Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

n-Forum: Suggestions for Forum decorum

Bottom of Page

1 to 11 of 11

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2010
    • (edited Jul 8th 2010)

    I would like to make the following suggestions (by no means original to me) for conversation on a forum:

    • Try not to offend others.
    • Try not to be offended.

    In general, there is no need to post a comment whose main effect will be to offend others or to post a comment whose main purpose is to point out that one has been offended.

    (I hope that it may helpful be to link to this post sometimes from other threads. I would encourage such links to be made only by third parties and that replies to such links be made here.)

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2010
    • And if you feel offended by something someone else says, try to ignore it and concentrate on the subject at hand.
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2010
    • And pointing out technical mistakes is not an offense, but the whole point of having a technical discussion. If somebody makes a wrong claim here, it is not polite not to correct it.

    Specifically, if I spout nonsense, please everybody do their utmost to set me straight. It might hurt my ego, but it is not an offense. It is the whole point of discussing stuff with you all.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorjamievicary
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2010

    I feel this is the sort of thing one can only learn from one’s mother…

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2010
    • Don’t talk about one-another’s mothers.

    Really only because it rhymed and was tangentially relevant…

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2010
    • (edited Jul 9th 2010)

    Seriously, guys, it’s a simple situation: we want a civil atmosphere here, but we also have a project running here that we don’t want to be jeopardized.

    So the point here is not to be an all-feel-well-chat-club by all means but to support the nnLab. If that involves criticism, then this criticism should be voiced, civilly. And heard.

    Strictly speaking, non-technical discussion is out of bounds here whether offensive or not. And purely technical discussion cannot really be offensive. If it is taken as such, that’s a problem on the side of the recipient.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2010
    • (edited Jul 9th 2010)

    I naturally agree with Kevin and Urs. I also hope that Kevin will stay, since I really appreciate his contributions here.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2010

    And pointing out technical mistakes is not an offense, but the whole point of having a technical discussion.

    Right. There’s a difference between saying ‘This is incorrect, because of such and such technical reason.’ and ‘This is incorrect, because you apparently don’t know the first thing about the subject.’. The first of my suggestions should ban the second of these but not the first.

    And the point of my second suggestion is that one should not respond ‘How dare you say such a thing?’ to either of these statements. One should instead respond to the technical points of the first and ignore the second entirely.

    The real danger is people going back and forth. The Forum can be useful with an isolated comment in violation of either of my suggestions, but not with a conversation of comments in alternate violation of them.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2010

    I think that one is fully justified in making the second comment. It is not meant as an insult. It’s the hard truth that one has to face sometimes. Whether or not it was harshly worded doesn’t mean that the point there isn’t valid. In the situation you’re referencing (where the second comment was made, for all intents and purposes), I think that one should take the criticism to heart and thank the person for his/her honesty. I think that comments of the second kind are fine when confronted with the inane attempts of people to ask questions that are far beyond their depth.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2010
    • (edited Jul 9th 2010)

    It is not meant as an insult.

    That’s why my suggestion says ‘Try not to insult others.’ rather than ‘Don’t intend to insult others.’.

    I think that comments of the second kind are fine when confronted with the inane attempts of people to ask questions that are far beyond their depth.

    That is where you and I rather profoundly disagree. However intended, I cannot imagine any circumstances under which the second comment would actually produce a beneficial result in a discussion. Certainly, such comments have not produced benificial results on this Forum in the past.

    Well, there is no need to go on and on here, so I won’t any more. The bottom line for me is the result, not the intent.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2010
    • (edited Jul 9th 2010)

    That is where you and I rather profoundly disagree. However intended, I cannot imagine any circumstances under which the second comment would actually produce a beneficial result in a discussion.

    I can give you an example (it was directed at me, and I took it in stride) from Math Overflow.

    The fact is, however, that I know a lot more algebraic geometry than Ian knows category theory, and even though I was totally shut down, I didn’t make a big fuss about it.

1 to 11 of 11

  1.