Hacker News Reader

The "be nice" norm is obviously good and important, but I also think different norms need to come into play here: (1) Due to asymmetric balance of power, moderators need to hold themselves to higher standards of behaviour than the community and (2) Criticism of the moderator has to be treated differently from criticism of regular users.

There's a fine line between deleting comments which are critical of the moderator(s) because they are deemed "unconstructive" and simply being high-handed. I don't know if Atwood actually crossed the line here, but I believe the perception that he _may have_ has hurt this community more than the (relatively minor) initial transgression of the "be nice" rule.

Atwood and the math.se community seem to disagree vehemently about what "nice" consists of and how important it is relative to other values like "transparent" and "unbiased". I urge you to handle remarks criticizing management very cautiously (especially via actions invisible to even the moderators), it's a short slide from there to a community of sycophants that's unworthy of defending.

> The Stack Exchange community places a rather high value on "being nice." It's an important part of our values and we think it makes the Internet a better place.

OK. That's a fair viewpoint, also espoused by many open source communities for instance.

> A lot of the Math Stack Exchange users came from Usenet's sci.math where epic flame wars were the norm.

This, on the other hand, is kind of misleading. Is there some other threads elsewhere with material from Prof. Clark that is of the "epic flame war" variety? I ask this because I read Akhil Mathew's post in its entirety and even if you claim that Prof. Clark was not nice in his mentions regarding Jeff Atwood (a claim I highly disagree with by the way), his comments were in no way flame war material. So unless he's actually done this elsewhere, why even mention epic flame wars in association as it does nothing but confuse the issue.

> That community has a few members who do not consider "being nice" a requirement of public discussion, so naturally, conflict ensued when Jeff removed non-nice things (as is the norm in the larger Stack Exchange community),

I have to ask: Is referencing a person's own quotes in support of a valid position suddenly "not nice". This quite honestly reeks of removing comments that only Jeff Atwood (and perhaps yourself ;) finds personally offending. I understand from the thread that there is apparently some history between Jeff Atwood and Prof. Clark -- I still don't think that justifies the response given in this case.

> thus violating the "all public debate is sacred and must never be censored" norm of a small subset of that community.

I doubt that this is literally an actual community tenet even with professional mathematicians. The fact that they apparently permit citing relevant facts to support a point of their does not imply that they feel all public debate is sacred and non-censorable. Akhil Mathew quite clearly elucidated his position in my opinion, and I do not see where he claimed that Prof. Clark's comments should stand merely because they were debate. It seemed to me that he felt the comments should stand because they were constructive in nature.

> I think that the high norm for civilized discourse on Stack Exchange is one reason that it has such a high signal to noise ratio

Civilized discourse is certainly good for S/N -- but this is not uncivilized discourse from Prof. Clark by any reasonable definition!

> and it's why the mathematicians are on our site to begin with.

I'm sure the network effect of having other very high-quality associated sites with stable working backend software had nothing to do with that. ;)

> There was never any question of "censorship" -- the entire brouhaha took place in the META site, the site ABOUT the site... nobody deleted any comments about math on the Math site itself.

I hate to say this, but this is disingenuous. If you prevent someone from talking constructively about the site then you are censoring him. Sure you may not be censoring him from the main site, but let's not split hairs here.

As an aside I operate in a few communities that enforce a conduct policy... Prof. Clark's comments that were deleted would have been well within the bounds of decorum on any of those communities. You may want to ensure that your Stack Exchange values are being consistently enforced to avoid the appearance of impropriety, as the policies seem to be quite severe to me given the actions here.

Ha! I see what you did there! A classic, Usenet-quoted, point-by-point nitpick, complete with UseNet style > quotes. I salute your ingenuity!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Joel, news.ycombinator has somewhat higher standards for civilized discussion than you are exhibiting here.

Please either participate in a constructive fashion or confine your postings to the roughnecks in the stack overflow forums.

Joel, this response is disappointing. If you don't want to respond to the actual content of mpyne's response, just say so, or don't respond. Solely attacking the style of eir response is ridiculous. You're better than that.

Wow, that's all you have to say? I hate to disappoint you but this is not StackOverblow. And while we're at it tell your fat friend to do some research before writing posts on that funny blog of his. He writes about a lot of stuff he heard about just the day before in a style which suggests that he's an expert on those topics, which may turn very unproductive for kids who read the funny blog and take his word for granted without further investigations.

Usenet is not the only community that uses '>' for quotes. I wasn't aware that Reddit or open-source mailing lists were so unusual, but I can certainly claim no lineage with Usenet.

I will, however, take that assumption as a compliment of the highest order, even if it involved no ingenuity on my part.

As an aside, I'm just going to assume that this is a counterexample to the "be nice" policy that is in effect for Stack Exchange-affiliated sites? Or is this rather another "founder exception" to the rules?

> It seemed to me that he felt the comments should stand because they were constructive in nature.

And yet many on meta.math also felt they were distinctly unconstructive, to the point of overt rudeness -- including the most highly upvoted answer to that question. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to.

Honestly, I think the mathematicians would be a lot better off if they spent more time worrying about math and less time writing thousands (literally, thousands) of words on meaningless issues on the meta site.

"According to the onetime editor of Woodrow Wilson’s papers, however, long before any of them strode the academic-political scene, Wilson observed often that the intensity of academic squabbles he witnessed while president of Princeton University was a function of the “triviality” of the issues being considered."

http://ask.metafilter.com/80812/Academic-politics-are-viciou...

> And yet many on meta.math also felt they were distinctly unconstructive, to the point of overt rudeness -- including the most highly upvoted answer to that question. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to.

I cannot disagree in the slightest with the idea that the politics and squabbling inherent to academia can be vicious and/or intense.

I certainly do not think /this/ was an example of such however. Like I said earlier I understand there is some backstory I'm not seeing here -- perhaps this was just the very minor straw that broke the camel's back. If that's the case I think it would be a lot more understandable to people if that were clearly stated.

Or, let me ask it another way: What would be the constructive way to ask whether high professional mathematician participation should be expected at a conference sponsored in part by someone who finds mathematicians exasperating and shows disdain for mathematics?

Before you answer: I read the post that Prof. Clark linked to trying to demonstrate your self-expressed "disdain", and I read only that you felt you were terrible at math, not that you didn't like it. Pointing that out would have been much easier than deleting the comment I think, or pointing out that specific mis-interpretation as an example of non-politeness would have proved your point, but I didn't see you doing either.

> And yet many on meta.math also felt they were distinctly unconstructive, to the point of overt rudeness -- including the most highly upvoted answer to that question. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to.

You made me go back and check. You neglected to mention that the "deletion of the comments was questionable", which was the very next part of the highest-rated answer's comment. I suspect it was highest-rated because it is the answer pleading for compromise, but either way very near in the voting is an answer explicitly stating that Prof. Clark's comments were constructive and non ad hominem, and close behind is a comment from Prof. Clark himself. I don't see how trying to point to numbers on meta.math actually helps your case here, Jeff.

All of your spiel about wanting the StackExchange community to be nice is fine and I agree with it, but it is irrelevant here since the comments Atwood deleted were not "non-nice". If he is so sensitive that he construed them as such he probably should not be a moderator.