tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Question that should be closed)

quid comments on "Question that should be closed" (18456)

quid — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:05:22 -0800

For some reason, some of these anon comments still manage to annoy me enough to make me respond. I am working on it

Maybe because they sometimes contain some inconvenient truth...

In any case, over the last weeks I rather reduced my participation on main and meta already, there was a recent peak for various circumstance, so if this makes many people happy:

a. I won't post to meta except absolutely necessary due to main.

b. I will try to use main in such ways that a. becomes rarely relevant.

Alex Bartel comments on "Question that should be closed" (18455)

Alex Bartel — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:34:24 -0800

Ryan, you are absolutely right. I have all but adopted this policy. For some reason, some of these anon comments still manage to annoy me enough to make me respond. I am working on it.

Ryan Budney comments on "Question that should be closed" (18454)

Ryan Budney — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:45:00 -0800

If anonymous users bother you I would suggest just not responding to their questions on MO, or their comments on meta. That seems to be a fairly reasonable and common policy.

quid comments on "Question that should be closed" (18452)

quid — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:09:01 -0800

First, I appologize for starting this; it was certainly unnecessary. In brief, I found the original comment unnecessarily unfriendly (or a bit harsh, to use the seemingly acceptable formulation); I was annoyed by this and generally in a bad mood and thus thought it 'deserved' an equally unfriendly response; it was however not my intention to truly offend or to be aggressive. Now, it seems unnecessary for me to argue whether my comment is better/comparable/worse than the original, since in any case it was unecessary (unhelpful to the situation) and (thus) inappropriate to make.

The response to Bill Johnson was written quickly, but actually I wanted to reply something like this already to Harry Gindi, had it actually in a more careful form written, but then did not post it as Angelo's subsequent invitation to end the discussion seemed the more reasonable option. Since however it then was restarted, I replied something quickly. I thus do not want to defend each so to say letter of it. But, I stand by the spirit of it. I believe in general, not only on MO, that the more well-establised/higherup in the hierarchy/... one is the more careful and considerate one should be what one says to or over other people. Also a pedestrian should be carful, but somebody driving a 40 tons truck more so. And I said more careful and in the original greater resposnsibilty; of course everybody should be careful, but just like some think anons should be particullarly careful (and I agree with this in certain ways) I at least think there are also other aspects to this. Setting a good example would be another one.

Finally, I agree that it would be odd if I interacted with somebody a lot on MO that would know me in real life without that person knowing it. I would not leave such a situation unresolved. Sure it could happen I meet somebody that I know from MO (but not vice versa), but somebody could also passively read MO and form an opinion on somebody based on that persons contributions; so the situation that somebody forms a opinion on a nonanonymous user without that user being aware of it, will whether there are anon users or not always be an issue as long as the page is visible without identity-check. In that sense I do not understand Alex Bartel's comment. There is a problem with publically visible professional boards. Or, perhaps there is a problem with non-anonymous publically visible professional boards. These two would make sense to me. But what he means, sorry, but I really do not understand it.

Angelo comments on "Question that should be closed" (18449)

Angelo — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:33:04 -0800

I also must confess that I did not like quid's remark one bit. To be honest, though, I think it was written more as a reaction to Bill's, I don't think he actually wanted to say "I am anonymous, hence I can do as I please".

The way I interpret Bill's comment is that it is particularly important for anonymous users to thread very carefully, because they have an inherent advantage over the others. Say I were to get into an unpleasant discussion with quid, as a consequence of which we both think that the other is a jerk. Well, he knows who I am, if we meet in the future (in fact, as far as I know we might know each other already), and could adjust his behavior toward me accordingly, while I would not have this possibility. If the same thing were to happen between, say, Bill and myself, and we meet in the future, we would both know how things stand. (This is all very hypothetical, of course, I have no intention of getting into a fight with either of them.)

As a matter of fact, mostly I don't even answer questions from anonymous users, not because I disapprove of them, but because I find interacting with an faceless person who knows who I am very unpleasant. In the same way, I would not reply to an anonymous email.

Alex Bartel comments on "Question that should be closed" (18448)

Alex Bartel — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:04:03 -0800

"IMO persons indentifiable as well-respected members of the math community, like you, Bill Johnson, and Angelo, have a greater responsibilty to be friendly and non-offensive; as failure to be so reflects poorly on the profession, whereas conduct of anon users reflects not much anywhere."

This comment of "quid" is quite outrageous and summarises very well all my misgivings about anonymity on professional boards.

quid comments on "Question that should be closed" (18433)

quid — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:39:11 -0800

Dear Donu, what you say seems certainly true, and I should have formulated more carefully.

Donu Arapura comments on "Question that should be closed" (18432)

Donu Arapura — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:17:04 -0800

Dear Quid,

Perhaps I shouldn't insert myself into this discussion, but since you feel free to express your opinions about how other people should behave, may I request a bit more restraint on your part as well. I believe that the tone and quality of comments by *all* frequent users does reflect on mathoverflow.

quid comments on "Question that should be closed" (18428)

quid — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 04:51:28 -0800

IMO persons indentifiable as well-respected members of the math community, like you, Bill Johnson, and Angelo, have a greater responsibilty to be friendly and non-offensive; as failure to be so reflects poorly on the profession, whereas conduct of anon users reflects not much anywhere.

Bill Johnson comments on "Question that should be closed" (18418)

Bill Johnson — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:02:32 -0800

IMO anonymous users like you, quid, should lean over backwards to refrain from making offensive posts.

quid comments on "Question that should be closed" (18417)

quid — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:34:15 -0800

Dear Angelo, thank you for the response. Let us agree to disagree. Dear Harry, I hope that in view of Angelo's comment, you do not mind if I won't follow up in our parallel conversation (I left out returns to save vertical space ;))

Angelo comments on "Question that should be closed" (18416)

Angelo — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:11:04 -0800

Dear quid, I tend to be rather direct, sometimes too much. For example, the OP of the MO post in question could have very well taken offense. On the other hand, he was asking whether you can reconstruct the trace from the determinant (and it is quite clear that this is what he meant from his comments after the question); so I do stand by what I have written. In my humble opinion, your comment goes beyond the too direct, and sounds unduly aggressive. You will probably disagree, and that's fine; in any case I don't intend to start a debate, and I consider the issue closed.

Harry Gindi comments on "Question that should be closed" (18415)

Harry Gindi — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:41:18 -0800

quid, but you're an anon, so it's not the same. Plus, your first post makes it look like you're trying to pick a fight with Angelo.

quid comments on "Question that should be closed" (18414)

quid — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:23:35 -0800

I would delete/edit my earlier comment if I were not worried that people would think afterwards I said I don't know what.

Angelo, I am sorry if you find my formulation rather offensive. This comes as a bit of a surprise to me, since you occassionaly chose to formulate in ways that IMO at least do not qualify as friendly either, so that I thought your tolerance towards somewhat provocative formulations would be higher. I appologize that I misjudged this and will keep it in mind for further interaction.

Harry Gindi comments on "Question that should be closed" (18413)

Harry Gindi — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:50:25 -0800

Angelo, I put my full faith and credit behind your judgement (unfortunately, that is just some lint and two pennies). Also, quid, have some respect.

Angelo comments on "Question that should be closed" (18412)

Angelo — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:39:40 -0800

I don't think I was too harsh, but of course anyone's entitled to his or her own opinion, and I have no issue with Todd's reply. On the other hand, I find quid's words to be rather offensive. I don't intend to start a fight, though.

Todd Trimble comments on "Question that should be closed" (18409)

Todd Trimble — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:17:30 -0800

Angelo, my opinion is that this is a bit harsh. It's not a high-level question by any means, but I wouldn't conclude that the OP doesn't have a clue (although I don't think the OP should have commented that, paraphrasing, "you guys have misunderstood") . It seems the answer by Michael Stoll has completely settled the matter and was accepted, and it gave a nice easy explanation of det in terms of traces of powers.

quid comments on "Question that should be closed" (18408)

quid — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:17:07 -0800

Well, I just voted to close. But that somebody creates so much noise in a rude form around this, for me is harder to believe than the question.

Angelo comments on "Question that should be closed" (18404)

Angelo — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:23:30 -0800

I find it hard to believe that http://mathoverflow.net/questions/88202/trace-determinant is being allowed to stand (the only vote to close is mine). The OP clearly does not have a clue, and the question would be unreasonable even for a middling linear algebra student.