I recently saw a few questions where the questioner wanted us to simply solve the problem for them without showing any research effort

I unknowingly answered one such question in past and had to face the consequences on the basis of EOQS(https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/33823/why-im-downvoted-here) and from then on , I'm not only careful to not answer such questions but also I leave a comment for those who answer them.

The highly reputed members of the site asked me to leave the site and go to Chegg's or Quora or stay here under the rules. Where are those rules now??

Few Ex.


Prove that $2x^3-Px^2+Qx-R=0$ will have 3 real and distinct roots and find the interval in which the roots lie?

Convex functions using second derivative

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4219089/using-linear-approximation-to-show-p-0-left-1-frack-12m-rightk and many more....

I was told that if someone answers such questions , he/she should be informed and if warning is ignored then the answer should be downvoted.

When I tried to do so I was remarked " You would make a great police officer one day" for which I raised the flag.

The problem/question is Why framed rules are not under action?

Please don't get me wrong. I only wanted to draw all of yours attention.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$
    – Pedro Mod
    Aug 8, 2021 at 19:00
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ This thread is getting derailed. Please do not produce a 50 comment thread trying to guess what the question being asked is, and in the meantime start throwing tiny jabs at each other. When the question is clear, we can continue. In the mean time, this is just causing noise and leading us nowhere. :/ $\endgroup$
    – Pedro Mod
    Aug 8, 2021 at 19:02
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ OP: the correct course of action if you find someone is breaking the EoQS or being rude to you (or both) is to raise a flag. This is the fastest and most effective way for us moderators to take action. $\endgroup$
    – Pedro Mod
    Aug 8, 2021 at 19:04
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I suggest patience. The rule violation here is statistical in nature. And the people in charge are smart enough to know when an experiment has a statistically significant outcome. Also, their first action will be invisible as presumably they first get in touch with the suspect to talk it over. We should not expect instant suspensions. Remember that we are gradually changing the culture of the site. $\endgroup$ Aug 10, 2021 at 11:58
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @JyrkiLahtonen Excellent point. Not only is patience important for this purpose, but there's something else as well, which I observed in myself and I don't want to see happening to others : I know that people associate emotions with their thoughts, but these emotions can occasionally spill over into irrational actions and thoughts (at least in my case). Patience allows for composure and gradually collecting one's thoughts, and hence performing duties better, whether they be moderation and/or asking/answering questions. I wish I knew this when I started out. $\endgroup$ Aug 10, 2021 at 13:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @LalitTolani Having made some "statistical" rounds of MSE recently, I can confirm that EoQS is still running. However, I don't quite know how to put this, in the following sense. EoQS isn't working, when people are violating it but are not getting caught, right? So the truth is that people are still violating it, but are also getting caught and shown up. So if EoQS means : "catch those who are violating the rules" then it's working. If EoQS means "lower the number of instances of violation" then it's working in a really slow fashion. Rest assured, it is working. $\endgroup$ Aug 25, 2021 at 6:51

1 Answer 1


As @TeresaLisbon said in her last comment and from what I realised after raising many EoQS violation flags, it is clear that EoQS is working in full-form. However it is also true that many people are still violating it; either intentionally or due to lack of information.

For both the cases we can raise flags taking following precautions:

--> We should not flag new user's post for EoQS as it is meant to change behaviour of high-reputation users instead we should post the link about EoQS in meta to inform them.

--> If a high reputation user violates it , we should first politely inform them and flag their posts elsewise.

Due to many violations and some delay in moderator's action , it might seem that EoQS is not working ( as it happened in case of me) but what we can do is to make more and more people aware about this.


  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "We should not flag new user's post for EoQS as it is meant to change behaviour of high-reputation" I do not agree with this line. Why EoQS only for high rep user and not for user with rep 50-2000. I know 2 users with their rep lieing in this range and they are frequent EoQS breakers (not gonna reveal their names). It is similar to saying only rich with >10k salary only have to pay tax and not others which is totally unfair. Also I feel it would be much better if you edit the post to define what is the minimum rep a user should have in order to be a high-reputation user $\endgroup$
    – user876009
    Sep 3, 2021 at 7:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "It is similar to saying only rich with >10k salary only have to pay tax and not others" isn't that how most modern society work? @JitendraSingh $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2021 at 8:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar well replace 10k with 1000k (monthly) but I hope you got the basic idea what I want to say $\endgroup$
    – user876009
    Sep 3, 2021 at 8:28
  • $\begingroup$ @JitendraSingh Yes you are right, the same thing popped up in my mind when few of my EoQS flags were declined citing the reason that it is not meant for new users , you must see the conversation between me and Xander for the same of few days ago chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/20352/math-mods-office $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2021 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ @JitendraSingh For your next question of to define the minimum reputation , we can question our moderators on this, What do you think? $\endgroup$ Sep 3, 2021 at 10:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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