Recently I was struggling with a problem so I asked for help from two people. 1st from Blue . I talked to him before and he is nice dude ready to help. Then I saw semiclassical who is also cool and very active on math chat. He helped me so many times (just some proof) before also in math chat so I thought he can help me now too.

But as soon as I tagged him moderator ACM (a cruel man) started ping me and say don’t ping “RANDOM PEOPLE” for help.

I want say please stop that if you don’t know who are my friends. They were not random. I know there are people who don’t like helping me and I didn’t tagged any of them from that 1st warning.

The thing is is acm mod is so rude in chat. I know this post will get many downvotes and all but look what happen next.

One person asked why I was banned in chat to which acm replied it doesn’t matter to him. If it didn’t mattered to him he would have not texted that sentence. Well I guess if you get banned then nobody will know what happened to you because moderator will do what looks right to them.

Also I wanted to put link of chat where someone said only qmechanic is deserving moderator. Guess someone deleted it. We will never know.

I have seen bad behaviour of him before too. He get support from his friends so he never care what other people has to say.

So what I want? I want to say give less powers to mod (especially acm), or at least 1 other mod should agree with him.

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I understand your pov. However, have you considered the fact that maybe ACM is a bit harsher towards you than the other regulars because you react extremely negatively to criticism? Telling someone to "stfu" and trying to hurt them using thinly veiled attacks such as this, in response to a somewhat harsh-sounding but definitely-not-rude instructions, is way off the line! Using thinly veiled attacks is one of the most disgraceful ways to behave. If you can't stand someone just use the Ignore button or take a break! $\endgroup$ – S.D. Sep 6 '18 at 16:54
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I'm applying the status-declined tag because based on prior experience with this kind of thing, I'm pretty sure there are not going to be any changes made to how moderation works on the basis of this question. $\endgroup$ – David Z Sep 6 '18 at 20:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ So what's the bad behavior? That someone banned you from chat for your inappropriate behavior? How is that bad? $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Sep 6 '18 at 23:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ACM's message telling you to stop pinging users was a polite one, and it could be positively taken as a constructive reminder, rather than a threat. I've seen him say that to people before and it is often appreciated. If you say you're familiar with Blue and semiclassical, the appropriate way you could have responded would have been something like "Sure ACM, but I know those guys and they usually help me. I'll make sure I don't ping random people." $\endgroup$ – user191954 Sep 7 '18 at 11:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Since vote counts aren't visible to everybody (and since it's meta you can't look at the OP's rep history) but this post seems kind of controversial, I think it's appropriate to mention that right now, there are 5 upvotes and 12 downvotes. $\endgroup$ – user191954 Sep 8 '18 at 8:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If I might ask, are you from China? I'm asking mostly because it seems like this may be an issue of cultural misunderstanding, i.e. you may be experiencing a bit of culture shock. $\endgroup$ – Nat Sep 8 '18 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ @nat India (it's also in my profile) $\endgroup$ – Fawad Sep 8 '18 at 15:57
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For the record: unless you have personally met ACM, suggesting ACM is cruel is quite inappropriate. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Sep 12 '18 at 15:51

The offensive comment from Fawad has been deleted, but as a room owner I can see it and I can confirm that Fawad told ACuriousMind to shut the fuck up.

I think Fawad should consider himself very lucky not to be banned for an extended period.

