Backup Room – The h Bar - 2018-04-11

« first day (1477 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2212 days later) »

1:03 AM

Evil, Poland

7.1k 4 19 43

algorithms data-structures image-processing sorting computer-vision algorithm-analysis computational-geometry

2 hours later…

2:53 AM

@nitsua60 does "heck" count

3:50 AM

FYI @0celo7 this is an example of something that could rub people the wrong way:

in The h Bar, 1 hour ago, by 0celo7

is he a sociopath or autistic or something?

Some people might infer a claim that autistic people are sociopaths, or vice versa

@DavidZ Some people would be misinterpreting me

4:06 AM

True, but ultimately not very relevant. Part of the skill required to participate in open communities (like SE and its chat rooms) without causing trouble is refraining from saying things that other people are likely to interpret badly, even if those interpretations aren't valid.

7 hours later…

11:25 AM

@DavidZ Or, if not refraining, at least recognizing that it's reasonable for one's words to be interpreted multiple ways--depending on the experiences and mood of the listener, the context (of the room), the reputation you have as a speaker--and be alert to the possibility of misinterpretation.

You've been pointed to relevant metas, I've explained much of my thinking to you, and you've had feedback from nearly a hundred flaggers and validators what sorts of things aren't welcome. You've got more than enough information to learn how to conduct yourself in an appropriate manner.
I've no indication that you're actually interested in genuine dialog on the matter: self-reflective questions I've put to you go unanswered, criticisms of specific actions of yours get deflected, in every situation we've discussed you say everyone else is to blame. Please don't disturb me until/unless you ca…

2

(cc: @DavidZ @ACuriousMind @doppelgreener) ^^

While I'd say that it's reasonable to be uncomfortable about the association of words that comes from having "sociopath" and "autistic" at the same sentence, there are more serious examples of interpretation of a message by invoking the principle of death of the author which fall on the unreasonable spectrum of things.

ACM and I had a long discussion on this here

(With an explicit example in question)

(In case the context of the conversation is not clear: I posted a reddit link where the OP posted a picture of an Irish public urinal where they pasted a picture of Donald Trump onto it)

11:40 AM

@0celo7 FWIW, that doesn't look like “please stop flagging swears.” It looks like ACuriousMind getting tired of dealing with a couple of people who don't seem to take any of this stuff seriously. And I don't know what to say, but your suspensions aren't going to stay at merely half an hour per instance forever.

Our Be Nice rules are not hard to figure out, and it's up to ensure you can comply with the community's rules. If you're having trouble figuring out where the line sits between the f-bomb and “heck”, that's sorta your problem more than ours -- most people can figure that out. If you can't, this may not be the community for you. If you want it to be the community for you, it's on you to figure out.

If someone's swearing unnecessarily, that's fair game to flag. If someone's swearing at someone, that's absolutely something you ought to flag.

But I suggest not making a habit of trolling mods or trying to stretch the rules for a laugh by asking dumb questions like if heck is OK.

That's, uh, not ArtOfCode, that's ACuriousMind. I was trolling 0celo7 a little because he (obviously jokingly) called my use of expletive as a breach of Be Nice.

And yes, I do not take it seriously, that's the point of my argument.

@BalarkaSen Thanks, corrected. And yes, jokingly calling out breaches of rules nonseriously, then joking in breach of the rules, is not a good joke. It's why y'all were asked to cut it out.

@BalarkaSen Then you may find your welcome to participate in Stack communities getting withdrawn.

(apologies for edit pings there)

@doppelgreener Not a very logical conclusion. I as an individual do not think that flagging non-offensive use of expletives is justified/reasonable and the moderators trying to portray it as such diverts the more serious issue of abusing the power of flagging by an individual to annoy certain other users.

If pointing out that issue gets a community shut down, that's a flaw of the moderation and it's blaséness towards the problems.

You're not obligated to flag anything yourself. However, don't swear is still our network policy. We don't really care if you personally find it reasonable. If you swear, you're liable to get flagged, because swearing is not permitted in chat. You can either follow that, or not and face the consequences of breaking our rules. If you want to challenge that policy, you can do so on Meta Stack Exchange.

