@user21820 I have noticed that comments critical of one of the room's owners are being unstarred. If this room seriously intends to welcome the entire community then this it should not attempt to censor political views on the opposite end of the spectrum (of the owners)
Contrast that with many comments which are ad hominem attacks on those with opposing political views (e.g. by Jyrki), which frequently get highly starred (and never unstarred). Not much neutrality here, and not very welcoming to those who don't share the extreme views of the room's owners.
@QthePlatypus fyi: some of your comments above were in fact starred by other readers, but those stars have been removed by a room owner.
@BillDubuque This room's owners have diverse views (not extreme, contrary to your biased opinion), and I find your verbal attacks to be as personal as some others'. I looked at the last few starred comments by Jryki, and found the following:
@TheSimpliFire It is best to simply ignore Bill. He simply wants to continue reposting the same stuff ad infinitum, and chooses to call established policies "opinions". It's too bad, really, because he is capable of producing new content also.
@Bill You lost your diamond because you followed your private "Bill's way or highway policy".
For the first one, I agree that the first sentence can be considered to be a personal attack, whether it is true or not. I don't think I noticed it before, and have unstarred it.
For the second one, I don't know the facts, and it is a factual sentence, but it's off-topic for this chat-room. However, I noticed that it was after you said:
@JyrkiLahtonen That counts as the most preposterous claims I've read in a long time. Do you have amnesia? DId you forget all the meta arguments over the past decade?
Since you want to talk about "ad hominem", you should acknowledge that "Do you have amnesia?" counts.
If you have problems with other messages that I'm not aware of, simply flag them for moderator attention.
user131753
@BillDubuque It is a good thing that you brought it up.
@BillDubuque it'd be interesting to compare which positions have support by whom. Some of the fiercest supporters of not enforcing standards are at best at the fringes of the mathematical community.
@quid I have no idea what that vague remark means, or how it is supposed to be relevant to anything above. Please be more explicit: do you support said unstarring by room owners? If so this room cannot be considered as a room welcome to the entire community.
@user21820 Perhaps the room owners are dverse among the room owners, but they do not appear to be diverse among the broader community as a whole. In any case, the point raised has to do with unstarring comments, not diversity.
On the rest I did not follow up on the unstarring. Any specific examples? That said, while maybe not ideal there'd not be a particular problem with not every room being equally welcoming to every position.
@quid It's simple (and a courtesy) to preface your reply with "On the old topic of [foobar](link) ...." when you are jumping into the middle of another active discussion. But let's not digress on poorly designed chat software.
@BillDubuque I used the feature which automatically inserts this. Further, "Some of the fiercest supporters of not enforcing standards are at best at the fringes of the mathematical community." Is anyway providing context.
@user21820 I refererred to no specific ad hominem attack by Jyrki (there are many). That you chose to repeat some of these false, unfounded claims is quite rude.
@BillDubuque What nonsense are you talking about? I didn't repeat them. I quoted them so that I can specifically point out what I find problematic or not in them, agreeing with you that one of them should be unstarred.
If you want to point out more, go ahead instead of calling other people rude when they agree with you!
I know the difference between a statement and its quotation. And I am also tired. Have a good day.
@user21820 Let's be frank. Do you seriously wish to drive away anyone who does not share your political views? It sure seems like that. You unstar mild critiques of your behavior. but you rudely repost unfounded ad hominem attacks on those who don't share your views. That's among the most unwelcoming behavior I've ever enocountered in the many decades I've been on the net. Have you no empathy?
@quid There appear to be at least 2 of @QthePlatypus comments critiquing user21820 that have been unstarred. I've been watching such biased unstarring for a while. I don't know if you can see that being a mod.
@BillDubuque Not clear. Anyway some users might also consider what they star. In principle the idea is to star relevant information and not to (biasedly?) support one side of an argument.
@AlexanderGruber @quid @Loong: Just as I have unstarred Jryki's personal attacks, to be fair I should unstar Bill's (with the "Have you no empathy?") as well, but if I do so then he will accuse me of being biased! Please tell me whether such personal attacks are acceptable.
@quid There may be no choice but to create a more neutral room. But I'd first rather try to get folks here to be more understanding of other viewpoints, because compromises are easier to reach that way.
That's actually a recurring problem. Most of the vocal folks against moderation do not offer any positive alternative. For a small example, there are users that massively vote to leave open, if at least they would edit, I might have more sympathy. But they don't.
2
The behavior often comes of as destructive and egoistic.
Always a reason is found why improving something is not worth their while or should be done by somebody else etc.
And, in the rare case something is done, it's often under considerable pressure. In some sense confirming that the activity of closing and deleting does have merit in view of getting things improved.
Maybe those so keen on denouncing closing and deleting could actually start some positive activity.
3
I don't know like themselves locating not so great questions with good answers and improving those in good faith.
@quid But disagreeing on how one should moderate doesn't mean one is "against moderation". Having been a mod, I am of course empathetic of the innate difficulty of the endeavor. Like you I tried to understand all positions and find compromises. But that means one get attacked from both ends of the spectrum (vs, one), sigh. So it's much harder to be a middle-of-the-road moderator.
@user21820 Apologies, I never realized that "...have you no empathy" would casue great offense. What I meant was "can you not understand how this feels to someone whose views differ?". This is far from some of the things Jyrki said here (that got highly starred), such as accusing many prolific contributors (including I) of essentially being rep whores motivated by egotistical matters (even after I have patiently explained to him many times why this is false).
To add insult to injury he doesn't want to believe other's explanation about their motivations, replying with rude remarks like ("if it walks, quacks...). From my viewpoint it seems highly biased that such nasty unfounded perosnal attacks are allowed to stand here (and even get highly starred), while mild critiques on you get quickly unstarred. How is that fair?
If this room has any chance in hell to be welcoming to the entire community then this bias must be terminated.
@BillDubuque It seems you don't understand how your words make others feel, especially when you continue using inflammatory words instead of logically-reasoned arguments. As for personal attacks that got starred, I said already, feel free to flag, or point them out to me and I will handle them if others don't want to.
Iirc correctly on a couple occasions it required diamond mods to get some of Jyrki's attacks deleted. That shouldn't have been necessary if the room onwer(s) wwre more empathetic and understanding of other viewpoints.
@user21820 Well maybe Jyrki will enlighten us on the positive ways to view accusations of being rep whores motivated my egotistical concerrns, whose "quacks" are not believable. Until then I think most reasonable readers will rightly view such remarks as highly offensive and not constructive. That they got starred here is quite sad. That much milder critiques of you got unstarred (probably by you) is even more sad. I rest my case.
@quid What I care about here is having a room that welcomes everyone - in the hope that we can better understand each other. That may help us to reach better compromises and hence help the site to flourish once again.