  • $\begingroup$ No, I am fawad and I disagree. I didn’t said that. I used acronym. Also read what I commented on acm answer $\endgroup$ – Fawad Sep 6 '18 at 16:44
  • 23
    $\begingroup$ @Fawad stfu means shut the fuck up. Using the acronym is just as offensive as typing it out in full. Frankly, if I were a moderator you'd be looking at a 30 day suspension. You may think ACM's comment was unjustified, but regardless of this your response was unacceptable and I think you've got off very lightly. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Sep 6 '18 at 16:51
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ @Fawad All that says is that you shouldn't tell people to shut up either. What you said is worse than just saying "shut up"; which is already an offense. This is what John seems to be getting at. $\endgroup$ – JMac Sep 6 '18 at 18:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnRennie You should put some quotes around that stuff in the answer. I was very surprised that you were employing such language until I saw the real transcript. $\endgroup$ – user191954 Sep 7 '18 at 12:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Unbelievable that even after admitting to using a rude acronym the OP is still debating the issue and actually wants to change the site rules on this basis. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Sep 8 '18 at 8:20
  • $\begingroup$ @zerothehero read comments on ACM answer $\endgroup$ – Fawad Sep 8 '18 at 13:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Fawad With due respect I really don’t know where you are is going with this. Pointing to others using insults (in other chat rooms) does not excuse a person from using insults. This is an occasion to simply recognize that different communities have different standards, and I have to say that I found the reported language (in acronym form or in its explicit version) to be completely unacceptable; I wish all moderators in all chatrooms would take immediate action when this kind of language is used. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Sep 8 '18 at 15:00
  • $\begingroup$ @zerothehero look I used acronym to be angry but polite. (My mother tongue is not English so I learn so much from internet only) .I never saw restrictions on using those words anywhere so I didn't knew how offensive it is. 1•Here acm banned only because he can.(you can't disagree here because previously people did used full form in chat without getting baned)2•he didn't gave reasons to my other friend who wanted to know why I got banned. Look I'd you get banned someday then your friends will never know why because ACM don't think your friends need to know. $\endgroup$ – Fawad Sep 8 '18 at 15:42
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Fawad I fail to believe that you picked up the acronym without knowing what it contains, even if you learned it on the internet. You should also know that acronyms don't make rude stuff polite: I'm in India too and I see acronyms in Kannada (which I can't read) and Hindi (which I can read) everywhere. You should also know what stfu expands to and it's expected that you know the meaning of the words you use, wherever you learned them. $\endgroup$ – user191954 Sep 8 '18 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Chair lol I know what it expands to. In before sentence I used lol which means laughing out loudly. But I just chuckled not laughed loud. Similarly I used stfu without really trying to abuse him but to express my little anger towards him. Hope is clarifies. $\endgroup$ – Fawad Sep 8 '18 at 16:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Fawad And if you are expressing your anger, that's more than enough justification for a ban. You need to first assume good intentions (that was my favorite part of our old Be Nice policy) and justify your disagreement. If you do that, it's difficult to not sound polite. $\endgroup$ – user191954 Sep 8 '18 at 17:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That message was a result. It is highly culture- and context-dependent, how strong is it. In the SE customs, if someone says this, it is the kiss of death. @Fawad the SE works on a way, that harassment is roughly free (at least, against you), but if you say some such this, you will be the bad guy from that point on the spot, independently from the case. You want answers to physics questions, then ask them on the main site. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 8 '18 at 23:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Fawad The original problem was that you pinged random people with your chat questions. This is a border case, if no one flags your comments. If flags, then get back and remain below the radar. There are things what are so or so tolerated, until you don't make a habit from them, so don't make a habit from them. And try pay the System with so many (positive) main site activity as you can. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 8 '18 at 23:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Fawad What you could see here: it is debatable, if pinging many people with your questions in chat is okay or not. But from the point that you used the f-word, no one is interested in this, only you are the bad guy because you used the f-word. So don't use the f-word any more, and do similar pings rarely. Without using the f-word, your case would be well defendable (although the likely result would be that the mod has right, from the other side a short chat suspension was a very little punishment). $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 8 '18 at 23:45
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Fawad I do not accept you "writing the acronym to be polite" because I don't think you were trying to be polite at all. You know that acronyms don't make things polite in any language. Judging by your reaction here and your refusal to look at ACM's message as a positive reminder, you deserve a much longer chat ban. $\endgroup$ – user191954 Sep 9 '18 at 3:18

For the record:

I asked you to not ping users in chat who hadn't shown any indication of being interested in being pinged by you:

Please do not ping random users in an attempt to get a question answered. If someone wants to answer your question, they will do so on their own. -- link to transcript

The (currently) four stars on the message suggest that other users present in the room shared the sentiment. You chose to respond to this by telling me, among other things, to "stfu". This is not acceptable behaviour (to be clear: what's not acceptable is telling other users to shut up in a rude manner, not the mere usage of the acronym) and earned you a short suspension from chat for rudeness.

And that's all that happened.

