@ArtOfCode not sure if there was an edit between when you put this on hold and now, but it's definitely a valid question now.

@AdamWykes There was an edit, but the two questions at the end are still tech support questions, and the recommendation question that is here is too broad.

@ArtOfCode Take another look - the two questions at the end are actually comments - identified by the user as such, and have directly to do with which board might be better for them. The recommendation question that is here is for us to choose between two models of motherboard, specifically defined. How is it supposed to get more specific than that? No sarcasm intended; I'm honestly in the dark here about what you're seeing.

@AdamWykes The recommendation has not defined enough specific requirements for the motherboard yet; we need detailed requirements about what the author wants from the board. The two questions at the end are most definitely questions, identified by the question marks.

When I read "My question is, in order to exploit the full potential of the graphic card at as low price as possible, which motherboard should I choose: this one with Intel H110 chipset or this one with H170?" I am seeing just about as well-defined a case as I can possibly imagine. The user has just specifically stated that they want the cheapest board of these two which can fully feed the graphics card they chose (the answer is whichever mobo is cheaper since both will do it). That is an objective fact having to do with PCI-E lane stats and cannot be further refined.

As for the "questions

Continue your discussion in here.

I would like to note that by moving the ENTIRE chat, you basically are removing evidence from the question itself that other people who might nominate the question for reopening would have otherwise seen.

There's a link to this discussion right there in the comments, you can hardly say it's hidden.

that concern addressed - the question can't be defined further. should I propose an edit that simply removes the two "questions" at the end? would that do it?

the link is another layer of obfuscation for a format that is supposed to make things clear.

An edit like that will be rejected.

why?

Because it doesn't come from the author.

the author can choose to accept my edit? i've already done that in the past.

it worked fine

@AdamWykes yeah, and the other 10 or so times you've done that, we've rejected your edits for it.

Yes, you did. Probably before the user got a chance to see what I did.

You can't just put words in someone's mouth, because then you're changing what they're asking for to something they might not want.

not entering into that discussion

I'm going to stick to this one question for right now

if you'd like to talk philosophy and casuistry about the other stuff later, I'm totally down for it at a more convenient time

you can also see that the question was easily answered by another user already, in any case.

@AdamWykes yeah, that's a terrible low-quality answer that I was actually debating deletion for. That's not what we want in answers.

This isn't casuistry.

I'm going to create a meta question asking why this question was closed and edits refining the question (without redefining it) to meet site criteria 100% were rejected by the moderators prior to their implementation.

It's casuistry.

The answer IS terrible

I downvoted it

there's a REAL answer in the comments

@AdamWykes sure, go right ahead. Meta discussions are fun.

we're done here.

@AdamWykes I'm sure we've said something about answering in comments before, too.