spam >/dev/null

CW before I downvote, will ya? – Ladybug Killer Jul 22 at 14:20

@LadybugKiller: sorry, i thought i had checked it – Kip Jul 22 at 14:23

@Lady: while you are free to downvote for any reason you want (even no reason), I think downvoting because it's not CW is unfair. There are LOT of FAQ questions that are not CW including one by Jeff Atwood (that gave him 850 rep) – Kop Jul 22 at 14:23

@Kop: We all know that Jeff is a cheater. I don't care about fairness, I downvote at will. Besides that I haven't downvoted. So stay cool. – Ladybug Killer Jul 22 at 14:26

meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/58034/… – Kop Jul 22 at 14:28

@Kop @Kip: stop trying to destroy my brain, will you? – Popular Demand Jul 22 at 17:45

@Pip: Is there something left to destroy? – Ladybug Killer Jul 22 at 17:48

When it comes to closing questions as spam, on the other hand, a liberal interpretation of what is considered spam is fine, as "closing as spam" should have no lasting effect on the person posting the question. (Someone more knowledgeable about the inner workings of the site can correct me if I'm wrong.)

As for deflecting "spam" to math.SE, I really don't think that is a good idea. We are not trying to undermine them and if we think of a question as "spam", then chances are they would too. It's a different story for questions deemed "too localized", for example. I think the best course of action towards questions we feel are inappropriate for MO is to close them, after offering some explanation and, if appropriate, links to other sites. But if someone insists on asking inappropriate questions, despite the community's objection, then it is fair to ask the moderators to intervene.

To be honest, if someone picks flagging a MO post, out of the myriad of possibilities available, to be abusive, vengeful and sordid, well... can't we just giggle a little bit, marvel at his/her utter lack of imagination and almost heart-warming naïveté, and pass on to more interesting matters?

If I'm not mistaken, Bill Dubuque's answer to this question is the deleted post that yielded most of the current long discussion. It is related to the above paragraph, because the answer was over 95% off-topic noise. I genuinely appreciate Bill's mathematical contributions here, but I would prefer if he broadcast his artful wordplay somewhere else.

I guess that the reason "because it's funny" won't cut it.

;)

I am a tenured professor, and nevertheless, I see no reason to be rude to cranks. I can understand that they are frustating to deal with, and shouldn't be welcomed on MO, but that is not an excuse for rudeness. If someone constantly posts unwelcome questions/answers in such a way as to be disruptive to the site, than the moderators can penalize them in the same way that they would penalize any disruptive user. If, however, someone politely posts material that is nevertheless inappropriate, then penalties and rudeness are uncalled for. The posts can be downvoted and/or closed, and ideally, the person can be directed somewhere else.

I don't think that posts we regard as crankish (rather than as simply too low level) should be sent to math.SE. Ignoring them (i.e. not making attempt to redirect them, but just downvoting/closing), as Kevin suggests, is one option. As I already indicated, I also think that Andy's suggestion of sending them to Equalis could be a good solution.

Incidentally, I think that the question on cosets, although poorly phrased, was a reasonable one in principle, which (to my mind) would fit in on Math.SE.

I am, of course, attempting a half-joke (whence came the exclamation points).

@Bill: Come on, the keys are literally right next to one another. I think it's safe to say that it's an honest typo. Now, if you had some kind of evidence that Kevin did not use a qwerty keyboard, maybe you'd be on to something, but I think you're jumping to conclusions.

Brilliant!

My point, I think, is this: if we, the community, are not going to send cranky stuff to Math.SE, then where are we going to send it? I think that's perhaps the question people should be focusing on.

Cranky stuff should receive an immediate ban.

Edit: Mariano +1.

This sounds great to me. We appreciate the business as well as your most prudent filter.

I will admit that I use the spam flag in a certain fashion because I know that it will delete the post if enough people agree with me. I agree that the official definition of spam refers to bulk advertising email. Given that we don't get any of that (do we?), and that we have to work with what we are given, I view co-opting the spam flag to "get this out of my sight as soon as possible" a reasonable thing to do. In addition, since our moderators have jobs that do not involve moderating MO (unlike the head honchos at SO), I don't expect them to be sitting by a keyboard ready to leap in to action the moment someone posts something that shouldn't be here. That task has, for better or for worse, been delegated to the community.

Of course, there will be situations in which power is abused. And that's why, at the end of the day (yet more cliches), there are human moderators who can intervene.

But to make a gainful attempt to get back on track. We should only redirect questions to math.SE if we think that that is the best place for that question. And in reading that statement, I draw people's attention to the fact that I regard a question as comprising both the written question and the person asking it. So if the person is an obvious troll, then even if the question is reasonable I would not redirect it to math.SE.

If you do not participate on MO and have no intention to, I kindly ask that you refrain from posting on discussions of MO policy.

I further ask that you clear the above comment (you can no longer delete comments) and replace it with something worthwhile.

• Some people may even be irate after arguing that some questions of comparable quality should not have been closed.

Of course one can ask sensible questions on the utility of cosets (and much more so of double cosets, which most people end up considering to be part of the realm of Things That Only Exist In The First Couple Of Exercises In An Introductory Textbook!)

It turned out that the most offensive spammer of the day never appeared on Math.SE, thanks goodness. This question showed up and was answered in typical haphazard style (including a haphazard answer of mine... tisk, tisk.) In the future I will refrain from rattling off an answer to a poorly worded/motivated question without making attempts to have the question rephrased or placed into context - this seems to be the policy over here at MO and I think we would do well to adopt it consistently.

As for receiving properly worded questions that just don't seem to fit over here, we'll take 'em. There are a growing number of regulars at Math.SE that seem to be able to handle pretty much anything, and it is good for those of us less advanced to see what is out there and try our hand at those questions that lie just at the edge of our grasp.