Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorAndrewL
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     

    I have to laugh at this latest suspension. I just have to laugh because this was an opinion based question-and I got suspended this time for very nicely voicing my opinion along with everyone else.

    Nah,there's no personal animosity towards me in here,of course not...................

  1.  
    You got suspended for whining, Andrew. MO isn't a place to complain about the moderators, and that's what you did today. Conflating your initial response to the thread with your new comment is rather disingenuous.
    • CommentAuthorAndrewL
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010 edited
     

    @Ryan I didn't think my statement deserved the ripping it got and I thought moderators were supposed to prevent that kind of "piling on". THAT was my point,is all.

    -8 points.I don't know if anyone in here besides me ever got that kind of downvoting on one statement. A statement that was debatable at the very worst.

    I asked Scott to remove the post entirely.

    And notice,I'm not fighting the suspension.

  2.  
    What is the point of this thread?
    • CommentAuthorAndrewL
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2010
     

    I guess to ask everyone if getting suspended for something like this is policy you really want here.

    That and my increasing frustration with MO. There was no reason for this and even less reason for the latent animosity in here for me.

    That and the very real worry of making enemies over such trivial circumstances in the mathematical community.

    I keep saying I'm going to leave for good. But I just can't bring myself to do it. And I'm tired of shooting myself in the foot simply by not agreeing and nodding my head yes when I'm given a shower in here.

  3.  

    to ask everyone if getting suspended for something like this is policy you really want here.

    Since you are soliciting personal opinions: yes, absolutely.

    By the way, you have no grounds to be talking about ill will here. People have given you repeated friendly advice and warning that your behaviour is alienating. I don't believe anyone on here has been as immune to repeated negative feedback from the community as you. Only 2 days ago, on the occasion of a comment that made for fairly unpleasant reading, I politely reminded you of your very excellent plan to limit your contributions on MO to mathematics. The upvotes on my comment indicate that it reflects the sentiments of a measurable part of the MO community. Instead of heeding it, you continue in the same vein. I don't see how you have any reason to be surprised by the suspension.

    Indeed, the explanation that you are purposefully provoking these incidents strikes me as almost as plausible as the possibility that you cannot help it. And if the former is the case, then the suspension is even more justified, since such behaviour is called "spamming" and the posts should be flagged, instead of downvoted. Please don't bother to argue now, since the only thing that will convince me personally one way or another will be your future actions.

    That and my increasing frustration with MO.

    I don't think that that's a valid reason to post on meta. You will have to deal with your frustration yourself, without taking up other peoples' time. Ultimately, the frustration is only within yourself and will not be changed by anyone but you.

  4.  
    To second what Alex says, yes, this kind of suspension is completely appropriate. You repeatedly use MO and increasingly MO.meta in inappropriate ways. If you were to read our feedback to you literally rather than interpreting things as some grand conspiracy theory directed against you, that would be the start of something positive. But the moderators and users just don't have time for this kind of stuff. My impression is ultimately this boils down to a misunderstanding of what MO is about. It likely makes sense to give MO a break, to let these ideas readjust.
    • CommentAuthorAndrewL
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2010
     

    @Ryan, Alex: I'll leave meta alone for awhile after responding to these.

    I DID read critism and take it carefully and I meant what I said a week ago. But this was an unusual case-the question was by it's very nature, subjective and opinionated. I made the reasonable-but VERY erronous-conclusion it would be "safe" for me and that I couldn't break my "probation".

    "Describe a topic in one sentence." (I'm really paraphrasing, but that was the gist of the thread.)

    Would either of you consider this an "objective", research oriented question in the classical MO sense?

    I say no.It was asking for an informed opinion-from the mathematically informed on MO-on how they personally percieve a particular subarea of mathematics and to sum thier perception up in one sentence.

    And I gave what I thought were 2 very reasonable attempts to describe 2 areas of mathematics: combinatorics and probability. While I think the objection to my statement about probability was fair,I was frankly shocked by the reaction to my combinatorics statement. 2 fairly respected combinatorialists-John W.Kennedy and Christopher Hanusa-both have expressed the agreement to me that combinatorics is classically concieved as a finitary subject.

    ("Probability is real analysis with the concept of an expectation." This is really true of continuous random variables only,of course.You could get cute and say combinatorics is analysis on finite sets,but that's a reach at best........)

