@AlexanderGruber In case you did not know, when you vote to delete as a moderator it is not possible for nonmoderators to further vote to undelete. So it would be greatly appreciated if you avoided doing so (except in cases like spam where there can be no disagreement in the community).

Also it would be greatly appreciated if you avoided short-circuiting community evaluations using moderator votes (e.g. a 2nd close and delete vote recently).

@user170039 per-site moderators cannot merge. Moreover, merges are usually only done on request of the concerned user.

* What was the motivation for the change?

* In what substantive way is it different from the old version (from your perspective)?

* Am I correct in my interpretation that the OP's work on the problem has been de-emphasized?

* Does the change have any impact on how we should vote?

Sorry for not giving feedback promptly yesterday after posting it. I had to leave shortly after.

I'll make some comments regarding my perspective, not in chronological order. I think that moderators agree in the core aspects, but some detailed perspectives may vary. So take the following as my opinion.

@MarkMcClure I think that the better response is "it doesn't have to." And, ultimately, "No".

@AloizioMacedo Thanks!

2) The Off-topic close reason is primarily to be read by new users, essentially. With this in mind, the previous description leaves a sort of paradoxical situation: we don't want to be a site where people leave homework questions to get answers. But the previous description was phrased in such a way that it sort of corroborated the idea that the site is a place to leave homework questions, but that it had to be done in certain circumstances.

For someone who only wants to get that homework question answered, those circumstances can easily be taken to be a bargain (not that it is conscious or malicious, but still) instead of something that contributes both to themselves and to the community.

It is severely difficult to try to convince someone that something would be helpful to them and to everyone else. And the ways that the natural frustration of the community with respect to those issues build up end up not being helpful to that objective either.

Thanks. I particularly think that your statement that "The Off-topic close reason is primarily to be read by new users," is worth considering when trying to understand the statement. I had not considered that.

@MarkMcClure I think this is connected with the first question (and therefore my latest comments), but I think that one positive aspect of the new version is that it politely says that the site is not a problem dump, by saying that the problem should be relevant to the community.

@AloizioMacedo Yes, I can see that.

When I read "Some forms of context include: ..., your current progress" (among others), I definitely take that to mean that showing work is optional - provided that something is used to show context. I personally like that idea but I have a feeling that's not how most folks will act and, perhaps, that was not the Mods' intention.

@MarkMcClure I understand the interpretation, but I think that the word "optional" is a little troublesome, in the sense that the list as written is not a checklist, and the weighs of what one considers context depends on the person and the problem.

Indeed, I believe that a lot of different perspectives which are already in use but not literally "correct" in terms of the older reason are now envisioned by it.

For example (somewhat extreme, but I think it is easy to remember situations such as these), suppose that someone posts a question "Prove 2a=0 implies a=0."

Then the question gets closed for lack of effort, and the user puts "I tried multiplication but failed. Please help."

Some people disagree with what they find a satisfying "work". But many times I've seen discussion where people said "it doesn't matter, it is work nonetheless."

The thought "OK, it is work. But it is not work that makes it a relevant question." is now envisioned by this close reason. Similar thoughts are as well.

It might be worth recalling that according to my recollection of the history that merely "work" even counts as context at all was a concession. The intent was (at least as far as I am concerned) never to insist on work. It was just put to the forefront in the close reason to have something to which certain (new) users can connect, as a compromise and concession to the part of the community that was worried that requiring meaningful context will be an insurmountable problem for some users.

Likewise, if a question shows no work at all, but displays why the question is interesting and why it caught the person's mind, then people who find it relevant and positive for it to stay in the site also have their thought under this reason.

For instance, one example which I recently came again upon: this question shows no effort at all. But it displays the context and its relevance. It also is a counter-example to the belief that "only higher level questions could/should survive with no context".

All in all, I think that this description of the close reason was influenced by the reality of the site much more than it is intended to change it.

@MarkMcClure It depends. In the sense of how it is displayed as a reason in and on itself, yes. But I would say that it actually just redirects work as a(n inevitably perceived-as) bargain to work as something more genuine and related to quality.

@AloizioMacedo I'm having a hard time understanding the "gist" of your explanations re: Mark McClure's question about the change in the off-topic: missing context reason.

Why was the relevant post placed in a meta post first posted in 2013?

@amWhy because that's the meta-thread where the reason as a general principle was introduced. Thus, the update of the specific formulation also was put there.

Nice way to obfuscate the issue from current discussion. I don't use the "active" tab on meta questions, hence, I'd not have known about this were it not for Mark McClure's comment in CRUDE yesterday. Many of us use the "new" tab on meta questions, and will never have seen this.

@quid Typically, when I ask user @username a question, I'm seeking @username's responses.

@amWhy well, it was I that propose to post an answer there.

Thanks to Mark McClure, I had already found the message buried as an answer to a 2013 meta question. My point is, if you want current feedback, post a message more easily and more likely accessible to current users, or at least, post a meta post about the change, with a link to the currently buried post.

@amWhy it's a technicality. There is not much need for that much discussion. It was more a for-the-record post, than a let us have a general discussion about this.

@amWhy I am packing up my things and heading home soon. When I get there, we can discuss this further. Could you please elaborate a bit on what is not clear?

Those that follow such things closely, will note one way or another. Alright you did not note it in the very moment it was posted but you did notice before much anything relevant happened.

@quid Well at least your honest about not caring much at all about what current users think of the change. 'These are the new laws of the land'. (Judgment passed on high). "Please comment if you have any remarks." ('But don't really comment, we don't really care, since your comments don't matter anyway').

@amWhy what "idea"?

We slightly tweak the formulation. That's not really an idea.

There is not intent to redo a discussion about the principle of the reason.

That is, from the mod-side.

In other words, "shut up, @amWhy. The matter is closed for discussion." (That would be more direct and honest.)

A general question, how do you follow the reopen thread?

@quid I know that to be on ongoing thread. When interested, I check in. Just as the tag suggestion thread. But this thread is not a well known thread, and has rarely been visited since its start, compared to the reopen thread.

Thanks for the explanation.

I am sorry that you did not notice it right away. But as said, nothing much happened before you noticed.

@amWhy no, but I have little interested in the thread going in the "hot meta question" and all kinds of users passing by and giving some comment on it.

@quid So now the blame in on me: "You should know, @amWhy, whenever we plan to visit an old thread and hide a new change, where to go. You should just know. God forbid you expect us to be more transparent in the changes we authorize! How dare you expect such transparency! You should know, we try to work with the least amount of friction from caring users, and hope to pull the wool over users' eyes, so we can run this site as we see fit, irregardless of possible objections or suggestions

...from "plain ole users". We mods know best.

You did notice. Before the change was implemented. Right?

Even before much any discussion happened.

What actual problem is there?

@amWhy generally I'd recommend to browse meta with "active." The bump-rate is not that high, but it is somewhat common that threads get revisited after some time.

Then I guess I'll post the announcement properly to meta. Thanks, @quid, for confirming my suspicions that this was an intentional effort to "hide" the "announcement" to protect it from feedback and input. Hence no discussion or clarification or questions were sought, despite Aloizio's claim otherwise.

@quid Ahh, again, the fault is mine, and anyone who fails to toggle between the "new" and "active" questions tabs. My, what a lowly, pathetic user I must be in your esteem.

@amWhy well, if you think there is something to discuss you can always post to meta. I'll note that until now you did not say much on the actual subject. But go on-and-on about how we did not ask for feedback.

@amWhy that has nothing to do with "fault." Anyway, on the right (or wrong) day it could also happen to me that I'd not notice right away. What was a given though is that either no one much cares or it'll get some exposure. There were a couple of votes. Mostly positive.

And as mentioned the answer was also posted in the Math Meta Chat, to give it some more visibility.

"But go on-and-on about how we did not ask for feedback"... not true: two comments maybe? I did comment on how you did not properly notify, and a bit of arrogance and pretense of your claim to do so. Don't point fingers and try to change the subject, @quid. Of course, if I make an easy target, as you clearly deem me to be, continue your attacks.

@amWhy you approached this discussion in a pretty hostile way.

I mean what type of comment is that:

@quid, I addressed Aloizio. All I've heard from is your defensive and hostile voice. Your tone has been defensive and hostile throughout. Though, Aloizio kindly expressed he was transitioning from one location to another. I'll pick up the conversation with him, when he is available.

My tone has matched your tone, @quid. If you find my tone to be hostile, look in the mirror, and re-read the sarcasm and hostility you posted to which I did my best to respond.

What's sarcastic about this?

The point is that the general principle was voted on, and the specific formulation was treated as a technicality. Thus, this tradition is continued. When the subject of the change came up, I actually specifically checked how it was handled back then, and we stayed in line with the procedure adopted then.

Would the specific formulation have been the subject of the vote, we'd had done a full thread.

:47552689 that was later in the discussion. After you had told me to shut up.

Yes, you told me basically explicitly that I have no business to participate in this exchange, only to complain a bit later that you are told to shut up.

I did not tell you to shut up: I expressed to you that it was I, amWhy, who felt like I was being told to shut up. Go back, and show me where I said "quid, shut up!" Rather, your words struck me as amounting to saying, "amWhy, shut up."

That's as close as to "shut up" one can get without saying it explictly.

That, my friend, is your over-reading-into the facts, and taking things too personally.

How would you like it if I were to have, say, user X, come in and speak for me?

@amWhy I told you that it was my idea to proceed like this, and thus I am best placed to explain it. Anyway, if somebody has a reason to complain it be @AloizioMacedo since I spoke for him.

This is going nowhere, @quid. You will continue to find fault and lay blame at my feet, all successfully adding to your goal that the issue at hand go unnoticed, so change can be implemented with no friction. Congrats!

I sense some sarcasm there.

Congrats, @quid. It seems to have worked for you!

It is not very clear to me what your actual goal is. Do you want to discuss the new formulation or is the point to high-light a procedural error as a matter of principle?

@quid That, my friend, would have been good to have asked from the get go. You clearly have no interest in discussing the new formulation, which was my intent all along, nor the manner in which it was (not) publicized. So don't pretend to show interest now in any feedback, after working so hard to shut me down.

@amWhy I'm back. Please point out what you think is unclear.

@amWhy The reason is precisely what quid said. Not trying to speak for him, but I think the situation is somewhat simple: we should have somewhere for the recording and somewhere for the extended discussion. The recording seemed reasonable there, the extended discussion seemed reasonable at the Math Meta Chat.

@amWhy I don't see how one would try to obfuscate discussion by linking the matter of discussion in the place primarily intended for such discussions.

I've received no link to the extended discussion at the Math Meta Chat. That would have been good to have included.

Yes, in retrospect, I should have probably put the link to the Math Meta Chat in the meta post answer. I'll do so, thanks for the suggestion. But if you think that the posting of such answer was somewhat hidden, I don't understand how you think that linking to such discussion on it would be less hidden than checking the Math Meta Chat itself directly.

There is no link at the "recording" location, and I've seen no link here in the math mod's office to that "extended discussion." Besides, I'm pretty burned out right now by your colleagues hostility towards my genuine interest in this matter. Seems I don't matter, and as long as there are mods that play "he said, I say, what he says, I say", I'm not sure anything is going to go anywhere.

HAD THE ANSWER and THE META CHAT been posted in a more accessible location, all would have gone far more smoothly. That the discussion (what discussion?) That the decision to change has been made unilaterally, and merely reported, in less than accessible locations, speaks volumes.

I can understand the point about the answer not being acessible. But the Math Meta Chat is accessible, and arguably the most appropriate place for this kind of discussion.

You are the first to mention here, in this entire discussion, that this is/has been under discussion in the math meta chat. I will post a new question to meta to inform all users about the secretive "answer" you posted yesterday to a 2013 question, and a link to the math meta chat, which only a small fraction of users are even aware of. Or will that undermine the moderators intention to keep this change as secretive as possible? If so, will I be suspended if I post more publicly?

@amWhy it has not been discussed in the meta chat, but the answer was posted there to give it additional visibility and to have a place for the discussion.

On your question, I specifically invited you to post to meta if you want to discuss something:

@amWhy The intention is not clear: If you genuinely think that there is secretive action being taken my moderation, I think this is worthy of a meta post. If, instead, you think the issue should be more publicized, then I also think this could be a meta post (I pointed them separately just to make the point that those are distinct issues). But I think you are misreading what the suggestion/situation is. We are not changing a policy, we are changing a phrasing.

@AloizioMacedo I merely think the decision should be more publicized.

I don't think the intention has been to be secretive; my inclination to post generally to a new meta post is not to call out "secrecy", but rather, to help facilitate a more widespread understanding/clarification among all users about the potential/certain change in phrasing. Why should that be threatening to the mods? I use the off-topic/lacks context reason for closing many times, every day. I'd like a clear rationale for why the de-emphasis on showing work, when 95% of the questions

@amWhy As I said, then I think it is valid to make a meta post. However, I still think that the importance you are giving this represents that you have misconstrued what the change does.

I close as off-topic/lacking-context are homework-style questions/PSQ's written like exercises assigned from a text book.

But "work" was never a requirement. The questions could just as well be fixed by a different form of context.

This is obfuscated by the current wording, and leads to confusion to the detriment of the site.

"Work" is a last resort form of context.

Admitted for the benefit of user not capable of providing more useful context.

@quid ok

@quid ok

@quid Everything you've recently said (two/three weeks ago or so) in your "whatever quid" chatroom flies in the face of what you are advocating here. Oh well. "OK".

@amWhy could you be more specific?

The only thing I could think of is that you believe that the new wording allows more questions, and this would go against some thing I said. But that's not the intent. If anything, the opposite. That was made explicit by @AloizioMacedo

@quid I see.

@quid I see.