math.stackexchange.com/q/4956159 This should not be closed, if anyone sees it in the wild. The op said will provide more details and drawings about what's going on tomorrow
@FShrike Why not close it now, wait for the OP really adding the context, and then ask for reopening? The fact that the post in its current state is eligible for closure is unaltered by a yet-to-be-fulfilled promise, and the curation process, being a state machine by analogy, would be unnecessarily complicated by introducing more promise-dependent states, IMHO.
@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.
As I've said many times, I think that we should be fast to close and slow to delete.
@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'.
@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
and then, .... there goes a potential friend and a potential great question, a learning opportunity for the community.
@FShrike Your perception is very different from my own. If anything, I get frustrated by the large number of low-quality questions which get highly upvoted and reopened without getting improved.
3
And, again, I didn't look at the question y'all are discussing. I am merely pointing out that, as a matter of policy, you can't look at potential question, only the question that is presented. If the question is of sufficient quality to remain open---great! If not, it should be closed, whether or not the asker has promised to make changes later.
After they make changes, it can be reopened---there is a meta thread designed to facilitate that, and this room also entertains requests for reopening (and I wish that there were more people here looking to reopen improved posts).
@FShrike If the way you conduct yourself in this chat, and in the moderator election chat is any indication of how you interact with others, I have to say that you need to listen more, accuse less, and even your temperament, if you want to moderate.
@amWhy I don't remember making any specific accusations. I try here and in all places on MSE to write _moderate_ly. At any rate, I speak now in my capacity as an ordinary user. I would speak/intervene more carefully as moderator for obvious reasons.
2
Chatrooms are supposed to be conversational, but if I wore a diamond I would be less familiar.
(most recently in the moderator election chat, I was responding to questions - some of which were in the direction of character-judging - anyway; I was not ranting to the wind)
Not good enough. A good candidate has had a good record of being respectful of other users, in chat, and on site. You clash with mods you'd need to work with, and you clash with many users who know this site inside and out. In any case, all I hope to see is you behave more like the moderator you seek to become.
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
From my pov I, at worst, sometimes mildly disagree with Xander. I'm not in the business of fighting or disrespecting moderators
@amWhy: I'm not seeing any instances here of FShrike "clashing" with anyone (as opposed to just expressing respectful disagreement). Can you point to one?
