Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 23 of 23
That's a thoughtful post, thanks. Unfortunately, the moderators are not in control of the (proprietary) software, so the checklist suggestions are probably not feasible under current arrangements. (Isn't there a banner though that says "first time here? please read the faq" or something similar? Maybe that sentiment needs to be put more forcefully somehow?)
Of course, the people who write "read faq" (and I'm frequently one of them) get tired of writing so, and that's why it often comes off as terse and unfriendly. (I guess the main thing that always puzzles me is: don't people who post a question see the front page questions, and doesn't a glance at the questions suggest that MO is a site for pretty high-level mathematics?)
With regard to
I think it's perfectly ok to give hints or quick answers to off-topic questions
part of me often thinks the same, but the counter-thought is that this will encourage the posting of yet more off-topic questions. Same thought applies to the posting of answers to off-topic questions.
Unfortunately, the moderators are not in control of the (proprietary) software, so the checklist suggestions are probably not feasible under current arrangements.
This is true but it will change in the near future. We're always open to suggestions.
Thoughtfully written inappropriate questions are generally treated respectively. Terse questions starting with "proof tat..." get treated better than they deserve, IMO.
This is true but it will change in the near future. We're always open to suggestions.
Great! I don't know if my suggestion works or if it's even necessary to do something about it. But it's good to hear mods can tweak MO if need be.
As for this point:
(I guess the main thing that always puzzles me is: don't people who post a question see the front page questions, and doesn't a glance at the questions suggest that MO is a site for pretty high-level mathematics?)
I think this is partly because they have elementary math questions. I mean, if you're just an average undergrad student who hasn't learned advanced math very well yet, you can't really tell if those questions on the front page are of research level or about something you'll learn a couple semesters down the line at college. At least a casual glance wouldn't tell you if they're way beyond your level or they appear incomprehensible because you haven't learned them in class yet. Even a professional mathematician can't reliably tell if a question in an unfamiliar field is trivial to an expert. If you're a nonnative English speaker and learned math in a different language than English (which I did, by the way), that might make it even more difficult. So, you can't always expect a random person on the internet would know what's on MO is something a math Ph.D. may have trouble solving.
Also, it's not trivial that this particular math forum has a lower limit when it comes to the level of math you can discuss. If you read the FAQ carefully, yes, there's the line that clearly says you can't post elementary stuff. But this is not the kind of rule a typical online forum would most likely have. If you just ran into MO while browsing the internet, you may be like, "Cool! These math guys really know what they're talking about. I'mna ask a question I got during today's class. It'll get answered real quick! Oh, wait. The banner says, what, I should read FAQ? Ha-ha, I know, I know. I won't behave like a 5 year old or start a flame war. Don't care about privacy policy and stuff either cause I know diddly-squat how it works anyway. So stop telling me I should read the usual stuff every time I join a new forum!" You can't blame this line of thought unless you always carefully read through every line of those agreements and whatnot before clicking "Accept" when installing new software on your PC. It's not extremely unreasonable to expect that if there's something unusual about a forum's rules, it should be clear to anyone without digging the FAQ page, though I'm not saying you're expected not to have read FAQ.
With that said, I tend to agree that those who post obviously off-topic stuff could use a little more lurking before posting. I'm also grateful to the regular members who are volunteering their valuable time to moderate MO. But as you said, we're having a large number of inappropriate questions to the extent that those members already got tired and may not be able to always respond in a friendly manner. So, maybe it's worth thinking about possible solutions.
Thoughtfully written inappropriate questions are generally treated respectively. Terse questions starting with "proof tat..." get treated better than they deserve, IMO.
That's a good point, though I'm not sure if I completely agree with the latter half of your post. As far as I can tell, it seems those terse questions are often from students who don't have a very good command of English. As a nonnative speaker myself, I know how it feels like not to be able to express yourself and accidentally come across rude, careless, etc. Of course, this doesn't excuse their wording (or off-topic questions for that matter). But it might be a good idea to think about how we might be able to avoid those questions getting posted here. Besides, not all well-written inappropriate questions are treated respectfully. I've seen someone start a question with something like "This may not be the right place, but..." only to get an immediate reply like "Yes. You're asking in the wrong place." I don't like to believe that person would say the same thing in person in a large seminar to embarrass the speaker in public; if you don't do it in a seminar, it's against MO's rule. I don't think it's fine to be rude because OP worded their off-topic question very poorly either. It wasn't the most comfortable thing to see a question starting with "Prove that..." from an apparently nonnative English speaker being made fun of, especially when the person who ridiculed OP's English was upvoted by some... Such instances may be a minority on MO. But if you think off-topic questions are getting what they deserve now, still it doesn't make it less worthwhile to think about how we might be able to avoid off-topic questions in the first place, I guess...
Yuichiro wrote:
those terse questions are often from students who don't have a very good command of English.
I think this is a very good point.
When I write in French, I tend to use far fewer words than when I write in my native language (English), because each word costs me more effort. So maybe it comes out sounding abrupt or even rude. Certainly I don't have the fine control over tone that I do in English.
Perhaps if I were contributing to a French-language MathOverflow, I'd make mistakes of tone just as bad as "Prove that...".
Yuichiro wrote
But it's good to hear mods can tweak MO if need be.
Just to clarify, I think Francois meant that once MO migrates to the new stackexchange platform, such tweaks are not out of the question. Right now they are.
Regarding the present discussion: a tweak I've dreamt about is one for people with a certain amount of rep, where they could click on a drop-down menu which would offer a choice of canned but politely worded responses to clearly off-topic questions or ineptly worded questions. For example, Joel Reyes Noche's suggested response could be on offer. (Maybe it's a silly idea, I don't know.)
While I rather try to avoid such discussions I still would like to make some quick remarks:
While I in fact agree with many things OP said, I did not really understand the suggestions or main issue. While I agree it is in some sense reasonable or at least understandable that soembody might not read FAQs initially I cannot reconcile why, according to OP, it is rude to suggest to somebody it would be a good idea to do so, yet it is not rude (or perhaps consdescending is the better word) to have the software force it upon them.
On the one hand, it is said people do not read the FAQs because they think they know their ways on the internet. On the other hand, it is said that mentioning the FAQs is not helpful since people would not know what to do with this info. How does this go together? I mean, there is a link at the top of the page 'faq'. It is not unreasonable to assume that a suggestion to read the FAQs refers to something to be found behind that link. Right? And, if not, the askers could always ask for clarification.
The FAQs might be long in their entirety, but even just reading the first half-sentence would suffice mostly "MathOverflow's primary goal is for users to ask and answer research level math questions[...]". If I cannot figure out what that is supposed to mean, I might consider reading the first full section what one can ask here, and then perhaps also the second what not, and if people just would do and follow this a lot of issues would disappear. (In particular, there is a quite clear advice to strictly stick to focused math questions if one is new, so if one ignores this and starts with some soft question, then fine, but they were warned this could end in trouble.)
Regarding the seminar-room analogy and why not just answer quickly: when math.SE did not yet exist this argument was stronger, now I think there is very little merit to it (for 'too simple' math questions at least). This is not even just for the benefit of MO, it will be really better for the questioner to ask there since the answers will be better (for the puropose at hand). A more apt analogy to me seems: person A is holding office hours for an advanced course, say Arithmetic Geometry, and knows person B is holding office hours for first year Calculus next door. Now if somebody enters the room of A asking about some basic integral, what is the reasonable course of action. Give a quick answer or tell the person that they might actually seem to have taken the wrong door and likely want to talk to B?
Further on the seminar-room and people starting with 'This may not be appropriate here, but...' If this is an honest question the polite thing to do is to give an honest answer. If by contrast this is an indirect way for saying 'I know this is not appropriate here. But still I do it.' then perhaps this is not so polite in the first place.
Regarding language issues, I agree to some extent and have quite a bit of sympathy. In particular, I never quite understood why some make a relatively big deal about use of imperatives. But then often it is also quite clear or turns out that language is not the problem or at least not the main or only problem.
A few minor points:
I think 90% of the difficulties with misplaced questions would be solved if users posting their first question got a brief message saying that MO is for questions at the Ph.D. student level or above (while other questions are welcome at MSE) and offering a one-click transfer to MSE. There would still be crackpots or people who cannot gauge the level of their question, but this would make accidentally posting in the wrong place much less likely. Hopefully it will become an option in the future.
We should also keep in mind that "research-level" does not mean the same thing to people outside academia. At least in the U.S., the term "research" is regularly used to describe school activities such as working on term papers or looking things up on the internet. In everyday usage it just means independent investigation, with no implication of high-level work or scholarly originality. So if someone is trying to figure something out on their own and sees a site encouraging research questions, they may think it is a perfect fit.
+1 to Yuichiro and Henry.
quid: A few responses to some of your points.
(1) Isn't it obvious that certain comments are much more offensive when made spontaneously by a person than when made automatically by a system?
(4) This is all fine, but none of it excuses rudeness.
(5) I don't see how to distinguish in practice between those two cases.
Generally, your comment seems an extended argument for the rationality of current behavioural norms. But, rational or not, these norms are offensive to some first time users. Surely we can all agree that this is a Bad Thing?
@HJRW:
ad 1: perhaps, but the latter is annoying. And those that would mainly need it will just click through blindly. Somewhere on SO there is some duscussion that it is (actually was) a rather big problem that people asked random question in CW mode. The reason. There was some check-box, so people ticked it. Whatever it means, likely one needs to tick it. Or, take tagging. Right there directly next to the box it is written one should use an arXiv tag. Do most people do this?
ad 4: What is rude about saying to somebody. Please ask this question on math.SE since it is off-topic here (see FAQs for details).
ad 5: My point is there is no need to distinguish. If somebody honestly asks if this is appropiate here, then one should or at least can give the honest answer 'no' (if this is so) and act accordingly. If they are in fact not asking this honestly but know full well they are doing something inappropriate then I do not see much need to get overly worried about being rude to them as they were rude in the first place.
Thank you for sharing your views and opinions. It's very interesting to learn what others think of the current situation and possible changes we can make.
@quid
There are things I can't seem to agree with in your posts, but they're generally beside the point of this thread. So, I'll just quote Henry's comment, which I think sums up the problem in your argument:
Generally, your comment seems an extended argument for the rationality of current behavioural norms. But, rational or not, these norms are offensive to some first time users. Surely we can all agree that this is a Bad Thing?
Also, as you'd agree, it's a little too optimistic if you think no one has been offended by not exactly the nicest comments on MO [Edited the wrong wording]. If you argue that they "shouldn't" be offended because they're the ones who acted irrationally, that's not the point of this thread; I'm not particularly interested in which side justice is on in this battle against those who ignore rules on MO. I'm more interested in how we can prevent such a battle before it happens. If I sounded like I was defending people who don't read FAQ, I was merely saying that, considering how your average person would behave on the internet, it would be too naive if we expect a random newbie must behave the way we wish they would.
And there's one more thing I'd like to add. In short, "two wrongs don't make a right." It's not ok to be rude just because someone was rude to you. "He started it!", you may say. So what? I don't think such logic belongs here. You say you don't see much need to get overly worried. Bill seems to agree with you in this regard. Of course, it's great if it turns out that I'm just overthinking. But if you think I'm just imagining things, I'd like to hear a little more convincing argument than "we're the one who are rational," "no need to be too nice when they're rude," "they're getting better than what they deserve," and the like.
I'd be grateful if you could read comments in this thread while keeping in mind that the questions I'd like to adress here are:
Are we having many inappropriate questions?
Have we treated OP in those threads the way that might have offended some of them, regardless of which side is "right"?
If yes to both, how can we avoid or make less often such unfortunate situations?
> Are we having many inappropriate questions? >
Yes. They clutter up the front page and push down good questions.
> Have we treated OP in those threads the way that might have offended some of them, regardless of which side is "right"? >
This is not a good question, IMO. People get offended by all sorts of things. A better question is, "Do we give appropriate and polite responses to inappropriate questions?" I think the answer is "yes" to this question. I typically do not make comment on inappropriate questions because I would find it difficult to be as gentle as those who do.
@Bill
Thank you for the input. But I don't seem to fully agree with this part of your comment:
This is not a good question, IMO.
While your alternative is interesting, the point I would like to make isn't exactly if we're doing the right thing from "our" viewpoint. It's an important thing to consider. But I think what may be more important in this discussion is to see things from a more neutral viewpoint.
As you say, people get offended by all sorts of things. Then, how can we make such unfortunate situations less frequent?
There isn't much we can do (except direct mods intervention) to those who habitually ask off-topic questions, spammers and random trolls who troll others for the sake of trolling (though it doesn't seem like these are as big a problem here as in other forums). But to me it seems a certain portion of inappropriate questions are from otherwise nice people who just didn't read FAQ because that's how they roll on the internet or who worded their posts poorly for some more innocent reasons such as nonnative English. I wouldn't say it's fine not to read FAQ before posting. But such behavior is pretty normal to the vast majority of "ordinary" people out there. And they may just stumble on MO and decide to joint us. So, if we don't do something about it, inevitably we'll get inappropriate questions by those people, which may happen more frequently than we would like.
What I'm saying is that I don't think repeating "Read FAQ" etc. is the way to go. MO is unique in many ways. This makes this place awesome. But at the same time, it makes it more difficult for some people (e.g., the first time posters who haven't lurked enough or read the FAQ before posting) to understand how MO works. Then, doesn't it make sense to do something so hopefully we get less inappropriate questions from them?
That's why I suggested the checklist. I'm not saying someone on MO is doing the wrong thing by my own holier-than-thou moral standards. It's more like because certain kinds of people who would be treated better elsewhere are getting unfriendly comments because they didn't know MO's uniqueness. If we have a bit unusual standards for the quality of posts and unconventional rules for an online forum, wouldn't you agree that it's much better to make sure new comers know the uniqueness when they post for the first time, rather than to treat them in an unfriendly manner when they fail to follow the rules and customs they didn't know existed?
It seems to me your alternative question is more about moral things rather than what's actually happening when seen from a more neutral viewpoint. So, I don't think it's particularly more relevant to this discussion than my original version. Ultimately (and if I exaggerate a bit), I may not need to know exactly why someone gets offended. If someone gets offended for whatever reason and if we could prevent it to some extent by a simple tweak on the system, why don't we make MO a happier place?
@Yuichiro Fujiwara: You do realise that I could find, for example, the following offensive:
Also, if you think no one has been offended by not exactly the nicest comments on MO, I think you might be a little too optimistic.
Of course, I am not blind to the fact that some people might get offended on MO, and also I agree that sometimes things happen in a more unfriendly way than needed. Indeed, I wrote explicitly that I agree with you in part. Besides, I have an already relatively long history on MO, having been in all kinds of discussions; a topically fitting one for the subject at hand would be one where I was called out for being offensive for telling some high-rep user they were unnecessarily unfriendly to a new user. (Indeed, since that time I try to avoid such discussions.) So why do you suggest indirectly that I am so absurdly naively optimistic? This is a bit offensive :-)
My issue with this discussion is that it seems a bit overdone. Regarding your questions. Yes there are (too) many inappropriate questions and some people got offended in the process of closing them. Perhaps, such a checklist/pop-up when first asking could avoid some of the questions, which one thus could consider a Good Thing.
But: First, having this has also an 'indirect cost'. Second, IMO, would be far less efficient than what Henry Cohn and you seem to believe. And, third, and crucially for what I said earlier, this checklist was not the only thing you suggested.
In more deatail.
Such a checklist could drive away potentially good contributors. Already in its current form MO is perceived by some to present itself way too much as 'for professional mathematicians only' and they do not like this and thus do not contribute. (There was a somewhat recent meta on math.SE where this was made very explicit by someone with whom several active MOers seem to get along with very well in general.)
Henry Cohn said that in his opinion 90% of the difficulties with misplaced questions could be avoided. This seems way to high to me. In particular, since the difficulties (as opposed to the mere number of questions) are mainly created by those questions where OP is sure they fit in here. There one runs into problems typically. The avarage undergraduate homework creates hardly any difficulty whatsoever. And the OP in general also do not get offended. Some are even nice, and appologize for the oversight and thank you for the pointer to the other site, some say nothing, and some get annoyed or even angry and complain, since they wanted an answer, but they do not get offended. And this is my point, the otherwise nice people mentioned above in general (unsurprisingly) do not have much problem with being told briefly and neutrally that as they can check in the FAQ this site is the wrong place (when it clearly is).
You also put forward the idea of answering the questions. To me this is, as a general principle, an absolute no-go. It will create major problems. The main issue is not so much the 'quick answer'. The problem is that more often than not it will not stay there. There will be requests for clarifications (preferably given via another 'answer' or still better new question), there will be me-too answers, there will be discussions, there will be all kinds of activity. And, in the end this is a lot more likely to create eventually comments that reasonably can be seen as offensive.
Problems with closure being potentially offensive typically starts only if there is opposition (even more so if it comes from other well-meaning regular contributors). Since then it becomes necessary (for some meaning of necessary) to spell out in detail why this question is inappropriate.
@quid
I am sorry that I offended you by my poor writing; I should have been more precise about what I meant. "You" in the quoted sentence wasn't particularly referring to you (quid), though I admit that I was also thinking you might be a bit too optimistic (but don't necessarily think "absolutely" no one has been offended). I was using it as more like the general "you" that doesn't specify anyone in particular. I reworded the sentence so it's clearer what I meant. (I added "as you'd agree" and replaced "I think you might be" with "it's" so it's clear "you" isn't "quid.")
But I also have to admit that I did have an impression, from having read your posts here and on MO, that sometimes you and I have different opinions about whether a comment is unfriendly or not. For example, you wrote:
... but they do not get offended.
This may be due to a possible difference in how we define the word "offend." Maybe my definition is closer to "annoy" or even "make very unhappy" by your definition. But I'm not sure if it's always reasonable to interpret replies from OP very literally like this:
Some are even nice, and appologize for the oversight and thank you for the pointer to the other site, some say nothing
Even if we assume that those words are always perfectly literal and sincere (which is unlikely, in my humble opinion), I don't think saying nothing is always a neutral reaction. Also:
the otherwise nice people mentioned above in general (unsurprisingly) do not have much problem with being told briefly and neutrally that as they can check in the FAQ this site is the wrong place (when it clearly is).
I don't know about that. I'd like to err on the safe side when guessing if I made someone unhappy, especially when I could have done better.
You also put forward the idea of answering the questions.
No. I didn't suggest you should answer off-topic questions (though it'd be nice if it were possible to always help anyone on MO without causing any problem). As I said in the first post, I understand that off-topic questions shouldn't be encouraged.
I think that in normal circumstances outside MO it's natural to help others when you can. But it can give the false impression that MO is fine for your homework etc., which isn't the best interest of MO. So, like Todd (and probably many others), you're torn between the two: "To help, or not to help. That's the question." Whatever the best answer to this conundrum, you're in this difficult situation partly because the FAQ isn't being read by many first timers. So, my suggestion is to think about if we can do something to let them know the peculiarities of MO before they make their first posts. It's not my intention to suggest that you answer the wrong kind of off-topic question.
Now for the sake of argument, if you ask, without taking into account the fact that the FAQ is located in a place new members may not always visit, if I find it unfriendly not to help others when you have the ability to do so very easily, I think it requires some skill to say no while not sounding unfriendly, condescending, snobbish or arrogant; it's too easy to come out sounding like, "Your math is too poor for me to help you," "Your math is so poor that it's detrimental to our community" or something along those lines. On top of this fundamental difficulty, as Todd and Bill say, it's not always easy to maintain a professional, friendly or gentle tone when you're annoyed by too many inappropriate questions. Honestly, I think there are more OP and lurkers who became unhappy by terse replies than you think, though this impression is, well, totally baseless...
I can't comment on your first point about MO pushing the image of "for professional mathematicians" too far because you didn't give the link to said discussion. But if I might hazard a guess, perhaps, at least some of those people are talking about the dismissive attitude of MO. If I make an even wilder guess, terse replies like Read FAQ can be part of MO's dismissive attitude that deters some people.
About the effectiveness of my idea and Henry's, that's a good point we should consider. I tend to think it's more effective than you think. Then again, it's just my gut feeling which is totally and absolutely scientific.
Edit: Could you explain what you mean by this?
My issue with this discussion is that it seems a bit overdone.
I must be reading this comment wrong, but if I interpret this literally, I think it means the same problem is put on our discussion table frequently. If so, doesn't it mean something might have to be done to the problem because it's the kind of thing people often feel unsatisfying? Or maybe you can direct me to the conclusion/consensus among MO members in those discussions regarding how we can solve the problem of having too many inappropriate questions?
@Yuichiro Fujiwara: First, sorry, for the confusion, but I was not actually offended. I said I 'could' (if I tried to) and then elaborated how I could arrive there ended with a smiley. But perhaps the intention was a bit unclear. In any case, thank you for your reaction. Second, regarding the 'overdone' I was briefly a bit worried I used a wrong word, but then as synonyms I just found exaggerated and overstated, and this is what I meant to express.
Now, regarding the discussion on meta.math.SE; I could link there but it is a quite hostile discussion, not sure it is a good idea, also such an isolated opinion might not add much. And, it is true that a general perceived dismissivenes is also a problem, perhaps the bigger one. Yet, to some extent this is by design.
I am somewhat surprised you always bring up 'terse' in particular regarding me. True, sometimes I write terse closing comments, but then sometimes my closing comments are twice or even more as long as the entire question.
For explicit feedback the last three (IMO, these are rather on the terse/unfriendly side for the ones I tend to write):
This site is mainly for research level questions (please see FAQs for details). This question does not seem like one; else, please provide the context. Voting to close.
This question does not really seem like a focused research level question. You might want to ask this on math.stackexchange.com Voting to close.
Homework is off-topic for this site. Please see FAQs for details. You could ask this question on math.stackexchange.com a similar site with a broader scope.
Is this rude? [This is a general question; everybody feel free to respond.]
More geenrally could your provide some examples of comments of me you find rude or too unfriendly. (In particular, so to say 'first' comments; it is definitely true that I sometimes get annoyed too much by strang, in my perception, responses or interferences by others.)
I am somewhat surprised you always bring up 'terse' in particular regarding me.
Agreed: 'terse' is not the first word I associate with quid. :-)
@quid
Ah, thank you for clarifying that. I'm glad I didn't accidentally offend you.
Now, regarding the discussion on meta.math.SE; I could link there but it is a quite hostile discussion, not sure it is a good idea, also such an isolated opinion might not add much.
I see. Chronicle of Flame War is never a good read, I don't think. If I get curious, I've got this awesome google-fu I've developed through years of procrastination.
I am somewhat surprised you always bring up 'terse' in particular regarding me.
Ah, I didn't mean your comments were a typical example of terse replies. I'm sorry to have given the wrong impression. I just ctrl-f'd my posts after you chimed in and these are the only two that contain the word "terse":
Honestly, I think there are more OP and lurkers who became unhappy by terse replies than you think, though this impression is, well, totally baseless...
If I make an even wilder guess, terse replies like Read FAQ can be part of MO's dismissive attitude that deters some people.
Considering the context, I guess the first one may have sounded like I was saying "your" comments were making unhappy a larger number of people than you think. I'm sorry for the poorly worded sentence. It's more like terse comments (not necessarily yours) may collectively be making more people unhappy than you think. Please let me know if you find a particularly confusing part in my posts that made you think I was personally attacking you, singling you out or any other inappropriate part, so I can apologize properly and correct them.
As for the three examples you gave, I don't find them particularly too terse (though I might prefer a little bit more friendly tone). If anything, as a person who'd lurked for a long time (and read FAQ more than once, of course), I consider them rational replies. But I also think that just because each individual comment (of not necessarily yours) is not particularly bad doesn't mean the whole is equally harmless. For example, if the front page frequently gets off-topic questions and replies telling they're off-topic with occasional more unfriendly exchanges thrown in for good measure, it may collectively give an impression, perhaps a false one, that MO is being too dismissive or could use some improvement to skillfully curb inappropriate posts.
Of course, I may be just overthinking. Actually I'm glad you thought I was overplaying the situation because that means at least you (and most likely Bill too) don't see a need to act now.
In any case, things like which comment is more harmful and whether we need to do something are hard to measure objectively. The former is particularly difficult to be completely objective except maybe some too obvious cases. I don't want to discuss morality, rationality etc. very much at least in this thread if we don't have to. So I'd rather not "judge" your comments (except the ones you already specifically asked me to do) or single out particularly bad examples of others. So please let me just thank everyone who participates in the difficult civil duty and allow me not to discuss whether a concrete example is fine by my standards. I appreciate if others share their opinions, especially about if they think we're experiencing too many inappropriate questions, if we should do something about it, what we can do, and other relevant topics. But to avoid turning this thread into a flame war, I'd be grateful if everyone could avoid making a judgement on a particular comment/question or person and refrain from encouraging others to do so. If you need to give some examples to back up your opinion, I think it's better to be vague and not potentially make the person you explicitly mention take your post personally.
@Todd Trimble: thank you, good to have confirmation my self-perception (regarding 'terse') is not that far from reality :)
@Yuichiro Fujiwara: Let us say I will try to be more friendly. But this is also tricky. Sometimes I think perhaps I should say something friendly in addition, but then this could also be (mis)read as condescending or some sort of implicit provocation, so I leave it away. In any case, thank you for the discussion and please do not worry about attacking me or something like this.
@quid
Thank you for your kind reply. I'm glad this discussion went well; I was a little worried where this was going several posts ago. As for how to deal with problematic questions, I completely agree that it's very difficult to get across nuances and such on an internet forum. We can't see each other's face. We may hear others' comment in our heads in the wrong tone different than what they intended. So you're totally right about that. I think I can think about this more objectively than before thanks to you.
1 to 23 of 23