Tonico wrote: >quasi wrote: >>amzoti wrote: >> >>>Leave the cesspool that is sci.math. >> >> Sorry you see it that way. >> >>>See a real math newsgroup. >> >>>http://math.stackexchange.com/questions >> >> math.stackexchange is _not_ a newsgroup. >> >> It's fine for what it is -- questions and answers, but >> >> not much good for back and forth discussions -- it's >> >> not designed for that. > >Almost agree with that. As it is now, sci.math is a dumper where >many of us come to have a little fun, to let steam out, etc.
Sure, you can have fun here if you want to -- nothing wrong with that, but of the non-crank, non-troll sci.math participants (of which I would estimate that there are currently about 40 regulars and perhaps 100 or more less regulars), most do not participate in the mode you describe.
>It doesn't serve almost for mathematics,
Math _is_ done here, and sci.math's free-form, multi-way discussion format makes the interaction very easy.
>but only for trolls, cranks, or any other bored cyberscum (WM, >Archimedes P., Musatov, Herc = Cooper, Julio, etc.) to live >without any fear of being kicked out at once.
Cranks and trolls are no big deal -- they are easily ignored.
>These poor characters wouldn't remain active more than a few >minutes in SE, Physics Forum or any other more or less serious >site, and they'd have to dedicate their lives to make up new >nicks and to have several IP numbers in order to avoid complete >eviction.
sci.math has free speech, so yes, cranks and trolls are part of the environment, but as I said, it's no big deal -- that stuff is easily ignored. It's a small price to pay for the luxury of true free speech.
>Nevertheless, it'd be nice to have a site that, besides maths, >could accept open discussions,
It exists -- it's called sci.math.
>as long as the people involved in them are minimally serious.
In a democratic environment, you can't have everything go the way you want.
>Too bad the intentions of 3-4 years ago to have such a >moderated site here didn't work out...
In the end, the moderated site concept fails precisely because of the moderation. It would create a barrier to entry, slow down the interaction, and leave an anti-democratic stigma of censors and censorship.