I have no problem with getting flagged, and neither am I complaining about that. I am simply pointing out that the motif behind flagging non-offensive use of expletives is not because it's breach of your network policy, it's to troll. Which is why I posted two messages afterwards which had no expletives in it, and were very obviously not offensive (your opinion on the contrary that they were "abusive" is in minority in that, I am afraid), but still got flagged nonetheless.

In any case, the policy itself is silly, and I'd be up for challenging that. On that note, I see this message of yours, which I could go ahead and flag now because you have given me the authority to do that.

(I won't, but theoretically I can, and it'd be a genuine flag: I'm just demonstrating that the policy is silly)

11:55 AM

You're starting from an non-guaranteed assumption that there's someone flagging your swearing to troll you, as opposed to, they're flagging your swearing because you're swearing and that's against the rules. Don't swear and you won't have an issue with anyone flagging your posts either way.

@doppelgreener I am claiming that I proved the assumption by posting the next two messages that got flag-banned.

Here's a situation. If I follow your line of logic and flag the message I linked now, you have no argument to back yourself up against. It's (1) the breach of the network policy, by your own argument (2) Not guided by any ulterior motive of mine to take revenge upon you, because as you say it, the action just counts, not the motive.

This is all theoretical, of course, but I just listed your counterargument. Do you think it's fair to flag this now?

@BalarkaSen If it got flagged, it'd have to be validated. If it was validated and removed, fine. If not, fine. We have common sense applied here in that people are going to decide when something's fine to let slip by. We also had a change in network-wide chat culture in the intervening years between that message and now, prompted mostly by the demise of Mos Eisley.

The other day when I was present, your three messages were removed not specifically because of swearing, but because you were being pretty rude to your fellow members, and then to the flagger.

People aren't going to decide fairly when something's fine to let slip by, because that's not what reality looks like. 10k+ers don't take the time to see the context of a message. I mean I could demonstrate that too by asking a few of people to flag some of your expletive-containing messages and see if they get fairly validated now, but that'd be vandalism on my part in my value system (that's what I am arguing against)

Incidentally, I'll reach out to get someone to investigate whether there's a pattern of targeted harassment against you via flags.

@doppelgreener Ok, so, can you point out what was it that was pretty rude to my fellow members/to the flagger? I had a discussion with a chat member about this elsewhere and they agreed that it could potentially be seen as offensive, but I think the two messages were ridiculous.

I'd like a constructive commentary on that line

@doppelgreener There's been multiple on the past, so I suspect that will bring up some stuff. There has been a few month's time-gap between that event and this one though.

12:06 PM

@BalarkaSen Here's a thing to imagine: You bring up a book you like. I don't know what you like, so I'll pick a book I like: Harry Potter. So you bring up that book in front of a social group, and someone responds: "More fucking Harry Potter?". In text, we can easily interpret that with a tone of exasperation, offensive and alienating to those who wanted to bring it up. If you've got an issue with someone bringing that up, there's less jerkish ways to express that.

Your message of "more fucking memes" could have been interpreted exactly that way.

The next two messages were harassment targeted directly at whoever flagged you. Harassment is not OK, so those were removed as well via an offensive flag, which is completely legitimate.

You had other messages flagged around the second flag, and those flags were declined. At that point I'm sure someone in the room deliberately was trying to aggravate you for a reaction.

@doppelgreener Ah I see now. This interpretation did not occur to me. Astyx and Daminark are good friends actually (I talk to them elsewhere from this chat too), and we bring up memes a lot, so I was just ironic-exasperating at Astyx's meme. I see why it's open to criticism from a complete stranger of the room.

Thanks, that's helpful.

Right, things we'd say in private to friends don't translate so well sometimes to a public text-based medium. There's no body language or tone of voice to indicate how it's being given or received.

Incidentally that's part of why we avoid swearing: it tends to be read poorly and drive people away or cause trouble.

This is a fair argument.

So, for the other two messages, I don't think it's fair to call them harassment. They were streams of nonsense with what you can call added elements of provocation towards the flagger. I'd like to see what makes them abusive - that's a much more serious word than provocation.

@BalarkaSen Do you mind if I quote parts of them, or would you rather that be kept private?

Also good to know that it was understood that the flags were not genuine before I made the argument.

12:14 PM

I can answer without quoting from them.

@doppelgreener I am fine with quoting them, I have the deleted messages screenshotted so I can reply if the quotes chop off the context of the full message.

