid

18:38

My quoted comments where sparked by Theo Bendit saying it was not against the rules, then Jyrki said rules are needed, to which I commented that there are rules, and @amWhy amplified the sentiment that rules are needed. So I collected my thoughts, and used the recently learned skill of bookmarking conversations to record them.

3

Xander Henderson

21:49

@MikeMiller You can be in my cabal, if I ever make one.

Transcript for

$Mathematics$ whatever, quid