@quid I'll stick around this site until I get 200K total rep. Since you seem to agree I shouldn't review posts, and since CURED users are considered lepers on meta, (and penalized when running for a moderator position), and since everyone focused on only earning rep seems to be blessed by the mods, I'll focus on answering whatever, like the favored users do; after I earn 200K, I'll leave. Mods have reaped what they've enforced, and failed to enforce, ditto for CMs.

@amWhy if it is like this I'll strategically delete your content to keep you around. ;-)

Welcome to the site mods and CMs have created: a homework-service site, rewarding only those who answer everything, because they've effectively disabled those who'd try to keep the site in check.

@quid :P

Let's wait how the election goes. And I mean it is not as if Matt got huge support on meta.

@quid Lattes? Sure, I'll have one. Oh, maybe you meant "let's"? :P

@quid You beat me to it!! ;D

@amWhy yes almost. I need to be quick here. Deprived of my blue shine I cannot edit as I want.

@quid Ahh, good "experiment in losing a privilege" for you!

@quid Tell @user21820 that amWhy says "not all humans want to play with bots". In the election chatroom!

@amWhy Usually I could convoke them here but I cannot...

Tell them in the election chatroom on math.se, @quid. You can quote me!

@amWhy I conveyed the dissent.

@quid I just saw ;D I'm still not accustomed to the weird sound generated when pinged from meta.se!

@amWhy yes it does take some getting used to

@amWhy user21820 replied in my room; they have no meta account.

@quid Yes, I just saw, thanks.

@quid, until I can participate in math.se chats, I won't ask you to communicate anything. But the election chatroom, for this election, has gone out of control, for a number of reasons.

And if the powers that be decided the election bot was not worth having, I should be reinstated in chat.

@quid But that would never happen, because no mod from any site, who suspends any math.se chat user, and no mod on any site, and no CM, has ever admitted to a mistake and reversed a chat or site suspension. Just another reason it is time for me to move on. The powers that be seem to be required to never admit to making a mistake. Probably written in the fine print of every CM and moderator, before endowed with employment and/or mod powers.

@amWhy I do not follow.

It is perfectly possible to be right about something, but still go about it in a way that entails negative consequences. Like in the ends to not justify the means. I did not study the situation in detail. But I think this is what somewhat happened.

I added the "somewhat" since whether or not having the bot is a good idea is up for debate.

I understand why one can find the bot annoying; I already am annoyed a bit by it myself. But it is not necessary to escalate this into a problem.

Not last because the election chat-room is hardly ever an overly useful resource.

One more thing, regarding the bot, for all I know there is not much any decision taken either way. It was created by some users (recently?) for the SO election I think. Now, some user asked asked another user to bring it too that room.

@quid Since when does dissing a bot count as violating the code of conduct? The truth is, a couple of overly sensitive mods who don't have anything better do, because they moderate inactive sites, decided to strut in with their guns, likely because some users wrongly flagged me for being rude to a bot. That's impossible to do.

@amWhy being disruptive can be seen as a problem. The main issue then was the escalation.

Not all mods on all sites are created equal, and users confusing a bot with a real live human need a wake up call. But whatever... You always side with any power's decision over me. Kind of like police protect police, no matter what: (The blue code of silence...). That sort of behavior is childish, though you claimed yesterday you were a smart child.

@amWhy your reaction to the bot created also noise. It is not clear what exactly you wanted to achieve. Get rid of the bot? Prove that the bot is poorly programmed? What exactly was the goal?

@quid Who gets to define what is disruptive? I found the bot disruptive, and the main issue to me was the escalation in its disruptiveness.. Clearly, what I consider disruptive has never counted on math.se or se in general. So who gets to decide? The stupid, idle mods who have little to do? or the power hungry CMs who like to badger me?

@amWhy if you find the bot creates more noise than signal, you should've presented this in a calm and measured way.

@amWhy please refrain from using word like "stupid"

@quid And who presented me with the notion that I created more noise than signal? Why did the bot get more respect than me?

