@user21820 After some discussion with the other moderators, there seems to be a consensus that this is not the way things should work, i.e. if you vote-to-delete and the post is later reopened without having been deleted, you should be able to vote-to-delete again. If it happens again, I would recommend posting on the main meta site.
@user21820 Honestly, I think that it would be better for a non-moderator to post the question, as it is essentially a "bug report", and I can't reproduce the bug (I can always vote to delete, with my magical diamond). Only you (or someone else in your situation) can produce the screenshots which indicate that there is a problem or inconsistency.
However, if you are uncomfortable posting to the main meta, I would be willing to do it for you, assuming that you can provide me with the screenshots showing some kind of "you have already voted to delete this question" error message.
@XanderHenderson Sure, thanks! So @amWhy @Peter, if any of us get that problem again we can send Xander a screenshot with the "you cannot vote twice" error-message. =)
@user21820 Sure, but better I link them to you and you can link them to whomever you'd like. They'll only be credible to whomever you like, if they don't originate from a comment I post.
@user21820 Note, the interested party has essentially only been interactive with you, of late. He/she invited you to submit screenshots to him/her. No additional invitations were made.
Ultimately, such transactions with the mod who cares about what you have to say, should occur in the mods' office, not in CURED.
@user21820 You are not the problem; you are always helpful! :) You addressed what is shaping up to be a major issue/bug. And because a mod spends more time here than in the office from diamond bearers, it was natural you'd address him here. You did not worong.
Sorry for the typos!!
I will keep track of such info for safe keeping with you, @user21820. Thanks for inviting me to assist!
@ArcticChar Thanks. Each person sees the deduction of number of available posts in the queue that that specific user has not yet voted on. I'd love to know what someone rarely voting to close sees. But thanks! That's a fine ballpark.
@amWhy I summarized the comments that were already given with a comment and only two divisions are necessary to complete the solution. To think that the author is not able to do this her/himself is short of an insult. I fully agree that this is a violation of the site policy although it was "only" given in a comment, probably because an answer was no more possible anyway.
At least the commenter admitted that it was not good.
@Peter I think your hint was fine. Not happy with the last minute effort to answer in comments. I would have been happy to leave the post merely closed, in hopes the OP would try to improve the question, but if they were completely clueless, answering them as the last commenter did, is only prolonging even more dire consequences, come test time.
@amWhy This more or less forces us to delete the post to limit the damage , otherwise a closure would have been enough. I am disappointed as well how it developed.
@Peter I agree; and I am tired of the pattern that only a handful of users have: contest a comment from amWhy and my buddies will back me up. :(. I'm not happy either. I would have been happy to engage the OP with suggestions on how to improved the post, and to better understand their level. But too many users rush in with no clue of the users' background, and behave impatiently, paternalistically, or mostly focused on getting approval from
Users. Mind you, @Peter, Your comment struck me as a good sort of spring board, and if the OP had questions about it, it might have turned into progress. But too many users who appear to be new, have learned too well how to play other users so well, it's sickening. Certainly some are new, but some create a new account every single day: no question limits, no history visible to the community.
@Peter No problem! It vanished when I tried editing my comment to explain to lone student complaining of downvotes to report: yes, from my activity on that post, or rather during my activity, I received to back to back downvotes on unrelated answers of mine.
Anyway, I usually consider the sacrifice I've made given the hundreds of downvotes I've received from angry users puts me on par with any Prideful user leaving bounties in Pearl. I'd much rather award bounties than receive serial downvotes chronically.
@Peter Closed, now open for deletion!
Seems someone is awaiting having their edit approved, on that post you linked, likely to embed the images in the post, which is not any better. But it is not safe for me to review edits anymore.
@ParclyTaxel It's good that you commented. It's valid to downvote the post (I did). Given the answer was posted a little over a year ago, Perhaps we should wait a little bit, in hopes the answerer responds to your excellent comment. But it will be open for deletion if and when it's score is less than O
At the same time, @ParclyTaxel I'm not at all happy with the question, which is essentially a PSQ, and I will focus mostly on seeking it's closure. But you've done everything correctly wrt the answer.
@AlexanderGruber I saw, likely just after the announcement posted, checking out meta for the first time today. I hadn't seen this coming; is there a mod perhaps on the precipice of resigning? (Alas, you can't answer that, sorry for asking).
Unfortunately, I'm at the point where I've learned, through disillusionment, that most mods (former users) change so much once becoming a mod that I find them no longer recognizable.
Do you agree with the enforcement of quality standards? Do you think more or less is needed? What are your reasons?
The linked meta announcement is a recent attempt to deal with the repeated behaviour of answering poor questions. This issue is important in light of the ease at which students ca...
But also, for a couple who seemed objective and were present engaged a lot on site, upon election, were not seen after one month. And with whom I had a cordial, respectful appreciation of.
To be honest; I do not like what happens when regular users become moderators; they lose their identity, their independence of thought, they move on in their careers, lost interest on the site, and end up thinking that putting one hour per week on mod duties is sufficient. When they were elected because of their active record on math.se.
@AlexanderGruber I think you are referring to the departure of mod Daniel Fischer (no need to confirm or deny) a couple months ago. Many of us knew about that. But I agree, it seems quite apparent that "external obligations have reduced most mods availability". The desire for some of us to add a moderator started then.
@jasmine We'll have the contest in December. It's only a game; every one will be able to guess the day they think this site will attain 1.5 million questions. The winner will be the one who guesses the correct day, or closest date to when that happens. 22, 420 questions to go until then, using your numbers :)
@jasmine We guess and wait. Kind of like playing the lottery: pick your numbers, and wait to see if you win, or to see how close you are.
