"On a website where (personal estimation) 90% (are there some statistics) of the questions get below 100 views in their time of existence, what this "enforcement of quality standards" is trying to achieve is simply not going to happen." It is not very clear what your point is. Indeed it was observed that relative to other sites we have many questions but few views. This might be taken as evidence that we should rather have less questions but then (on average) more interesting ones.

'Just let me choose what I "waste" my time on. If I want to answer "bad" questions, then let me do it. I think everyone deserves an answer to their questions and that there are no dumb questions.' No, because it is detrimental to the site as a whole. In both your quotes one can sense a misconception that what we collectively do is somehow irrelevant to how the site evolves.

I am not going to discuss over my statements in my post above. If there are some statistics about the number of views the questions get here, I would be interested in seeing them. Just to say that, roughly 90% (probably about 99%) of questions and answers here, are complete trash in the sense of "quality". Take me for example. One quality post ouf off 300. :( The truth hurts, but I am not that good of a mathematician yet. And eventually when I am good enough I will imigrate to mathoverflow, as everybody else. Just let me have some fun.

Also my main point is that banning me for 24 hours for answering the linked questions above, where I deleted two myself, is just insane.

Can you clarify: when you say you are sent to the penalty box, do you mean you are suspended? If yes, what is the reason (low quality contribution, cool down,...?) It is not very clear if you are suspended because of answering the question or the rude comments.

@ArcticChar I included the massage from the moderation team. The reason was "violation of rules" not "cool down". Also the comment the moderation team refered to was completly harmless and just a little childish from myside, which was (I admit) intentional. The comment was adressed to the user fleablood, so maybe he can answer from first person how he thought about that comment, which I can not link, or quote.

The attitude displayed in your first comment here is rather problematic.

@quid Why? That I am not willing to discuss, or because of something else? I am not going to discuss the points because it is just pointless to do so. The reason I posted this is to get some awareness of what can get you banned at this state of the site, and banning users for answering questions, is simply toxic.

I got warned in may 21 and suspended june 3 for low qual contribs . During this period the only answers I deleted were self deleted by myself, by my own determination, and quickly. I think my other answers were fine, I'm pretty sure the post that detonated it was an answer I added to a question that had been linked to as a dupe target, so I simply added my answer in the old one to the dupe target (because it was a different answer). Another of my answers was later revived math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/33674/…

@Yorch Considering the fact that you are close to 100k reputation at the math.stackexchange, it is just disrespectful regarding the time and effort you have put into this website for answering a question that is a dublicate, and bann you for it.

to be fair am not 100% sure that is really what detonated the suspencion, but I still believe my performance during that period did not merit me getting suspended.

For example "And eventually when I am good enough I will imigrate to mathoverflow, as everybody else. Just let me have some fun." is pretty dismissive of this site. This site is not here for your entertainment. Besides, I for one, won't migrate to MO when I'm good enough, for I left it years ago with an account of a non-negligible size.

No it is not a bold statement, it is a fact. The site has a specific goal and this takes precedence. A volunteer fire department is not there for entertainment either.

I dont deny that. My statement is: Everyone is here because he enjoys it. If it is not enjoyable for users to be at the site anymore, then you see how far this gets you. I am not predicting the end of math.stackexchange. It is also just a fact, and these ominous rules, and unexpected banns for answering questions, which I am sure of, is something many users are not aware of that this happens right now, is sucking the joy out of this website for sure. You can enforce quality standards in other ways. Maybe a starting point would be to disable reputation gain on low-quality posts.

"A volunteer fire department is not there for entertainment either." Obviously you can have/enjyo a hobby and take it seriously at the same time... Noone is getting paid here. Everyone is here because he enjoys mathematics.

"Maybe a starting point would be to disable reputation gain on low-quality posts." That comment is incredibly naive.

Was your suspension the first time you heard of the EoQS policy?

You say that one can "enjyoy a hobby and take it seriously at the same time", indeed, but from what you write here one does not get the sense that you do take it seriously. That's the problem.

@CalvinKhor No, I noticed that post, but honestly never have read it all the way through.

@quid If you think that this suggestions is "incredibly naive" thats up to you, but no need to personally attack me, with such a negative word. And that I do not take this website seriously is completly obvious from my reputation score, questions with high formating effort, and answers to question I always to my best to be helpful. I am not going to discuss with you anymore over this.

I did not personally attack you I evaluated a suggestion, granted quite critically. There is currently no mechanism in place that would allow to do what you propose in a reasonable way, and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that SE would implement such a feature. This even leaves aside the detail that somebody would need to decide on which posts qualify for that. To put forward such an idea, which at best would take massive changes and preparation in advance, as "a starting point" is hard to take seriously. The rest of your comment is hard to understand is there a "not" too much?

Yes, it is obviously much easier to decide for which answers you should bann a user. :) Besides that I am pretty sure that it is incredibly easy to disable reputation gain on questions which got closed. Regarding the "not" .... I was sarcastic.

It seems you missed the second part "and there is no reason whatsoever to assume that SE would implement such a feature" likely because the change would be controversial. That said, for deleted questions for the most part points are deducted In that sense it is already done and does not have the desired effect.

I do not understand your comment.