@amWhy the bot itself did not get any respect per se.

@quid You're just searching for things to pick on me for. Its okay. You're a kid in blue.

@amWhy no I am not.

You must not call others stupid.

Yeah you are. You always defend my attackers.

@amWhy no I recall basic rules.

@quid Right. Like "basic" rule #20,109: Treat all bots with respect. I would hope mods had some rule, say #99: treat (human) users with respect

@amWhy the issue was not the bot per se.

@amWhy yes, we do. I think it comes earlier than 99. :-)

I agree that this is an unfortunate situation @amWhy. Maybe a more deescalating approach by a moderator at the start should have been taken. But it is also a collective responsibility to keep things calm and constructive.

It is basically always a bad idea to escalate in the situation.

????

@quid That's been pretty clear to me.

@amWhy this is part of the problem. You can do that with me. But others might take this as insult.

@quid I think others escalated the situation just as much if not more than me, yet they have comfy appointments as staff of mods. I am the peon user, and so I was blamed for everything.

@amWhy admitting that for the sake of argument, this lends even more credence to my claim.

I take it as an insult when others treat me like they don't follow me.

@amWhy maybe I used a wrong idiom

I'm sorry @quid, but position should not dictate the direction of respect. Call me an idealist. Catija is a baby in terms of the time you and I've been on SE... I've been around long enough to know that one's position in power does not correlate with the respect one deserves.

@amWhy I do not find this constructive. I also find it unjust towards Catija.

You can delete that, to protect your damsel in distress, @quid.

@amWhy actually I cannot delete it.

@amWhy this rhetoric is also not acceptable.

@quid Well you read it, and you're the prince in shiny armor who protected that particular damsel in distress.

@amWhy it is not a question of protecting somebody, again, it is about what can and cannot be said. This style is not acceptable.

@quid Yeah, and the ongoing rhetoric about me on math.se and among mods is not acceptable to me.

@quid Then do something about the rhetoric used against peon users. Else your words about what is unacceptable apply only to some, but not all users, mods, and staff.

@amWhy then point out specific instances in a calm and measured way.

This is what I tried to say above.

If you feel treated in a problematic way, walk away, document the incidence, and then come back to it in a calm and measured way.

@quid But you didn't say that. You said only that my words are unacceptable.

@amWhy I said various things. I cannot say everything in one comment. :-)

@quid bullshit I've done plenty of that over the years. Both for CMs and for math mods.

@amWhy to be honest I would not recall many instances of that course of action.

What I do recall are varied confused situations, where various users did not act in a good way, and yes you received more than your fair share of the blame.

It is true that you are in a difficult situation.

@quid That's unfortunate that you claim to recall so few such circumstances. But it does not surprise me. I doubt you care much about the "difficult situation" I am in, because I know you believe i've brought all of it on myself. I don't think it's been all on me. Some on me, but not all on me. Anyway, I don't need your pity.

@amWhy I did not want to express pity but meant to express some empathy but it seems I did not manage to convey this well.

I do not believe what you attribute to me. Anyway, the situation is as it is. The question is what is a viable way to move forward and to mange it. And what I tried to do is sketch out what I think is a such a way. It also depends a bit on what your goal is. The advice is given under the premise that you want to continue to use the site and do so under acceptable conditions for you and others.

o/ @quid I don't think you give the best advice, @quid. And when you give it, you give it to me from a paternalistic stance. Why you and other mods and CMs can't treat me as a colleague, instead of as a lowly student...

...is beyond me.

@amWhy I try to give the best advice that I can. It might not be good at times.

I do try to treat you as a colleague.

@quid I appreciate the good intent, but you need to stop treating me like an inferior.

Actually, I do think you try, and often succeed. But most mods on math.se, and all CMs, treat non-mods/non-cms like naughty children or "good children", and it gets sickening.

@amWhy it is sometimes hard to distinguish between cause and effect, but I think it is also true that rarely but still at times you behave in ways that are just not those of a professional.

But instead you do fall into patterns that are those of children.

@quid That's true of you, too, @quid, and just about every mod, and surely also just about every CM.

@quid Thanks for the vote of confidence. You always do manage to bring things back to blaming amWhy. Cheers, @quid. You wanna lollypop?

@amWhy that's true too, at least for me. But I do not think it invalidates what I said.

@amWhy it is not so much blaming you but describing a situation.

Do you want me to give a specific example?

Go back to where you know your are feel you adored, and worshiped, because that's what you and other authoritarians want to be. And continue to suspend those who challenge you. That's SE, and mostly, that's math.se. You pretend to be humble, but you're not, @quid. You fake it, when handy and when it serves your purposes. But you are mostly a know-it-all, I-am-always-right, sort of person. I appreciated your attempts to feign humility in the past...

...but when push-comes-to-shove, you get downright mean in an attempt to prove you're right, even resorting to action to punish those who you think have wronged you. I guess that mean streak persists from MO, to this day. I don't like being played for a fool.

@amWhy the problem is not the challenging but the form in which it is done.

@quid And you always behave in good form????

@amWhy no I do not.

@quid Nor does anyone!! But some folks seem to be under a magnifying glass, while others are not.

There is spectrum though.

@amWhy I already acknowledge that this is the case.

@quid Right, but my spectrum is magnified, particularly because I am under a magnifying glass!

@amWhy yes.

I think it might be useful to try to move past this point. It is not something that can be changed, at least not short-term or mid-term.

@quid Given that, @quid. Why do you encourage me to stick around, when all the cards are stacked against me? I am not the user I once was, but I continue to be treated like that user.

@amWhy because I think that all things consider you still prefer being on the site to not being on the site.

@quid My conversation, at least in the last few comments, have not been about "this current situation." It did not surprise me, given the actors involved. But I am at a crossroads. And my preferences have never alone determined where I devote my services. I feel called to where I am needed. And where I can accomplish something. What do you think I get from this site? I don't chase rep, and haven't for five years. I get more criticism than praise. I'm not in it for my ego.

@amWhy I did not mean the particular incident either, but the fact that you are "under a magnifying glass"

...I've been in it because I once believed this site was worth investing my time into. But I am not entirely selfless, in that I do not take kindly to incessant digs, threats, criticisms, etc. Anyway @quid, this is likely something I'll have to figure out. The only real thing that has kept me here, are the social connections I've forged. That's IT.

@amWhy I think it might be best to take a selfish approach. Do what you enjoy doing on the site.

@quid Whatever happened to the SE philosophy that "once you've done your time" we assume you come back changed, and we wipe the slate clean."

@quid I wish Daniel Fischer would have been honest with me, in my first private chat with him in 2016. I could have spared myself four and a half years of pain.

@amWhy the problem starts when aspects of the same behavior resurface. Maybe less strong, less often, but still. Then the assumption is replaced by the believe that it is not the case. This is especially an issue with users that do not interact with you on a day to day basis.

@amWhy I don't know what exactly this refers to.

I think you should not try to prove something to anyone if this is the issue. Enjoy the site @amWhy, whatever exactly this means to you.

Different users enjoy different aspects.

Right, enjoy, because others' opinions of me will never change. It's okay, @quid. I do respect you a whole lot. But I feel duped, no matter how much I improve, because I nor anyone is perfect, the slightest mistake I make leads the powers to point to all all all mistakes I've made. Improvement means noting. If I am not perfect, I'm condemned. Knowing full well I am not perfect, and will never be in this lifetime, you all have made this site a losing battle for me.

You don't put anyone else in that position. I've taken too much of your time today, @quid. I know you are a busy person. Thanks for your time.

@amWhy they do mean something. They also do not get unnoticed. Really not. Maybe I should, but it is not clear how to convey that it makes me happy when I check and do not see an "unfriendly" flag for you for a longer period of time.

@amWhy thank you for the conversation. See you!

@quid Why are comments like this one, by the user named, not sanctioned? math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/32198/…

@quid Asaf tells the commenter only to Stop using such language. If it were me using that language, I'd have been suspended. I know MR has wrung up lots of suspensions himself. Why does he get byes, and I never do?

Or at the very least, why weren't two comments from MR deleted!

@quid Sorry, you may have left. I just don't like inconsistencies that tend towards leniency for some users, and hardass consequences for others.

@amWhy this is actually a tricky situation. The language is strong, but in my mind it does express a point of view that one should be able to express in the context of the discussion of an election.

Even though I strongly disagree with it.

terrorism?? That's a loaded word.

@amWhy it is not terrorism.

The word.

terrorists?? Still a loaded word!

And it's name calling, a no-no on any SE site. Don't you see how selective you all are in who you call out??

or terrorize. They are all forms of the same word. I'm sorry, you're permitting this, and not me calling a post a "rant" is just beyond my comprehension. Nothing you can say to me can explain this discrepancy away.

@amWhy it does not say "terrorists" either. Curiously a day or so ago I actually did check in some detail how "terrorize" is used, which is the word used. Would it refer to other users as "terrorists" it would not be there anymore. (This is not something I make up now, I did make this argument a day or so ago.)

@amWhy not really for all I know.

Really, @quid? I guess you don't know english all that well. terrorists are those who terrorize other users/people, and the practice of terrorizing people is called terrorism.

This is too much for me. @quid... Go enjoy pretending what you want to pretend.

@amWhy etymologically they derive from the same word, but usage is quite different. I did look it up and checked with a native speaker. "terrorize" is not commonly used for carrying out terrorist attacks.

@quid You and Asaf and the other mods have made it crystal clear that when you want to penalize a user, you'll find any excuse to do so. And when you don't want to penalized a user, you'll find any excuse not to do so. I flagged two posts there, but clearly, my flags don't carry any weight, because you've all decided whose flags carry weight, and whose don't.

@amWhy that's not true. It did come up earlier as I said. Opinions actually were mixed.

"How she manages to persuade, cajole, and terrorize colleagues to undertake reviews and, more importantly, to deliver them on time is a well-kept secret. "

Usage example from Cambridge Dictionary

@quid Even this definition makes the use of the word to describe CURED member offensive, and definitely RUDE. Whatever, as I said in my last comment, you've confirmed for me. Thanks for that. If I had used the word (and now I guess I have permission to use the word, thanks to you), I'd have been suspended for three months, perhaps a year.

So I can accuse user1729, MattSamuel, @Batominovsky of of terrorizing users??? You've just said opinions were mixed but you sided with letting the word stay??

@amWhy it depends on the context.

@quid There you go, you've always got an out. If the context is referring to those who close and delete, they can be accused of terrorism. But if the context is referring to the protectors of PSQ's and the answerers of PSQ's, then it would be offensive?? You're just losing even more credibility, quid.

If you'd say that some users terrorize us with relentless undelete request, it would like not create a huge problem

@amWhy no they cannot be accused of terrorism. If that had happened directly it would be gone already. That was actually the precise issue analyzed.

@quid I'll shortly post to meta to let all users know that any actions of any users that displeasure them they are free to accuse of terrorizing users through their actins.

@amWhy no, the context is that first it is a discussion about the direction of the site, second it is a general remark.

@quid Why do you coddle some users, and terrorize other users, as mods?

..."because we find convenient ways to explain some user's actions away, and we find more lethal ways to explain the actions of those we terrorize?.."

@amWhy regarding that specific instance there might be somewhat of an overcompensation as I for example strongly disagree with the sentiment, but I still think one should be able to express it in general terms in a debate about the direction of the site.

I would not allow it as a comment to a user like "userx: stop terrorizing the site with ..."

You, the mods of math.se, have allowed "terrorize" into the permissible lexicon permitted on math.se, @quid.

@amWhy I'd be surprised if it is a premier actually but that is arguably besides the point.

I do think a meta post is in order so you can clarify all the contexts in which its use is permitted, and all the contexts in which its use is not permitted. You all have opened a can of worms.

@quid At any rate, it just demonstrates the restrain mods have wrt actions against some users, which they don't exhibit wrt actions against the user they despise.

@amWhy it's rather the other way around

And of course, my flags on the post don't matter, though any one user's flag against a comment from me: OMG: slam her!!!

@amWhy maybe they will matter. I told you what I conclude about this comment a day or so ago.

@quid I'm sorry, you've lost me. That is evidently (related to evidence), not true. You can claim all you want, but I know what I see.

@amWhy look, empirically many of your flags are treated in the way you suggest.

And without divulging too much internals as said above yesterday opinions on that comment were mixed.

I do not dismiss your opinion out of hand. I basically had the identical discussion with another mod yesterday.

Hey, @quid. Until moderator actions become more transparent (also CM actions), for us peon users, we're just in the land of OZ where the Wizards of Oz, wield their magical actions, and come back to tell us "We did what was right. You can't know the details, because that would expose us". "Nyahaha!", says the wicked witch of the west."

@amWhy some mods said it should be deleted for about the reasons you gave some others thought otherwise for the reasons I gave. I think that is relatively transparent.

I thought mods would have learned from the last election, when Zachary Zelk was beat into the ground. This election, you're also responsible for beating another great mod candidate into the ground. "When will you ever learn, when will you ever learn." (refrain from "Where have all the flowers gone.") You don't. And that's the problem. It was too late for Zach, and now for another user. I hope you all can sleep well tonight.

And it's not just this election time-frame. Mods have allowed the abusive treatment of CURED user for years, never intervening, always permitting crap to be thrown at them, at us. Tell me @quid. Do mods want CURED to disappear?? Because you all act like it (or rather fail to speak up for it, and/or fail to protect, though deletion, crap thrown at its users. Be careful what you answer.

@amWhy opinions on the direction of the site are mixed. It must be possible that those are expressed in the context of an election. There are limits to how they can be expressed and the comment you quote is very close to the line where it becomes inadmissible, but in my opinion (which is non-unanimous among the mod team) it is still on the admissible end.

@amWhy I wrote an answer about this long ago.

I for one now consider my participation in CURED to be ultimately a liability.

@quid Then you need to link to it every time a new anti CURED post surfaces.

"The activity that happens there has my full support"

and at the end

"Either way, the overall activity is in my opinion in line with the philosophy the SE network and highly useful for the site, while ideas of keeping basically everything around are not."

@quid Thanks for saying your opinion. I expect you to be as generous in the future, as you have been here, when evaluating any future comments I might make, especially now that I can describe some users' actions as terrorizing other users.

@amWhy I did say it is close to the line of what I consider as inaceptable. I do not recommend the use of the word.

How dare you ever criticize any comment I ever make to anyone, because I've never gone so far as to describe any user as "terrorizing" other users. Every decision you make, @quid, creates precedence, and I will hold you to this.

@amWhy again, two key points: it was in the context of an election, it was general.

As a rule, comments that directly address or talk about a specific other user are considered as more problematic.

@quid The bottom line, @quid, is that you found it acceptable. You'd be hard pressed to argue another's use if it is inacceptable, unless you were evidently acting in a biased manner.

@quid Didn't you learn, I ask again, from last election, that standards of appropriate treatment of users should not disappear at election time?? That's the biggest cop out you've posted today.

@amWhy I am not sure what you want to prove. I find this somewhat incomprehensible. It relates to what I said earlier.

@amWhy it is a discussion about the direction of the site and it was general.

It must be possible to say that deletions are harmful for the site. Just as it must be possible to say that answering low quality question is harmful.

@quid Then what happened to me in the Election chat room yesterday? Why wasn't I given that latitude, "during an election"? You're talking out of two sides of your faces about this, @quid.

@amWhy you did not voice an opinion about the direction of the site.

@quid Accept when it's deletions of amWhy's comments, right?

You simply behaved poorly.

@amWhy no, you can also say things. But again it might not be wise to aim right close to the inadmissible line, for anyone.

@quid Okay, at least you cut to the chase. I think MR behaved poorly. But he's got your blessing. You see, you're just as biased as anyone.

@amWhy the situation is entirely orthogonal.

It's about completely different things.

@quid that's bull shit. I must always say something positive, or my comment will be deleted. Having dinner with MR tonight, are you, on his dime?

@amWhy that comment made me literally laugh

@quid I would have been flagged and suspended into oblivion if I accused any users of terrorizing anyone, under anyone's election post. And you KNOW THAT, and YOU would ensure that.

@quid The last sentence was intended to make you laugh ;D

@amWhy well, no. Also you might be surprised how much time I spend defending you, and explaining your actions in a favorable way, etc. Don't thank me, it's not that I am doing you a favor. I do try to be objective.

@quid I know you try hard to be objective, and you (almost) always are! And I appreciate your efforts on my behalf. I just don't understand the mods who wanna bury me, and I haven't a clue who they are, nor should I know.

@amWhy no one wants to bury you, but some patterns of behavior are complicated. And one of them is getting into altercations with moderators. Another one is directly going against other users. Still another one is using vulgar language. You don't do that, but you tend to do the first two.

I guess the "altercations with moderators" pertains largely to mods from other sites, and or CM's? Because it's been awhile since "altercating" with a math.se mod (except for our private conversations).

@amWhy yes.

I admit, sometimes I have little patience for off-site mods who happen upon a math.se chatroom.

As a mod going to another sites room is always tricky. But it is also unavoidable at times. You are in chat, the flag shows up, somebody should deal with it; no local mod around. What do you do?

I really wish chats could be moderated differently... A mod from sci-fi or culinary arts may have little clue about the culture on math.se. But I will, once again, try to be even more cautious in chat. What is difficult is when I get no warning from said mod, and lo and behold, I discover I'm suspended from chat.

@quid I get it, but flags on main have to wait for a math.se mod, don't they? Why should chat flags get such immediate attention by admittedly, less than qualified mods? (Less than qualified in the sense they have little clue about the context or dynamics of the site sponsoring the chatroom).

Would you endorse mods from other sites handling flags on math.se main? Or math.se meta?

Comments in chat are too easily taken out of context by anyone not familiar with the room.

@amWhy because it is more of a real time medium and less localized. For example, somebody going off the rails in a largish room needs immediate attention.

@quid I understand it is sometimes needed. But not always. And I do think a lot of mods on other sites may be online, but have little to do other than strut their "mod stuff". Not most, but there are some. I'm not trying to excuse yesterday. I did push things, but how can one be rude to a bot??

@amWhy it depends a bit on the type of flag, but rather not. But things are set up as they are.

And, @quid, I do have issues with Catija. That's probably what got me suspended, in my references to her.

@amWhy yes I gathered that; I think she is a nice person, maybe you could try to start over. I don't think she or the interaction with her were specifically the reason. Really I did not study the situation in minute detail.

She initially tried to intervene in my last full-year suspension. I interacted with her in good faith. She was encouraging, warm and fuzzy, that the suspension could be abbreviated. But all went sour, either due to Shog9, or details she read from my previous year-long suspension, in her delayed response to me that year in which she seemed cold and stern. I don't know what changed, what happened. But she had gotten my hopes up in the first couple months, and then crashed those hopes.

As I say, she was very new to the job at the time, and may have hoped to make adjustments, but ran into walls. I don't necessarily blame her. But I don't think SE nor mods necessarily know how hurtful a year-long suspension can be to some users. And I really thought she could help (she reached out to me, not me to her.) Anyway, I haven't likely said much about this to you.

@quid ^^^ Sorry, failed to ping you in either of the above.

@amWhy I understand that this must have been quite disappointing. But as you said it is quite possible it was really not her fault.

@quid I realize that. And I've let go of my issues with Shog9. So I can surely do so with Catija :-)

@amWhy sounds good. :-)

@quid :-)