-5
$\begingroup$

The self-answer question Truth Teller Problem Revisited - What Fraction Like Winter [closed] was just closed.

The reason given was:

Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc.

Excerpting from the posted question:

I think the question is worthwhile because my answer shows that the question can be routinely solved with no elegance or creativity, simply by brute force.

Excerpting from the answer, which I provided at the same time that I posted the question:

The point of this answer is not that this is the best way to solve it. Instead, the point is that this approach takes the least creativity.

So, it looks like the posted question+answer collectively provide both motivation + possible strategies.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ You copied another question, which was closed for not meeting the standards of the site, added nothing to that question, and then proceeded to answer the question. This is a circumvention of site moderation. If you want to answer the question, either (1) follow the rules for context edits and rewrites, or (2) help the original asker to improve their question. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Apr 2 at 14:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The question is just a problem statement. A slightly better option in my personal opinion would be add your approach to the question itself and ask for alternative approaches. If you are self answering a question please ensure that it has reasonable context. $\endgroup$
    – Paramanand Singh Mod
    Apr 2 at 15:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ On second reading I found that your question is an attempt at answering a question which was closed. Please avoid this. $\endgroup$
    – Paramanand Singh Mod
    Apr 2 at 15:07
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ On review, I am even more confused about the timeline. It appears that you preemptively posted the duplicate question, in anticipation of the original question being closed. But you still added nothing to the question by way of context, and your actions still look like an attempt to circumvent moderation. Again, either help the user to improve the question, or post a new question which follows the rules linked above. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Apr 2 at 15:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson I agree with your review. Not that it's relevant, but my goal was to post a question that I thought worthwhile; the moderation circumvention was a necessary consequence. Note that I intentionally refrained from cross posting the new posting's link to the old posting, because I didn't want the original poster to be rewarded. However, I think that the point here is that it is against the rules to post a self-answer of a low quality question. So, now this policy has now been clarified, and I have the guidance I need. $\endgroup$ Apr 2 at 16:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user2661923 It is against site policy to post low quality questions. Period. Having a self-answer does not magically take a question which does not meet site standards and transform it into a question which does meet site standards. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Apr 2 at 17:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson This is the confusing part. Typically, a question is low quality because the original poster has shown no work or discussed the motive or importance of the question. In a self-answer question, while it is reasonable to ask the poster to discuss the motive or importance of the question, directly in the posted question, it is not reasonable to expect the poster to show work in the posted question. This is because, typically, in a self-answer question, the poster will show work in an answer box, separate from the posted question, when they show the solution to the problem. $\endgroup$ Apr 2 at 17:04
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @user2661923 I think that you place too much emphasis on the "effort" notion of context. I have stated, multiple times, that I don't think that "effort" or an "attempt" constitute very good context. Context should explain to an outsider why the question is interesting, what tools ought to be used to solve the problem, what level the question is aimed at, etc. "Effort" can often serve as a proxy for these kinds of things, but "effort" is not the be-all and end-all. $\endgroup$
    – Xander Henderson Mod
    Apr 2 at 17:06

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .