-1
$\begingroup$

Recently, I have seen high reputation users, and top-reviewers (Such as amWhy, Shailesh etc.) voting for closing of questions, just out of the way. See this question. This is a nice question IMHO. It has a $100 \%$ attempt from OP, and is not at all off-topic. Yet, it was voted by amWhy first, to be off-topic. Seriously? Other respectable users also followed and voted to close the question. Not one or two, every five of them thought that this question should be closed.

The question I linked is closed under the head : "This question is missing context or other details" (At the time of posting this question)

What I understand is, that when users see, say, 3 close vote, they don't bother to read, instead, they close vote assuming those 3 must have read that and might be correct.

Can't we do anything and take a strict action to avoid this scenario in future?

$\endgroup$
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ This kind of question (yours, here in meta), with that kind of phrasing and assumptions, tends to be very controversial and may also be seen as somewhat rude, since you assume that no attention has been taken when it can be the case that it is just something you disagree with or something wrong you've not seen, and can also be an isolated case (I am quite surprised with no downvotes at the time of writing this comment). That said, I also disagree with the closure of the question (in main), and tried to vote to reopen (it was already reopened). $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 10 '18 at 15:14
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Aloizio Although in this case, since the question hadn’t been edited, one must play with the URL a bit, to see the revision history (in particular, change “questions” to “posts”, keep the post number and not name, and add “/revisions”). $\endgroup$ – pjs36 Mar 10 '18 at 16:37
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @amWhy I don't understand that what do you mean by honest here,in this context. Suppose, I tell that I have answered (though there is no need to do so), will it alter anything? Also, I ain't at all concerned because I answered it. I would have posted on meta, even if it wasn't answered by me. Though, it is still unexplained why was this voted to close as off-topic in the first place. $\endgroup$ – Jaideep Khare Mar 10 '18 at 17:31
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ You're right, @JaideepKhare - this question absolutely should not have been closed. I understand the original dupe-closure (based on a quick reading of, especially, the first line). This is well written with full context, plenty of work by the asker, and has a concise and direct answer; in short, it's a great question. Maybe there's context that I don't see (quid mentions something about rude comments that aren't there anymore... but that's not a reason to close anyways), so I really strongly disagree with the closure. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Mar 10 '18 at 17:56
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ @user296602 "Is your mom proud of you now?"; "Do you understand english language?" are two of the deleted comments. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 10 '18 at 18:06
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @KingTut you misrepresent the situation. Possibly inadvertently. I have no time right now but I can restore the full timeline. You lashed out right away on the first duplicate vote [actually flag] (not off-topic). Had you just explained why it is not a duplicate instead, nothing of all this would likely have happened. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 10 '18 at 19:20
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @José Sorry, but I think you're again close-voting wrong question. (Again, because you too were one of the close-voters to the closure of linked question) $\endgroup$ – Jaideep Khare Mar 10 '18 at 19:50
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I have been quite irregular user on meta and even on the main site for the past 6 months and there is a huge reason behind it. I made some attempts like Jaideep earlier and saw myself being criticized and rebuked (what I like about MSE is that people here often say much more in very few words) and disappointed by all that I stopped making efforts as I thought I am either too immature to deal with the things going on or too mature so as to leave this all as my intention of welfare of community wasn't accepted $\endgroup$ – Vidyanshu Mishra Mar 10 '18 at 20:19
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ ....Furthermore coming to the question I would like to say that yes!! You have prevailages and badges but it doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. I know that you can't know how much efforts OP has put in the question (in real life) but closing certainly isn't the way to deal with such things. I have seen questions closed as off topic and unclear in less than 10 minutes which in my opinion were well written and well explained but I don't know what these [users] have in mind while closing these questions. $\endgroup$ – Vidyanshu Mishra Mar 10 '18 at 20:20
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @KingTut It's really sad that you deny your rudeness in this case, and distort the time line. You are quick to lash out at folks, often, as I remember, while not being entirely honest of your hand in your own undoing. As we see by your comment today to Jaideep, you were yet again trying to manipulate a user (Jaideep in this case) to try to trigger them to reactively come here (in an effort to save their answer) to fight for you. Why did you not post on meta? You've clearly spoken up and attacked users before. Why manipulate a user trying to help you to speak for you? $\endgroup$ – Namaste Mar 10 '18 at 20:30
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I do not vote enough because I can't. I use my phone to access MSE and ask/answer questions. I don't own a laptop/PC of my own, and therefore, am unable to access close-vote review-queues. I occasionally vote to close from the options given below to the question itself. This doesn't mean that I don't know how and when to close-vote @amWhy . And, it's not my duty to close vote it's my right to close-vote. Though, I still don't understamd that how am I possibly blaming top close-voters $\endgroup$ – Jaideep Khare Mar 10 '18 at 20:52
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @amWhy Sorry if I have disrespected you in any way. But here are my some points 1. I am not insisting that I am right 2. It's not that someone voted in a way I didn't like, it's not personal. It's wrong, that's why I posted on meta. 3. Last line of my second comment from the top, I asked you for reason for close-voting, you haven't responded yet. $\endgroup$ – Jaideep Khare Mar 10 '18 at 21:07
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ You might get somewhere if you stopped acting like the original close votes were in some objective way wrong, when you clearly have no argument for this. $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Mar 10 '18 at 22:05
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Jaideep Khare: I don't see full context in the current version of the post at math.stackexchange.com/q/2648960/630 . "My brother gave me this random problem" is not very compelling to me, and the link to math.SE makes the question look like a duplicate at best. What is the motivation of the question? Where did the formula arise? That is the sort of context that is missing, in my opinion. $\endgroup$ – Carl Mummert Mar 11 '18 at 19:17
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ "Why do even high reputation users do not pay attention on close votes?" Two basic remarks. 1. The title, using the present simple, thus indicating either the repetition of an act or a general truth, is pure slander of any high rep user downvoting anything on the site. 2. The question, pretending to address a general problem, is a farce since, o surprise, the only post linked to, which is obviously the main (the only?) topic of interest to the OP, is a question answered by the OP themselves. $\endgroup$ – Did Mar 12 '18 at 7:41
14
$\begingroup$

Here is a rough timeline of events:

February 13th:

  • 14.34 asked and answered at 14:41 and 14:44, among other by Jaideep Khare
  • 14:46 flagged as dupe (creates auto-comment) by Alex
  • 14:48 @Alex Is your mom proud of you now? – King Tut
  • 15:35 a mod deleted the comment above (based on a flag).
  • 15:56 @Alex - Do you understand english language?
  • 18:51 Dupe closed by Robert Z (goldbadge) from queue (see the ticket review report https://math.stackexchange.com/review/close/954919 ; there had been one leave open vote at around 16h); this auto-deletes the auto-comment.

February 14th:

  • 10:04 Robert Z how is this duplicate? – King Tut
  • 10:23 @RobertZ this ain't a duplicate. Can you please check again. – Jaideep Khare and vote to reopen. [Prompted by a comment of King Tut on answer]
  • 10:41 @JaideepKhare What's the difference between the two questions? – Robert Z (self-deleted at 10:46)
  • 10:48 @JaideepKhare I see the point now... – Robert Z and vote to reopen (goldbadge)

February 15th:

February 16th:

  • 14:35 self-delete of King Tut's comments.
  • 16:54 mod delete of other comments (based on flags)

February 17th:

  • 02:42 final vote to close.

Long break.

March 6th:

  • 17:30 King Tut signals the closer on Jaideep's answer: Jaideep look they again closed this question 😂 – King Tut

  • 18:05 Jaideep acknowledges the request: @King They are gonna regret this. I'll take this to meta ASAP. – Jaideep Khare

March 10th:

  • 14:00 and the minutes afterwards, this meta question by Jaideep, self-delete of the March 6th comment, plus comment notifying King Tut about the meta post.

Since this was point of discussion. During all close votes but the last off-topîc vote one of the rude comments was present. (Here 'all' refers to those being the subject of discussion not those that occurred now.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. Can you please tell me was the comment about english language deleted that day or when was it deleted $\endgroup$ – King Tut Mar 12 '18 at 8:42
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @KingTut This is rather fascinating, in a way: first, you stick to a narrative, rather adamantly, then, when said narrative is exploded by facts provided by a mod (who had to take on their time to collect them), you instantly turn to a new narrative, also destined to switch the topic of the conversation from your acts to whatever you hope will allow to put them under the rug? Wow. $\endgroup$ – Did Mar 12 '18 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Did All I can say is that my memory is not good. You see, had had he put this earlier, all fuss could have been avoided. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – King Tut Mar 12 '18 at 11:21
  • $\begingroup$ @did no I didn't turn to a new narrative, yesterday I asked quid to restore it and I am thankful to him. So this suspicion started building up since then. You see I asked him/her to restore because I didn't even remember anything. See this meta questiin is not created by me and not did I plan to anything of that sort, I didn't even remember bad comments were written for Alex and not Robert! $\endgroup$ – King Tut Mar 12 '18 at 11:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KingTut as indicated in the timeline you self-deleted that comment on the 16th around 14h. Here are the exact details "@Alex - Do you understand english language? – King Tut Feb 13 at 15:56 deleted by King Tut Feb 16 at 14:35" (emphasis mine) $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 12 '18 at 12:22
  • $\begingroup$ My memory is not very good then. I said whatever I remembered. $\endgroup$ – King Tut Mar 12 '18 at 12:51
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ @KingTut "You see, had had he put this earlier, all fuss could have been avoided" Sorry, but have you no shame? $\endgroup$ – Did Mar 12 '18 at 13:53
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @KingTut, initially quid tried to spare you from "outing" the exact nature of your conduct (what you said exactly), and summarized with a description of "rude comments". You challenged it, so in a comment below their post, they responded to your denial/challenge by writing exactly what those rude comments were. Now you're asserting that "You see, had had (sic) [quid] put this earlier, all fuss could have been avoided." So you blame this "fuss" on quid, who initially tried to help you save face? Again, Did's last comment is entirely spot on. $\endgroup$ – Namaste Mar 12 '18 at 15:10
  • $\begingroup$ @amwhy fuss was unknowingly created by me, not him/her. My face is perfectly alright btw, remarkably, despite extensive mudslinging from your side. $\endgroup$ – King Tut Mar 12 '18 at 15:32
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ "They are going to regret this"? Jesus F. Christ. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 13 '18 at 12:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila "F." indeed. $\endgroup$ – Did Mar 13 '18 at 14:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Asad and did: I did not say that btw. $\endgroup$ – King Tut Mar 15 '18 at 14:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @KingTut: (1) Who is "Asad"? (2) Did anyone claim that you said that? Please don't insult my reading skills. (3) "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Mar 15 '18 at 15:52
  • $\begingroup$ @asaf sorry it's a typo, since d and f are neighbors on keyboard. $\endgroup$ – King Tut Mar 15 '18 at 16:18
7
$\begingroup$

Before addressing the question itself, I must say the way you phrase your question seems adversarial and unwilling to debate. Specifically, your explicit question is:

Can't we do anything and take a strict action to avoid this scenario in future?

Avoid what? The fact that users closed a question? Why? This could only be because you think they wrongly closed a question, and thus it would be civil to let them have a voice before. You left little space for that. The title suffers from a similar problem. The appropriate question, hidden behind your post, is: "Why was this question closed? I believe it was unjustly closed, (and here is why). Do you agree? Why/why not?", or something of the sort.

I disagree with the other answer that was given, which is why I am giving this one. I believe that the major reason (in that it is the decisive factor) to why the question was closed was due to disruptiveness of (main) OP. There is not a rule I'm aware of which formally allows a question to be closed under that basis. However, the circumstances are extraneous: (main) OP was blatantly rude. quid mentions some examples here. There is a rule of thumb for the site in general which I hold with greater value than close-vote reasons, which I think the site as an entity does so as well since it is number 2 in the "Our model" page (preceded only by the overwhelmingly important technicality of how to format mathematics), which is: Be nice.

I think the question is clear enough. I think voting to close may have been an honest attempt from the close-voters to keep the site sanitized from disruptiveness, seeing that this was the only thing that they directly had power to do in order to "contain" a disruptive user. This may be effective and well-intentioned, but I honestly don't know if this is appropriate or not. It seems a straight-from-the-book "the ends justify the means" kind of argument. However, if there were no other means to deal with this, I think I would end up agreeing with closing.

My take on the issue, after some thought, is: I disagree with the closure of the question, since I believe there are more appropriate ways to handle this. I believe that it is the job of moderators to sanitize the site of rude content, so I think the appropriate action would be to flag those comments and leave it be (maybe comment something to add to the voices trying to make sense out of the person, but that would be inviting yourself to headaches). Then, it would be left to them what to be done about the whole situation, question and all (I would consider suspension a fair treatment in this case, for example).

PS: If any of the close-voters disagree with what I said was the major reason for the votes, feel free to point it out.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I want to add that I too didn't know about the rude comments by OP at the time of posting meta-question. Those were deleted either quickly or I came later, or I didn't see the comments after answering. I understand that rude behavior isn't acceptable at all in this community, but close-voting isn't the correct way to do so IMHO. Since, I being unaware of rude comments , was really kind of annoyed when I saw that the question is closed, without any comment indicating the reason of closure rom those 5 close-voters, I thought to take it to meta. $\endgroup$ – Jaideep Khare Mar 11 '18 at 7:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JaideepKhare Sorry for assuming you did know about the comments. I will edit the answer. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 11 '18 at 7:36
  • $\begingroup$ Did you see my edit to the post? Does it seem better? I am open to suggestions for improv ing the question. $\endgroup$ – Jaideep Khare Mar 11 '18 at 13:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nor is there a rule that I'm aware of that formally prohibits a question to be closed under the basis that an asker has behaved badly (insultive, rude). The number one item of the SE Model is "Be nice." There's no place on the SE network for rude comments, insulting and offensive comments, and the like. $\endgroup$ – Namaste Mar 11 '18 at 21:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @amWhy Fair point. But there are specific guidelines for closing a question, and the asker behaving badly is not one of them. I don't want rude askers, as you can see from my answer and behaviour in general. But I want clarity and consistency, in part precisely not to give rude people an argument that they can use. As I said in a comment, if we want to close questions because of that, that is a decision we can make as a community. But let's be explicit about it (just like we are regarding homework-esque question). $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 11 '18 at 22:26
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Besides, what problem do you see in flagging the comment and leaving this to the moderators, as I suggest? $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 11 '18 at 22:27
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @AloizioMacedo I agree that rude users should usually be flagged and left to the moderators. In egregious cases, I have voted to close questions purely because the asker was being extremely rude (and without seeing the comments, I don't have any idea whether this rises to that level). However, I would never vote to close such a question as missing-context, because it's not; I would use a custom close reason with an auto-generated comment. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Mar 11 '18 at 22:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user296602 That seems sensible to me, too (closing with a custom reason). $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 12 '18 at 12:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So KingTut and Jaideep should be spared from their misdeeds/misrepresentations/, lack of memory, faulty memory, but we should verbally whip a user whose only mistake might be to have chosen the wrong reason to vote to close? How selective folks are to how should be called out, and who should be spared doing so, because, oh, misrepresentations, rudeness, all that from only some folks is considered only human? Quite the double standard going on this site, methinks. $\endgroup$ – Namaste Mar 12 '18 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ How is flagging a comment (with me explicitly saying that suspension might be appropriate) sparing anyone? The fact that someone should be punished doesn't mean that they should be punished by you, and even less using ways of "punishment" (quotes because I don't think closing is punishment) which were not devised for the "crime". $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 12 '18 at 15:15
  • $\begingroup$ And I can't understand how you interpret this answer as being double standards towards favoring KingTut/Jaideep. I explicitly say that one of them should be suspended, and that the meta post of the other is troubling, while saying that your actions may have been an honest attempt to sanitize the site (although through the wrong means). How can someone possibly interpret this as you said is beyond me. If anything, I would expect the exactly opposite accusation, which would be equally wrong, but at least would be more sensible. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 12 '18 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ It's not a problem for you do disagree. The problem is judging others who disagree with you, and building a straw man argument against them. I never used the words punishment, nor crime. You used them with scare-quotes, so I do not think it is relevant to my comment here, nor do I downvote a post to "punish" a user. So please don't put words in my mouth. Please, I know we disagree. Please, let's just agree to disagree. Cheers! $\endgroup$ – Namaste Mar 12 '18 at 15:27
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I am not putting words in your mouth. You explictly say "There are expectations of every user on this site; if one fails to act accordingly, they should be ready to pay the price" (emphasis mine). Am I incorrect in treating this as punishment for wrongdoing? $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 12 '18 at 15:31
4
$\begingroup$

The question is presented not as clear as it should be presented. This lead to considerable confusion and an unnecessary duplicate close-reopen.

Instead of clarifying the question via an edit or explaining the issue main-OP wrote rude comments (that got deleted); meta-OP was not rude but not overly helpful either.

The question is still not as clear as it could be. Maybe it is not bad enough for it to be closed, but it is far from good. And the main-OP had been made aware of the problem but chose to do nothing about it, except for writing rude comments.

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 10 '18 at 18:36
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ And if the glaring problem is that it is unclear, then this doesn't justify it being closed for being off-topic. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 10 '18 at 18:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 10 '18 at 19:09
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 10 '18 at 19:14
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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 $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 10 '18 at 19:16
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 10 '18 at 19:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 10 '18 at 19:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 10 '18 at 19:32
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 10 '18 at 19:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 10 '18 at 20:28
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 10 '18 at 21:39
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – user14972 Mar 10 '18 at 23:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 11 '18 at 2:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo Mar 11 '18 at 4:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 11 '18 at 21:53

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .