Does the moderator violate the EoQS?

Question

This recent question on the main site: If whenever $|x-a|<\delta$, $|y-a|<\delta$ then $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$, is this equiv. to $f$ cont. at $c$ then $f$ cont. on some interval around $c$?

has nothing but a question statement. The moderator who wrote the EoQS posted an answer to it.

Question: Does the moderator violate the EoQS?

---

[Added.]

Users are pointing to the exact meaning of the acronym "EoQS" and "EoQS" should really be "QS" in the original question. Since EoQS is specifically used, the question could be written as

Does the moderator violate the QS in the EoQS?

Since there have been comments/answers under the posts, I would keep the question as what it is, in case of confusion.

Some comments confuse "mentioning someone" with "name-calling" and accuse this post unfoundedly of a "personal attack". No. This post simply states facts and asks a question:

• the asker is not at all judging the quality of the linked question; "has nothing but a question statement" is a fact that anyone can see by the link.
• the asker tags this post with discussion, moderators, and policy, which is what this post is about: asking if the moderator violates the quality standards in the EoQS they write.

---

I find it very confusing regarding site policies that the mod writing the following comment:

In any event, at the time that I answered the question, it
(1) had been on the site for two days,
(2) didn't seem to have any obvious duplicates on the site,
(3) had an upvote (so it seemed to have been positively received), and
(4) had a positively scored answer (which I felt was not the most relevant or interesting example, but that is a matter of taste).

while closing another (now undeleted) question, which, as a user points out,

(1) had been on the site for several weeks;
(2) doesn't seem to have obvious duplicates;
(3) had 8 upvotes (so it seems to have been positively received);
(4) had a (very!) positively scored answer. I find it hard to swallow the idea that this question is obviously of low-quality, and should not have been answered.

Answer 1

We can, of course, discuss the merits of answering that particular question. Or lack thereof. I just want to remind you all of the fact that EoQS is statistical in nature. All the EoQS sanctions I have seen, have hit users who have a habit of answering low quality questions. Of course, that is a vague description. I guess that habit is a weighted linear combination of:

• a high fraction of all the answers posted by a user are on low quality questions, and
• the total number of answers posted by a user on low quality questions.

Further factors are undoubtedly:

• the time span (answering $>x$ low quality questions in a week or some such period may be actionable under EoQS, but taking a year to do the same need not be),
• the role of duplicates (Bill Dubuque and yours truly would give them a lot of weight, even though we have differences of opinion on the details), but the only comment I have gotten from the diamond moderators is that duplicates are a lower priority (in comparison to, say PSQs).

We are not given detailed threshold numbers. Nor should we, because disclosing that data will lead to some users skirting the rule.

In light of this, I think (may be only me, posting this to collect opinions, comments and more information)

A single post is never actionable under EoQS.

A handful of posts may lead to a friendly mod message reminding a poster about the rule, but sanctions take more. As in disregarding the rule.

I think @rschwieb basically nailed it in their answer.

---

Another nitpick (answering the title of the question). EoQS stands for enforcement of the quality standards. Moderators do the enforcing, so the only way a moderator can violate the EoQS is by not enforcing it.

Yes, I know that some posters interpreted the question to be asking whether the moderator in question violated the Quality Standards. I couldn't resist, sorry :-)

Answer 2

Ok, so I'll try speak a bit candidly. While the EOQS could be phrased in whatever way, I feel the underlying idea behind it was to cut down on calculation heavy/ textbook example type/routine problems which appear on the site.

The question mentioned here looks to me like one which involves helping OP out with their speculation rather than some routine question which comes in the textbook which makes engaging with it okay.

Answer 3

This is a protest answer. Other answers and comments have made a great show of answering the question that could have been fairly asked:

Shouldn't question X have been treated as not meeting quality standards? I don't think it meets them, but then again a person who knows a lot about the quality standards deigned to answer it. Am I missing something obvious?

That would indicate the asker would be demonstrating a sincere effort to reconcile their understanding of EoQS with the question posted.

Is that what the post here is? I have no doubt it is not. What we have here is a ham-fisted attempt to undermine EoQS by insinuating the "author of the EoQS*" has acted hypocritically by answering it. Secondarily it has the other common stratagem to undermine EoQS which is to apply it in a superficial way which ignores discretion, banking on the casual observer thinking the results look bad, in an attempt to sour opinion and cast doubt on the whole endeavor.

I think that as we see posts like this occur, we should be more critical about whether they are

1. Unduly personal (sometimes I suppose they are necessarily personal, but not in a case like this one.)
2. Roundabout, in the sense that they are not directly portraying the concern they voice, but playing games like the ones described above in an attempt to sway casual readers' opinion.

If it is either of these things we should insist on rewriting to mitigate both, because if we don't, it just enables more such posts from the underbelly of rhetoric. For years we've often quietly ignored these bad behaviors while giving the answer to what should have been asked, but maybe we should be less accommodating.

^{* If this over-assignment of responsibility isn't evidence of the unduly personal nature of this post, I don't know what is.}

^{** Normally opponents of the EoQS take exception that too many questions are closed in its name, but here a post is thrown under the bus just to forward an agenda of undermining the EoQS. Such an opponent should rather view the continued existence of the linked question a good thing (that the EoQS isn't indiscriminately used), rather than a chance to play games.}

Answer 4

Reason $1$ : In the mentioned question op doesn't provide any attempt. More generally we don't know how much op can understand. OP just give two statements and asked to prove equivalence between them.

How much evidence we have to support that this is not a homework question?

---

---

Reason $2$ : This question ( If whenever $|x-a|<\delta$, $|y-a|<\delta$ then $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$, is this equiv. to $f$ cont. at $c$ then $f$ cont. on some interval around $c$? ) can be decomposed with two parts:

Part $1(\text{statement} P$):

If $f$ is continuous at $a$, then for any $\epsilon>0$ there is a $\delta>0$ so that whenever $|x-a|<\delta$ and $|y-a|<\delta$, we have $|f(x)-f(y)|<\epsilon$.

Part $2 (\text{statement}$Q$)$

if $f$ is continuous at a point $c$ then it is continuous on some interval around that point $c$?

Both the parts have solid duplicate target.

Duplicate for part $1$ :

Prove that if f is continuous in a, then $\forall \epsilon > 0, ∃ \delta >0: $ $|x-a|< \delta $ & $|y-a| < \delta $ $ then |f(x)-f(y)| < \epsilon $

Duplicate for part $2$:

Proof of continuity of Thomae Function at irrationals.

Proof of the continuity of a function at irrational points

$f(x) = x$ when x is rational, $f(x) = 0$ when x is irrational. Find all points at which $f$ is continous.

The great one

Constructing Continuous functions at given points

---

The main question is about the equivalence between $P$ and $Q$. And this is clear form two duplicate posts.

---

If a moderator has the power to close a question with multiple duplicate, then it would be better to close the question as duplicate. Even one it could be closed with a single duplicate and probably one example in the comment.

---

If I am not wrong it's a low quality question.

Note : I don't want to abuse any moderator. This post directed to all users including myself. It's our responsibility to improve the site's health.

---

UPDATE:

One counter example is enough! Op needs only one counter example to think about the problem.

Justification : See the accepted answer.

---

$\textbf{I apologize for my ignorant post}$