Reading · Recent Questions - MathOverflow Meta

15

$\begingroup$ The second question was closed thrice and then reopened each time. It makes sense that these kinds of questions take time to converge $\endgroup$

2026-03-17 11:28:24 +00:00

Commented Mar 17 at 11:28
9

$\begingroup$ I agree that these questions are roughly similar and it doesn't make sense to have one closed while the other was open. $\endgroup$

2026-03-17 12:34:13 +00:00

Commented Mar 17 at 12:34
3

$\begingroup$ @SamHopkins The way the questions are formulated are very different from each other $\endgroup$

2026-03-17 12:38:33 +00:00

Commented Mar 17 at 12:38
15

$\begingroup$ @SamHopkins: One of the questions is written using much more inflammatory language than the other. It’s also not even clear what would count as an answer — it’s more of a scream of rage than a question. (just to be clear since I’m sure I will be accused of supporting the regime — I do not support what the US is doing in Iran) $\endgroup$

2026-03-17 12:39:14 +00:00

Commented Mar 17 at 12:39
7

$\begingroup$ For one, the formulation of the new question is certainly worse, clearly aimed at creating an opinion-based heated discussion. Rewording it, like asking if there are any notable calls for boycotts in the light of recent events would make a much better question. $\endgroup$

2026-03-17 12:39:29 +00:00

Commented Mar 17 at 12:39
17

$\begingroup$ You’ll notice, for instance, that the comments on the new question are now a debate about the war. That’s an important debate, but MO is not an appropriate venue for it. $\endgroup$

2026-03-17 12:43:14 +00:00

Commented Mar 17 at 12:43
11

$\begingroup$ I tried to edit the question to make it less heated while maintaining the thrust. $\endgroup$

2026-03-17 12:55:20 +00:00

Commented Mar 17 at 12:55
16

$\begingroup$ In the 2026 question, soon after posting, OP wrote a highly polemical comment. This led me to downvote. The comment and the replies it generated has been erased by moderation in between. Also the initial post (visible in edit history, maybe with some rep) was written in a somewhat polemical way. The tone of the 2022 post, even in its first version, was not (or far less) polemical. $\endgroup$

2026-03-17 17:29:00 +00:00

Commented Mar 17 at 17:29
10

$\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew I don't think I need to argue further. $\endgroup$

2026-03-18 08:11:34 +00:00

Commented Mar 18 at 8:11
5

$\begingroup$ @YCor I disagree. It was not abusive, graphic, harmful, misleading, disruptive, or inauthentic. There is no content policy against polemical speech abstractly. (Furthermore, "polemical" seems highly subjective.) $\endgroup$

2026-03-18 08:37:07 +00:00

Commented Mar 18 at 8:37
12

$\begingroup$ As far as I am concerned, both questions should be closed, as they do not at all align with the purpose of MO: "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face." (mathoverflow.net/help/dont-ask); "MathOverflow is not a discussion forum." (mathoverflow.net/help/on-topic). $\endgroup$

2026-03-18 12:22:33 +00:00

Commented Mar 18 at 12:22
8

$\begingroup$ @VladimirDotsenko While I agree with you and I did everything I could to close the 2022 question, the fact remained that the community decided to keep it open and on topic for this forum, and while doing so they opened the door to the same discussion happening again since there is a precedent and conditions to bring this to discussion again (a can of worms really). Furthermore the question has been edited and I had to agree to cast the last reopening vote for this edited question to bring some consistency. $\endgroup$

2026-03-18 13:14:07 +00:00

Commented Mar 18 at 13:14
5

$\begingroup$ +1 to @VladimirDotsenko - I am trying very hard to refrain from commenting on the MO question itself (I think most comments there should be moved to chat, quite frankly) $\endgroup$

2026-03-18 21:05:58 +00:00

Commented Mar 18 at 21:05
7

$\begingroup$ I agree with Yemon. As was easily predicted, the comments have devolved into an off-topic flamewar about US politics. These comments should be deleted, the question should be edited to removed the editorializing, and if people (esp the OP) insist on continuing to fight the question should be locked. There are plenty of other places on the internet for people to yell at each other about politics. $\endgroup$

2026-03-18 21:38:53 +00:00

Commented Mar 18 at 21:38
4

$\begingroup$ Strictly speaking, Brandolini's law concerns bullshit rather than honest error, but I can't help feeling that the amount of effort needed to correct presumptuous or question-begging assertions far outweighs the amount of effort expended in tossing them out. $\endgroup$

2026-03-23 22:22:05 +00:00

Commented Mar 23 at 22:22

1 Answer 1

$\begingroup$

There is no consistency in closures, by design, in the Stack Exchange system. A question is closed (or reopened) when enough users vote to do so.

Moderators can step in using superpowers to override the decision of those users. If you think this is a case where it should happen (in either direction), feel free to open a meta question with this suggestion, making clear points as to why.

answered Mar 17 at 13:28

$\endgroup$

9

$\begingroup$ NB: This already happened. Sam Hopkins used his moderator superpowers to reopen the question. $\endgroup$

2026-03-17 13:54:26 +00:00

Commented Mar 17 at 13:54
3

$\begingroup$ @EmilJeřábek I voted to re-open the question when there were already many re-open votes. $\endgroup$

2026-03-17 14:38:51 +00:00

Commented Mar 17 at 14:38
9

$\begingroup$ Yes. But your vote still effectively counted as two, so it was using superpowers. $\endgroup$

2026-03-17 14:42:19 +00:00

Commented Mar 17 at 14:42
4

$\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew as was pointed out elsewhere, it cannot be done infinitely - each user can vote at most once to close or re-open any given question $\endgroup$

2026-03-20 12:29:38 +00:00

Commented Mar 20 at 12:29
6

$\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew well, no, to even vote to close or re-open questions you need a certain amount of reputation, and in practice even among with users with those qualifications the number who are still very active on MO is less, so the number is much smaller than that $\endgroup$

2026-03-20 14:10:05 +00:00

Commented Mar 20 at 14:10
1

$\begingroup$ @SamHopkins Sure but it’s potentially very large. Would it seem fine to have a close/open oscillation with 200 cycles? 37? 13? $\endgroup$

2026-03-20 14:58:03 +00:00

Commented Mar 20 at 14:58
4

$\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew Actually, even an infinite number of oscillations seems fine to me. It's a clear, objective signal that the question is highly controversial. I see value in an objective measure of how controversial a question is. I don't see what the downside of a large number of oscillations is. $\endgroup$

2026-03-23 18:25:08 +00:00

Commented Mar 23 at 18:25
4

$\begingroup$ My view also is that it is fine for questions to oscillate between closed and open when many people find reason to object on both sides. $\endgroup$

2026-03-23 19:38:40 +00:00

Commented Mar 23 at 19:38
5

$\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew I think the design principle is sound. Infinite oscillation is rare in practice. When it does occur, moderators have the option of exercising their judgment. They can delete the question if they think that's best, or they can decide to allow the oscillation to continue. I'd rather that the system give moderators that freedom to decide, rather than automatically execute some potentially procrustean rule. $\endgroup$

2026-03-23 22:14:13 +00:00

Commented Mar 23 at 22:14
4

$\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew Even if that is true, I don't see that as an argument against infinite oscillation. At most, it's an argument for some kind of moderator intervention. $\endgroup$

2026-03-24 11:21:21 +00:00

Commented Mar 24 at 11:21
5

$\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew I watched the discussion for a few days and then voted to close. Maybe some of the early responses were valuable enough to outweigh the toxicity, but it seems clear to me that we have now hit the point of diminishing returns. I imagine others voted to close for similar reasons. I don't see any bad faith in that. $\endgroup$

2026-03-24 17:41:04 +00:00

Commented Mar 24 at 17:41
5

$\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew: “Plainly obvious”? You have no idea what you are talking about. I understand that you think that the way to win an argument is by posting an endless barrage of tendentious comments until people are worn down and give up, but this is getting ridiculous. $\endgroup$

2026-03-25 10:17:18 +00:00

Commented Mar 25 at 10:17
2

$\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew I don't really see it that way at all. When Andy Putman wrote "This question should be closed, but since it’s open I want to make several points." that is completely understandable. He thinks that the best situation would be that the question were closed, but given that it is open, he thinks a somewhat better situation is that his answer be recorded there. People reason in this way, with trade-offs and compromises, all the time. What you're saying is a bit akin to the "you criticize society and yet you participate in society" meme. $\endgroup$

2026-03-25 13:05:15 +00:00

Commented Mar 25 at 13:05
5

$\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew sure, he has a choice whether to participate in the MO question, but that doesn't really change the logic: given that the question is open, he thinks a better world is one where his answer is recorded there, even if, in his estimation, the best world is one where the question is closed. This is totally coherent. $\endgroup$

2026-03-25 14:11:34 +00:00

Commented Mar 25 at 14:11
11

$\begingroup$ @MonroeEskew I cannot speak for anyone else, but at least one extremely compelling reason I see for closing this question is because, given its political content, it is likely to (and indeed has!) lead to mudslinging and vitriol. And one of the reasons MO has succeeded is because it avoids exactly this kind of negative discourse which is common across social media. I.e., MO has succeeded because it is an "anti-social network" (theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/…) $\endgroup$

2026-03-25 14:24:05 +00:00

Commented Mar 25 at 14:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Consistency in closures?

1 Answer 1

You must log in to answer this question.

Comments