Timeline for Why do even high reputation users do not pay attention on close votes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
74 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 12, 2018 at 12:49 | comment | added | King Tut | @quid yes true but exactly that happened. My mobile phone is small screen maybe that's why. Half screen is occupied by keyboard, and other parts were mostly occupied by the big text box full of message. | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 12:42 | comment | added | quid Mod | @KingTut that's a bit surprising since your comment is right below the one where I pinged you to tell you that I posted the timeline. | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 12:40 | comment | added | King Tut | @quid earlier you hadn't put the timeline, and I am on mobile, so I recalled whatever I could about the date. But after putting this comment, I immediately saw that you already had put timeline just minutes ago.. | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 12:37 | comment | added | quid Mod | @KingTut why do you say you are pretty sure they were gone at a time when the timeline was up that said explicitly that they were not deleted by 14th or 15th. (This info is also in the first revision.) | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 8:35 | comment | added | King Tut | @Aloizio only after quid chose to say about rude comments that got deleted, the whole narrative of this situation changed. He said he can restore the whole timeline but didnt. I again request quid to restore the timeline. I am pretty sure the comments were gone atleast by 14 or 15. | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 8:27 | comment | added | quid Mod | @KingTut see the timeline. | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 4:47 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | @KingTut I don't think that it is consistent with other comments on this (meta) post that your comments (on main) were not available to be seen for the voters of the closure under question here. If this is true, this changes the context of this question dramatically (yet again). However, "pretext to cover" what? If rude comments were unavailable to be seen, then this would imply that there was effectively nothing morally worthy of questioning. At most, a lack of judgement or disagreement on what is unclear/off-topic. But this whole situation would be perhaps much simpler (certainly different). | |
| Mar 12, 2018 at 4:10 | comment | added | King Tut | @aloizio and quid and others: Are you guys ignoring me? You are missing a major issue. I write under meta question here: One question, I think I (or someone else maybe) deleted my rude remarks to Robert some time after he voted, so how could possibly other close voters see it. Do you see? Question was closed on Feb 13 reopened on 14. Comments were gone possibly by then (I asked quid to post the full sequence of events).**And** it is closed on Feb 17 again. I think rude comments is just a pretext to cover. how can they see deleted comments? Or can they? Refer revision link by pjs36. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 23:43 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | You are correct. If you want to control and enforce this in every possible case, you would have to be a mind-reader. However, you can disencourage this behaviour, or at least recognize its possibility/plausibility, particularly due to the context of this whole situation and also comments suggesting strongly that this was the case. The fact that it simply wasn't mentioned at all is what worries me, given the ethical implications it can have. Not being able to control/enforce is not reason enough to ignore. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 23:39 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo but we'd need mind-readers not moderators! If I want to control and enforce what you propose I must know what the voters thought when they cast their vote. This is not possible. The best I can do is see if it seems plausible to me that voters have thought that the question is unclear. For the current question, this is the case. Thus, it passes my supervision of the community-moderation process. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 23:27 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | To illustrate the concept on this case: if those 5 voters thought the question was missing context, but were waiting for a response and got rudeness instead, I see no problem. This is quite a different situation from the voters seeing the rudeness and voting to close because of it. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 23:05 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | Unless, of course, as I told amWhy under my answer, we collectively agree that it is OK to do so. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 23:03 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | The decision of whether to cast a vote or not can depend on the behaviour of OP if your vote, by itself, is proper. That meaning: if someone voted to close this question because it was unclear in their eyes (independently of behaviour of OP), that is completely ok. The reason of your vote depending on the behaviour of OP is improper. To put it simply: decision of voting can be behavioural-dependent, simply because you can't force someone to act. The reason for such a vote, I don't think so, because things must be consistent and very carefully delimited. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 22:57 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo Is it alright to first leave a comment to ask for clarification and some time later if it is not given vote to close? Or must I vote right away to avoid that my vote depends on the behavior of OP. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 22:47 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | Carl Mummert's argument seems to point that it is "bad enough", independently from rudeness. I disagree strongly. Of course, my opinion, but I think I would be able to gather enough evidence from a quick look at the main site for (recent) questions to show that this is inconsistent with what the community empirically feels is bad enough, rudeness aside. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 22:40 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | I think you are taking the guidelines binarily. It is not an issue of good/bad, I think there is no such thing. It is an issue of "good enough/bad enough" (which is in the same spirit of Hurkyl's comment about the grey area). That these thresholds can change accordingly to behaviour that is unrelated to them is, in a way, stomping over the guidelines. More accurately, it is stomping over the independence that such criteria (as they are phrased) have with respect to behaviour. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 22:34 | comment | added | quid Mod | Tangentially please note Carl Mummert's comment for a user that agrees that closing as ot,mc is the proper action. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 22:29 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo "there are explicit guidelines to why a question should be closed" Indeed. And according to these guidelines it is alright to close this question. This is the point. "Stomping over them is what I am saying is improper." As said, I am not sure anything was stomped over. Yes. in a way it is not great to learn there is a user that cannot recall that they closed a question. But then they contribute a lot and the volume is high, and we are discussing something that happened almost a month ago.I am not sure what you expect me to do. Maybe they had a valid reason then but forgot now. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 22:15 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | However, even worse than in the "downvote without reason case", where there are few guidelines and explanations to why an answer/question should be upvoted/downvoted and it is more relegated to personal reasons, there are explicit guidelines to why a question should be closed. Stomping over them is what I am saying is improper. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 22:12 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | (Answering the last comment): I think it is improper to close a question for a reason which is not valid to close a question for, objectively speaking (that is why I said "if, indeed, the reasons are as I said"). Please, note that this can be quite similar to the "downvote without reason" case, where we can't effectively know that a downvote was done due to retalliation or some other nonsensical reason. This doesn't mean that it is right to do so, and I believe this behaviour should be properly, explicitly and thoroughly addressed. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 22:07 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | (Answering the "one more point"): I think that what you are saying can be then interpreted to mean that your answer have explained why it was closed, in a formal sense of causality. It doesn't address if this is proper behaviour or not, which is relevant. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 22:04 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo there is nothing improper about closing this question. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 22:03 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | Yes, you are correct about the existence of such principle. But these are distinct situations. On one of them, the "proper" course of action would be to close the question, but we give the OP chance to learn how the platform works, at least in a basic level. So, in this situation, we are withholding proper course of action. In the other (the one under discussion in this meta post), we are applying improper course of action (if, indeed, the reasons are as I said). These are very distinct things, it is not only a matter of treating questions differently. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 22:01 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo This is pretty much the same (only broader) as: "Please improve the question by providing additional context, [...] This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 21:56 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | The full "unclear" reason reads as "additional details to highlight exactly what you need", concluding with "As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking.". In my understanding, the additionals detail are clearly meant to improve the discerning of the question, not for being (directly, recall that I say that there is indeed a correlation) contextualization. We could just as well put "add aditional details" in the "too broad" close reason, followed with "so your question becomes more specific", and this wouldn't make it near-identical to the rest. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 21:53 | comment | added | quid Mod | On more point @AloizioMacedo: "I think that you answer dismisses the attempt of investigating the real reasons for closure in view of the context that we have." I stressed that they were rude comments, which can be taken as implying that this possibly did play a role. To sum it up: the question is not all that good, in addition OP was unhelpful and rude, so it got closed. I do not see the merit in trying to gauge to what exact extent it was the quality of the Q and to what it was the rudeness, or maybe the unresponsiveness. As you agree, it's not that good a Q. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 21:39 | comment | added | quid Mod | It is however consensus that, say, new users could be treated in a more charitable way than regular users. Thus, the principle that not all questions are treated completely equally is widely accepted. And so that it is not forgotten, OP was not only rude but unresponsive. Do you see a problem with taking whether a user is responsive or not into account @AloizioMacedo? | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 21:36 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo no they are not quite distinct. Please read the full "unclear" reason. It also asks for more details. This is the crucial point, and this is near-identical. But, of course there are nuances, if not we would not have the other reason. Either way, the current question could be closed both as "unclear" and "missing context." The point you raise is valid. If you want to discuss it, start such a discussion. It's a subtle problem. It is of course not allowed to start closing questions out of spite. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 21:14 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | You can very well brush aside my inquiry, saying that there is no way to adamantly, certainly and without a single doubt guarantee that the reason for closure is so and so. This is all very true, but all very dismissive of a possibility of a severe problem with respect to judgements. Even if only a possibility and not applicable in this case, this (again, conflating punishments for different 'crimes', sorry for being repetitive) should at least be given the proper attention (imo, be explicitly frowned upon). You gave none in your answer. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 21:04 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | But, instead of being a non-attempt at guessing/magically knowing, I think that you answer dismisses the attempt of investigating the real reasons for closure in view of the context that we have. And, if I am correct about the reasons (which, honestly, is not about guessing but really about context), there is a very important issue at hand. Again, conflating punishments is a bad step to take. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 21:02 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | And, as I said, I don't think that we should attempt to or should guess/magically know anything. If you are under that impression, I am sorry. I understand that this post and its offsprings may be overwhelming to deal with (don't think that I didn't see you having to address lack of etiquette in the midst of this discussion and elsewhere. It is just that I, not being a moderator, have the privilege of being able to ignore it when it is not directed to me, and I prefer to do so for the preservation of my mental health.) | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 20:55 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | I screwed up the ordering. I intended to mean that my example shows a case where the post is (IMO, yes) unclear but not off-topic/missing context, and PSQs frequently show examples where posts are off-topic/missing context but not unclear. I mentioned PSQs, but I could also search for other examples. Being PSQ is not relevant here: the relevance is in asserting that those things are semantically quite dinstict, despite how other sites may use them practically, and that there are plenty of examples where one can verify this. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 20:45 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo what example are you talking about? The one you mentioned is IYO unclear yet not off-topic, missing context. How can this show that "off-topic, missing context" is not a special case of unclear? And what about PSQs? As I told you they are closed on other sites as "unclear" and here as "off-topic, missing context." On the mind-reading. First, note the alliteration. Second, José said they do not know why they voted to close and do not even recall they did so. But somehow I should magically know their motivation. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 19:48 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | The point being that such 'sufficient' scrutiny would not be applied if the user had not been disruptive, which is essentially what Hurkyl is saying, if I understood it correctly. And the question is: is applying different scrutiny to a question, based on rudeness on comments, correct? Why is closing more appropriate than my suggestion of flagging, for instance? The user should undoubtedly be penalized in some way. But not in any way. Instead, in an appropriate way. Conflating punishments is a bad step to take, imho. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 19:41 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | @quid I also disagree with it being a special case (my example proves that o-t is not a special case of unclear, and PSQ's prove that unclear is not a special case of o-t). I understand that your intention was not to guess (although, I feel that saying that this is mind-reading is a little facetious in face of the situation, which has a lot of context) why it was closed, but this meta post is clearly intended to put the reason to why it was closed under investigation. Almost any 'newbie' question can be put under sufficient scrutiny as to justify closure. This misses the point, I think. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 19:30 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo synonym was not the best word, it's more a special case (or a syn in the SE sense). It should also be recalled that it says "missing context or other details" and a description of the link target and why it is not a dupe are such missing details. On the rest, I am a moderator not a mind-reader. I never pretended to know what the voters thought. I answered this question as it essentially was a call for "strict action" to avoid "wrong" closures. So, I explained why there is, in my opinion, no reason for any actions against this closure as it is justifiable. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 4:14 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | I think it is relevant to point out that two out of the five close voters of the closure in this discussion said something about their reasons in the comments: none of them about the question being unclear in any way (not a single mention). One of them admitted implicitly to not having payed proper attention to the question (and also that being a PSQ or not would be a more relevant factor), and the other was quite explicit in that rudeness was the main factor of his close reason. Whether this should be encouraged or not is debatable, but it surely points to my objection being pertinent. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 2:52 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | @quid I think your point of view makes me understand what you meant better. I don't think unclear ought to mean incomprehensible. I think "unclear what you are asking" ought to mean that I can't discern the question that you have, and I don't see how this is a near synonym of "off-topic, missing context". I understand there is a correlation, but that's about it. E.g., I recently voted to close this question as being unclear. It definitely was not off-topic/missing context. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 2:50 | comment | added | quid Mod | @KingTut stick to providing factual information. There is no need to be chatty to begin with. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 2:49 | comment | added | King Tut | Please give a comprehensive list of expression which offend people here. I am not sarcastic here I really need a guide. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 2:39 | comment | added | quid Mod | In view of your second comment, indeed, the main reason we even have that off-topic reason to begin with is that on this site (in contrast to other sites) some insist that unclear ought to mean incomprehensible. But this is just not true. There are various points in the question that are not explained well. The subject is not clearly presented, viz it is unclear (while arguably not incomprehensible). | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 2:34 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo generally, "off-topic, missing context" is a near synonym of "unclear." On other sites they routinely close PSQs as "unclear." (This is not to say this here is a PSQ just to get the idea across.) Both are basically saying that the question is not presented sufficiently well. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 2:32 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | And that which I just mentioned is a factual evidence that it was not closed because it was unclear, in contrast to what quid presents as factual evidence (which, as I argued, I think is not at all sufficient). But also from a subjective point of view I can't understand what is unclear in the question. The points raised by quid tell me that it is badly written, not unclear. If we want to close questions because an asker is disruptive and not willing to cooperate, that is fine. But I think we should be precise as to why, exactly, we are doing so, and I think this answer fails to do that. | |
| Mar 11, 2018 at 2:22 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | @Hurkyl I agree. This is not what I am contesting. I am contesting the fact that this answer claims that being unclear is the reason, coupled with unreasonableness, for the question to have been closed, which is essentially what the meta question wants to know. That a question which was explicitly closed as off-topic is being said to have been closed as it did because it is unclear is something I can't understand. If this answer claimed that the question was closed because it was bad and the user was unresponsive, that would a little vague but more accurate imo. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 23:00 | comment | added | user14972 | @AloizioMacedo: While closing questions that shouldn't be closed out of retaliation is wrong, you should keep in mind that questions often fall into a grey area where both leaving open and voting to close are reasonable actions. Reader who habitually prefer to overlook the problems that posts have and leave them open can easily be persuaded to change their minds by an offensive poster. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 21:39 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | @amWhy If you have an on-topic point to make and are willing to, I'll be glad to discuss this with you. If you are not willing to for whatever reason (you think I won't understand/you think this is not worth it/you don't like me etc), that is fine. But if the only thing you want to do is keep with these pointless and mindless retorts, please consider the irony of your attitude with respect to what you were accusing me of. I won't respond anymore, if you follow this last path. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 20:39 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo two dupe votes was not exact, sorry. The first was a flag, which generates the same comment and since now that user has around 4500 I assumed it was a voted. (But then they had not.) There is no direct way (maybe even no way) how you could have now found about the flag. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 20:38 | comment | added | amWhy | Then maybe you're finely done? | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 20:28 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | If you are being sarcastic, this answer thinks that the amalgamation of being an unclear question+unresponsiveness from the OP in main is the reason for it being closed. I disagree, and spent ~10 comments explaining directly why I disagree. Can you point out what comment, exactly, is off-topic? Suggesting that I (and quid, indirectly) am wasting my time with such a petty comment is rather rude and childish, and brings absolutely nothing to the discussion. If you are not being sarcastic, I sincerely don't understand the purpose of the comment. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 20:15 | comment | added | amWhy | Aloizio Do you have an on-topic point to make? Finally? | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 20:09 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | @quid Thanks for clarifying (off-topic: is there any way that I could see that info? When I click the link by pjs36, it only gives one gold badge in the revision history responsible for closing, but two for reopening). I also thought the link went to another site, but I think that is rather irrelevant to classifying the question as unclear. Still, that leaves 3 (arguably 2, if we take you out) who categorically misunderstood the question (and maybe due to a rapid reading of the title, as I said. This is conjectural but pertinent). So I still think your claim is too strong. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 20:01 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo no there were two dupe votes. The goldbage user then was asked by meta-OP to reconsider. They first replied that they do not see how it's not a dupe to then several minutes later say that they now see it and proceded to reopen. As for me, I thought the link went to another site where the problem was taken from. A key point: main-OP was active between the first dupe vote and the goldbadge vote. They insulted the first voter, twice several hours appart. But did say nothing to clarify why it is not a dupe. Only later it was closed as dupe by the goldbadge. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:56 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | With those things in mind, I can't shake off the feeling that the closure was most likely (maybe unconscious) retaliation for rudeness and unresponsiveness. While I agree that there should be some sort of response to that, I don't think this is the best one. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:52 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | Not only that, but the way I see it (correct me if I am wrong), the only people for whom we have evidence that misunderstood the question are you (and I think you understood, but think it could be improved) and the closer for being duplicate (I believe it was a sole gold medal), which could have just seen the similarity of the titles for that assessment. I don't think that the people who voted to close for being off-topic count as evidence, so I don't agree with your assertion that it was empirically established to be unclear. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:52 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | I don't have an explicit definition, but I think yours is good. However, I don't think that "being misunderstood by <10 competent readers" implies "susceptible to be misunderstood by competent readers", and neither that "being closed for being off-topic" implies the question is unclear, which is also a specific close reason for closing if that were the case. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:38 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo the "terribly convoluted" is to be seen in opposition to the assertion that we are discussing a "great question." There is some hyperbole to this for rhetorical effect. Please note what I wrote in my answer post on the subject. "Maybe it is not bad enough for it to be closed, but it is far from good" which is quite close to 'stands "clear enough" for me (although... bad)'. Indeed, the argument I am making is that "because it was misunderstood, it is unclear." My working definition of unclear here is "susceptible to be misunderstood by competent readers" what is yours? | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:38 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | I understand that a bad question with OP being irresponsive to improve it can be hard to handle. But, by itself, ignoring comments and all, the question stands "clear enough" for me (although... bad). But, considering the fact that OP is actively refusing to improve the question, I honestly don't know what is the proper course of action. But I don't believe that closing the question as off-topic is the best one. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:34 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | My point is: comments pointing out that the question could be improved are reasonable. Saying that the question is unclear and terribly convoluted is an exaggeration, and also incoherent with the close-reason(s) of the question. And the initial vote as duplicate (which I also disagree with, but find it more understandable) is not the matter of discussion of this meta post. It may be relevant if you intend to use as an argument that because it was misunderstood, it is unclear, an argument which I don't agree with. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:32 | comment | added | quid Mod | To be clear, the main problem is not that there were rude comments but that OP refused to clarify the question even when it is empirically established that it is prone to be misunderstood. This is one of the things I often find annoying in these discussions. The lack of consideration for those that misunderstood something that maybe they also could have understood. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:24 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo again the question was initially voted to close as a duplicate. The post was misunderstood. Why would OP not address the confusion but instead insult the confused other user? | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:22 | comment | added | quid Mod | @KingTut your comment shows that you have a hard time to discern what is relevant. It is not relevant that King Tut wrote the comment. It is relevant that it was the user that posted the question on main. That this was King Tut will not be known to most readers. Thus to say King Tut would be unclear. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:22 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | The rude comments can indicate childish behaviour of OP, but do not relate to judgement of the question. With respect to your points, I think you are exaggerating the issue. For example: "the entire argument post is written in a terribly convoluted way". This way of writing is pretty common among 'new' students of mathematics. It is bad (not terribly convoluted, imo), but rather understandable. For example, the third line being displayed in an unmotivated way would be simply solved by a mere "If we compute the integral, we have (...)". Similar observations hold for your other complaints. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:16 | comment | added | quid Mod | Moreover, the comments by OP where excessively unhelpful. All this likely would have been avoided if only OP had answered in a moderately reasonably way to the comments they received. There is a huge share of the problem on OP's side. @AloizioMacedo | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:14 | comment | added | quid Mod | Either way, two users, one of them a gold-badged holder in the relevant tag thought it was a duplicated of the question linked to in the post. Even after being prompted to do so, it took this gold-badge holder two attempts to realize that the questions are actually not dupes. That's just not a clearly presented question. Yes, it is comprehensible (with effort), but that's not the same as it being clear. Unclear is not the same as incomprehensible. Re the link: I only realized on my third visit to the post that the link in OP went to the supposed duplicate. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:09 | comment | added | quid Mod | @AloizioMacedo one thing that is not clear is that the link leads to questions on this site that solves the almost same but not quite identical question obtaining the same solution that OP believes to have found. If one follows the link one can find this out but this should not be necessary. Thus it is poorly presented. The solutions is also poorly written. The third line in the displayed appeared in an unmotivated way, making it harder to see what OP is doing. In brief, the entire post is written in a terribly convoluted way. It could have half the length and be more clearer. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 19:08 | comment | added | King Tut | You may as well add my name beside op to make things crystal clear | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 18:56 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | And if the glaring problem is that it is unclear, then this doesn't justify it being closed for being off-topic. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 18:36 | comment | added | Aloizio Macedo Mod | What is unclear about the question? He is not realizing that it is possible that a solution to that equation does not exist, and that this is exactly what he is indirectly proving, coupled with a common confusion between implication and biconditional. It may be a "low quality" question by some standards, but I really don't understand what is unclear. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 17:38 | comment | added | amWhy | Just edited the post to indicate the last use "OP" was referring to the main MSE OP of the question that is linked to in this meta question. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 17:36 | history | edited | amWhy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Mar 10, 2018 at 17:35 | comment | added | quid Mod | I edited the post to clarify this; sorry for the confusion. I meant the poster in main. You were not rude in any way. But you still could have been more helpful. | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 17:31 | history | edited | quidMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 59 characters in body
|
| Mar 10, 2018 at 17:29 | comment | added | Jaideep Khare | Does OP means to be me, or the Original Poster of the linked question? | |
| Mar 10, 2018 at 17:27 | history | answered | quidMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |