A tentative question

[JeppeSN]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Finally, the O.P. asked in a misc math "Group Theory" thread why there was no
group theory discussion. This is a simple, innocent discussion.
Ernst, in a typical moderator hypocritical post then wrote:

"Why - you want to give yourself a chance to look like an idiot in an exciting new thread?
Seriously, dude, just shut up already. Here, I'll help you by giving you a nice 7-day timeout."

In the original thread, Ernst also said:
"crap-flinging should've been nipped in the bud".

But I suppose that since he is a moderator it is OK for him to call the OP an idiot.
It is OK for him to tell the OP to shut up. It is OK for him to call the original thread
"crap flinging".

And in this instance all the OP did was to ask an innocent question! And for that he got banned!???

I also find it problematic that he got that response ("look like an idiot", "just shut up"), and got a 7-day quarantine, because he asked for a group theory subforum. A bad and silly question, but not in itself something you would be banned for? But maybe there was an accumulation of low quality posts from him leading up to this (so the group theory request was just the straw that broke the camel's back)? /JeppeSN

[jnml]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Bob:

Post one more time in a manner that is not civil and you will be banned forever.

And this time there will be no second/third/fourth/etc. chance.

F O R E V E R

I see his posts as direct and honest. But more importantly, informed. Even when they're coming with no sugar coating

I object to threatening him with a life-long ban for that.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by ryanp

Uh oh. What do I have to do with all this?

Ha, ha - thanks, Ryan, best laugh I've had all day. (Even it came a day late).

Originally Posted by JeppeSN

I also find it problematic that he got that response ("look like an idiot", "just shut up"), and got a 7-day quarantine, because he asked for a group theory subforum. A bad and silly question, but not in itself something you would be banned for? But maybe there was an accumulation of low quality posts from him leading up to this (so the group theory request was just the straw that broke the camel's back)? /JeppeSN

Yes, precisely the latter case - you have to factor in the poster's history. As I noted in the Mod subforum yesterday:

The above occurred after I'd spent over an hour I really couldn't well spare on a busy weekend reading through the OP's previous thread that turned into a right royal crapfest. So Devaraj caught me in an especially grumpy mood. I am, after all, a mere human like the rest of you. To employ the kind of initialism [R.D. Silverman] dearly loves, BFD.

IMO, Devaraj has a long history of posting patently nonsensical and "your snippet of code here is clearly wrong"-afflicted noisy claims. IOW, wasting the time of his betters. If one of the actual mathematics experts hereabouts wants to start a group theory thread, great. But I fear with the above poster's sketchy history of math posts and the fact that an inordinate number of threads started by him rapidly degenerate into the aforementioned "right royal crapfests", IMO he would do us, and the forum, a favor by listening more and posting less, with occasional posts that show some genuine effort to actually master the material in question. One can hope he will use the time-out I gave him to do so.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by jnml

I see his posts as direct and honest. But more importantly, informed. Even when they're coming with no sugar coating

I object to threatening him with a life-long ban for that.

The "informed" part is not the issue. The "repeatedly and gratuitously rude" part is. And see my note above about a poster's history. No one on this forum has a longer history of abusive posts, driving-away newcomers, getting repeatedly warned, short-term-banned and even "permanently" (later and ill-advisedly reversed) banned by the mods than RDS. His earlier perma-ban was lifted *only* on the condition that he show drastic behavior betterment. He did ... for a while.

And to put the "informed" part in context - I know for a fact that there are absolutely world-class number theorists who have declined an invitation to come post here and help improve the discussion, specifically because RDS is allowed to run amok and give his unworthy-of-a-5-year-old petulance free rein.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

His earlier perma-ban was lifted *only* on the condition that he show drastic behavior betterment. He did ... for a while.

And that is why the seeming Draconian ban happened for the current incident. If you know you are on a short leash and challenge it, expect a reaction.

[LaurV]

When I get in an argument with Uncwilly about things which were posted in the past in the forum and by who, like recently happened, can I tell him STFU? (i.e. "search the forum, Uncwilly!", by the same logic like RTFM or STFF , hehe, we are learning "one acronym a day"... )

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by LaurV

hehe, we are learning "one acronym a day"...

Sorry to disappoint, but those are all initialisms :). Acronyms are words (neologisms), as in pronounceable-as-words, formed from the initials of other words, e.g. radar, laser, fubar. It is debatable which type ROFL is, since it could be plausibly pronounce "roffle" - based on that I've added it to my personal mental LOA (List of acronyms, pronounced just like the second part of the Hawaiian mountain Mauna Loa), as I have your forum handle, Mr. "Larv".

Ha, it just occurred to me that Paul L's forum handle is a proper acronym when the 'x' is pronounced the Chinese way: "shillman", sounds like someone trying to hard-sell you a dodgy used car.

[a1call]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Ha, it just occurred to me that Paul L's forum handle is a proper acronym when the 'x' is pronounced the Chinese way: "shillman", sounds like someone trying to hard-sell you a dodgy used car.

Turn out there is much more to it than pronouncing it as "sh":

https://resources.allsetlearning.com...%22x%22_sounds

Can you smile when you pronounce "sh"?

ETA Russian pronunciation of x should also work.
http://masterrussian.net/f17/pronunciation-x-7686/

[xilman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Sorry to disappoint, but those are all initialisms :). Acronyms are words (neologisms), as in pronounceable-as-words, formed from the initials of other words, e.g. radar, laser, fubar. It is debatable which type ROFL is, since it could be plausibly pronounce "roffle" - based on that I've added it to my personal mental LOA (List of acronyms, pronounced just like the second part of the Hawaiian mountain Mauna Loa), as I have your forum handle, Mr. "Larv".

Ha, it just occurred to me that Paul L's forum handle is a proper acronym when the 'x' is pronounced the Chinese way: "shillman", sounds like someone trying to hard-sell you a dodgy used car.

Most of you know my love of irony, paradoxes and self-referential humour.

TLA is accurately self-referential. ETLA is not.

ETLA is an acronym. TLA is not.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by xilman

ETLA is an acronym. TLA is not.

Only because you're not pronouncing TLA properly. Think an l-instead-of-r-speech-impaired version of "tra". Putting words in Michael-Palin-as-a-lisping-version-of-Pontiuth-Pilate-in-Life-of-Bwian's mouth to illustwate: "I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome, hith name ith Bigguth Dickuth and he liketh to pwanth about singing 'tla-la-la'."

[Yes, I know I'm mixing my lisp types in the above quote ... I pwead poetic wicense!]

[kriesel]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Your priorities are screwed up.

Finally, the O.P. asked in a misc math "Group Theory" thread why there was no
group theory discussion. This is a simple, innocent discussion.
Ernst, in a typical moderator hypocritical post then wrote:

"Why - you want to give yourself a chance to look like an idiot in an exciting new thread?
Seriously, dude, just shut up already. Here, I'll help you by giving you a nice 7-day timeout."

In the original thread, Ernst also said:
"crap-flinging should've been nipped in the bud".

But I suppose that since he is a moderator it is OK for him to call the OP an idiot.
It is OK for him to tell the OP to shut up. It is OK for him to call the original thread
"crap flinging".

And in this instance all the OP did was to ask an innocent question! And for that he got banned!???
He did not get banned for his repeated (over many years) trolling false claims in the math forum, but for simply
asking a question in misc. math.

Can you say "abuse of moderator power"?? Can you say "hypocrite"???
Can you say "screwed up priorities"??? Can you say "plagiarism"???

RDS is a very educated intelligent person. I believe he can do better than the recent vitriol, and he's done so in the past.
Instead of employing insulting wording, ask "What would George do?"
And RDS raises some valid points about standards for some and not others.

Watching from the outside, I suspect being a moderator is a thankless job. (Do moderators take a vacation from it?) Differences of opinion are inevitable.

Something that has concerned me for a while now is that there does not appear to be any recourse for an ordinary user mistreated by one or more moderators, or any visible effective restraint upon the excesses of a moderator.

I consider what RDS refers to by Ewmayer as both uncharacteristic of Ernst, and mild compared to what I've seen from at least one other moderator.

But it's the tall nail that gets pounded down, no good deed goes unpunished, bad things happen to the bearer of bad tidings, and whistleblowers get retaliation not thanks for identifying an issue.
What I've observed is ridicule, insults, even threats of violence by moderators go unaddressed, and even supported by other moderators piling on.

That is something that ought be addressed effectively.
Instead we have moderators piling on and supporting each other in their excesses.
There is a better way.
The problem won't get addressed while scapegoating is used instead of recognizing the problem.

On the other hand:
Where would we be if the following people had been driven away?
Error (identified the Jacobi symbol check for LL testing)
Preda (creator of gpuowl)
R. Gerbicz (discovered the GEC for PRP, and a TF NF verification method)
Patnashev (PRP proof built upon the GEC, which will almost eliminate double-checking effort)
Prime95 (author of prime95/mprime and collaborator in other software; creator of GIMPS)
Scott Kurowski (creator of PrimeNet)
James Heinrich (creator/administrator of mersenne.ca, helps with PrimeNet server scripts)
creators of the various other gpu GIMPS programs

Who have we already driven away, whose potential contributions and consequent loss to the project, we'll never know?

We can do better Let's do that.