CURED

Please do not stir up controversy.

@RithikKapoor the vote is irrelevant. If you do not wish to contribute to the purpose of the room, please, leave.

@RithikKapoor Curiously I had not even seen that post. I now voted and it is at 0 now. :-) Irespective to this, there are several issue with the idea of this post, leaving aside the inconclusive nature of the vote. Anyway, please, do not stir up controversy here.

You can "follow" the question, in case any further action is required.

Unfortunately, I see the discomfort from suspension has been forgotten by many of the regular offenders; thus far, there seems not to be a lessening in PSQ and crappy questions, because former users without much of a chance to "cap daily" formerly, are now jumping in to handle the worst of the worst, and so too some previously sanctioned users still addicted to rep, to their habit have relapsed.

@JitendraSingh He's describing users closing a post by the normal methods is not in any way "forceful removal". Please think before you post. And search before you ask.

@jasmine If it does not meet the site quality standards, then you should not even post it in the first place. This site is not Chegg or Yahoo Answers or Quora.

@XanderHenderson: By the way, why are some EOQS violators not getting suspended despite repeatedly violating it after warnings? I can't name users here, but some of my recent related flags were "helpful" but with no result.

@lonestudent Your post was closed because five users voted to close it. The fifth user who cast a close vote was you. The question was automatically deleted because it was closed, had a net zero score, and had no answers.

@darijgrinberg what's your point? The question is whether the method is admissible or not. In the current case the application seems straightforward. But that's irrelevant to the point. The problem is that due to lack of context it is not clear if the method is admissible in the given context. It might be. Or it might not be. Could be a contest problem, could also be calculus homework.

But @A-LevelStudent Since you agree the question should be closed, why did you answer it, (which is discouraged in the EoQS)??

@Peter I mean, Plato was wrong. Math is invented, not discovered. Hail Wittgenstein.

@Peter It’s a bit capital-R Romantic, but I also don’t think it’s meant to be taken literally.

@MikePierce I’m not sure that there is much that can be done about a wrong answer outside of giving it enough downvotes in hopes that the user fixes it or deletes it. However, the answer is so old and the user has not visited the site in so long that any downvote would be useless for grabbing the user’s attention.

@user21820 I suspect something fishy going on. Asker/answerer same owner?? If anything on this site is ever going to burn me out, it will be due those who play games with the rules, and more accurately, this site's failure to to take such nefarious actions seriously.

@mods How is it possible that the answerer, one of the most frequent EQS offenders, is not suspended. Yes, I have flagged him now and several other times.

@Joe EoQS addresses answers to low quality questions, lacking context, not just PSQ's. Just because you think doing so anyway is okay, doesn't make it okay to do so.

@Joe That question about "deeper ideas" was never asked. Math.se is not a forum to juice out all the deeper conjectures, possibilities, etc. This is not your blog, nor the OPs. Your excuse is fails, big time.

@Bill, I'm now just venting about seasoned answerers answering fairly elementary questions that are certain dupes: e.g. math.stackexchange.com/q/4193631/9003. It sometimes gets exasperating. I know you can relate.

@KReiser It was a manipulative, self serving EW, comment. Why such loyalty to EW?

@KReiser I maintain it wasn't. Do you not understand that people with perceived clout, telling an OP what to do, is necessarily voluntary on the part of the OP? You can't get it. You are claiming something means something based on your interpretation. And yes, you are indeed playing word games, to dress your biases.

I think you all are taking this business a little hard. There will always be questions on MSE that are difficult to review for outsiders to a field - for instance, I often cannot make heads nor tails of reasonably advanced probability theory questions, and so I frequently skip them in review queues. I think that's a decent approach, and asking for a little humility and a little context as a reviewer when getting in to areas that one isn't quite as familiar with is a very reasonable request.

@Peter I asked, because I flagged it. It was declined by a mod. Part of me suspects, as another user there demonstrates, some sort of unearned leeway the answerer has on this site, as also his supporter.

@Peter I noticed the same, there. I am getting sick of the poor quality of questions he answers lately, and behavior that seems to want to circumvent the guidelines of this site.

I kind of wish community bot could be spurred to do something of that nature.

And of course expectation of 100% consistency for matters of judgement is an unreasonable stance to hold. Anywhere, frankly. This room is not about black-and-white.

Glad to see a few accepted my invitation here.

@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ D7 looks like nerd sniping. (ref: xkcd.com/356) It is the kind of series which "calls" to a certain kind of person, which likely explains the upvotes. I am not a fan of it within the Math SE format, but I am not going to take unilateral action (it has already been closed, kept closed in review, and reopened---if I close it now, I am overruling the "desire" of the community). However, I would be happy to cast vote number 5 when/if possible.

@PM2Ring Popularity does not indicate usefulness. Crankery is popular.

A clear duplicate: math.stackexchange.com/q/4567795/42969

There is a very vocal group which insists that we cannot demand context from folks who ask questions at a low level, because they lack the mathematical maturity to ask a good question. Hence the context standards should not apply to those kinds of questions. They are just doing their best, after all.

There is another vocal group which insists that we cannot demand context from folks who ask questions at a high level, because anyone capable of understanding the question will already understand the context, and anyone who doesn't immediately grok it doesn't matter.

A link, with no description of what is behind that link, is not context. A single paragraph explaining the linked problem and the relation between the new question and the linked question would be a vast improvement. But the original asker, after being asked to provide that context, chose not to.

These things help answerers to address things at the correct level, and to make questions more searchable. Context also helps both answerers and potential future asker orient themselves.

@MikeEarnest You seem to have the idea that context is required in order to prevent cheating. This is not the case.

I recall quid telling me that people could extrapolate the "Be Nice" policy to answer PSQs and say they are being nice. I never believed that an example of such a phenomena could exist : until today , that is.

@Axel I can't think of anyone on math.se that hasn't made a mistake. Thanks for stopping by!

@Archer Curiosity is natural, but A) Nobody will discuss suspensions. They are a private matter. B) It's off-topic in this chatroom.

So I completely checked the list of bounties 15 out of 59 question came to be bountied PSQs. This account for approximately $25%$. I would want to share some 2 results with you @TeresaLisbon @TheSimpliFire @amWhy @XanderHenderson @jasmine and others

@JitendraSingh: irrespective of the time and reputation on this site one is expected to behave in a civil manner in all the interaction. Also the real reputation and the respect of a user is not really related to the reputation points.

@JitendraSingh Great! Thanks for posting! +1 from me is there. Good work! Sleep well!

It seems to be a moving target.

And the "rules" are what is written in these posts and not what some users comment.

PSQs, most of which don't even have 150 characters, are launching an onslaught during this hour by taking half of the first page of new posts.

@OliverDíaz I disagree. Duplicate questions should not be answered. If one has something novel to say, post a new answer to the old question. (Note: this is said with my moderator hat off. Official policy is a little hazy here.)

duplicate Here is a duplicate. A user who is very engaged in curating postings gave an answer.

close Here is a duplicate regarding periodic expansion of rational numbersAlthough I appreciate the effort that the user puts in posting his/her questions, He/She is not checking for duplicates. He/She is n to solving the problems herself but looking at solutions manuals.

Ok, that last link did NOT preserve the query I had last run. It looks like this permalink will, though: data.stackexchange.com/math/query/1664695

@BillDubuque some things are different some things are similar to other sites. The proposition that we could not have a homework policy on this site because it's about mathematics strikes me as plainly odd. I personally do not think we should have a "no homework" policy, but it would be possible and not particularly problematic or extreme. Yes, it would cut down a lot on volume, but maybe that'd not be bad either.

@BillDubuque What if I refer the rules as those in 'How to Ask a Good Question' and all the reasons for closure, such as "This question is missing context or other details"?