CURED

but, sure, noted. My record on MSE is.. just fine. Essentially every reaction I ever have is neutral or positive; I often go out of my way to be helpful, especially to new users

@XanderHenderson I hear that point, but indeed don't have much faith in reopening on the whole. Without moderator attention, it tends not to happen. The only reasonable answers that could be posted right now would be answers from people who have read the references the op has read (and also given!!), so they would be well-suited to answer anyway. I see no value in closing now, as opposed to potentially closing tomorrow. It would most likely discourage op from just never completing the question

@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ Closing this one makes it open to the possibility of deletion. Which should not happen, since it is obviously an interesting question and many people have learned something from it. One should be allowed to ask questions 'outside their weightclass'.

@FShrike I've not looked at the question. In general, of a question is not in an appropriate state now, it should be closed now. The point of closure, among other things, is to prevent answers which might be invalidated when the question is clarified. If the promised edits come, the question can be reopened.

I am pointing out how you misunderstood Joe and that your point, while brilliant and true, didn't actually matter here

You are quibbling about semantics. This is going nowhere.

@Jakobian I mean, you made a distinction between "reason" and "explanation", but Joe's comment talks both about reasons and explanations. And I maintain that it is impossible to vote to close without giving some kind of reason or explanation. This might just be boilerplate, and we can discuss how useful that boilerplate is, but a close voter cannot procede without, at minimum, checking a box to say "I am voting to close this question for [reason]."

But the relevant point is still that insisting on closing something without giving an explanation, while someone has given an explanation why they think it shouldn't be closed, is well... it can be puzzling

This feels (in my opinion) very much like a distinction without a difference.

asking for an elaboration of a close vote, is perfectly reasonable, especially if you've given your point of view already and you see nothing that would oppose that view

The same cannot be said for reopen votes---a close voter must give some reason and/or explanation, a reopen voter needn't.

It was an honest question; obviously not lazy; obviously of potential future value, especially if more answers might be added (impossible if the question is closed)

@amWhy Please do not delete / move on-topic messages to trash. This is an abuse of room owner privileges (esp. since the message critiques one of your actions).

@Mittens I will gladly consider posts given after 2020 (there are plenty of low quality posts needing deletion over the course of the last four years. But I will ignore posts made way-back-when.

In general, content curation should focus on new content, not old content. There is plenty of new stuff which needs work.

It is nigh certain that EoQS flags for anything more than a few months old will be ignored (whether they are marked as helpful or not).

That being said, the motivation for the procedural change is to remove some of the incentives for posting low-quality questions (if answers are not given, it is less likely that a given user will ask similar questions in the future). The emphasis with respect to low-quality question answering should be on new questions.

This feels too elementary to not be a dupe but I can't find any

I think that it is also worth noting that the majority of the people who are active in this room are typically in favor of closure / deletion (there are systemic reasons why this probably should be true---Sturgeon's Law being what it is, but the fact remains). I think that this makes it very hard for people to request reopening / undeletion, particularly when those people are treated with hostility in a way that close / delete requests are not.

@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ It is neither of these things. Everyone who posts requests for action here should expect to be asked to explain those requests. This is entirely on-topic and reasonable. This room exists to create openness and transparency. A refusal to engage with the simple question "Why?" seems to violate the spirit of the room.

@BillDubuque The asymmetry on disclosure of reasons why to answer/close/etc. specific questions or in general has recurred so many times here and on meta that I don't find it constructive in any sense to reignite the exchange of words in this room.

@Ѕᴀᴀᴅ Why did you move those messages to trash? They contained useful discussion on policy that are pertinent to all here. transparency is important here.

You are welcome to downvote, or to comment to express disagreement, but voting to delete is a violation of the spirit of that thread.

math.stackexchange.com/q/4950090/42969 should be closed as a duplicate IMO: Several references for this determinant identity have been given before.

@Jakobian And when I saw it, I tried to delete it. "But someone else got away with bad behaviour" is not an excuse to engage in the same behaviour.

@Feeds should not have been reopened, imo.

@Peter I think everyone who wants to contribute should do so. But also there's no need to try and force it onto others. Its not such a pressing issue either.

(I was the fourth vote, but the only non-dupe vote).

@Peter It is not the moderator's job, in general, to decide which posts should be open or closed or deleted or undeleted, except in very clear-cut cases. In general, we try to remain hands-off, and let the community moderate content. And you will notice that the question is currently deleted, again.

Dv/D PSQ & surely dupe too, nothing novel

@XanderHenderson I agree that it's incorrect. The answerer admits so in the comments.

Then it seems that dupe closure is appropriate...

@Jakobian Spamming the site with hundreds of dupes of common exercises is not a good way to improve searchability.

strange question but probably no hope for a closure , let alone for a deletion. But I think , it would deserve deletion.

@Peter I empathize with your position, and I'd have to agree with you. The problem is that any and all former moderators are treated my our mods, and Community Mods, as privileged, and I've yet to see any substantive action taken against any former mod, since I've been a member. Not an excuse for it, but favoritism is a reality on SE.

Dv/D ^^^PSQ & dupe of huge FAQ

Two-sentences psq demand, starting with "please give me a detailed explanation"

I can see why this question was closed, but I think the OP is going in the correct direction. Deletion seems a bit much. With a bit of clean up and focus, it could be a decent question. I was writing a comment on how it could be improved, but the question was deleted.

🐂🐂🐂

@XanderHenderson I have seen a couple users try to force that rule on others. And at least one user will downvote your posts if you don't follow that rule (which I will not).

@BillDubuque If all you had written was "Disclosing 'affiliation' is not a "rule" but only a recommendation," I would have had no quarrel with you. The addition of "...that some users attempt to force on others," crossed a line. I don't think that is a fair characterization of any of the interactions I have seen in this room (or in the meta thread), and it unfairly castigates other people.

Which is exactly what I said in the first place:

@BillDubuque When, at any point, have I ever claimed otherwise? I have tried to be very careful to avoid any language about it being a rule. I have said, repeatedly, that it is a "polite request".

I get that you like to stand on principles, but I am speaking more out of social pragmatics.

@XanderHenderson Ok, finally something we can agree on - "it is not a hard and fast rule". Let's leave it at that.

Nowhere has anyone stated that this is a hard and fast rule, but it is something with helps to lubricate interaction here, as it preempts accusations of acting in bad faith.

When you ask other people to take action, and you stand to benefit from them taking that action (even if it is just imaginary internet points, which people here often take way too seriously), it is fair for others to ask that you disclose this, first.

But it is not unreasonable for other people in this room to politely ask that others do.

I said nothing about you acting in bad faith - please read more carefully. Scarlet letter refers to the annotations you insist on, viz. "I answered this" (so maybe I am gaming the system etc). There is no need for such remarks.

You are being dramatic. What "scarlet letters" are you talking about?