-1
$\begingroup$

enter image description here

It was an honest question, and I know Bernardo takes the issue very seriously.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'd be interested in seeing the answer to this question as well. $\endgroup$ – heather May 30 '17 at 15:53
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I fail to see why the question should not have been deleted. It is not worded such that a constructive answer can be given. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer May 30 '17 at 16:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JonCuster It is something that I would like to see discussed at Bernardo's AMA, which I cannot attend because I was suspended. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Unger May 30 '17 at 16:21
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I dare you to 'correctly phrase a consistent rule' of what is offensive. Context, connotation, denotation, and intent are all a part of using language, and all conspire to make it impossible to make a uniquely deterministic rule of what is offensive. Heck, look on StackOverflow to see deep discussions of how a compiler should behave in certain cases - and computer languages have (nominally) none of the complexities of real human languages. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer May 30 '17 at 23:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JonCuster Moderators from other sites should not invade foreign chats and put language bans in place. Beyond that, I have no interest in deciding what is "offensive" or not. (The term in question did not violate the Be Nice policy.) $\endgroup$ – Ryan Unger May 30 '17 at 23:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And I don't understand the hostility from you, I don't even know you. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Unger May 30 '17 at 23:32
  • $\begingroup$ True, you don't. Yet you jumped to 'hostility' for pointing out issues with your deleted question and comments (the one asking for a policy on offensive) that you set out to the whole Physics SE community. Interesting... $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer May 31 '17 at 0:29
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @JonCuster "I dare you" is hostile. $\endgroup$ – Ryan Unger May 31 '17 at 0:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No, the 'dare' is a challenge based on things like Goedel's completeness theorem to uniquely and precisely delimit the use of human language. It cannot be done. You asked for the impossible in your comment to your deleted question. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer May 31 '17 at 0:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ocelouvskypoulo7 I just wanted to point out something regarding this. Yeah, it is true that "it" is not a "living thing". But the second part of your statement is false. You can't be disrespectful against (or atleast show your disrespect publicly) because that "thing" is intricately associated with the lives of many people. It is similar to saying things along the lines of "Your car is garbage". Insults don't always have to directed at a person for it to be offensive. Overall, I feel the ban/deletion was justified. $\endgroup$ – user139621 May 31 '17 at 7:27
12
$\begingroup$

Such hyperbolic language, i.e. "censorship, political correctness, and moderator brutality", isn't appropriate on this site. If someone used that type of language directed at a non-moderator, it'd probably lead to an immediate suspension for violation of the "be nice" policy, on at least points 1 and 2, if not also 3. (This is rude and belittling [point 1], doesn't assume good intentions [point 2], and arguably counts as being a jerk [point 3], though I could see that last one being debatable.)

We usually go a little easier on these things when they're directed at moderators in their official capacity, so e.g. we might hold off on the immediate suspension, but that doesn't make it perfectly okay. Given the inappropriateness of the content, the post doesn't belong here. You should take that as an implicit warning not to post that sort of thing.

If you really do believe that there is censorship, political correctness, and moderator brutality happening in the chat... well, generally speaking, if conditions in a community are that bad, I'd say the thing to do is leave. But if you would rather try to resolve the issue and continue to participate, there are ways of doing that too. What you need to do is have a constructive discussion with the people who you have your complaint with, i.e. the moderators and possibly SE staff. Just as with asking questions on the site, you have to come with the attitude of wanting to understand why things are happening the way they are, rather than wanting to lash out at other people. It's also possible to effect change this way, but you have to come with clear suggestions, and be open to the possibility that there might be reasons your suggestions can't be implemented.

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

This is really a comment, but it got a bit long for the comment box.

The going in point that everyone needs to understand is that the chat rooms are not a bastion of free speech and you have absolutely no rights there. The chat rooms are provided (for free) by the Stack Exchange, and what they say goes. If you are suspended by a community moderator then you have no recourse because, well, it's their playground and their word is final. You may consider that an intolerable restriction, and if so don't use the SE chat system. It is as simple as that.

The SE have also made it perfectly clear that when it comes to the chat rooms the moderators (all the moderators) act as their lieutenants and with their authority. So if a moderator asks you to stop doing something then you stop - with no arguments. If the moderator is willing to discuss the matter then you can certainly discuss it with them, but the going in point is that you do what the moderators say. Again, if you don't like this then once again don't use the SE chat system.

As for exactly why your answer was deleted, well I'm not a moderator and I'm not privy to the moderator discussion areas. However it seems fairly obvious you are attempting to derail the discussion away from physics/maths/technology to the chat room policy. Since, as explained above, that policy is dictated from on high all this could possibly do is result in a round of futile spleen venting.

If you take a step back and look at it the Stack Exchange policy is understandable. They are a commercial organisation and they need to make money from the site. For this they want lots of activity on the main sites to impress the advertisers, and it's only worth investing in the chat if it furthers this goal. If their view is that the chat system is attracting disruptive elements who don't contribute to the main site than they'll remove anyone they deem to be a disruptive element, or in extreme cases permanently close the chat room (as happened to the SF chat room).

A quick footnote:

I see this answer has attracted a downvote, but I'm not expressing an opinion here. I'm just stating the facts. I don't see how you can disagree, and therefore downvote, unless you think my statement of the facts is wrong, and in that case please add a comment explaining where I'm wrong and why.

You may not like this answer but the SE make the rules and they didn't consult me, or indeed our moderators, before making those rules.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've always been curious about where people get the idea that any Stack Exchange site is a free-speech filled democracy. Any time there are issues regarding moderation or policies or even features, people seem to feel like they have more rights and influence than they actually do. I wonder if there are ways to make it more clear how it really works, or if part of the appeal is the perception and it's better left unsaid until somebody bumps against the edges of what is okay. Anyway, your answer is spot on, whether people like it or not. $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 May 31 '17 at 8:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @tpg2114 I think this answer sums it up well. I agree. $\endgroup$ – user139621 May 31 '17 at 8:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @blue That's an interesting read and mirrors what John said here -- with which I agree also. But the fact that post is from 2011 and we still, repeatedly, have conversations about "democracy" and "freedom" of the community means that message isn't being communicated effectively. It would be interesting to try and track down why people think the site is different from reality, and whether clearly stating reality helps or hurts participation. On the other hand, I'm sleep deprived so maybe it isn't that interesting of a topic after all! $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 May 31 '17 at 8:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The reason folks keep discussing it is that there is a great deal of, uh, "collective autonomy" on these sites, @tpg2114. Y'all decide what questions you want, which answers are allowed, who gets to wear the moderator hat, etc. - if there was an overwhelming consensus here that homework questions would only be allowed on Tuesdays when containing green-colored formulas, you could make that happen. Problem is, some folks forget where that autonomy ends. $\endgroup$ – Shog9 May 31 '17 at 21:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Shog9 I feel like that post just muddies the waters. The bit about not viewing policies as edicts from on high (granted, it does say not all policies) makes it really unclear about what is or is not okay for local communities to change. It sounds like some people think chat room policies can be localized and then get upset when people outside come and enforce the "edict on high." But maybe chat can't be localized? Be nice seems to always be a rule that can't be overridden, but some sites go further than others so it is still localized a bit. Is there a list of absolute musts somewhere? $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 May 31 '17 at 22:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Read to the end of that answer, @tpg2114. We're here to do Q&A. Anything that hurts doing Q&A is a problem. We're not here to run chat services - chat's just here to facilitate the people keeping Q&A going. So for example, if you're spamming your question in chat instead of asking it on main, that's a problem. If you're driving away folks from Q&A with your behavior in chat, that's a problem. Chat - like comments, review, meta, and everything else that isn't a useful answer to a practical question - are ultimately expendable. Practical questions & useful answers are the "absolutely must". $\endgroup$ – Shog9 May 31 '17 at 22:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Shog9 Great point, I didn't read all the way though the first time because I was reading while LaTeX was compiling... $\endgroup$ – tpg2114 May 31 '17 at 22:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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