Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 41 of 41
Ryan Budney said:
Other users that've frustrated the moderators have got similar (sometimes harsher) special treatment before, as well.
Present!
Keep in mind the moderators are largely grad students -- for their own health running this website should occupy as little proportion of their time as possible.
Actually, Ben Webster, Scott Carnahan, FG Dorais, and Scott Morrison are all Ph. D's. David Brown and Anton are grad students, so technically... =)
+1 each to the first four comments. Andrew, if you are really morally unwilling to follow Steve Huntsman's advice, then I think you should do what you already said you were going to do and quit MO.
@Andrew,
You were at fault for more than one line; to quote Scott's email:
"There have been several comments which the moderators consider grounds for suspension, but I'll just suggest this one:"
Here is a second example (in my opinion quite off the topic of "is-galois-theory-necessary-in-a-basic-graduate-algebra-course"):
@Rob H Well,if America still had a strong high school system,I doubt there'd be a need for this debate at all. But most public h.s. graduates in the US in 2010 can barely READ. Hence the debate. – Andrew L 8 hours ago
There are more. Please keep your comments professional and on topic.
A very minor thing that would help IMHO, AndrewL: do not use write words in uppercase (if you must, italicize)
(There is something wrong with your Enter key, by the way)
@Andrew: I have repeatedly tried to engage you in a diplomatic manner on MO and on meta, and have stated explicitly more than once that I am not trying to be hostile, just trying to resolve the issue. The issue here is that MO has certain rules that you are not following, and that you morally object (your own words) to following these rules. In this situation I don't think it's hostile to suggest that you leave; it's just the only resolution I can see.
Dear Andrew,
I don't see that you have a leg to stand on. In the email that Scott sent you, he explained that you would be suspended n+1 days for the nth incident of off-topic comments. You have continued to make off-topic comments, and you are being correspondingly suspended. Why should he have to waste his time asking you to delete comments and so on? The onus is on you not to make them, having been requested by the moderators not to do so. I don't know why you think that he is engaging in a personal vendetta; much more likely, he is getting complaints from other users, which, when they reach sufficient volume, are leading him to implement the nth iteration of your suspension.
In this thread title, you refer to "the majority [of users]", as if they would naturally support you. However, you routinely voice strong opinions, in a loud (written) voice, on many questions. Some of these are technical opinions, in situations where your technical expertise is suspect; others are off-topic opinions. Most are sure to bother a large number of users.
If you look at many comment threads in which you have participated, your comments are frequently the loudest and most strongly voiced, and often dominate the thread. For example, in the recent question on teaching Galois theory, I counted 54 total comments, of which 15 are yours. This is on a forum filled with people who have been teaching algebra for years, sometimes decades. I appreciate that you have views on teaching matters, and you are certainly welcome to comment, as any other user is. But surely you can see that this is an exceptionally large proportion of comments on a highly non-trivial curriculum question from someone who is still in the apprenticeship stage of their mathematical career. Even if you think that your insight on such matters merits this level of commenting, are you that surprised that many other participants in the forum don't feel that way? It is a fact of human nature that even well-disposed and kind people can get sick of being dished up continual heapings of opinionated advice from someone with less experience in the matter than they have themselves. It doesn't surprise me at all that some of them eventually complain to the moderators.
If you consistently tone down your comments, as the moderators have requested, you will stop generating complaints, and, correspondingly, your suspensions will stop. Other users have been in the same situation that you are now, for similar reasons. They eventually did as the moderators requested, and their days of trouble are now ancient history on the site. If you do the same, it will end up the same way for you; no-one will care or remember, and you will be able to participate on MO trouble-free. But at the moment, you are in a hole, and are furiously digging. For your own sake, please stop digging.
Yours sincerely,
Matthew
Deane Yang's comments are spot on. The paramount thing for any present or future mathematician to keep in mind when using MO is that they do so in a way which enhances, rather than detracts from, their career prospects. Anyone who thinks this is overly calculating does not understand the exigencies of the current academic job market (which is not to say that I think things were much different in previous times).
I don't mean to be harsh or judgmental, but I honestly do think that some of Andrew L.'s writings on this site could jeopardize his career prospects. Given the choice between two candidates with roughly comparable research profiles, I and most prospective employers would pick the candidate who uses correct spelling and punctuation (especially of the word "theorem") and who does not make extremely negative comments about the behavior and motives of faculty at leading research institutions.
To get further perspective, I think it would be a good idea for Andrew to discuss these issues with his advisor.
@Dan Petersen: I find your reply baffling and distressing. Andrew L doesn't doubt my sincerity, but you do? That hurts. (Really!)
Andrew L has given his full name plenty of times on this meta site, including in the first post of this thread. I was only thinking that in a serious conversation it seems appropriate to call someone by their full name, rather than some abbreviation or nickname. This is not a very important reason, so in light of the response it has engendered, I have edited it back to "Andrew L".
To Andrew: I'm not saying that you've thrown your career away; I'm just describing a trend and also saying a bit about how the hiring process works. Academia is actually pretty good at tolerating "nonstandard" people, so long as their work comes shining through front and center. The thing is that it is super hard to get a job right now period, so if you really want one you need to be either (i) clearly at the head of the pack mathematically or (ii) doing a lot of little things a little better than most others. (i) is certainly not to be dismissed: the most important criterion in getting any kind of research academic job is the quality of your research. If you do something spectacular with additive number theory and ultrafilters, you can pretty much say or do whatever you want, within the bounds of basic human decency.
Is it possible that arguing with people on a math blog is both less fun and ultimately less valuable than just spending an extra hour or two a day on your research? It's worth thinking about (and not just for you!).
You didn't respond to the part of my message about speaking with your advisor, as well as other mentors that know you in real life (as opposed to just on the internet). Again, I hope you will do so.
Oy, why does this farce still continue?
@AndrewL: before clicking the "Add your comments" button, you really ought to stop and think about whether what you wrote actually reflect what you think (or how you want others to perceive what you think).
I'm not trying to win people over.Believe me,I stopped waiting for THAT bus a LONG time ago.
And yet you title this thread to appeal to ... From your interactions with other members it appears that not only do you believe that certain moderators are out to get you, but you are desperately seeking vindication by asking people to agree with you on that point.
It's a miracle in retrospect I didn't get a heart attack. I did hope that here on MO,things would be more relaxed and the alpha male relation pettiness might be sufficiently nonexistant to allow for free speech.
...
If something this inconsequential can destroy my standing in the mathematical community,I definitely should leave this site and never come back. I should never speak in public on any forum again on any topic.In fact,maybe I should consider a change of career,plastic surgery and a legal change of name.
...
If my career is over for a few comments on a blog-a BLOG-to people I've never met-what's the point of living in a country where free speech is considered a right?
Deane, Emerton, and Pete's advice can be summarized: If you can't take it, don't dish it. This basic rule of 'civility' not only applies for psychological and physical impact, but also for less direct and tangible items like one's career. (The psychological and physical aspect are obeyed by most animals; yet it is said that human beings are the only ones with a concept of future.) If you don't think your career or your psyche can handle the negative reaction other people have to your posts, you shouldn't post them in the first place. (And just watching the threads about you building up on Meta, it is quite clear that you cannot handle the reaction.)
Also, you seem to be under a mistaken impression common to young people in the US. Freedom of Speech only guarantees that the government won't suppress your right to speak. Freedom of Religion only guarantees that the government won't mandate a state religion. Freedom of the Press only guarantees the the government won't shut-down dissenting newspapers. Do you see a trend there? It says nothing about interpersonal relations. A Mormon Church can bar you from entering its premises unless you are LDS; they do not violate the Freedom of Religion since it is a private gathering of like-minded people and you have no right to intrude. A restaurant owner can see you out the door if you continuously spout profanities; again, Freedom of Speech is not violated since you are adversely affecting his livelihood on his property.
MathOverflow is a community. As a community we have no obligation to let you come into our house and insult our members. Like Deane says, if you want to have an opinion, free free to start a blog, or write to a non-moderated newsgroup. We are not going to stop you. Heck, you can call us all kinds of names and most of us won't even bother to care. But if you want to actually interact with us, you should bring your behaviour down to an acceptable standard.
As to Pete's and Deane's comments about careers: I doubt that those two themselves will be so petty as to blacklist you from a mathematical career (and no offence to Pete and Deane, but I doubt they have that much influence). What they are giving is honest advice, as nowadays employers are apt to do a internet search on candidates. I'm sure we all know the saying about humans and erring, but having too many damning evidence around may still leave a bad impression. (Anecdote: I once said in a blog entry that a work of a senior mathematician was 'an easy read'. Which is a true statement, provided that the reader, like me, has read his other papers and his book that built up to said work. The senior mathematician expressed to me, through a common friend, that he is somewhat bemused by the prospect of a student finding his work 'trivial'. Now I am much more careful in my choice of words, especially when the meaning can be misconstrued.)
The point is, are you willing to take the consequences? From the hissy cows you throw on Meta due to Scott enforcing a policy he communicated to you personally, I doubt you will take any of those judgements lying down. Then maybe to make your own life more pleasant you should considering stop making these kinds of statements? Not just make fewer of them: stop altogether. On the flip side, if you actually do not mind ostracism or if you feel that you don't care whether you continue in mathematics (as a career), then go right ahead and dish out the criticism.
Also, I wanted to share this New York Times article with you, but it wouldn't fit in my post above. (Ran over the character limit.)
@Willie: no offense taken at all. Speaking solely for myself, I have hardly any influence at all outside my own department.
It is entirely possible that I too would do well to speak my mind a little less. Sometimes I find myself in the situation where I feel sure that many other people are thinking the same thing as I am, and we're all staring at each other in some kind of N-person standoff. Then I bite and spit it out first. For instance, it doesn't make me feel good to point out someone else's consistently flawed spelling, but am I the only one, or one of the few, who notices it? I doubt it. Anyway, being called mean and petty when I am taking pains to be honest and helpful is not so motivational, so I'll let someone else do the spitting it out for the near future on this site at least.
Am I the only one, or one of the few, who notices it?
I should hope not.
I'll let someone else do the spitting it out for the near future on this site at least.
I think Willie might be up for the job (I would be, but I've learned that I do not have the standing to do it without being harshly reprimanded). I'm all for "calling a spade a spade", and somebody needs to do it.
I was in the middle of writing something, got called away, and came back to find that Pete had pretty much said all that I wanted to say. However, in light of what he says in his last comment, I thought it worth saying that I was about to say it myself.
The point I wanted to underline was the career's advice that has been given. (If you [AndrewL] are feeling singled out, you can scan back through the threads on meta where you will find exactly the same advice being given to Harry; I doubt I'm alone in thinking that he has - largely - taken it on board.) I think that the way it has been phrased has been open to misinterpretation and I would like to give my interpretation of it. This is in large in agreement with what Pete said in his comment where he also replied to Dan's comment.
Let me state at the outset that I have no influence at present, beyond that of selecting students to work with me.
I have little experience of groups in "the outside world", but if all groups of people are as disparate, out-spoken, opinionated, arrogant as mathematicians then I'm amazed that society still functions! If you ever ask me for an extreme example of some behaviour, chances are that I'll think of a mathematician. Even the "normal" ones tend to be very opinionated and ready to share their opinions.
That said, the one thing that all mathematicians share is the ability to switch it all off and get down to some serious mathematics. You could say that this is the essential characteristic of mathematicians. Some of us (me, for example) might describe it as a compulsion: I get uncomfortable if I haven't done any actual mathematics for a while. I'll even settle for trying to devise a nice simple explanation for something standard if I can't get my "fix" through other means!
So when I'm looking at a student's file, that's what I'm looking for. I don't care if the student thinks that America is governed by a group of lizards living inside Mount Shasta. I don't care if the student thinks that Britain really does rule the waves. What I care about is: can this person focus on mathematics? There are so many other distractions around when one is a graduate student, and even when one is a tenured professor (I assume - I'm half there), that without that killer instinct for mathematics, you're sunk. So when people advise you to concentrate on the mathematics and to think about what you're doing to your career, I think that that's what they mean: your activities so far have not demonstrated the key mathematical instinct that you need in order to do this job and the more non-mathematical stuff that you throw up, the more difficult it will be for a future employer to see that you have it.
From my very limited interaction with both of you, I'd say that that was the key difference between you and (the earlier reincarnation of) Harry: he has all along demonstrated a willingness to engage with the mathematics on this site, just that sometimes he cast his net a little too widely and expressed himself a little too forcefully; with you, I have yet to see any demonstration of that. It may be there, and I haven't explicitly looked for it, but I haven't seen it as yet. But take Harry's example to heart. Maybe Pete wouldn't consider him for a graduate position (note that Harry is still an undergraduate), but I would (except that our interests don't really coincide).
MathOverflow is part of my research time. It has to be: there's no other part of my day that it can fit in to. So when I come to MathOverflow, I want to learn new mathematics, explain mathematics, and find out what mathematics others are interested in. I don't want to learn about anyone's political ideals, ecological ideals, or experiences as a bottle washer. I'm not all that interested in people's experiences from teaching, to be honest. I come here for maths, and only maths.
The problem is, of course, that it's very easy to get distracted. It's my opinion that when people get distracted from maths then MO becomes less useful for everyone. So when I see potential for distraction, I use what influence I do have to act against it. Distraction is a "stable solution" and action an "unstable one", so it takes energy to maintain the site in a state where action outweighs distraction.
That you keep referring to this place as a "blog" indicates (to me) that you haven't quite worked out what it is for. I suggest that you do so before you come back. The case study of Harry does end with a hint of a light at the end of the tunnel for you: the fact that you aren't even aware of the parallels shows how easy it is to bury the past providing you are burying it with some decent mathematics.
There. I'm done. I'll crawl back into my troll's cave now.
America is governed by a group of lizards living inside Mount Shasta
Andrew, I suggest you watch your back for assassination squads. This is a state secret...
I would like to thank Andrew Stacey for making it clear in his post that my participation on MO is mainly mathematical.
Harry, was that really needed?
Yeah, I deleted it right after Deane posted.
@Deane: Really? I think the comparison is apples to oranges, but I guess I can't change your mind...
@Harry: For what its worth, I agree that you and Andrew L are two quite different situations.
(I need to change my name. I read Deane's post as referring to me! Maybe he was ...)
1 to 41 of 41