    The downvote frankly shocked me-and the "piling on" with no restraint seemed almost comical to me. I should have left it there,you're both absolutely right about that. But honestly-I was just flabbergasted and couldn't keep my big mouth shut.

    And here we are.

    Someone else in here told me "don't play in traffic" on MO. I seem to have gotten myself run over again.

    And lastly,for the record, Alex-there's nothing delibrate or malicious about me coming back in here and screwing up. I don't like being told what to do,never have. And as a result, I shoot off my mouth when I shouldn't a lot of the time. I think I've been very polite and not rude at all-I've tried very hard to maintain proper social decorum even when I disagree. But it's not good enough because this isn't my site and I DON'T make the rules. And that makes me wrong no matter how I try and justify it.

    And for that reason, once again-I apologize to the room. And in particular to anyone who may have found me "rude".

    Farewell for now.

    Andrew L.

  5.  
    I have two comments:

    For the record, I think there was an answer that recieved more downvotes than yours Andrew, and in fact you were involved in the comments on that answer. A long time ago one of Tyler Laweson's questions about a homotopy first course received "strange" answer. The answer was meant in good faith but I think most people who saw it did not think it was a very good answer or that it was in good faith. That question could also be interpreted as being very objective and that the answers were of the forms of opinions just as in the question you are talking about. I think in both instances, and maybe I am wrong about this entirely, that it is good to remember that opinions have value in mathematics and that maybe that is what was being voted on. While the answer to Tyler's question was in some large sense an opinion, it seemed to have less merit than the other opinions/answers that were offered. In this situation, that of opinions, the person giving the opinion seems relevant. Perhaps that is unfair, but ultimately I don't care about an opinion someone taking first semester abstract algebra has on possible approaches to the Goldbach conjecture.

    The second one is that there have been several times you have posed such questions on Meta looking for support from "the silent majority." Perhaps I am misinterpreting this post or others, and I apologize if that is the case. In as much as you look for such support you don't seem to find it here. In fact, you find quite the opposite. It seems that everyone agrees with what has already been said to you several times. Their/our main criticism seems to be that your posts are overly opinionated and argumentative. You are not always an expert on things that you comment on or talk about. I found your comment on http://mathoverflow.net/questions/1890/describe-a-topic-in-one-sentence/47549#47549 dissappointing. It sounded immature and in fact was off the mark.

    This is not an attempt to bait you into anything further on meta, I think your idea to leave things alone for a bit is a good idea. I understand the urge to respond, so please email me at first initial last name @wayne.edu if you want to talk further about it.

    Right now this is the only way I feel comfortable contacting you, if you want I can delete the post after you email me.

    with hope,
    Sean
  6.  
    @Andrew, this recent disciplinary action against you has nothing to do with your original reply, as far as I can tell. It has to do with your *comments* below your initial reply. Your reply is old. Your comments are new. If this disciplinary action had to do with your initial reply, there would be no reason for it to happen now. Your comments were perhaps appropriate for MO.meta, but not for MO itself. Even then, these kinds of issues are so over-discussed here it's not clear why you'd want to dredge up this kind of conflict yet again.

    I'm not sure how many of these cycles we've been through but there's been enough so that people are simply tired of the endlessness of it. Your recent comments were bickering about non-mathematical things. You've been told this before several times: keep in mind the people on this forum by-and-large have hundreds of students, grad students, administrative work, their research, travel, families, conferences to organize, papers to referee, letters to write, grants to apply for, people to host, emergencies to deal with, etc. We're not here to manage people who consistently and deliberately ignore the norms of the forum. If you don't comply with the rules, you get booted, that's all there is.
  7.  

    +1 Ryan. I do not see why we need to keep having the same conversations over and over.

    • CommentAuthorAndrewL
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2010
     

    @ Qiaochu The point has been made. I'm gone for now.

    • CommentAuthorsigfpe
    • CommentTimeDec 1st 2010
     

    @ryan Every second a troll spends ranting in meta.mathoverflow, they're not ranting in mathoverflow.

    • CommentAuthorAndrewL
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2010
     

    @sigfpe Hold it. I'm an ogre,not a troll. If you're going to insult me,do it properly.