tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............)

Cam McLeman comments on "It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............" (10010)

2010-10-30T19:04:00-07:00

To paraphrase Alex's good advice:

"But how am I ever supposed to change my standing here with amending my behavior if you and the other moderators won't give a LITTLE slack?"

By not requiring any.

Alex Bartel comments on "It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............" (9955)

2010-10-30T00:07:16-07:00

Dear AndrewL, I will just address the question "But how am I ever supposed to change my standing here with amending my behavior if you and the other moderators won't give a LITTLE slack?". This is actually very easy: just ask and answer mathematical questions. Don't ask or answer questions about personal tastes or philosophical discourses. As a rule of thumb, try to only ask or answer questions that admit one definitive answer. And only answer them, if you think that you can give this one definitive answer. This all seems simple enough, but to my huge surprise this obvious way of improving your standing doesn't seem to occur to you. Instead, you write in a recent comment

The initial source of the animosity appears to be they want research level questions only,despite the fact the moderators have allowed more general and educationally based questions. Until that changes-and I have a sufficient background to post questions relating to research issues only-they'll have to tolerate me and my "pointless" questions.

Wrong! "They" don't have to tolerate anything. And it should be clear that if you want to improve your standing, you should not expect anyone to "tolerate" anything.

Now, if you think that you are not qualified yet to improve your standing in the way suggested above, then surely it is still better to do nothing than to further damage it? Maybe you don't see it that way, in which case you cannot be helped.

AndrewL comments on "It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............" (9950)

2010-10-29T23:09:27-07:00

@Andy I never said you were specifically out to get me-I never even suggested specifically you were. I simply think the reaction was unfairly negative given the fact that some-in my opinion-answers were inferior to mine.I'm a passionate person and I overstate things sometimes.I'm working on it.

I'm willing to admit I overreacted (due to personal reasons I won't go into).It's just that my points on this site are in the toliet.It's been frustrating since I think a lot of it is based on my early behavior rather then how I've been lately (i.e. the last 2-3 months) on this site. I simply think you and the other posters have a negative preconception of me from that earlier behavior that gives you a VERY low tolerance with minor behaviors that other posters may get away with.

You have to admit-my behavior in here has MARKEDLY improved from the beginning,where I basically shot my mouth off and rules be damned. I've tried VERY hard to respect the rules and expectations in here. I want to be a mathematician of some good standing in a few years (if I don't die of heart failure first). I don't want to make a bad name for myself in here that extends to my reputation in the actual world and I'm slowly trying to fix things.

But how am I ever supposed to change my standing here with amending my behavior if you and the other moderators won't give a LITTLE slack?

I really don't think this deserved a suspension. I'm sorry.

Sincerely, Andrew L.

Emerton comments on "It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............" (9947)

2010-10-29T21:14:58-07:00

Dear AndrewL,

Generating functions are a technique, rather than an object of a priori interest, while primes are an a priori subject of investigation.
So "primes are awesome" is not the same as "generating functions are awesome". The latter captures a little more about the techniques of the field it is purporting to describe than the former. A closer analogy to the generating functions answer would be "analytic number: $L$-functions are awesome", and I suspect such an answer might garner a few up-votes.

In general, there is more nuance in the comments that you are criticizing in your comments than you are acknowledging. (See you exchange with Gowers, for example.)

AndrewL comments on "It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............" (9946)

2010-10-29T21:01:28-07:00

BTW-want to let everyone know,I personally emailed Micheal and apologized. As I said-no harm was intended and I wanted him to know that directly from me.

Andrew L.

AndrewL comments on "It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............" (9945)

2010-10-29T20:50:17-07:00

@Ben "As far as I'm concerned, this is equivalent to jumping up after a seminar and shouting "You guys are clapping for that? That was a terrible talk!" which I think we can all agree would not be socially acceptable behavior." I didn't look at it that way because I thought it was a subjective and soft question to begin with and that we'd have some lattitude on how we responded. But let's look at Lugo's answer,in all due fairness:" Analytic combinatorics: generating functions are awesome." Does that answer even have mathematical content? If I had written "Number theory: Primes are awesome!" -I'd have gotten laughed off the board. THAT was my point. No rudeness or personal attack was intended.

