tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed ([Redacted])

Anweshi comments on "[Redacted]" (2964)

Anweshi — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:12:25 -0800

@fpqc. You didn't respond to my offer to replace your real name with fpqc, in my recent posts in meta.

Harry Gindi comments on "[Redacted]" (2962)

Harry Gindi — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:39:08 -0800

This post marks my departure from meta. Hopefully, with time and effort, I will be able to restore my good name, at which point, I will go back to using my real name. At the moment, I don't think that I'm mature enough to not make an ass of myself and continue to post here. I think that undergraduates using their real names is a fine goal, but I don't think I am ready for that kind of responsibility. This is not any sort of rage-quit or anything like that. This is simply a reaction to the realization that I was going down an ultimately destructive path.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "[Redacted]" (2961)

Qiaochu Yuan — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:12:00 -0800

There are, to my count, five reasonably active undergraduates on MO, all of which (except fpqc, now) use their real names, and I would like to think we aren't being too annoying :) On the other hand, the evidence from the last thread points to that troll from awhile back being an undergraduate, so I can see the concern there.

Hailong Dao comments on "[Redacted]" (2960)

Hailong Dao — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:50:06 -0800

Dear Stephen,

No problem at all! I find it hard to communnicate my intent clearly online, so perhaps it is not your fault.

Long

GS comments on "[Redacted]" (2958)

GS — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:42:00 -0800

Dear Zev,

You are of course, right: many (the majority, I hope, though I have to confess I don't know how many UGs are here) of undergraduates who use their real names here are not annoying. I didn't mean to imply that they were. I just think that undergrads, at least, should not feel the least bit guilty for posting anonymously. Then if they do happen to annoy someone who will at some point make a decision about admission to grad school, or a postdoc, or a job, they haven't done themselves real harm.

Best,
Stephen

GS comments on "[Redacted]" (2957)

GS — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:37:55 -0800

Dear Hailong,

I apologize for assuming something I shouldn't have about your intent! After rereading your post I realize I read something into it that was not necessarily there.

Probably the confusion is due to the fact that I intended the phrase "cut him some slack" to apply to real-life situations arising in the future. I also realize I did a poor job communicating that.

I think he's had plenty of slack cut here at MO (as you were pointing out).

Sorry again!

Stephen

Zev Chonoles comments on "[Redacted]" (2955)

Zev Chonoles — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:22:24 -0800

As another 20 year old MO user, I'd say undergrads should feel free to use their real names. I think an undergrad who is already seriously interested in math tends to be a far more mature and dedicated person than an average member of my age group, so there is much less danger of ruining one's name than you fear. Also, I consider myself an "average" math undergrad (i.e., not on par with fpqc or Qiaochu) and therefore, probably one of the least knowledgeable regular MO users - and everyone seems to tolerate my questions, so I don't think undergrads would be annoying other MO users in that way either.

SheldonCooper comments on "[Redacted]" (2949)

SheldonCooper — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:41:08 -0800

"I remember being 20. I did much stupider things, and was fortunate to avoid suffering long term consequences."
Stephen: I bet you did them privately and that's why you avoided those consequences. I.e. the issue is not doing stupid things as an undergraduate; the issue is being able to understand that doing stupid things in some contexts is less unacceptable than in others. Had you done something extremely stupid at a place where a lot of your senior colleagues were gathered (say, at a conference or even at the department seminar), you probably would have suffered the consequences.

"For instance, I don't spend my days in hastily attaching 'votes' to everything."
Igor: So when you read a paper, you don't judge its interest and quality, and when you write a paper, you don't decide which papers need to be cited and which ones need not?

Hailong Dao comments on "[Redacted]" (2948)

Hailong Dao — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:58:31 -0800

Dear Stephen,

You wrote:

However, I tend to disagree with the sentiment of the rest, which seems to be: (1) That fpqc deserves whatever real-world consequences his MO behavior produces. I remember being 20. I did much stupider things, and was fortunate to avoid suffering long term consequences.

I don't think I express that view about real-world consequence in my post at all. But I am glad we agreed on the bigger picture.

Igor Korepanov comments on "[Redacted]" (2946)

Igor Korepanov — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:04:51 -0800

@Anweshi

Thanks, but I have no intention to return to the main site of MO. At the same time, I read discussions on meta with considerable amusement.

Anweshi comments on "[Redacted]" (2944)

Anweshi — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:30:49 -0800

@Igor Korepanov.

Glad to see you back in MO. Welcome again!

Igor Korepanov comments on "[Redacted]" (2943)

Igor Korepanov — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:29:46 -0800

@Mariano:

"We all attach 'votes' to other people's work (and is some cases, to those people themselves) as part of our daily work."

Thanks for your opinion. I think it contains too much generality. For instance, I don't spend my days in hastily attaching 'votes' to everything. Life is paradoxical, and in many cases it is better to refrain from judgements. Judge not, that you be not judged. (c)

Mariano comments on "[Redacted]" (2941)

Mariano — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:18:13 -0800

I do not see in what way is the voting system inconsistent with anything. We all attach 'votes' to other people's work (and is some cases, to those people themselves) as part of our daily work. The only thing 'new' here is that MO makes the value attached to one's constributions be explicit, and shared.

Of course, interpreting MO 'reputation' as anything other that MO reputation is likely to cause confusion. But interpreting anything incorrectly is likely to cause confusion.

Igor Korepanov comments on "[Redacted]" (2940)

Igor Korepanov — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:12:03 -0800

@Jon:

"I think the voting system is inconsistent with mathematical inquiry."

Sure. It is rather anti-mathematical. So maybe rename MO accordingly?

GS comments on "[Redacted]" (2938)

GS — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:46:29 -0800

Dear Hailong,

I completely agree with the sentiment of your second paragraph, with the first sentence of your first paragraph, and with the sentiment of the first two sentences of your third paragraph.

However, I tend to disagree with the sentiment of the rest, which seems to be:

(1) That fpqc deserves whatever real-world consequences his MO behavior produces. I remember being 20. I did much stupider things, and was fortunate to avoid suffering long term consequences.

(2) That undergraduates (I'm ready to cede you graduate students) such as fpqc benefit more from using their real names than not.
Individual undergraduates are extremely unlikely to benefit much from using their real names on MO, and if they are annoying enough may do themselves real harm. On the other hand, it's probably true that anonymity will make them more annoying on average, so that for the community as a whole it would be better if everyone used their real names. I see this tension as a real problem, and I agree that it's debatable what the right solution is.

So my disagreement with you, such as it is, is not very great. I certainly understand the point you are making.

Best,
Stephen

Jon Awbrey comments on "[Redacted]" (2937)

Jon Awbrey — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:30:04 -0800

I think the voting system is inconsistent with mathematical inquiry.

Anweshi comments on "[Redacted]" (2936)

Anweshi — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:13:01 -0800

@fqpc. I see your point. In MO or in meta I too was anonymous and I have felt guilty at times for hiding behind a pseudonym and being impolite. If you would like, I am willing to change any references I have made to your real name, to fpqc. I obviously cannot find all my posts with your name; but I can do it for the threads in the front page, or anything major I remember.

Harry Gindi comments on "[Redacted]" (2935)

Harry Gindi — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:01:56 -0800

I thank the moderators, Kevin, Emerton, and Pete for their advice. However, as I said above, I feel that some people have abused the anonymity of the voting system, and since there is nothing I nor anyone else can do (I don't expect the moderators to tell me who has done what, since that would be a huge breach of trust), I'd rather not have my real name here. Since I can't delete all traces of it, I've done what I can.

Hailong Dao comments on "[Redacted]" (2934)

Hailong Dao — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:26:05 -0800

@Stephen: I think the community has shown an incredible amount of patience and fairness to fpqc. Many people, including Kevin Buzzard, Emerton, Pete, and the moderators have devoted their valuable time to explain politely to him the damaging consequences of his actions, both to the community and to himself. I myself have never downvoted his questions and answers based on who he is, and I think neither have most regular users. In fact, his reputation on MO is not far behind Terry Tao (: . It can only happen in a virtual world!

If anything, I think mathematicians often focus too much on the mathematical ability of our colleagues and forget to encourage them to become more decent member of the community. This habit has cost us, in my opinion, both internally and with respect to the perception of our profession from society.

I use my real name to force myself to be more disciplined on MO. As a consequence, I have to learn to write better and think more carefully about the content of my questions, answers and comments. Public participation on MO has helped me to improve professionally and I believe undergraduate and graduate students would benefit more from using their real names than not.

GS comments on "[Redacted]" (2929)

GS — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:40:01 -0800

I've gone back and forth on a question related to this. I think anonymity for undergraduates posting to MO, and perhaps graduate students as well, should be encouraged.

I shudder to think of the irreparable harm I might have done to my reputation had I unleashed myself on the mathematical community so publicly at age 20. I encourage those of you (and there are many...) who remember fpqc's real name to cut him some slack in the future. He's 20!!!!

Harry Gindi comments on "[Redacted]" (2928)

Harry Gindi — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:43:10 -0800

I had good reason to do this. I used my real name because I trusted that the community would be equally honest and forthcoming with me. I feel that some people have abused their anonymity. It was my intention to remove some of my personal information from this site.

I'm sorry if you don't agree with my methods, but I refuse to have my name abused any further.

Pete L. Clark comments on "[Redacted]" (2927)

Pete L. Clark — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:30:18 -0800

@Harry: Will your antics continue indefinitely? Do you really want to be the official MO troublemaker? How does this square with your plans for the future?

Harry Gindi comments on "[Redacted]" (2926)

Harry Gindi — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:46:19 -0800

It is a very fine topology on the category of schemes. I use fine here in both senses. Ah ha ha!

Emerton comments on "[Redacted]" (2925)

Emerton — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:41:02 -0800

fidelment plat quasi-compact

Ilya Grigoriev comments on "[Redacted]" (2924)

Ilya Grigoriev — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:37:48 -0800

What does fpqc stand for?

Harry Gindi comments on "[Redacted]" (2923)

Harry Gindi — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:17:21 -0800

It was my intention to delete those threads, but I couldn't. Well, at least the ones I'd originally posted anyway.

Mariano comments on "[Redacted]" (2922)

Mariano — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:03:42 -0800

Please do not do that. It renders threads unintelligible.

Harry Gindi comments on "[Redacted]" (2921)

Harry Gindi — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:01:50 -0800

I was redacting and deleting all of my posts at one point. Then I got bored. I think I got somewhere near a third of them.