One could definitely argue that Peter Dukes has a point here. I recall one famous case, involving a post by Bill Thurston, who posted a "soft question" Thinking and Explaining. The question got a very interesting reaction, in terms of thoughtful answers surely, but also in terms of upvotes and the highly upvoted comment of Felipe Voloch: "What I am really thinking is that, if you had posted this anonymously, this question would have been closed in five minutes."

Maybe Felipe was right. It should be noted however that Bill Thurston posed his question in a really thoughtful and reflective way, drawing on decades of his own deep experience, and already had high "credentials" for asking such a question (being the author of On Proof and Progress in Mathematics, among other things). So as soft questions go, his I think was rather high quality. It got a pass.

I think that over the course of the existence of MO, there has been a trend toward becoming more hard-nosed toward "soft questions" -- this could be due partly to the rise of new users since the move to the SE platform. Is there some sort of collective sense that new users should "prove themselves" first, in the form of solid mathematical questions that indicate their serious engagement with mathematics and MO, before they have "earned a right" to ask softer questions? I really don't know (and don't know whether I have framed the question well, or tendentiously).

Perhaps the discussion should look toward more recent examples, where someone (of high MO "rep" or IRL rep) has asked a question that some like Peter would argue that those of lesser "rep" couldn't get away with?

Edit: Another not-so-recent example of a respected mathematician posting a reasonably highly upvoted question (+33-14=19) where some users wondered whether the question was MO-appropriate or would be seen as such if posted by someone with less rep: Most intricate and most beautiful structures in mathematics.

One could definitely argue that Peter Dukes has a point here. I recall one famous case, involving a post by Bill Thurston, who posted a "soft question" Thinking and Explaining. The question got a very interesting reaction, in terms of thoughtful answers surely, but also in terms of upvotes and the highly upvoted comment of Felipe Voloch: "What I am really thinking is that, if you had posted this anonymously, this question would have been closed in five minutes."

Maybe Felipe was right. It should be noted however that Bill Thurston posed his question in a really thoughtful and reflective way, drawing on decades of his own deep experience, and already had high "credentials" for asking such a question (being the author of On Proof and Progress in Mathematics, among other things). So as soft questions go, his I think was rather high quality. It got a pass.

I think that over the course of the existence of MO, there has been a trend toward becoming more hard-nosed toward "soft questions" -- this could be due partly to the rise of new users since the move to the SE platform. Is there some sort of collective sense that new users should "prove themselves" first, in the form of solid mathematical questions that indicate their serious engagement with mathematics and MO, before they have "earned a right" to ask softer questions? I really don't know (and don't know whether I have framed the question well, or tendentiously).

Perhaps the discussion should look toward more recent examples, where someone (of high MO "rep" or IRL rep) has asked a question that some like Peter would argue that those of lesser "rep" couldn't get away with?

Edit: Another not-so-recent example of a respected mathematician posting a reasonably highly upvoted question (+33-14=19) where some users wondered whether the question was MO-appropriate or would be seen as such if posted by someone with less rep: Most intricate and most beautiful structures in mathematics.

One could definitely argue that Peter Dukes has a point here. I recall one famous case, involving a post by Bill Thurston, who posted a "soft question" Thinking and Explaining. The question got a very interesting reaction, in terms of thoughtful answers surely, but also in terms of upvotes and the highly upvoted comment of Felipe Voloch: "What I am really thinking is that, if you had posted this anonymously, this question would have been closed in five minutes."

Maybe Felipe was right. It should be noted however that Bill Thurston posed his question in a really thoughtful and reflective way, drawing on decades of his own deep experience, and already had high "credentials" for asking such a question (being the author of On Proof and Progress in Mathematics, among other things). So as soft questions go, his I think was rather high quality. It got a pass.

I think that over the course of the existence of MO, there has been a trend toward becoming more hard-nosed toward "soft questions" -- this could be due partly to the rise of new users since the move to the SE platform. Is there some sort of collective sense that new users should "prove themselves" first, in the form of solid mathematical questions that indicate their serious engagement with mathematics and MO, before they have "earned a right" to ask softer questions? I really don't know (and don't know whether I have framed the question well, or tendentiously).

Perhaps the discussion should look toward more recent examples, where someone (of high MO "rep" or IRL rep) has asked a question that some like Peter would argue that those of lesser "rep" couldn't get away with?

One could definitely argue that Peter Dukes has a point here. I recall one famous case, involving a post by Bill Thurston, who posted a "soft question" Thinking and Explaining. The question got a very interesting reaction, in terms of thoughtful answers surely, but also in terms of upvotes and the highly upvoted comment of Felipe Voloch: "What I am really thinking is that, if you had posted this anonymously, this question would have been closed in five minutes."

Maybe Felipe was right. It should be noted however that Bill Thurston posed his question in a really thoughtful and reflective way, drawing on decades of his own deep experience, and already had high "credentials" for asking such a question (being the author of On Proof and Progress in Mathematics, among other things). So as soft questions go, his I think was rather high quality. It got a pass.

I think that over the course of the existence of MO, there has been a trend toward becoming more hard-nosed toward "soft questions" -- this could be due partly to the rise of new users since the move to the SE platform. Is there some sort of collective sense that new users should "prove themselves" first, in the form of solid mathematical questions that indicate their serious engagement with mathematics and MO, before they have "earned a right" to ask softer questions? I really don't know (and don't know whether I have framed the question well, or tendentiously).

Perhaps the discussion should look toward more recent examples, where someone (of high MO "rep" or IRL rep) has asked a question that some like Peter would argue that those of lesser "rep" couldn't get away with?

Edit: Another not-so-recent example of a respected mathematician posting a reasonably highly upvoted question (+33-14=19) where some users wondered whether the question was MO-appropriate or would be seen as such if posted by someone with less rep: Most intricate and most beautiful structures in mathematics.