This question has an answer by quid: Is it acceptable to leave hints as answers?

Hints are also mentioned in this answer: What do you think is the largest problem facing Math.SE today (July 2015)?

And there are probably many other related threads on meta, I see that Jyrki Lahtonen already mentioned the one I linked above:

> And let me add that giving good hints is as difficult, if not more difficult, than giving reasonable answers. And it can serve a pedagogical purpose, too.

This is from Asaf Karagila's answer to: How good is an answer without any explanation? And how far should an explanation go?

But I suppose that simply by looking at the post tagged hint or simply searching the words hint and hints give many other discussions. (And you can sort the search result by number of votes if you want to see a popular answers/questions, and also restrict the search results to a specific user if you remember somebody who posted in such discussion.)

@DRF I'd guess that many of area-specific chatrooms can be used also for such purpose. And also if comments are moved to chat, that is basically a chatroom devoted to solution of one specific problem, which falls under tutoring.

For example, if you look at the Basic Mathematics chatroom, it's admirable how much time and effort the room creator is willing to spend with helping others who come to chat.

Of course, the user need 20 reputation points first before they can talk in chat. (IIRC moderators can grant write access even for users with lower reputation for a specific room, but it's unlikely that something like that will be done too often.)

@MartinSleziak That's certainly true. It's how I have usually ended up doing tutoring myself. I suppose what I meant is it might be good to point out somewhere that this might be a possibility. I'm really trying to formulate my thinking on this stuff but I think the point has to do with closure difficulty (I think it should be easier to close some questions) while at the same time retaining a we will help attitude if poster shows interest.

It's probably not the same thing, but I think that I have mentioned chat (and a specific chatroom) as an option quite often in comments on main. Sometimes also the post with List of chatrooms, but this one probably more often on meta.

@MartinSleziak To be sure, that's not "the current rules of the site". Rather, that is the opinion of some users (who are determined to force their opinions on others insread of seeking compromises - to great detriment to the site)

@BillDubuque the current rules of the site are that PSQs are not acceptable.

@quid That's nothing but an opinion of aome users (whatever "PSQ" means) And not necessarily a wise one...

More generally, context is a requirement. There are some nuances what exactly this means in practice, but the general principle is established.

@quid You missed the point, i.e. "PSQ" is a very vague and highly subjective term. In any case, you are certainly entitld to your personal opinion. Please don't attempt to force that on others

@BillDubuque as a moderator I enforce the rules of the site and foster their evolution. I intend to continue to do so.

@quid Please don't attempt to force your personal opinions on others. Don't confuse them with "rules"

@BillDubuque in your opinion who decides what a "rule" of the site is?

@quid That's your terminology so that is for you to answer.

@quid Again, I did not write "rule" there - somone else did.

^^ you used it there @BillDubuque How can you know something is not "the current rules of the site" while not knowing what "rule" means?

@quid You are incorrect - please read more carefully

@BillDubuque so your position is there are no rules of the site?

@quid Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth

@BillDubuque please clarify your position. You asserted that something was not the current rules of the site. At the same time you maintain that you have no knowledge about the notion rule of the site.

Then stop playing word games and just say what you mean.

@quid That's the third time you've misquoted me.

@BillDubuque could you give an example of what is a current rule of the site?

@quid Again, the term "rule" was used by others, not I. So it is they who need to explain what they meant by it.

@BillDubuque it seems to me that you asserted that something was not "the current rules of the site" yet this something was something else. Is this understanding correct?

@quid It was you and martin who used the word rule. so we cannot proceed till you explain what you meant by it.

@BillDubuque could you please answer my question first?

I want to be sure that I understood you correctly not to go on a tangent.

After the edit: But you did proceed to assert that Martin's assertion was incorrect @BillDubuque

@quid OR ill-defined, or not well-founded , or circular ... take your pick

Anyway, I have much better ways to waste time than play peurile word games... if you can't be precise then we can't have a constructive discussion

Social mores aren't the same as rules. The position that PSQ's are unacceptable seems to be a commonly held socially more and may also be a rule.

The claim that this a rule (and let me posit a definition while everyone seems to be ducking it... ) seems to imply that this is written somewhere where the authorship is presented as MSE and not presented where the authorship seems to be a user and it should outward facing.

This seems easily verifiable. If it is a social more (and it is) we will just find it in comment threads in meta.

@BillDubuque a "rule" of the site is something that the moderators agreed upon to be a binding principle governing activity on the site.

Sorry for jumping in where I don't belong but now... I kind of want to know... Is this a "rule" presented somewhere?

@quid So you believe that moderators should be dictators vs. exception handlers?

@Mason the off-topic close reasons seem to be such a place.

@BillDubuque if you want to put it like this, I don't really care much about such denominations.

Of course there'd also be the issue to define what you even mean. But since I don't care either way, it's a waste of time.

It is plain that a rule of the site is that we can vote to close questions when they are "missing context or other details." This indeed is a rule in the sense that it is presented as text from MSE. The social more element of this comes in when we ask what is sufficient context.

The quote continues: "[context] ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc."

But this is presented as an "ideal" circumstance.

"(don't just copy a textbook problem!)" math.stackexchange.com/questions/ask/advice @Mason

@AlexanderGruber Thank you!

@quid. Thanks. That's what I was looking for.

@Mason it formulated in a friendly way as we don't want to greet new users with aggressive text.

But for something else, do you know where the rule is written that one must not post questions about the size of elephants?

@quid. That link that you posted... has a little check box at the bottom: "Thanks, I will keep these tips in mind when asking" and then when you check it but it seems at first glance to be connected to literally nothing. You can't submit it anywhere? Is that just there for aesthetic purposes? That seems a little bizarre.

@Mason the page is shown to new users when the click "ask a question" That's the text one agrees to before asking a question here.

@quid. No. That's because there isn't a rule that we shouldn't ask about the size of elephants. There is a social more that governs that. It's a worthwhile distinction... I think anyway.

So I did agree to this whenever I started and just don't remember checking that box.

ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

@AlexanderGruber Yes but my point is that we aren't talking about "legis." Ignorance of social rules may just mean we should be more heavy handed in our presentation of what type of culture we want here. Or that we shouldn't rely on social rules and we should make it this into "rules"

@Mason if it helps then fine it's a social norm. And moderators take care that social norms are followed and might expel those from this social gathering that don't follow them.

when a social norm becomes official through mod endorsement, it's not just a social norm anymore.

@AlexanderGruber. Not by the definition of rule that I have given above.

I agree that the analogy with real-life situations is much more that of a social norm than of a law. But at the same time then the analogy with being allowed to be participate here is to be admitted entrance or presence in a bar.

@AlexanderGruber I think you might mean to "evaluate and interpret community consensus and act on them as a cohesive set of rules" but they aren't rules until they are displayed somewhere.

If the owners (or those they put in place to run the thing) don't want you there, you need to leave.

(Barring some exceptions.)

@AlexanderGruber But "interpreting community consensus" is not the same as choosing the side that agrees with your personal opinion

@BillDubuque it's an opinion in the same sense that a supreme court opinion is an opinion

my opinions as a user differ significantly from my opinions as a moderator

@AlexanderGruber So one of you guys thinks you are a dictator, and the other thinks your are a supreme court justice. I don't think I want to know what the others think!

@AlexanderGruber. The supreme court prominently displays their opinion in a way that we can all read.

That's a rule.

@Mason you can read mod opinions in many places on this site

not the least of which is by asking one for clarification. it's nice the community is small enough so that that is possible.

Right. They just are not presented as the rulings of MSE. And you have dig through the meta. Which is annoying but supreme court rulings also can require some digging...

@BillDubuque i don't mind that you speak against the current official positions here, but they are official positions.

denying that just makes you a sovereign citizen

@AlexanderGruber What in the world is an official opinion???

@BillDubuque a precedent agreed upon by all members of the mod team

@AlexanderGruber Moderators are not dictators - they are exception handlers.

not every form of governance is a dictatorship

@BillDubuque please don't distort what I said.

@quid What did you say?

@Mason that's why i make that analogy

@BillDubuque what I said is in the transcript.

If you want you can quote me as me considering myself as one of the managers of a bar.

@quid Your said "if you want to put it like that". And I certainly do, since your responses ae quite dictatorial - very far from democratic . I am quite shocked by the responses I see above

@BillDubuque this site is not a state. These notions make no sense to begin with.

@quid They most certainly do. And the response "I'm not a dictator because that makes no sense" leaves much to be desired.

My only point here is that there is some value in presenting something as coming from MSE as the supreme court dictates the laws as the policy of the government as opposed to expecting the users to read through pages upon pages of meta to pick up the social mores of the site.

@BillDubuque a manager of a bar that refuses you entry because you misbehaved last time is usually completely in their right to do so and you have very little traction to do anything about it. If you want to describe a manager of a bar as a dictator you are free to do so, but I don't think it makes much sense.

@Mason i agree that a better job could be done at collecting the rules in one place.

@quid Not a good analogy

@BillDubuque why?

@quid Because bars aren't supposed to be managed democratically by their patrons - like this site is

a lot of effort goes into understanding and representing community consensus, @Bill.

@AlexanderGruber Where?

@Bill it's most of what goes on in the mod room

also, meta; also, here

@AlexanderGruber Many mod team members are not very active, so how can that possibly be?

@BillDubuque most of the mod team participates in mod room discussions

@BillDubuque I don't think that these sites are intended to be managed democratically in the way you make it sound. The opinion of the community is relevant, but ultimately SE decides. (Thus, not me either. If they want me gone from the site, I am gone in the click-of-a-mouse and there is nothing to be done about it.)

there was a while when that was all i had time to do.

In the same way that the opinion of the customers is relevant to those that own and run a bar.

Democratic efforts: Access to moderators. The right to freely grieve, petition, democratic elections. I suppose we could more actively survey users for their values.

@quid I have no interest in discussing management of saloons

@BillDubuque seems kind of interesting actually. good plan for retirement

@BillDubuque tangential.

@quid Yes, your attempt at a saloon analogy is quite tangential. Hopefully you don't plan to try to manage MSE like a saloon.

@BillDubuque so maybe stop to follow that tangent and take notice of what I told you without using an analogy.

@quid I thought you were joking. So you really think that "rules" = your personal opinions? If you don't think that counts as a "dictator" then what do you think "dictator" means?

@BillDubuque I think that the moderators of the site fix the rules of the site, in consultation with the community, and under the supervision of SE.

@quid That's very far from democratic, and I strongly disagree with your personal opinion on that.

@quid Is English your native language?

@BillDubuque I take notice of your opinion. re language: no.

@quid So, by your view, if the "moderators" agreed like Cantor that infinitesimals are "Cholera bacillus of mathematics’ and should be banished, then it would be ok for the mods to banish anyone who attempts to use infinitesimals here?

This quote is from Poincare I think if anyone is interested...

@Mason What quote?

Didn't poincare call Cantor's work a disease on mathematics. Sorry I might be conflating.

Definitely conflating

The story is more subtle than that. You can find discussions on MO or Math History I think.

Shame famous mathematicians don't beef like that anymore

It strikes me that none of this conversation is on-topic for this room.

@Mason It was Cantor who I quoted. He went to great lengths to attempt to banish infinitesimals, attempting to prove they were inconsistent, attempting to thwart publication of those working on the topic (e.g. du Bois-Reymond) etc. It was one of the greatest abuses of power in mathematical history

does anybody know when/if we are having christmas hats this year?

:-)

@user2646 there's a countdown: winterbash2018.stackexchange.com

coolio

thnx

:D

@BillDubuque wasn't it the grinch who wanted to banish christmas?

@user2646 No, the Grinch seeks to banish PSQ answerers.

lol

@BillDubuque no, not alright. But moderators could theoretically make it a rule. (Of course, then, somebody could complain to SE, and they likely would decide that it's better to let somebody else moderate. And that's that.)

@quid the parenthetical part of that message is..."messy" to say the least

Well, no one is planning to do anything like that. @user2646 so it's not very relevant.

has anybody heard from Daniel Fischer?