ostensibly too elementary for overlfow

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

13 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Oct 8, 2021 at 1:37	comment	added	Todd Trimble Mod		In answer to the first question: not quite like a jury, since the voters don't get together to deliberate. People vote as individuals. But yes, other people who think a closed question has merit can vote to reopen it.
Oct 7, 2021 at 13:21	comment	added	BCLC		I wonder if there's a sufficient condition: If I set a bounty/bounties with a total reputation offered exceeding some $\varepsilon$ then it has to be by law on-topic on overflow? surely you wouldn't object to $\varepsilon=2,000$ but you would object to $\varepsilon=50$. Soooo by continuity (? perhaps Bolzano's theorem? or intermediate value theorem?) there exists a $\varepsilon$...it's like...Willingness to pay in economics?
Oct 7, 2021 at 13:17	comment	added	BCLC		'The judgment of whether a question is considered on-topic or not for MO is made by individual MO users. ' --> Actually I think I get it now. What you want to do is let the community like self-moderate and decide on a case-to-case basis based on whomever happens to be online at the time. Something like...a jury! That's it! So like a jury could find someone guilty but then again if you do repeat the trial 100 times with different jurors/juries (in case you allow repeats?), it's not necessarily that all 100 juries will find the defendant guilty right?
Dec 4, 2020 at 6:13	comment	added	Todd Trimble Mod		PS. The comic strip can be found here: knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning
Dec 4, 2020 at 6:00	comment	added	Todd Trimble Mod		(1) Re necessity: well, if a question was answered satisfactorily at Math.SE, then it probably shouldn't be duplicated here. (2) Re sealioning: yes, it does include that case. The Victorian lady in the comic strip "started it". Just generally speaking: leaving an uninterrupted series of questions/comments, as you were doing there and now here, can be annoying to the recipient. It isn't necessarily sealioning, but it can be wearisome. Again, people are busy; they may have neither time nor enough interest to respond to a bunch of comments clustered together.
Dec 4, 2020 at 0:05	comment	added	BCLC		about sealioning, does that include the case when the other party is the one who makes a claim in the 1st place? the wiki article mentions an invitation. to me, an invitation suggests the sealioner is the one who starts it. abx was the one who made a claim and so i was asking about the claim. i think it would be sealioning, if i were to comment on some random user's post or something
Dec 4, 2020 at 0:02	comment	added	BCLC		well anyhoo thanks Todd Trimble♦
Dec 4, 2020 at 0:02	comment	added	BCLC		'As for your point 3.: you're right. It's not at all well-defined. It'd be hard to enforce policy which would make it well-defined.' --> OH GASP! I really wasn't expecting this. I thought there would be some well-definedness.
Dec 4, 2020 at 0:01	comment	added	BCLC		question re : 'that means a question is ipso facto considered suitable for MO' --> ah so necessary but not sufficient?
Nov 25, 2020 at 1:35	comment	added	LSpice		I certainly didn't mean to imply that anything wasn't above board. I'm sorry for any such suggestion.
Nov 25, 2020 at 1:18	comment	added	Todd Trimble Mod		LSpice: Yes, correct, all is above board here, nothing hidden has been divulged.
Nov 25, 2020 at 1:09	comment	added	LSpice		I'm surprised to see a user explicitly named in this post. It seems that there is no name in the original post. Is it referring to some hidden history? If so, should that hidden history be put out in the open here? (EDIT: I guess it references mathoverflow.net/questions/350788/… .)
Nov 23, 2020 at 15:24	history	answered	Todd TrimbleMod	CC BY-SA 4.0