The first of the two was calling the flagger a “little self-styled midget of a prank troller”. From our conversation just now, my understanding is you meant your “more fucking memes” in good humour to people who would receive it well, but also that we can both see it might get interpreted poorly, right? So let's assume there was at least one person in the room who had that poor interpretation.
They now see you insulting (in a pretty silly way, but nevertheless an insult) a flagger, which resembles more or less the playground bully who starts bullying the kid who actually reported their bull…

In the second of the two, you said the flagger was “probably are on a high on strong doses of yellow bugpowder that's making their IQ drop and brain rot.” As the person who hammered that message, I can tell you personally I read it as pretty much just an eloquent way to say someone's an idiot or stupid or so on. I wouldn't be OK with someone calling someone else an idiot, and I wouldn't be OK with the exact same being said in more words.

12:30 PM

Sorry my internet drooped for a while. Ok, let me read your criticism thoroughly.

Np.

Okay so about the first message: (1) Yes, even though it's clear to both of us now that "more fucking memes" was clearly used in a fairly humorous way (and the person to whom it was directed also took it as such: we talk in discord and we all thought it was a spite-flag which justified itself due to having a curse in it - and I still think so, but now we have an alternative -) it can be interpreted to sound jerkish. The solution to this dilemma is to come out and publicly state that they found the comment jerkish and rude.

This relates to why I think flagging is too much power for an individual. If at least 2/3 persons flag a certain message then and only then should it go to the review queue.

Well, flags have to get validated in that review queue. We'd prefer seeing more flags than less.

And something like six people(?) have to go "yep, that doesn't belong on chat" in clear majority over the people who say it it's ok.

Very few flags get misused, and it is a serious problem when they do get misused, hence me escalating your complaint about flags being cast against you for review.

Why is every single moderator dead-set against thinking some/most flags are not genuine, when basically every non-moderator has known this for years?

[citation needed]

12:44 PM

Common knowledge.

(2) It should have been clear from the parsing of the whole message that calling the flagger a prank-trolling midget (which I think they are, tbh) was not in any way meant to be abusive or bullying. That's why it contained completely outlandish expressions like "Dante's circling fricks" or, in the third message, "Cervantes's cuckolded goat" (which I'm quite proud of :P) - from the context it should have been pretty clear that they were provocations and not actual insults/abuse/bullying.

In any case, another user did think my inclusion of yellow bugpowder having the effect of dropping their IQ could be genuinely interpreted as calling someone an idiot. I probably back down on that one; I shouldn't have used that expression. But still, I claim it's pretty clear to a generic individual that these are surreal nonsense.

@BalarkaSen There was still an insult in there. It's kinda a black and white situation.

@BalarkaSen I do think "cuckold" was out of line given its politically charged nature

@doppelgreener Mmm, no, I disagree. I think you're a terrible person as your left eyesocket dangles out of the harpooned sunlight protruding in and out of a electrical circuit.

Does that really insult you?

Yes?

12:47 PM

lol

You just called me a terrible person. I'm a little offended. :P

@doppelgreener I think you should ban him

me too :P

Still, look, we get tons of bad behaviour across the network. Do you think "this person is insulting another person, but their message is loaded with surreal nonsense so I guess it's okay" should be a valid perspective? I don't think so. "My message was only 10% insult, 90% silly junk" can't be a valid defence for, you know, insulting someone.

just delete the math room and then the physics room will be twice as active QED

12:51 PM

in an ideal world I could buy SE and fix everyting

how?

there need to be more chat mods

true

or even room owners who are not mods

my 2 cents^

:-D

@doppelgreener I see your perspective, of course, but it calls for some serious debate on what can be seen as an insult and what can't. I disagree that it's purely "black and white"; if you said what I said to a person in real life to insult them they'd probably laugh at you.

I would instate an instaban on words like "cunt" and "motherfucker" because there's really no need for that in polite society.

Say it and you're gone.

12:55 PM

I mean of course my messages straddles the line between what is offensive and what isn't intentionally, but sometimes it's very non-intentional.

Eg I linked that conversation with ACM

@BalarkaSen Probably, if I knew them. On here, it's that "not everything you can say translates well" thing. And it's in a context that's already kinda serious, it wasn't timed well.

If I said that at the end of a tense meeting where we've been having disagreements for half an hour and we're both tired of each other and not getting along well, the other person would be quite confused — but also reasonably read offense into those words.

