@user21820 D1 - D12 are all gone.

C1 needs two more votes for deletion.

For deletion: D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6

For closure: C1, C2, C3, C4

Again a bountied PSQ: B1 @XanderHenderson

This question can be closed now

@Saad One more delete-vote. For the record, I voted to delete because the EOQS violator posted an answer before the asker improved the original PSQ. If the improvement had come first, I would not vote to delete.

Note : I have posted a question two lines above. It has been defended in the comments of the same question as searchable. I have decided that it was my predisposition that this was a high-level question, and that truly this question is better off being open than closed. I am willing to defend this opinion.

Correction : high-level to be replaced by low level above.

@TeresaLisbon In my opinion, it's borderline (and hence perfectly fine to be subject to disagreement on closure even among those who abide by the EOQS). The motivation is clear, though it is kind of lacking in effort. To give another example, suppose that someone comes along and says "If a[n]→0 as n→∞, does sum { a[k]·(−1)^k : k from 0 to ∞ } converge? I ask as a potential strategy to prove that 1−1/2+1/3−1/4+... converges." Wanting to solve another problem is fine, but I'd prefer more effort.

Nevertheless, I won't be bothered at all if it is left open, since there are far worse questions that we can have higher agreement on closure. =)

This answer which does not answer the question, can be deleted now.

@user21820 Thanks. I've extended the olive branch to the user. I know I can be crazy sometimes , it's a virus of a different kind that shows up often.

I can't be going overboard like I did there. I hope the other user accepts the apology, otherwise it's another night without sleep.

@user21820 But the reason I'm slightly confused is this : I send them the " how to ask a good question" post. The problem is the line that says "People capable of writing "mathematically clear" questions are of course free to disregard the suggestions on this page". Now I don't get this : what if a PSQ is mathematically clear? Then do we disregard it? The reason I was off about that question is that it references its context from another question and despite being mathematically stated well...

... is not more than a PSQ. What does "mathematical clarity" even mean? If it merely means that the problem is stated in a manner where it's understood properly, then that actually qualifies a lot of PSQs, doesn't it? So that's why I'm confused. On the other hand, I actually believed that the OP's question isn't clear "mathematically" because it wasn't obvious as to why they wanted the truth/falsity of their assertion without referring to the other post. The lack of a "why?" for me qualified..

. as a lack of mathematical clarity, because I wasn't able to place this post into a more general background and understand where the user's assumption might be coming from. The user thought this was inessential and would cloud the argument. I thought it would enhance the quality of an answer, rather than give a mere counterexample. All I want at this point is for a review of the statement of Willie Wong, because I don't want it to be a get-out-of-jail card for worse questions.

I still think that for a question to be mathematically clear, it is important to mention the source and the background of the user, and in the case of a good user (one who is studying stochastic processes) they probably would have the maturity to try and understand why they are thinking in a certain way, and including it isn't clouding the post, it could hide a deeper symptom, which will then require a response of better quality to be revealed. That question for me wasn't mathematically clear...

... for that reason, and I think I just gave in because I didn't have a counterargument.

And regarding searchability referenced by Oliver : I think the title of the question was clear, so that alone would qualify searchability to a high degree. The post itself did require the OP's input for revealing the inner thinking behind such an estimate. Or perhaps I'm demanding too much?

→ 1 message moved to ­Trash

@user21820 In C2, the wheel theory is mentioned again. Sigh !

Any good reason for a close-vote for C3 ? Not that I find this question on-topic, but I failed to find the suitable reason.

@TeresaLisbon I don't blame the question for linking to another one on Math SE, because we can safely assume that if the question stays around then the other one (on the same site) also does, so there is no link-rot (which is only an issue for external links). That is why my only slight concern with the question is that it lacks effort to actually solve the question posed, since it did provide motivation for the question.

There are some people who think that sufficient motivation is enough. I do think it is a substantial factor, but that it may not be enough, because I also expect effort. For example, consider if an expert mathematician gets lazy and just randomly throws out ideas without even spending 1 minute to think about whether it might work, and expects other mathematicians to work on those ideas for them. It is clear that it is unacceptable behaviour.

This question is too broad

So I just want to see sufficient evidence in a question of a reasonable effort at the asker's level. If the asker is clearly a beginner in a topic, of course I won't expect much. That said, as I mentioned earlier I have no issue with this question not being closed, since it states the motivation clearly (and isn't crankery). Sorry I have to include that caveat just in case people say that cranks should be allowed to post their highly 'motivated' questions!

@Peter The reason for C3 was that I recall the asker posing a huge number of questions on primorials that seem to border on numerology; there is no mathematical basis for focusing on primorials.

@user21820 Agreed with everything you said, but what is your take on Willie Wong's statement regarding the fact that a mathematically clear question can ignore the guidelines? That question had source and motivation in a different post , so all said and done it wasn't self-contained. All I want to make sure is that this doesn't become a template for PSQs to be ignoring guidelines as "mathematically clear" questions where the OP clings to a self-definition of mathematical clarity.

In short, I don't think Willie's statement holds any light with respect to what we are doing usually, which is closing such questions for lacking context. We are nowadays saying that regardless of the level of the question, the source and background must be present in the question. If what Willie is saying is correct, not only should we ignore that question but a lot of other so-called PSQs. This is what is bothering me.

I'm thinking that we must rethink that opinion, and require some form of context as mentioned in his post to be part of the question. I'm somehow not comfortable with merely "mathematically perfectly stated" questions being equated to "mathematically clear"questions, because that will be a template for PSQs.

Mathematical clarity surely is not enough. "Is XY prime ?" is a mathematically clear question, if XY is some concrete integer greater than $1$ , but surely off-topic without further context.

Exactly!

But I'm scared because I direct people to the good question post, and there's this line which says precisely that : "people who ask mathematically clear questions are free to ignore this advice" that will either project our job so far of closing a lot many such questions in a wrong light, OR it means that this line requires far more scrutiny than I afforded in that post.

In particular, merely being able to mathematically state your question shouldn't make it : "mathematically clear", right?

That's what I feel happened in that post. Now suddenly, I feel like thinking it should be closed for setting such a template. Then again, I can't do that because of that single line of Willie Wong. It either needs review, or some form of relooking at, because for me you cannot sit back and ignore those guidelines by saying you wrote your question without a mathematical fault!

I can't imagine how many PSQs we will let through because of the existence of this one line. I know it sounds funny, but I cannot think of a single question that will be acceptable on this site without one of those conditions being fulfilled within the post.

Either source, or background, or motivation, or definitions, or attempt, a mathematically clear question devoid of all these things , should it be on site? Because that's what Willie Wong is saying there. I don't feel comfortable with it.

@TeresaLisbon I believe that the statement you are talking about was not said with the intention people ascribe to it.

Firstly, Willie's statement clearly refers to people who are capable (in his evaluation) of writing mathematically clear questions. This excludes a lot of homework posters, as well as a lot of non-homework posters. What then did he mean? I think he meant that those who are already good at writing good questions don't need to worry.

Not that people should take his comment as an excuse.

The question is, was it taken as an excuse in that question?

Ok whatever, I'm rambling too much. I'll think about this more and get back.

D7

Thanks @user21820 for your comments, though. They were very useful.

I am not really a good person to ask as I may not be representative of the majority of users here. My main concern is with doing the right thing, and so if a question does not clearly face such an issue (e.g. cheating, lying, spouting nonsense) I have little qualms about it. In this case, it provides clear motivation, even if I didn't check the mathematics behind that stated motivation. It can't be an attempt at cheating or lying.

The lacking effort to solve the question is much milder concern, as long as it is not part of a pattern of asking such effort-lacking questions. However, this concern is a very effective measure to weed out most questions that face potential ethical issues, and have been codified in the EOQS.

That's why in the earlier example I gave about a lazy mathematician, it's the same thing; it is a problem when it is laziness. It's not a big problem (or maybe not even a problem) to me if it's unintentionally lacking, if we can clearly see that the motivation for the question is not problematic.

D8, D9

PSQ to delete (although maybe read this comments of the answerer first).

@Saad Both gone.

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

C1, C2, C3.

C4, C5, C6.

C7, C8, C9.

C10, C11, C12.

D

PSQ

Duplicate

@vitamind Oh sorry, it was your question I referenced above : I just called it a duplicate because it was one as well.

@TeresaLisbon No problem :), now it's closed either way.

Yes, good to know!

Currently 5 posts with a score of -10 or less.

delete The good doctor strikes again.

Here's another question to delete

Let me be clear to @user21820, and other users: I will not endorse, or act upon, requests to delete questions from 4, 5, 6 or more years ago, nor answer given then. Please do not sneak such deletion/close requests in a series of links. In the even some such question or answer from quite a while back, is especially egregious, then post a separate request *and argument as to why, years later, the question/answer should now be closed, deleted.

@user21820 You tend to sneak such requests for deletion of old questions/answers into you 12 "D" lists, and your 12 "C"lists. I suggest "sneaky", because you seem to hope users go through the list, oblivious to the time of posting. Hence, for all Cured users, please write separate messages to request action on posts from four or more years ago, stating upfront why you find it necessary to address an older post.

@amWhy Hi : please see the comments on this question. I spent a lot of time and effort in the deleted comments telling the OP that their question lacked source and motivation, but they quoted Willie Wong's assertion that if the question is mathematically clear then there's no need to follow the rest of the guidelines. I just...

Feedback from others welcome!!

... wanted to ask if you think this question is close worthy, and why that argument regarding "mathematically clear" questions not requiring context is correct/not correct in this scenario.

To be fair, I tried really hard to convince the OP, but they had read the rules and were stuck to that one point, so I decided to twist because I wanted to contribute in the comments. Frankly, I didn't like some of my behaviour on that post, so I want to let you know that I very much was in two minds there.

But I just gave up, because I couldn't come up with a counterargument. At the same time, that statement ends up qualifying a lot of PSQs. I'm just worried that while forwarding the "how to ask a good question" question to others, they don't end up picking up this point and hence deciding not to close their question.

@TeresaLisbon Unfortunately, there's a tendency for askers to claim some excuse, though their perception is likely wrong, and a tendency for answers to conclude: 'Well, I think there was sufficient context!" People gonna grasp at straws breaking rules, by suggesting, context is subject, so all one needs is to claim there is context.

I'm just confused at this point, user21820's take on it was that the question wasn't fundamentally dishonest and so is fine, but I just wanted clarification on Willie Wong's line as well.

PSQ

@amWhy But there's a problem that I face, because the same "good question" poster says that mathematically clear questions needn't have any of the criteria. We are sure that this is not the case anymore, right? I mean, that comment doesn't hold any significance anymore, right?

If that's the case, it's highly misleading in that thread.

The truth is that we have closed any question which has completely lacked context, even if it has been stated clearly. This is a consistent pattern. I was baffled when this quote was brought up, not because I hadn't seen it before but because I knew it would break my back.

@amWhy: hello! I am back again after not so long break. I agree that we should focus our attention on recent posts. The close dialog offers "too old to migrate" warning in case one fails to notice the timestamp of questions.

I still want to continue closing such questions for a reason I realized only later : what we think of as "mathematical clarity" would , a hundred percent, involve more than a problem statement e.g. I'd like to know why the user is thinking what they're thinking, or what source they've consulted. I think at some point of time ,we have to declare having one or more of these five points as essential compared to being optional.

Essential because, in their absence, I judge that most answers will be narrow and focused despite being clear, and/or will be understood only by a terribly small audience.

@TeresaLisbon That is not how I interpreted, ever, Willie's post on meta. The user you suggest is exagerating/overestiating, their skill! Sometimes we need to deflate such self-illusions.

@ParamanandSingh Hello!! @vitamind: Here's Paramanand! (@ParamanandSingh: vitamin d was wondering where you've been.

@amWhy I'm still worried, because one of the possible interpretations of "mathematically clear" did land up as "mathematically correctly stated". I see the difference between these phrases NOW, but not then (when I was reviewing the question), unfortunately. I know Willie probably didn't mean what I mean to take out of it, but I'm just worried that this possible interpretation could now lead to trouble for the rest of the thread. Hope that PSQ askers will not reference this.

@ParamanandSingh Thanks for the feedback!

@TeresaLisbon It is not a sacred text of Willie. It can, and should be modified, based on updates on this site. Notice all the edits already indicated on that post. Old posts, do not a bible make.

@vitamind: hello! I was actually expecting a break of 1 week, but somehow wasn't able to manage time for mathse this week too.

It would be great, if, sometime in the next seven days, @Xander could participate in the discussion, even if only for one comment.

@amWhy Excellent point : that also means, however, that we can't send the "good question" text to people to ask them to improve their question, because they're still bound to look for that loophole and say : "and this is said as well, so I can retain my question". I mean, I just want to keep that thread from being "loophole" free. Ideally, I'd have loved the post without the comments.

@ParamanandSingh No problem! We all run into times like that, even moderators! Glad to see you back!

The problem with such breaks however is to scan through "watched tags", "meta" and above all "chats" to stay updated.

@TeresaLisbon Then we can collaborate on an edit to better reflect/be consistent with the ideals expressed in the EoQS. @Xander is great at drafts, but he's quite busy. I don't think much needs rewriting.

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] No whitespace in title, potentially bad keyword in title, repeating characters in title (136): AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ✏️ by maths lover on math.SE

@SmokeDetector Was I the only one who was shocked when I read this on my screen!

@ParamanandSingh hello! nice to have you back :)

Please delete the question referenced by smokey

@amWhy Thanks. In particular, I want to assert that no question should be capable of surviving on the site while missing all of the five points mentioned by Willie. That, and an explanation of Willie's comment and why it doesn't apply to a certain class of questions anymore, should be enough. We must discuss, of course!

As much as the question I linked to was clearly stated, it did lack any of the five points mentioned by Willie : those that were in the linked post weren't put here.

Indeed I find it odd that the moderators (quid and Xander) don't seem to be concerned that both you guys (amWhy and Teresa) as well as us anti-EoQS folks (me and Jean-Claude Arbaut) are pointing out seeming inconsistencies in the rules as they are written. Hilbert must roll in his grave upon hearing that rules should not be made as black-and-white as possible!

@JackGallagher Arguments, or disagreements are not resolved by "I say yea, and you say nay"... "tit for tat". What can be measure is not opinions, but data, factual information, etc. So please to not use hyperbole to misrepresent the situation. I wish you well, @Jack.

Bizarre response. I was agreeing with you!

@JackGallagher Bizarre comment. I will not engage further. Have a great day.

I'm so confused

@ParamanandSingh Oh, it's now gone!

D1, D2, D3, D4

D5, D6, D7, D8

D9, D10, D11, D12

@ArcticChar Every D has a delete vote now. One that had a delete vote, when I clicked "delete", told me that delete vote (the 1) was from me. Thanks for your lists!

@Saad @XanderHenderson Nice to meet you and talk with you again. Recently there has been started a small trend of Bountied PSQs Since they are bounties they can't be stopped or maybe they might be bcoz I am not fully aware about closing of question. You can find user @Saad comment in the message I pinged and his above some of the bountied PSQs

@JitendraSingh Yes, likely unfortunately, too often the bounty feature (typically posted by an answerer or the asker, awarding the lowest about: 50 Rep, have turned to bounties to prevent the closure of what would likely be closed. Unfortunately, while all this is happening, mods are rarely to be found. It won't always be like this, but I suggest is too often "like this" "mods absent from the most active chats, like CURED, and Math Mods' Office chatrooms. Perhaps we need coordinated flagging,

so mods can't write off a single flag about an issue they haven't been around to see, as an anomaly. I think it's also time that CURED user consider being outspoken in Meta, which has long been dominated by rants, complaints, etc. Some posts there do well, but only when they have nothing to do with bad behavior most commonly seen on math.se. Some users, chronic meta posters, would have us think that we and what we do, are evil. I think it's time to not just counter those arguments, but ...

present arguments in which the only logical solution is Quality Standards. Xander did us a huge service by posting the EoQS post; but he likely knew, like we often face, backlash from users who want the same old same old. Just something to talk about; all input is welcome!!

^^^^ I meant, in my second comment, to say that "it's also time that CURED users ... But also, not necessarily "CURED USER" .... The hard part is that we then often have to deal with barbs and spears thrown at us.

@amWhy No I don't. It is trivial to verify that I sort my requests by id, and it is equally easy for anyone to ignore the last few if they do not want to act on posts that are a few years old. I don't want to waste my time on every such request just to explain why an especially egregious bad post (in my opinion) deserves to be deleted, so this message will serve as a blanket explanation for how anyone can stop going through my list past their preferred date.

@TeresaLisbon I voted to close, but I said that I don't mind if it is not closed.

@user21820 I'm sorry about that comment, I misinterpreted that as you probably not wanting it closed. I see the difference between the statements now.

@TeresaLisbon No problem. It's clarified now.

ok

This question about holomorphic functions is a duplicate of this older one. However, the older one has no answers with positive score, therefore I cannot close it as a duplicate. The older answers are short but (as far as I can see) correct.

Does anybody see a problem with those answers, or with closing the newer question as a duplicate? Otherwise one upvote on one of them would be sufficient to allow the closing.

@MartinR Upvoted both answers, although I prefer the non-bountied one. You can close as a duplicate, it is one for sure.

@TeresaLisbon Done, thanks.

ok!

I voted to close this as "Needs details or clarity". I can kind of see what the OP is trying to do but it doesn't make sense.

@user21820 i don't have the patience to go through your 24 daily posts, to learn which are old which recent. i cannot read your mind.

Sorry folks, I lost power for a few minutes. All is good.

@amWhy As I said in my last comment, it is sorted by id, so just stop when it's past your preferred date. Why is that so hard?

And I haven't posted daily in a long time. I usually have no time on weekdays to post requests, and yet I still come here to handle others' requests on weekdays.

I have no complaint if people don't want to bother with my requests. But I definitely do not sneak anything.

@user21820 You've never shared that before. As I said earlier, don't expect folks to read your mind. I think I'll waste far less time by just looking at your first three D's; some of us cast 20 closevotes in review, and between first points, low quality posts, and crappy posts in suggested edits, and periodic moderator tools, I use my close votes there and with those who post a few requests, like I do. You aren't the only one contributing to this room. There are many of us, and if all of us

...posted 24 requests, you'd likely be reposting your unclosed/undeleted requests when you could, for months on end, and for those who already voted, you'll sap their time too, as they click, open the post, vote, then reminded they already voted. I've brought this up many times, because you keep on doing what you've always done.

@amWhy I know I didn't explicitly say so before. That's why I said in my above comment "this message will serve as a blanket explanation for how anyone can stop going through my list past their preferred date". As for whether you want to do less, I of course understand. I take the time to go through RRL's or Saad's lists, and I know just how much time it takes. They too repost requests that have fallen through the cracks; and I also get the same "you already voted message" many times.

The system is bad. Is that our fault? Anyway, if you think 12 is too many, you can always suggest we reduce the volume. Last time you reduced from 16 to 12, and we were all happy to oblige.

@user21820 I must don't want to keep on doing what I did, when your links were *all relevant". We'll get past this. But I resent your implication that your methodology is sound, and I should know that, and if I waste time, it's my fault. Every here of UX?

@amWhy Uh? I didn't say it's your fault. I said it's the (SE) system that is bad. Obviously it is annoying all of us that we can't easily tell whether a post is deleted or not, and whether we have voted or not, until we try. But what can we do. Give up on curation just because the tools we are given on SE are bad?

Honestly, I am close to giving up on Math SE altogether, and I know you have come close in the past too.

@user21820 Yes, and that was great, but there are far more active users now than even then. Perhaps you see it as a weakness in me, but I really am committed to working as a team. I am not angry with the number of posts. I've just been recently wondering if that tenable, given the number of requests we have flowing through this room. And with some users requesting other users' attention on rather old posts.

@amWhy No I don't see it as a weakness in you. You clearly have contributed a lot here. That's why I am happy to reduce the volume even more to cater for (as you say) the higher number of participants here today.

@user21820 In general you are effective, and I assume the risk when clicking on your posts. We agree on so much more in terms of the big picture, may differ on small details. I'm sorry because I can see why'd you think I'm unloading on you. I've just known you for so long, and we don't have many chances to discuss this chat's direction. You contribute so much to this site, and an awful lot of chats, as well. I think we all need, including me, to focus on how much we all have in comment,

...in terms of goals, commitment, and it is a shame, including when I do it, to bicker among ourselves. So I am sorry, @user21820, I wouldn't want you to ever leave this site, at least now when I'm here! =)

@amWhy Ok sure. Do let me know any suggestions you might have (whether now or later) to ease our dealing with curation on Math SE. I probably should have told you earlier about my sorting. In fact, I did sorting precisely to make it easy to know which are older and which are newer, so people can choose not to click past a certain point. But I made the mistake of not publicizing this feature of my request enough haha (thinking it was obviously getting older down the list).

By the way, I believe Saad or RRL also follow this convention (newer first), so you can take note. I can't remember who because I just click all of them (shift+middle-click,middle-click,...).

@SmokeDetector undelete-vote. We have to prepare for a possible recovery. This question is worse than most of the mentioned C and D - posts I experienced.

delete answer (already deleted)

@Peter That one is really odd. None of the answerers can undelete-vote. Can the asker?

@vitamind You can delete your chat message in the same time you are allowed to edit it, in case you didn't know.

@user21820 I know but otherwise one can't see my earlier message, which may lead to questions why or what I had removed. Thanks :)

@vitamind Ah that's right. =)

@user21820 It is rather clever, and a reasonable way to organize lists. I feel kind of silly, because had I ever taken time to hypothesize and study the order of your lists, I would have noticed. Though I know you have long put previously mentioned posts and/or old posts, at the end of you lists.

@amWhy I'm glad to have clarified it now. I'll be off soon, so see you later!

@user21820 See you later!

PSQ

@vitamind good call. The answer is just as bad.

@BillDubuque I do know that he has six remaining (some not for long) posts since remaining, and about triple that thus far deleted. I have flagged three, and talked with a moderator, who assured me they are keeping a close watch.

I do think, the more frequently flagged from a number of users, the better. (But for one person flagging, it can help to provide a link to two or three).

@amWhy Yes, I've given him links to the meta EoQS post a few times, but it doesn't seem to have had any effect. His answers seem to be the same as they were in the past (in my tags)

@BillDubuque I know. I really wonder about his grasp of English. But that may not be a problem at all.

@amWhy One can excel here with limited English but great grasp of (math) pedagogy. But if both are lacking ...

@BillDubuque I wish the link was still shown under "Featured on Meta" at the top of the right column. It made it much easier to share the link.

@BillDubuque You are right, in that respect. mathematics is a universal language, but he doesn't have mastery of what of what he writes.

@BillDubuque Many were flagged before deletion, and I trust mods can see deleted posts? By now I would think the CMs would be considering an answer ban, given his net total on all posts (minus) and the number of deleted posts, and yes, deletions were not of his choosing. His posts recur daily, since he's been back, many days multiply.

@JackGallagher the so-called inconsistencies are a lack of your and maybe others understanding of the rules. There were already explanations given. To simply insist strikes me as borderline bad faith.

Surely this question about a fake proof via applying (log) identities outside their range of validity is also a dupe of many - but I don't follow those tags. Aren't there any dupe hunters there?

@amWhy Iirc a mod advised to flag once with links to many offending posts - to make their job easier. Did someone advise to flag every post?

@BillDubuque You are correct... I was suggesting any one person try to flag once with a few links; but the more users who do that individually, helps each flag be more validated. I am not suggesting then we coordinate 10 users to each send a flag with multiple links pertaining to one users prolific flaggable answers. But I think it helps, and is more likely, that two users, independently flag with links to posts they each found problematic.

While searching for a dupe I found this - where all the answers leave much to be desired - esp. pedagogically.

delete (wrong) answer

@quid and to us, those explanations were not satisfactory. It's fine if you think they were, but what we're arguing here is about what axioms should drive the quality rules on Math SE. There is not an objective truth, no matter how many times you and amWhy wish to insist in your stand-offish, snooty way.

@JackGallagher fact is that most semi-official documents on the matter insist on context, which includes but is not limited to attempts.

integral psq

All the definitions. [...]

@quid it's clear that you have not the fruitful back-and-forth I, Jean-Claude, and Teresa had on the comments of the "Is the 'hint' approach creating a perverse incentive?" meta post, and as such it is clear you are uninterested in engaging the critics of EoQS in good faith.

I have no doubt that you, Xander, and amWhy have a profoundly positive impact on this community, but that does not mean that your opinions are beyond reproach nor that us critics are by the very act of criticizing acting in bad faith.

@JackGallagher it is not a matter of opinion, it is a question what is written.

The "rules" as written say what they say.

I have moderated forums dealing with politics with an order of magnitude more activity than Math SE, so I am not ignorant of the challenges moderators face. But if people are telling you rules are unclear, they're unclear and poorly laid out. I wish you luck in the positively Sisyphean task you all are signing yourselves up for.

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

@quid you just don't get it. People are saying the rules should be different, and you keep saying "the rules are what they are". Just absolutely useless responses.

Alright, if many users try to explain the rules and do so in a suboptimal way that is something to look into.

It does not make the rules inconsistent though.

@JackGallagher you say the rules are inconsistent.

Based on a misunderstanding of these rules.

@JackGallagher you did not say they were unclear you said they were inconsistent.

It'd be a good start if you'd decide what the actual objection even is.

It seems to be a moving target.