But you felt differently,so that's that.I apologize personally and sincerely to Dr.(?) Lugo-no offense was intended,I was merely standing up for what I thought was unfair treatment. I also apologize to the entire MO community.

I DO think this was a excessive reaction and I hope you'd find it in your heart to rescind it.If not,I'll be back in a week.

I have a qualifier in algebra to prepare for anyway...........

Sincerely, Andrew L.

Ben Webster comments on "It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............" (9944)

2010-10-29T18:07:27-07:00

Andrew- No one has ever been suspended on MO for the contents of mathematical statements, even if we disagree with them. The issue is your rude comments on other answers; I would call it "bad sportmanship," but MO is not a game. For example "I can't believe this guy puts down a high school slogan and gets 13 points for it and I got downvoted for "Probability is real analysis with the concept of an expectation." " on Michael Lugo's answer.

As far as I'm concerned, this is equivalent to jumping up after a seminar and shouting "You guys are clapping for that? That was a terrible talk!" which I think we can all agree would not be socially acceptable behavior.

Note to the audience: generally the moderators have adopted a policy of not arguing with Andrew on meta, since it just seems to create more drama. In this case I thought it was important to point out that the issue was not Andrew's mathematical statements (which as I said before, we would not suspend people over), but rather his behavior in comments.

Andy Putman comments on "It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............" (9943)

2010-10-29T18:02:36-07:00

@Andrew L : I am not a moderator and thus am only speculating as their reasons. However, the story is longer than you make it out to be. You originally posted an answer to that thread (which is an ancient thread that I personally would like to see closed) that got a number of downvotes. You asked why it got downvotes, and I posted a response. You then posted a rather angry reply claiming that I have some kind of personal vendetta against you (which is utter nonsense). At that point, you deleted that answer. However, you then proceeded to post whiny comments on a large number of other answers complaining that they got upvotes while you got downvotes. To quote the author of one of the answers you spammed, "I can't believe someone would come along a year later and make this comment".

The combinatorics answer only came around after all of this.

Look around you. Many people post answers that get downvoted for one reason or another. Do you see anyone else responding to this by engaging in this kind of rude behavior?

Yemon Choi comments on "It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............" (9942)

2010-10-29T17:47:13-07:00

Ryan: I think it was on one of those old threads I don't much care for, asking for favourite slogans or favourite summaries or somesuch.

Andrew: I don't find it offensive that you disagree that infinite combinatorics is combinatorics. I just think it's wrong, dogmatic, and born of unawareness. The fact that these faults are sometimes forgiven in other people who are strong in math, doesn't stop them being faults.

Disclaimer: I played no part in the suspension. It could be that calling Qiaochu's slogan for generating functions banal or trite or whatever you did might have sounded like you were claiming to know more about the use of generating functions in combinatorics than he does.

Ryan Budney comments on "It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............" (9941)

2010-10-29T17:11:09-07:00

The fact that you view this through the lens of a school-yard prank indicates to me you're not getting the message. I don't know what thread you're referring to but is there any point for you to be labelling something set theory and not combinatorics? If there isn't any mathematical content, just keep it to yourself. How various ideas in mathematics are labelled is a very subjective part of the subject so it's an easy way to offend people. Stick to answering actual mathematics questions on MO and you should be fine.

AndrewL comments on "It would be funny if it wasn't so high school level............" (9940)

2010-10-29T16:37:50-07:00

To All, I was now suspended without notice and for no reason. I don't even CARE why anymore. But it's a sad statement about this website. I did nothing wrong. I even deleted a post for fear the exchange between myself and the posters-they know who they are,they're the ones chuckling right now. Let's see-the moderators found it offensive that I disagreed that infinite combinatorics was combinatorics,but set theory? And since I wrote it in all caps for emphasis,that was grounds for being suspended? It's pathetically ludicrous. I guess it's a sign of the times,especially after this Tuesday. You don't need a reason to abuse people that disagree with you anymore. Sincerely, Andrew L.