@doppelgreener what kind of chat room problems do they have at the role playing games?

> Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”

@skullpatrol Sometimes religious warfare over game styles, and sometimes the odd political discussion turns ugly. But we've been working together as a chat community for the past few years to adopt various norms that minimise the chances for problems to come up, so we have them very rarely, which I really like.

@doppelgreener This is fair. I admit that I said those provocative messages because I had assumed that the flag was a spite-flag with the only justification of having a swear inside the message; the perspective you gave me was not at all apparent to me. None of this would have happened if the said person (again, assuming they had good intentions) used words before flags, though

We need that though. The broader tabletop RPG sphere on the internet is really prone to arguments and vitriol and warring and so on. RPG.SE is a very deliberate exercise in not allowing the same patterns in our space, and we enforce various things that many other stacks don't (like fairly strict comment policies) to that end.

@BalarkaSen Yeah, given the perspective I've learned you were operating from I can better understand what was going on for you. But I think it's unhelpful to assume flags only occurred and got validated because of spite or bad behaviour: something went wrong somewhere in the message, otherwise it wouldn't likely have been flagged or validated. The cooldown is an opportunity to pause and reflect on what could've gone wrong, and a chance to let cooler heads prevail.

Lots of flags that should be invalidated come up over the course of the day. (I'd say, maybe, 3/4 of a day's flags aren't actually valid.) But it's rare when they get targeted from individual A against individual B. There have been incidents where that's happened, and it has lead to suspensions against individual A.

It's also rare that one person just serially gets their posts flagged with nothing at all actually being wrong.

1:05 PM

I see the room freezing mod, namely quid; is not available to be pinged in here?

(Actually, I don't think I've ever seen that situation yet, but I'm not omniscient and I've only been moderating for a year.)

@skullpatrol You can only ping people in a room who've spoken in that room in the last week or two.

Anonymous

@doppelgreener "targeted from individual A against individual B". I thought mods can't see who flagged a message? (If that is something you're not supposed to reveal, that's fine)

Community mods can do that IIRC

@Blue We have limited information on that front, but we can escalate it to staff members who have more visibility into investigating those matters.

Also you can do something akin to a correlation test by reading the context it happened in :P

Anonymous

1:07 PM

I see. Thanks

@doppelgreener Fair statement. I think a lot of people on math.SE and hbar has the idea that any flag without an apparent reason to justify it strongly has to be troll because such troll flags happen a lot in those rooms (I think both of those rooms are quite notorious among the moderation staff?).

Vice versa, strangers do not understand this mentality and therefore think it's a fault of the room culture (that's why the comparisons with Mos Eisley happened, eg). It's helpful to gather other perspective in that light, on both sides.

@BalarkaSen I think they call them community "managers." :P

Anonymous

@0celo7 buying SE will solve most of the problems :P

@skullpatrol Yep, CMs are community managers. They're the staff members moderators tend to escalate matters to if they need escalation.

Do they get paid?

Anonymous

1:11 PM

@skullpatrol Obviously...

Yes, CMs are are paid employees of Stack Overflow Inc.

I see, thanks.

@BalarkaSen Any room that needs various moderators to visit periodically or which raises a lot of flags starts to draw some concern. Mos Eisley was earning a questionable reputation for itself even among regular users while it was alive (which I'll say bearing in mind I was a regular user at the time) specifically because of all the flags that would come up from it. Generally though we want the best for all communities.

Diamond moderators tend to be those people who care a lot about the health of the network -- we were crazy enough to run for this role and many of us dived into chat moderation as well, we'd better have had a reason for it. :P

does freezing a room require more than one mod?

I wish we could get better flag analytics

Anonymous

1:17 PM

No, any RO can freeze a room.

As it stands everyone is arguing about something we really don’t know about

@0celo7 Alozio stole my answer. I'll sue him.

@Blue what's an RO?

Room Owner / Operator

I changed the question last night be much more general does his answer still work?

Also compact is not a nice restriction, though in my case I do think I have compactness

1:20 PM

I suspect you'll need to work chartwise for arbitrary Riemannian manifolds.

I think this works. Like I said, you need the fact that cohomological dimension is less than Hausdorff dimension

Which apparently holds in the Cech theory

@doppelgreener what is the maximum time a single RO or single mod can freeze a room for?

@skullpatrol infinity

:O

you can just freeze a room and that's it

doppelgreener has frozen this room.

1:23 PM

observe: no timer whatsoever

doppelgreener has unfrozen this room.

unfreezing requires manual intervention

Mod 👏🏼👏🏼 Abuse

@0celo7 it's true, i have gone completely mad with power.

My heart jumped up a little when the page reloaded.

1:24 PM

@BalarkaSen sorry XD

lol

We are so used to getting banned @doppelgreener

And I’m expecting a long ban soon

Don play with me like that

"we"

:(

Room owners cannot unfreeze a room, though, right?

IIRC that needs a mod

Anonymous

@BalarkaSen They can

1:26 PM

How would I do that?

@skull unfreeze, not freeze

oops

Anonymous

One issue is that every time you freeze a room, you need to leave a message, as to why you're freezing it.

No I mean say it's frozen due to inactivity

Anonymous

@BalarkaSen Ah, yes

We have been communicating in a shitty way in this room for a while:

♦ $Mathematics$ SGA Over 9000: Séminaire d'Geometric …

I want to draw a commutative diagram in the room description s...

1:28 PM

yeah, you need a mod to unfreeze

they bring out the flame thrower

@BalarkaSen yeah if a room's frozen due to inactivity you need to call a moderator to thaw it

Mmm I see

rpg.se has a couple of rooms which get used in bursts and need a moderator to thaw them periodically, so we usually raise a custom mod flag requesting someone thaw the room so we can use it. (only nowadays i can do that directly.)

napalm smells like victory :P

3 mins ago, by skullpatrol

they bring out the flame thrower

:-D

@skullpatrol 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

1:39 PM

Okie dokie this was a good conversation. I'm going to dip out and get some work done now

@BalarkaSen Thanks for talking with me and for how you took on board the feedback I gave.

@BalarkaSen Ttfn!

Same. :)

Haha, for sure, same to you!

1:53 PM

@BalarkaSen I don't disagre [okay, I stepped aside for a moment that turned into two hours, and now I don't know what I was responding to--so I need to post this to be able to follow the reference back and regain my train of thought.]

Since this whole ordeal appears to have started with a comment about memes and you @doppelgreener gave us such an awesome display of room freezing power, this one is for you :P

user image

ha, thanks :D

@skullpatrol imgur.com/gallery/2GkbA have a mr freeze comic

@doppelgreener Thanks pal :-D

2:11 PM

@BalarkaSen I don't disagree that sometimes things get misinterpreted, sometimes grossly so. That doesn't concern me nearly as much as the *response* that a misinterpretation seems to get around here.
I don't have the impression that there's a culture around here of people saying
"[possibly-offensive thing]"
"hey--did you really mean [offensive interpretation] by that?"
"No, no, that's not at all what I meant--I feel badly it came across that way and thanks for pointing out that I didn't express myself very well. Here's what I really meant: [inoffensive intent]."

And before anyone calls me an unrealistic Polyanna (which has happened to me many times around here), there are plenty of other rooms around this network where the first example is what happens. I've seen it. Plenty of times.

LOL

This is accurate

2:41 PM

I think one of the challenging things around the hbar is that nobody even sees that model held up as an example. I don't know that it needs to become the norm, but a room where someone expresses discomfort/displeasure and isn't then supported/taken seriously is unhealthy, in my judgment.

(Like more than me just preaching, seeing it actually happen and work.)

In the Trump-urinal example, I think there was some criticism to go around. People who expressed displeasure with its invocation in the room didn't do so in a great way, IIRC. (A great way would be one that makes clear the discomfited one assumes that the poster wasn't trying to do any harm to anyone and that explains in reasonable terms why they thing that shouldn't be included in this room (hint: there's a meta.se post about how Be Nice applies even to celebrities).)
Then the reception that an inarticulate expression of "can you not" got continued a downward spiral. Again, this is just to…

3:27 PM

(reviewed latest transcript, whew!) think nitusa60 has a point about flags. the way to to see them is that they correlate with borderline content. there seems to be black and white thinking about flags on both sides. flags are not a perfect mechanism nor can they be. individual chat lines are not entirely harmful or harmless. as for BaSe/ 0celo7 being annoyed about "invalid flags" it seems likely they are not being flagged consistently by particular individuals...