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I already said they were not just random people. Those 4 stars I already mentioned your friends always support you. I used “stfu” acronym because I wanted to be polite but angry at same time (maybe my vocabulary is weak to express anger). You didn’t addressed why you didn’t answered when ABCD want to know suspension reason. $\endgroup$ – Fawad Sep 6 '18 at 16:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I am well aware of not pinging random people who don’t like helping (my early chat in math.se room has a message with 13 stars for asking not to pinging random people.) $\endgroup$ – Fawad Sep 6 '18 at 16:37
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ @Fawad If you wanted to be "polite but angry at the same time", then you definitely should not have used the "stfu" acronym, because that acronym is very rude. $\endgroup$ – Tanner Swett Sep 6 '18 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ @TannerSwett I don’t know I learned those words from Internet. I don’t see restrictions using those words. $\endgroup$ – Fawad Sep 6 '18 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ @blue chat.stackexchange.com/… $\endgroup$ – Fawad Sep 6 '18 at 17:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @blue no you didn’t read all comments. Few texts are here here and here $\endgroup$ – Fawad Sep 6 '18 at 17:12
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ @Fawad Finding instances of other users being rude across the network does not make it any more acceptable. That there are cases where users were not admonished for being rude is completely irrelevant here. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Sep 6 '18 at 17:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ just agree you have power to ban others so you have banned me. I would have stopped if you just deleted my comment with a comment. That’s what I am asking in my question, atleast one more mod should agree before banning users. I want that feature. $\endgroup$ – Fawad Sep 6 '18 at 17:19
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @Fawad You can always try to propose that on the main meta then; but I doubt you would get much traction. I don't think they want to be left high and dry if another moderator isn't online. Just because you don't agree with a moderators actions; doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to moderate. $\endgroup$ – JMac Sep 6 '18 at 18:20

Mods are not always against you, even if it looks so on the first spot.

Mods are held on a short leash by the SE. Most likely he couldn't do too much wrong against you, even if he would want. The rules of the site are binding for him just as for you.

What you confronted is imho not the cruelty of a single person, but the general antagonism of the whole system. Of course, people accustomed to it, even liking and driving it, feel themselves much better in it, than we.

This is not an SE-specific problem. Since the Internet exists, so is it going everywhere. The SE is actually not so bad1 - but only for the people learned it and can defend themselfes.

For example, I can say this to you publicly and nothing will happen, except that I get some downvotes which have zero effect to my reputation.2

There are two important things what makes the SE different:

  1. Here you can get answers from real, hardcore professionals.
  2. You can defend yourself against the "good old boys".

The important thing is that you have to learn the "etiquette" here.

I think your this meta post was a good start, despite its false assumptions.

In your specific case: it is quite possible that some people you pinged, or who has seen that you are pinging others, actually flagged your comments. If a mod intervenes, it is very likely, that he is doing it because you were flagged. The problem is that from this point it is the mods decision, how does he handle an event - but all what he does, leaves a trace. Just as everything what you post, has a trace even if you deleted it. If there are no flags, the mod has the option to close his eyes, but if there are, something he has to do.

It happened to me many times3 that a mod intervened against me, while it was clear to me that he is doing it against his best opinion. The real cause of the trouble was the person who flagged my post. Try to not take the mods into such situations.

The mods can see who flagged what, but they are not allowed to talk about it. Even that is a border case, if a post was flagged or not. Furthermore, mods are not allowed to talk about, who is banned and why. It is very important, never talk about induvidual suspension cases.

The result is, for example, ACM might defend that "X flagged your comment because you annoyed him" (if it so happened), but he can't do because he is not allowed to explain this. The result is that now you are attacking him and he could defend himself, but he is not allowed to. It is another problem what you should try to avoid, try to not get them into such situations.

The community is sometimes more antagonistic, particularly against new users, as it would be reasonable. But acting too harshly against some wonderful contributors would be clearly irrational; the system is not tuned against you, it is tuned for to motivate you to provide the best possible content what you can. Thus, if an awesome contributor is maybe too antagonistic with you, the best if you try to ignore/tolerate him on the meta/chat. Instead, read his main site posts. Learn physics from him. I think there is the optimum.

You are not fighting a person, you are fighting a system, and its bad aspects are the property of the internet communities in general, and not of the SE or this specific mod.

Mods have also a mediator feature. Many times if a mod warns, he actually tries to mediate between you, and the flaggers. Furthermore, he won't be ever able to understand everything what is in your mind, and what is in theirs. It is crucial to help him to understand, what are you doing and why. The other side does the same, don't allow that they can explain him their views, but you don't do it with yours!

The site is driven by free contributions, everybody is writing questions and answers for free here. If a hardcore contributor dislikes you, then you are in the weaker position and you have to accustome to that (what doesn't mean that the system isn't defending also you - only it defends them more).

1For example, in a facebook-group, you could have got a permanent banning from the whole group. Without any reasoning. From that, you couldn't have even read the site. The FB does it while the mean quality level of their content would be deleted on the SE in minutes as VLQ. Here you got a short chat suspension, and you can publicly challenge the mod for his decision.

2Don't worry on meta downs, they are always coming and have actually no effect.

3Not on the PSE.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +1. I see no reason why this answer should be negatively voted. The other answers make it clear how and why OP's behavior was unacceptable while this addresses the events leading up to it. $\endgroup$ – Devashsih Kaushik Sep 9 '18 at 17:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DevashishKaushik :-) It happens always so. The final score of this post will be likely around -20, the most downs will arrive tomorrow, and also many attack will come, in comments. They will try to somehow "prove" that I violated same rules, I was insulting or destructive or similar. It is also possible, that the post will be deleted by community votes. I've got already a serial down, too, obviously for this post. But IMHO the only what it shows that yes, there is a big need to help the newbies having similar problems. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 9 '18 at 17:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DevashishKaushik it's downvoted because it's mostly a non sequitur and very likely a complete fabrication of the events leading to the chat suspension. Peter's posts on Meta are frequently downvoted because they are generally similar to this (unrelated driveling & fabrication of reality to fit Peter's frame). $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Sep 9 '18 at 23:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos You can call them as you wish; however I think they are not a bad model of the reality, particularly if we compare it to the alternatives (which are typically focusing on the serious wording of the OP, and tend to neglect the original cause of the events). $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 9 '18 at 23:22
  • $\begingroup$ @peterh you are once again misreading the entirety of my comment to piece out a partial phrase. I know English isn't your first language, but you really need to try harder to comprehend the actual argument when trying to disagree with someone. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Sep 9 '18 at 23:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos This part: "unrelated driveling & fabrication of reality to fit Peter's frame" makes for me hard to follow, what could be other important arguments in your comment, but I am still trying. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 9 '18 at 23:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yeah... some of this answer contains some statements about moderation that are misleading, or perhaps outright false depending on how they're supposed to be interpreted. For example, "mods are held on a short leash by the SE" is a somewhat subjective statement, and one could make an argument for it being true, but I think it'd be a bit of a stretch. Also, AFAIK there's no network-wide rule that moderators are not allowed to talk about who flagged what, or about individual suspension cases; these are policies that the Physics mod team has adopted for ourselves because we find them useful. $\endgroup$ – David Z Sep 10 '18 at 5:09
  • $\begingroup$ That being said, other parts of this answer are valid and good advice. For example, we do expect people to learn the etiquette of the site. It's also true that the community can be antagonistic to new users. To some extent, this is a natural consequence of new members posting poorly-researched questions, but whenever it crosses the line into rudeness, that's not okay. $\endgroup$ – David Z Sep 10 '18 at 5:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Chair Their another reason is that typically we can't delete most of our questions, even if they are downvoted, while we can delete most of our answers. If you get a serial down, never let is without answer. At least flag it (I flag on the last post). The mods typically can't/won't do too much in a single case, but you don't know, what other flags they get, and if there is some extraordinary, they will act. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 10 '18 at 10:27
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know if this answer is formatted very well, but there are some good points scattered about. I think one of the big issues with "antagonism" relates to how new users approach the site as much as it relates to experienced users. The attitude of the posts plays a huge factor. A poorly copied textbook question will most likely get a lot less helpful reaction than a well-researched but ultimately off-topic question. Along that same theme, how you handle the community response is one of the most important factors. If you're willing to accept the advice from the community and take... $\endgroup$ – JMac Sep 10 '18 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ ... criticism lightly, it's really not that hard to figure out what works well and what doesn't here. It becomes a lot more problematic when you aren't willing to see the other side of the problem, and double down on the notion that the site is at fault; not a particular users compatibility with the site. $\endgroup$ – JMac Sep 10 '18 at 15:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JMac If you see the events with the eyes of the OP, I think his concept that ACM is coming from the nothing and tries to - successfully - suppress him, is very realistic. Furthermore, this phobia against some words, while ignoring the real events, is also harmful. For example, this comment was imho far worse than a short sentence with an f-word. Others see that differently, the majority of the SE network see that oppositely, and I adapt to it. I also tried to help the OP to adapt it. $\endgroup$ – peterh Sep 11 '18 at 18:23
  • $\begingroup$ @peterh The problem is, I'm seeing a lot of "victim complex" wrapped up in this. Some users are more blunt than others, and sometimes you fall on the bad side of luck and get hit with a blunt response that you take personally. Another example of that is even your response to me. We have an instance where someone says something they shouldn't have, and got punished. You're bringing up examples of other people saying things they shouldn't and not getting punished. I don't think that's overly relevant, because things get missed. The lack of action doesn't mean his comments are okay... $\endgroup$ – JMac Sep 12 '18 at 20:19
  • $\begingroup$ ... it just means that no one noticed and/or was able to take action. It's the same thing with trying to show other instances of bad chat behaviour. Other people behaving badly doesn't make your own bad behaviour acceptable. Sometimes people take things really personally, when it's often due more to coincidence. $\endgroup$ – JMac Sep 12 '18 at 20:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .