whatever, quid - 2020-07-15

Xander Henderson

00:57

@quid I am very uncomfortable with the amount of influence that a certain account has been attempting to exert on the election. This account has been very active on meta, despite never asking nor answering a question on the main site. I am sure that you know which account I am referencing. Are the moderators planning on doing anything about this?

2

quid

@XanderHenderson we are of course aware of the account. Just talking a lot is not really actionable though. I would not give too much importance to them.

Xander Henderson

kk

Thanks.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson Me too, me three, me four! ;-)

@quid That's a little naive. And not true. You've suspended me for "just talking"... I don't quite get why you are protecting them, despite their frequent rudeness, insults, etc.

quid

01:13

@amWhy you think I am protecting them; they seem to think I am singling them out. Maybe I am doing it about alright.

Or totally wrong. :-)

See you.

amWhy

@quid Of course they're going to say that, because they came here with a chip on their shoulder.

quid

@amWhy there are also "of course" for why you are saying it.

Either way, over-focus on any one other user is essentially always a red flag.

amWhy

@quid I don't follow... In any case, I agree with the second alternative: Maybe what you're doing about it is "totally wrong." ;-) See you!!

@quid Tell that to that user, who over-focuses on any one or two or three or four or more users. Many red flags!

quid

@amWhy you cannot even know if I did not do this already.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson I'd really, really like you to run in this upcoming election. I'd like to unofficially nominate you, to back that up, but I am also aware that users like the one you refer to above, on meta, may downvote any suggestion I make. I don't want to be a liability, in that sense. Others will likely upvote. Let me know if it would be more comfortable for you to run someone nominates you unofficially.

@quid Reminds me of a childhood tease: "That's for me to know, and you to find out." or "That's for me to know, and you won't ever know!" :-)

@quid But yes, Dat True.

Xander Henderson

01:25

@amWhy I am really not interested in running. I am watching the election, and am thinking about tossing my hat into the ring, but it kind of depends on who else runs. I also think that I am a controversial enough candidate to have little chance of winning---I have strong opinions on things, and make little effort to hide that.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson But I think you are highly respected. You aren't ever belligerent when you state your thoughts. You have always been civil. Always. You are highly respected on this site. Of course, I will completely respect whatever choice you make. Did I say you are highly respected on this site?? ;-) In any case, I think in some ways, like Asaf, you might want to think about "who are the alternatives", after Zach dropped from the race two years ago. You might just be the "reluctant leader"

...we need to step in. I'm just glad you are considering it. And again, I will respect you no matter what your decision! :-)

Xander Henderson

@amWhy The question "who are the alternatives" is weighing on me quite a lot right now. As I said, I'm not entirely ruling out a run, but I am highly reluctant.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson I understand. Seriously, I do.

@XanderHenderson Besides, just look how opinionated @quid is!! ;D (Et. al.)

Xander Henderson

@amWhy :)

quid

Yes, after all you need to get people to vote for you. SVT does push a bit towards consensus but it is not that strong either.

Than I might brag what a landslide it was...

amWhy

01:38

@quid Then

;-)

quid

Right. Then I only was second.

But the gap was large enough.

amWhy

@quid Indeed! But I wrote Then to correct you immediately preceding typo! :P

quid

@amWhy I understand more thEn you might think I do. :-)

amWhy

@quid Hah! ;D

quid

Maybe the better example is Asaf, he is also outspoken and it was a complete blow out.

Xander Henderson

01:45

@quid I wish I could downvote comments... BOOO!

4

quid

@XanderHenderson as a moderator you could edit and delete them.

Rumor has it some ran only to be able to edit their comments on the site.

Xander Henderson

@quid Ha!

amWhy

@quid Takes one to know that!

quid

Maybe i should really leave now. See you!

amWhy

@quid I thought I sent you to go sleep a while ago!

Xander Henderson

01:57

@quid 'night

user21820

08:23

@XanderHenderson What election? Where? I don't seem to be able to see an election going on, much less watch it. Hmm...

quid

12:29

@user21820 there are two recent meta posts about it, one being "official"

The election page is not yet "live" but in principle it exists.

user21820

@quid No wonder. I was trying in vain to find the election page.

quid

@user21820 you could find it. Take the latest one and increment the URL in the obvious way.

user21820

@quid Isn't that considered semi-hacking?

quid

@user21820 don't know. It was posted already in chat too. Here and in the office.

user21820

Oh I see. Okay!

Xander Henderson

14:29

@amWhy At your recommendation, I just watched the first episode of Ozark.

I have always liked Jason Bateman, so that's a plus. As long as Bateman remains likable (and doesn't go all Malcolm's dad from Breaking Bad), I'm in.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson ;-) ! Credit should go back to @AlexanderGruber, who suggested it to me.

Xander Henderson

Did you see who created it? And wrote the first episode?

amWhy

@XanderHenderson Are you referring to producer Bill Dubuque?! Hilarious, 'cause I had the same response to @AlexanderGruber, after my first episode, and Alexander also hadn't missed it!

Maybe our Bill D is leading a double life: mathematican/producer!

Xander Henderson

@amWhy That's the one!

amWhy

It's amazing, @Xander How quickly our acclimated/attenuated eyes pick up on names we are familiar with!

Xander Henderson

14:39

No doubt.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson I wonder how many series/movies @quid has produced?! :-)

Xander Henderson

@amWhy I mean, @quid is hiding behind a pseudononymous handle on Math SE.

My guess is that @quid is really Meryl Streep, in disguise.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson Of course!

@XanderHenderson Wow!! My guess too, precisely! ;D

Xander Henderson

@amWhy Haa!

quid

Series, movies? Not so much, in my spare time I write encyclopedic works.

Don't believe it? There.

Quid (encyclopedia)

Quidis a French encyclopedia, established in 1963 by Dominique Frémy. It was published annually between 1963 and 2007, first by Plon (1963-1974) and later by Éditions Robert Laffont (1975-2007), and was the most popular encyclopedic reference work in France. The presentation is very compressed, and abbreviations are used extensively in telegraph style. It uses very thin paper to get all the information into one volume. It is published each year in one volume about the size of a large dictionary. The motto of the encyclopedia is "Tout sur tout... tout de suite" (translated as: "Everything on...

Xander Henderson

14:45

HA!

amWhy

@quid Hah!!

quid

@amWhy finally you'll need to believe that quid is always right!

amWhy

@quid :P

Xander Henderson

@quid Of course. Because no encyclopedia has ever had an error. :P

quid

@XanderHenderson no encyclopedia I wrote contains an error.

amWhy

14:49

@quid That's vacuously true!

Xander Henderson

@quid Vacuous truths are fun!

quid

Now, we need to reconcile it with " in my spare time I write encyclopedic works." But that's easy if we assume that I have no spare time.

amWhy

No novel I've ever written did not receive the Nobel Prize for literature.

@quid I can vouch for that!! ;D

user21820

@quid: Did rschwieb say anything about whether he might want to run for moderator?

amWhy

@quid I think you're a double agent. I remember your interest in being a detective/lawyer... So you likely have no free time because of the double life you lead! Maybe you're undercover, positioned as a mod on SE, but I'm sorry if I just blew your cover!! :(

quid

14:55

@user21820 not to my knowledge. afaik they were approached by @amWhy some time ago. Maybe she has some info.

amWhy

@user21820 Not this time around, though I initially encouraged them to run, as well as encouraging Xander to run. I'm not yet sure that rschwieb is a he, though.

user21820

@amWhy Ok thanks. His profile links to his blog, and I think "Ryan" is a he. =)

amWhy

When I say this time around, I mean that I have not heard back one way or another.

@user21820 Okay, thanks! Whenever I see first initial, last name, I suspend conclusions about gender.

user21820

Maybe can ask again.

quid

Ever considered maybe my name is actually Quentin Uid.

amWhy

15:03

Is that like the prisoner Uid in San Quentin prison, @quid? ;D

quid

No that's my uncle.

amWhy

@quid Hah! ;D

user21820

I've flagged your comment for moderation, please stop your behaviour @user21820 . This is the content of my flag: I feel that the thread of comments (it was added "lurker") isn't helpful. It is possible flag my post. In particular I don't want interact with this user who frequents one of the rooms of the chat. — user759001 4 mins ago

What behaviour am I supposed to stop? You post a public post, and then admit that you don't want to interact with me just because I frequent a chat-room that you have some personal problem with. And you refuse to respond to my points, and yet you insinuate that my behaviour is a problem. I didn't assume that you had any bad motives at the start. But I feel it is your behaviour that is out of line here. — user21820 1 min ago

@quid: Maybe you want to take a look at this.

quid

@user21820 no. But I guess I have to. :-)

user21820

So ridiculous. I thought it was an honest post, but I think the true colours have been revealed now.

So I guess I wasted half an hour on that thread.

@quid: Wait why was my comment about users who click over to Math SE removed?

amWhy

15:15

Unfortunately, @user21820, while I completely agree with your comments, and see absolutely no harm in them, so THEY SHOULD NOT BE DELETED, I've learned over time that mods are harsher on trusted, long-term users, then they are on disgruntled, relatively "new" users. That's partly been a factor in how pervasive and how much latitude given to such disgruntled newish users. And it distorts meta, and has distorted meta, for some time now.

user21820

@quid: I would like my comment with evidence about click-over 1-rep users to be restored, because it is based on facts and not opinion.

quid

@user21820 because I deleted all comments and just restored a few.

What's the point of discussing there any further?

I don't think that question will get selected anyway.

user21820

@quid Hmm well since the 1-rep comment from that user is gone, I suppose there's no need for my response at the moment. I responded because other readers would be misled by the implicit argument that all 1-rep users are victims of closure/deletion.

quid

@amWhy I deleted all comments, it's not clear what type of assymmetry there is. I restored the first couple, as it seems relevant, and incidentally the first one by @user21820, as a record of disapproval.

user21820

@quid Sure. But if that user again posts such misleading 'statistics', I can respond again, right?

amWhy

15:21

@quid That's a cop out. The question, in the first place, was not asked in good faith, and then you deny users to challenge it? What remains still leaves a cloud of distrust on math.se, and by refusing to let users challenge it, you permit that cloud to remain. The point remains, unless you delete the question, you must permit users to respond reasonably to it.

quid

@user21820 yes. But better flag their comment. I already deleted some more comments after the initial "purge"

@amWhy I left one critical comment and removed all replies. The other side also could object to that.

That is leaving the first couple aside, which seemed older and somewhat unrelated.

amWhy

@quid But you left the post, a comment from the poster, and only one critical comment. These are the sorts of actions that lead to misrepresentation of the reception on this site.

user21820

@quid Ok so after now, who else is allowed to post comments on that thread?

quid

The post is at -5. No one cares.

amWhy

@quid that's another cop-out. It will be used by evidence by naysayers how their views are suppressed, when they get more freedom of expression than do trusted users. You keep feeding the monsters, @quid.

quid

15:26

@amWhy thus deleting it would be a good solution?

amWhy

@quid You could have left all the comments, and declined the OP's flag. That would send a much stronger message than allowing them to think they were persecuted.

quid

@amWhy I don't like that metaphor overly much.

@amWhy there were unrelated complaints about the comments.

amWhy

@quid Why do you keep feeding and encouraging toublemakers?

quid

@amWhy I don't.

amWhy

Nothing user21820 said was offensive.

quid

15:29

@amWhy so what, he said himself that it was a waste of time. So.

amWhy

@quid But you do, unintentionally, I am sure. But nonetheless, you do.

quid

@amWhy that's your perception. Mine is different. And it is incidentally that you do.

The drama you help to create enables them.

The "you" is somewhat collective.

amWhy

@quid Really? I haven't created any drama there, @quid. Only you have. If I had written a post equally as weighted and opinionated as the one we are speaking of, you'd be calling me out publicly for it. You employ different standards all the time.

user21820

@quid: I just want to know your answer to my last question:

7 mins ago, by user21820

@quid Ok so after now, who else is allowed to post comments on that thread?

Otherwise I don't know what we're supposed to do or not do.

quid

@user21820 I hope no one will. There is no formal interdiction for anyone for now. If somebody that I know is aware of this discussion here would, I'd consider it as rude.

(Rude towards me personally not in the sense of a "rude" flag. )

amWhy

15:33

@quid You keep blaming the very users trying to help this site remain operative, honest, and high quality. You keep up such blaming, and you'll lose us.

quid

@amWhy "trying to help" is not rarely the opposite of "helping"

Stop fanning the flames on meta, please.

amWhy

@quid How convenient. Well, you only try to help, but that's often opposite of actual help.

quid

@amWhy ask @user21820 what they think of that type of construct.

Too bad I deleted it.

amWhy

@quid Here, you mean? Then kick-mute me. I did not fan any flames on meta. Go take a cold shower to cool down.

quid

@amWhy I am tired of the alarmistic drama.

amWhy

15:36

@quid Yeah, you're such a powerful Man... resorts to privilege long before resorting to reason.

@quid And I'm tired or your alarmist reactive drama.

quid

@amWhy it's actually not a privilege. I would like to quote it now but somehow feel I can't

user21820

@quid What construct? Anyway I did not intend to make you two get into an argument......

amWhy

@quid I think you've been taking lessons from Bill D in rhetorical manipulation! Good for you.

quid

@user21820 the quoting back the same thing

2 mins ago, by quid

@amWhy I am tired of the alarmistic drama.

amWhy

I would like to make peace, but now somewhat I can't.

quid

15:39

1 min ago, by amWhy

@quid And I'm tired or your alarmist reactive drama.

@amWhy with whom?

amWhy

So it's okay for you to say the first, but not me, the second quote? Double standard methinks, which is no surprise to me anymore. Hah!

@user21820 You've done nothing whatsoever wrong here, or in the meta post. And you are not responsible for any argument between quid and I.

user21820

Oh that. Well... I think both of you got frustrated at each other earlier than that. Why don't I summarize what I think you're both getting at first? I think amWhy is saying that comments with real criticism should not be removed, since others cannot see deleted comments and may wrongly believe that there is less criticism than there actually was. You are saying you don't care because the question in that post won't get selected in the end.

But, I agree with both of that. So how?

I think real criticism should be allowed of such not-honest postings on Meta. As long as it is within a reasonable standard of discourse.

I also understand that you (quid) don't want to care about postings that are already heavily downvoted.

But I wonder whether other users who didn't even see the original criticism will care.

And I'm not saying I want my comments reinstated. I don't on condition that the author of that post does not post a single comment after this.

The problem is that I can't be sitting around checking for that condition.

amWhy

@quid When you name-call me and my concerns, you discredit me. I responded in kind, and wish I hadn't. But you are prone to the same sorts of drama you accuse and discredit me with. And you can easily get away with discrediting me publiclly because a few mods will sign off on your discrediting me, as will a few CMs. Stop taking advantage of those folks, and start treading me with the same caution you maintain prior to provoking truly problematic users.

quid

@amWhy sorry but that really misses the point. The issue is that you use the exact same phrasing.

amWhy

If you want to lash out at me further, @quid, do so elsewhere, and not publicly. That you take advantage of my weakenesses, which I've shared with you privately, don't do it publicly.

quid

15:53

@amWhy I did not even intend to lash out at you. I am not sure what you mean exactly. On the other hand I do know that you said this:

amWhy

@quid what, my comment in reply to your insult? Sure, it was accurate, and for effect, remained true, but reflected your own rather dramatic comments. As they say, "don't dish it out, if you won't eat it yourself."

quid

in Math Mods' Office, Jul 11 at 19:20, by amWhy

Someone here, who shall not be named, needs to use the time management skills they recently admitted to sometimes lacking, rather than blaming other users here for disrupting their efforts to work apart from this site. However I agree with the not named user's comments immediately above.

@amWhy see above and consider what you just complained about. And then talk to me about double standards again and "don't dish it out, if you won't eat it yourself.".

amWhy

@quid That is not relevant to this discussion, but if you still feel wronged about past enconters, then we need to deal with your inability to let go.

quid

@amWhy it is very relevant

In that you had no issue at all to essentially quote from a not public discussion.

amWhy

@quid Now you're acting like a user who needs to be suspended, at least from chat, @quid. Model the behavior you want others to exhibit, and don't punish others for behavior you openly exhibit.

quid

15:57

@amWhy I really fail to see how this is the case.

Please be specific.

amWhy

@quid That's the problem, @quid. You fail to internalize the behavior you expect from others. Hey, I know you're human. But do you know and acknowledge you're human? You act sometimes like you think your are better than human. Sorry, but it's true.

quid

@amWhy do you think that you do that?

"internalize the behavior you expect from others"

@user21820 there were complaints about the commenting.

user21820

@quid I know the author flagged my comment, as self-admitted. Were there any other complaints about my comments, and were they valid?

quid

@user21820 there was a separate complaint about the length of the discussion.

You said yourself it was pointless.

user21820

@quid I see, so it's not about my comments. Anyway I was not clear enough. I want accuracy. If a post (downvoted or not) does not portray an accurate picture, I may (or may not) comment on it. I feel obligated to do so in some cases where I believe other readers are likely to come to inaccurate conclusions.

In fact, I did not intend to suggest that my comments were pointless.

Rather, I meant that it was pointless to present my points to the author.

quid

16:06

@user21820 try to keep the exchange short. Possibly summarize the key points at the end and remove the rest.

user21820

@quid I agree with keeping it short. How about you give me a dump of my comments and I summarize the currently missing parts into a single comment and omit stuff that are no longer relevant?

quid

@user21820 quite frankly I really have other things to do but okay.

sai-kartik

16:19

@amWhy Congratulations on the 200k total rep !!🎉🎉🥳🥳

2

Xander Henderson

@sai-kartik Note that chat XP is equal to the sum of XP across all SE sites. @amWhy has "only" 197,612 XP on Math SE. :P

sai-kartik

@XanderHenderson yeah that's why i said "total rep " :P

amWhy

17:22

@quid You're the one doing all the quoting from everywhere here, @quid.

quid

@amWhy that's because of my name quid quips, quid quits, quid quotes.

amWhy

@quid :P ;D

Does @quid quilt?

quid

@amWhy maybe if I new what the word means?

amWhy

Can we create a list of @quid quirks?

quid

@amWhy no, because it is at least countable.

amWhy

17:27

@quid quilting is the craft of sewing quilts.

@quid ;D

quid

@amWhy I see. I actually guessed that but found it too plausible to be true.

@amWhy yes, you think you know them all, and then you'll still find a new one.

amWhy

@quid I think we all have "at least countably many" quirks!

Xander Henderson

@amWhy Can it be patchwork?

Maybe a quazy quilt.

(okay... pronouncing "crazy" as "kway-zee", then spelling it as "quazy" might be a bit of a stretch, but I'm going to stand by it...)

quid

18:14

@user21820 for reference, sorry for the delay chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/110661/…

Xander Henderson

23:11

Okay... so... in the Ozark... is everybody a drug dealer?

amWhy

@XanderHenderson No, I doubt it...

Xander Henderson

@amWhy This documentary you suggested seems to indicate otherwise...

amWhy

@XanderHenderson It's a drama, not a documentary. Where are you in the series?

Xander Henderson

@amWhy Oh! I always get those two things confused.

amWhy

And don't blame me, blame @AlexanderGruber who recommended Ozark to me. It's all his fault!! :P

Xander Henderson

23:18

Darn you, @AlexanderGruber! Darn you to socks!

As to where I am: Jason Bateman just found a body under his dock.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson Ohhh, your ahead of me then! Thanks for spoiling my surprise!! :P

Xander Henderson

I'm on episode 5. I figured you would be well beyond that.

amWhy

@quid and I were joking recently in this chatroom, about a reality show or drama, based on math.se! And we already started casting the characters.

Xander Henderson

Also, I didn't tell you whose body. :P

Brad Pitt as Asaf.

amWhy

@XanderHenderson You spared yourself this time around!

Alexander Gruber

23:24

@XanderHenderson I bet he's gonna take that one better than the previous suggestions

amWhy

@XanderHenderson I think Johnny Depp would make a good Asaf.

Xander Henderson

Miyam Biallik as @amWhy?

amWhy

@AlexanderGruber Are you referring to my suggestion?

Xander Henderson

She looks like a congenial Midwesterner.

Alexander Gruber

@amWhy mostly mine, i also suggested TJ miller

amWhy

23:28

@XanderHenderson I already cast Cote de Pablo (Ziva David from NCIS) for my character, but I'm open to other suggestions.

@AlexanderGruber Asaf is quite the character, (loved and cherished, indeed) and Johnny Depp is great at getting into character!

We now need to cast @Xander!

Alexander Gruber

That's true. Pitt did a surprisingly good Fauci, too.

amWhy

@AlexanderGruber Indeed. But we also need to cast the Overlords at SE... Anthony Hopkins, for one of them.

Alexander Gruber

@amWhy always got a Mark Proksch vibe from the thumbnail.

amWhy

@AlexanderGruber You "nailed" it!

And how would we choose to cast BD (err. producer/creator of Ozark)??? That is the question! Maybe this question leads us into territory best not traveled.

Alexander Gruber

alan rickman

amWhy

23:39

@AlexanderGruber You should be a director/producer. Great pick!

Xander Henderson

23:58

All right, I am heading out to J'Tree to go look at a comet. G'night, all.

Transcript for

$Mathematics$ whatever, quid