2

have pointed this out before, this reminds me of (controversies over) flags thrown in sports competitions that are long challenged/ contested. some quite legendary...

3:42 PM

as for building up consensus in the room about off-topic/ borderline content, that is hard, but did see some "ganging up" against JEE dialogue once.

4:37 PM

@vzn I have been flagged consistently by particular individuals before, in fact. Or so shog9 told us when he came to the chat a couple months ago.

Flags are not a perfect mechanism but surely they can be made better (whether or not SE wants to put effort in it is a different question)

1 hour later…

5:57 PM

@BalarkaSen but think it makes little sense to assume "they" are continuing to do so unless you tend to get flagged in the presence of certain individual(s), in which case it might make sense to just avoid them. flags are all that is available and maybe it makes sense to try to deal with their nature/ occasional arbitrariness.

3 hours later…

8:36 PM

@vzn That wasn't my claim :P

My claim was simply that flags can and are used for ulterior motives, and in fact such was the case when the flagger flagged my message. I attempted to prove that by posting consequent messages which weren't flag-worthy in my opinion, and observing that they got flagged.

It's hard to explain all the chain of events to someone who wasn't present. You should carefully read the transcript of the conversation here and of what happened before engaging.

9:35 PM

@BalarkaSen the mods are asking not to screw with the flag system. eg baiting others to flag you "falsely". if ("only") your opinion could be relied on what is "flag worthy" then youd never get flagged. flagging is in the eye of the beholder, get it? its a feature, not a bug

@vzn I can't parse what you just said.

Flagging is not in the eye of the beholder. The phenomenon of what can be offensive or not is. But going from there to simply flagging the message has a global, totally not relative consequence.

Which is precisely why it's too much power for an individual user.

@BalarkaSen its subjective by users but as weve noticed mods tend to give a lot of "benefit of the doubt" to flaggers. focusing on existence of "false positives" does not endear the mods. as the mods point out, many rooms dont see much flags, even with significant chat activity.

Yes, and that's precisely what I was arguing against.

@BalarkaSen you/ 0celo7 seem to be focused on this idea of "flag abuse" but it doesnt seem to really occur anywhere.

Just because it doesn't occur in "many rooms" doesn't imply it doesn't occur in mathematics or hbar. I don't see your logic; what is your statistics for saying that it doesn't occur anywhere?

None of us have seen the flag analytics/studied it.

9:42 PM

@BalarkaSen the mods, with lots of experience, are saying it (flagging!) tends to happen in "problematic rooms" & think its a nearly a conspiracy theory to imagine there are problematic flaggers. this observation/ assertion is not inconsistent with my long chatting experience...

Consistent flag abuse has happened multiple times in mathematics and hbar. Just count the number of times there have been messages posted by the mods saying "Don't flag non-offensive messages" in both rooms and the number should be clear.

@vzn How do you determine if problematic flaggers cause a room to be problematic, or problematic room hones more flags?

@BalarkaSen seems its possibly new users (each time) who dont know the rules. but that fits in with what mods are saying: be (esp) careful about new users. + help educate them on the rules. etc

The implication can go both ways. The culture in Mathematics is fairly peaceful, but there is a certain proportion of trolls and hacks who like to hijack conversations by flagging relentlessly.

I think it's a general consensus among the whole active populace of the room. Just go and ask them.

hard for me to imagine any benefit by flagging except for what its intended, again sounds a bit )( like a conspiracy theory...

schadenfreude

9:47 PM

^

sorry not following...

@vzn That's literally why we are advocating discourse before anonymous flagging. If you flag we have no way of knowing whether you are new or old, genuine or a troll.

ok, thats a theory that someone is in the room who isnt even chatting, and then they flag, but it sounds unlikely/ implausible to me...

Your argument seems to be limited to "this sounds unlikely to me", which I am afraid is no argument at all.

So I am going to stop engaging.

@BalarkaSen you havent established much motive. have not encountered (nameless/ new) chatters who are consistently intentionally disruptive as you seem to claim, who just want to "sow chaos."

10:04 PM

anyway, wrt your concerns, another way of phrasing "be nice" might be, "try not to make enemies..." o_O

« first day (1477 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2212 days later) »

Transcript for

Apr '1811

Backup Room – The h Bar

A backup room for when The h Bar is busy. (chat.stackexchange....

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile