@MartinSleziak I posted a question on Meta Stack Exchange about this: Why is the user who ended a bounty shown in SEDE differently from the timeline and the revision history?

@T.S Please, raise a flag.

@AloizioMacedo I don't see it necessary to delete my comments. Subsequent users have handled that post anyway. Just a reminder that the problematic vandalism by the exact same user was reported on meta before.

@AloizioMacedo Thanks for the response! I have added this information in the question: meta.stackexchange.com/posts/347671/revisions

Hi, @AloizioMacedo! Hope all is well.

@AloizioMacedo It is okay to appear friendly once in a while.

@amWhy Yes, I am fine, thanks. I am a little worried for my relatives and some friends in my home country, though. The situation is somewhat unstable there. I hope everything is well with you and where you live, too.

@AloizioMacedo I am glad you are fine, and I will hope for the best for your family and friends. Thanks, I am well, and so far, those I care about most are doing well.

@AloizioMacedo I've only seen briefly T.S's message before I had to go, but I think I still got an idea about it. Can you perhaps explain why did you remove the message? I agree that in that case a flag is appropriate, but I don't understand what was wrong with it being also here in this room (if this is also not to be discussed here then I can flag).

@Zacky Users calling for moderation attention regarding other specific users in chat/public venues is something that is frowned upon. It is needless exposure at best, there are some potential underlying ethical issues, there is also precedent that this is a bad practice which is prone to conflict with no benefit etc.

@Zacky The chat system is more or less independent of the main site(s). A user who has been suspended on the main site may still chat (unless they are also banned from chat).

@AloizioMacedo public venues also includes the math meta site right? If I see such things should I flag and explain the situation? There of course many instances where this happens (that is, even though it does not directly name the troublesome user, it's still easy to deduce who's the specific user).

Furthermore, how should this be interpreted: "For informal chat with the site moderators about moderation, spam, troublesome users and other issues you need ♦ input on."?

@XanderHenderson Yes, that's what I suspected too and that's what I asked if the ban automatically translates to the chat. Do you have any references (perhaps a meta post) about the independence between the site and the chat?

@Zacky Honestly, I am not entirely familiar with the intricacies of the chat system and the distinctions it makes for users. If I understand things correctly, a site suspension extends to chat (all chats) if that suspension is in that user's parent site. If not, then the person is not suspended from any chat. I don't know if a chat suspension extends to all chats (I think it does), but it does not suspend a user on any site. A chat suspension can also be made by moderators from other sites.

At some degree, moderators can then somewhat choose whether some user should be suspended from chat or not. But it is somewhat binary, if all I said is correct. (I.e., it is either all chats or none.) In fact, I think the system does not differentiate chats from each site at all. (Only the "big" meta chat, if I am not mistaken.)

I'd wait for confirmation regarding those things, though.

> If the user is suspended on their chat parent site, they will also be suspended on Stack Exchange chat (chat.stackexchange.com) for the same duration. Changing the chat parent site will not clear the suspension. (If the user is suspended on a site different from their chat parent site, they will not be suspended on Stack Exchange chat, but moderators have the ability to change the user's chat parent site so that they are suspended on chat.)

@Zacky If there is noone directly named, the situation is heavily contextual and less clear-cut. But if you think it is problematic, please flag it.

@Loong I have a bit of trouble understanding this: "If the user is suspended on their chat parent site", does that mean that the moderator can choose not to suspend the chat parent site when they suspend the account (on a specific site)?

You are automatically banned from chat if the main site you are suspended on is the parent site of your chat account.

Thanks for the explanation!

@Zacky Note that I'm saying "call for moderation attention". If someone directly names someone else to comment about their behaviour in a conversation in chat or meta, for example, this is not perceived as inherently problematic. (In main site it is most times off-topic, so flag those there.) This has been more-or-less indirectly discussed before. (Of course, it can end up being problematic nonetheless. If you think some situation like that is, then the same advice holds: flag it.)

@Zacky About suspensions in chat: Don't extend suspensions from the parent site to chat

For example, your chat profile shows Mathematics as the parent site. So you won't be able to chat if you get banned on this site. However, if you get banned on Physics, you'll still be able to chat. (Even in the rooms which are associated with Physics.)

Although I see that you've already been this - just with a different link.

@AloizioMacedo I see! But again I feel there's a small problem when it comes to this chatroom description, it says "For informal chat... about ... troublesome users". I feel like it gives the impressions that messages like the one that you removed is appropriate here. Or am I understanding incorrectly something?

@MartinSleziak it makes perfect sense.

@Zacky No, you are correct, it is an inconsistency. I'll talk to the other moderators about the description. Note that it was done some time ago.

@AloizioMacedo Okay, thanks for your time. Have a nice day!

@Zacky No problem. Have a nice day too.

@AloizioMacedo Re: your remark on "potential ethical issues". If you wish this room to be unbiased and welcome to all no matter their politics, then you should also delete the numerous ad hominem attacks above by Jyrki and amWhy (the flags were ignored), which, unlike T.S's event, are based not on facts but on (self-descried) narrative strawmen built over a decade. Honestly I am shocked that such personal attacks are allowed to stand in a mod room. What message does that send to the community?

@Zacky @T.S see above

@BillDubuque And, as you suggest, consistently, your ad hominem attacks against Jyrki, myself, other mods, other users, here and elsewhere, should likewise be deleted. After all, you are the king of such attacks. @Zacky, @T.S see above.

@amWhy Please don't post yet more false claims

@BillDubuque I see ad hominem attacks in all sides in the comments above. Surely suboptimal, but if one were to take the stance that ad hominems should not stand altogether, then this discussion (and others) would vanish entirely or have considerable holes as to make it not that much understandable.

@AloizioMacedo Unbelievable Do you seriously mean to condone personal attacks in this room?

By condone, do you mean approve? If so, then no, I don't approve of a lot of the comments above. If by condone you mean tolerate, then yes, if they don't escalate beyond some certain limits (like vulgar language etc).

@Bill When you engage in personal attacks, you can not thereby ask for mod action against those responding to your personal attacks. You show no more restraint, nor integrity, than those you want to penalize. Practice what you preach. (I think that should be sounding familiar to you by now).

@AloizioMacedo How would feel if - as above - Jryki posted a long list of unfounded accusations against you in attempt to greatly tarnish your reputation? And how would you feel if amWhy stalked you by replying to almost every comment that you write making false accusations and personal attacks? These unscrupulous techniques are used to smother rational discussion by political opponents. Left unchecked that's exactly what they achieve. It smears this room to allow such ad hominem to stand

I do not stalk, @AloizioMacedo. Saying I do, Bill smothers rational discussion. I do not make false accusations nor personal attacks here. Saying I do, Bill smears his own reputation and allows his ad hominem attacks against me to stand.

@Bill You are held accountable by the very standards you expect others to be held accountable. You have tarnished your own reputation, by your own actions. Don't blame others for doing that for you.

@AloizioMacedo And, shockingly, such attacks are continued to be allowed here by a user who is currently suspended on the main site for analogous unscrupulous behavior. If this room is only welcome to those of certain political views then please say so in the room description.

@BillDubuque Again, ad hominem attacks, @Bill, for reasons you do not have a clue about. You are an offender of the same unscrupulous behaviors, and you have a suspension record to show thus. And shockingly, you are continued to be allowed here with political views that offend the senses.

Currently, it is completely impossible for me to attempt to make a rational argument here without certain users strenuously attempting to divert the discussion to personal attacks. This makes the room completely disyfunctiuonal (see the prior comments by amWhy which prove my point). I think it is high time to open a meta thread on this topic.

@BillDubuque This room is dysfunctional to the extent you make it dysfunctional. You are not special, @Bill. Why can you do what you want others forbidden from doing?? You cannot make a rational attempt to justify why you should be allowed to make ad hominem attacks against others, but others cannot speak honestly and rationally about you??

@BillDubuque So, you think it would be better to not allow any ad hominem whatsoever to stand?

@AloizioMacedo Do you think it is constructrive to allow these personal attacks? Moreover there is strong bias in that those whose views are in favor with mods are allowed to get away with much more. Many users have been suspended for far less vicious personal attacks than those posed by Jyrki and amWhy above.

Those personal attacks above, @Bill, include your own personal attacks against others, and include your personal attacks against mods. You are not exempt from bans and deletions you want rendered upon others .

@amWhy Please stop posting false claims. My (originall) arguments above were based on principles. The discussion changed to personal attacks only after you and Jryki started engaging in such.

@BillDubuque Please, answer my question. Regarding yours: compared to the alternative of removing all cases of personal attacks/ad hominems, yes. I can elaborate, but please answer the question I posed.

@AloizioMacedo Arguments should be based on principles - not ad hominem attacks.

I agree with that.

But that was not my question.

@AloizioMacedo What is your question?

Do you think it would be better to not allow any ad hominem whatsoever to stand?

@AloizioMacedo I think it is the job of moderators to do everthing possible to avoid such nonconstructive argumention - esp. when used in partisan manner

@BillDubuque Including yours, Bill? Your "principles" are ad hominems. I insist that my comments and Jyrki's were based on principles.

@amWhy Please stop the heckling.., argue based oin principles please.

@BillDubuque I am, far more than you are. "heckling", referring to my input, was an ad homnem. Stop the pretense that you are more principled than those you are biased against. Such political bias will be the ruin of this site.

@amWhy There will be no further replies to such nonsense.

@Zacky @T.S @Batominovski please see above.

@BillDubuque That's fine by me, @Bill. What is nonsense is your claim to be any more principled than your "political" opponents. At lease you admit to having a political bias, just as you accuse others of having.

@BillDubuque OK, but then you realize that it would be me (or another moderator) that would do such removal, correct? If I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), you think that some (most active?) moderators are biased. Do you think it wise to give to biased people the power to use something which can be quite subjective in order to remove comments when something contentious is being discussed?

@AloizioMacedo I expect moderators to strive inasmuch as possible to be unbiased -most esp. in matters like these. Are you not able to do so?

@BillDubuque You must then understand, that due to your personal biases, they can not be biased in conforming to only your biases?? Unfortunately, only those that support you and hate all those critical of you, in your mind, are unbiased. But that's not the reality. So be careful of what you ask for.

@AloizioMacedo Do you think is is ok to allow those who share your political views to bully those who don't in this room? This is precisely what is coccuring here - even as we speak.

@BillDubuque You do plenty of bullying against those who don't share your political views, in this room, and elsewhere. So, if you want deletions, say so, but your posts, and those you try to recruit, will go as well.

ok, ok, guys enough with the "bully" talk please

we're on the same team, remember?

:-)

@skullpatrol I am the least candidate for bully you will ever meet!

@skullpatrol All on the side of the Green Bay packers or the Raiders? Sure... I'm game! :-)

doubt there will be be any season this year :-(

for anyone

@skullpatrol I know :-( But we can still be fans, yes?!

every where

YES!!!

@skullpatrol You can follow chess (see "whatever, quid"!)

hmm

@skullpatrol It's actually kind of fun! (Same drama one sees in sports, more or less).

I'll check it out, thanks

@skullpatrol Thanks for breaking up the tension here, btw!

np, pal

@skullpatrol I like the new avatar/identicon, btw!

thanks

@BillDubuque I think I am. But I am a bad reference frame for that, and of course people can disagree. The outcome would be that, even if only due to statistics and not bias, there would be cases of comments removed from a discussion which you deem important and/or non-rude and that I (or other moderators) don't.

Note that we are talking about a contentious context, where these things (rudeness/ad hominems etc) will surface almost by definition. We are somewhat stringent with rudeness in the main site.

Another issue is that one can protect themselves against each other. There is not that much protection against an action of a moderator.

Can we all just come back to this another day, please?

(just an outsider's observation :-)

@amWhy Ugh... concussion ball. Can we just all agree to root for the Oakland A's, instead?

I'm up for the A's

and the Warriors

But you can't move a black hole, sorry.

COVID-19 is god's way of saying so

The Raiders are leaving Oakland? Oh, man! BART is going to be so much more pleasant in the future! :P

:D

→ 18 messages moved to Trashcan