## Community Guidelines

We aim to build a community at Thuses that fosters vibrant and interesting math conversations. We ask that everyone be mindful of the following principle:

It is far more acceptable to criticize *ideas* than to criticize *people.*

In addition, please adhere to the following community guidelines.

**No bigotry** Do not use language that has the potential to offend (but not limited to) a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or disability status.

**No harassment** We do not tolerate name-calling, personal insults, bullying, or *any* form of harassment.

**Respect** Criticism is welcome (and in fact healthy!) but please do so in a respectful way.

**Example scenarios: **

- X writes a post on a standard undergraduate math topic. Y can respond to X’s post in two ways:
- “Why did you write this? Your post is trivial.”
- “I think this post is not suitable for Thuses.”

The first of these is unacceptable, while the second is acceptable.

- X writes a post on the work of Z. However, Y does not like Z, and responds with the following comment: “I wouldn’t read anything written by Z as Z is a bad writer.” This comment is unacceptable as Y is engaging in name-calling.
- X makes a comment on Y’s post saying that they do not know the meaning of some of the terminology. Seeing this, Z responds with a “Let me google that for you” hyperlink. This comment by Z is unacceptable.
- Lemma 3 of X’s post claims that some operator is self-adjoint. Y knows that this is false (and even has a counterexample), and can respond to X’s post in two ways:
- “Your claim in Lemma 3 that operator is self-adjoint is trivially false. How could you not realize that one can easily construct a counterexample?”
- “I think that operator in Lemma 3 need not be self-adjoint. Consider the following counterexample.”

The first of these is far more confrontational than the second, as the sentence “How could you not realize…?” is a personal attack on X. Therefore, this comment is strictly unacceptable. On the other hand, the second comment is acceptable and is the kind of thing we welcome at Thuses.

- There is an error in Theorem 1 of X’s post. Seeing this, Y decides to respond: “I think I have a counterexample to Theorem 1 in the way it’s written now. However, if you impose further assumptions, then I think Theorem 1 true, but I don’t know how to prove it.” This is exactly the kind of comment we want to see on Thuses!