# Off-topic discussions regarding the quality and scope of PO

+ 0 like - 0 dislike
166 views

Some off-topic meta discussions involving allegedly dissatisfied users

recategorized Jun 15, 2015

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

Discussion regarding whether PO is only meant to be a site for mainstream physics.

(contd from [1])

answered Jun 15, 2015 by (-10 points)
edited Jun 15, 2015

@drake yes indeed, PhysicsOverflow IS meant to be a serious professional high-level mainstream physics site.

@Dilaton 1) "mainstream": can you define this term? Would special and general relativity have been allowed in a mainstream forum according to your definition? May a breakthrough be mainstream?   2) "high level": No offense, please, do you honestly think that you, Dilaton, are prepared to decide whether a question is a serious high-level question or it's nonsense? This is regardless of your highest degree of education or your professional position, it is about your knowledge. And, I repeat, no offense.

@drake PO practice shows that it is Dilaton and dimesnion10 who immediately decide what is mainstream, what is high-level, and what is serious. As I said some time ago, they are too self-confident youngsters who do not actually qualify to do this. That is why there are non resolved conflicts with offended users.

@drake Dilaton's comment above can be considered to be his vision for the site, rather than a rule. At least that's how I interpret it. Crackpot stuff is handled well by downvotes, not by moderation.

@dimension10 And how Dilaton's practice "can be considered"? And yours?

@dimension10 All recent examples.

@VladimirKalitvianski the only recent moderator action against you was me deleting some comments of yours. Here are the comments, in case you consider them to be valuable.

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

Discussion on alleged mutual moderator protection and the honesty (or lack thereof) of moderators

(contd from [1])

answered Jun 15, 2015 by (-10 points)
edited Jun 15, 2015

@ArnoldNeumaier 1) In my opinion you moderators are protecting each other just because you are moderators and I am not. Is this a real answer to the question regardless of if it says "violated" or "changed"? Where are the arguments? Why does he say it has not been changed when nobody has asked that? There are only two possibilities as far as I can see, namely, either I ( the OP) am wrong, that is, I am misunderstanding the policy or the policy has been violated. One moderator has already claimed that he has violated the policy (perhaps arguably for a good reason).

2) Have you though about the ethical implication of editing anyone else's words? Even if they are hostile. One's words describe oneself.  I don't know if I was hostile, but what it is true is that this moderator, Dilaton, lied and hided information in the past with the goal of damage an user. He admitted this. And what he did say, that the policy had not been violated, is false. Again.

I will always protect the moderators; I did so already before I myself was a moderator. Each moderator is essential for the functioning of PO to an extent a single user never is. Neither are rigid rules essential.

In my understanding rules are ethical guidelines to be respected, not laws whose violation is an offence.

Your writing of what I edited away is as least as much a violation of the rules of PO as dimension10's liberal interpretation of the ''generally'' in the closing rule. But the right way of dealing with deviations from the ideal guiding principles is not by insisting on right and wrong measured by imperfect rules but by simply undoing what is against a healthy atmosphere on PO for discussing physics.

I'm not claiming that what dimension10 did is wrong. It depends on the specific questions being closed without meeting the requirement. What I am saying is that the policy was violated. Perhaps, not such a big deal.

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

Discussion on the olfactory reception of PO

(contd from [1])

answered Jun 15, 2015 by (-10 points)
edited Jun 15, 2015

@Dilaton

Interesting. I have no access  to this, but I wonder what it was.

@VladimirKalitivianski: "a stinky place to be avoided" - Then avoid it, please! But you seem to enjoy to be here and make derogatory remarks.

If you would open a meta question about your (or someone else's) treatment here, it would belong to ConflictResolution and be moved there. As long as you are only complaining in comments, nothing happens.

Its only you who perceives and spreads the smell. For the others it is a place to learn and discuss interesting physics.

@drake please look more carefully at the comment thread above, it was NOT Arnold (he always kept his contributions professional) who posted very inappropriate comments using dirty (even fecal) language, calling PO a stinky place etc ...

Have a nice weekend too.

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysic$\varnothing$OverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.