I have a [supposedly] really important question [about "const *iption", a made-up pseudolegal process] that I've posted several times, but it keeps getting downvoted, closed, and/or deleted every time I post it. What's wrong with my question?
What's wrong with my question?
Since neither this post nor your profile provides useful information, I assume you refer to your recent posts about the made-up term "const *iption".
It makes no sense to ask about a term that does not exist in dictionaries (let alone in a legal dictionary), court opinions, or in the results of a search on Internet. The search engines "assume" that the user meant to search for "constipation".
Nor do the tags in your latest(?) post make any sense. It is extremely odd for a question to include the tags GDPR, taxes, conflict-of-interest, freedom-of-information, and third-amendment, especially considering that the GDPR is a European law while the Third Amendment is an American law. Yet you selected them all without providing even a minimum of context as to how your inquiry about "const *iption" has anything to do with at least one of these tags.
Altogether this behavior is abnormal and reinforces suspicions of spam, more so since apparently this is becoming recurrent (it is also odd that a mod deleted the latter post despite having been answered and upvoted).
We can't find it...
If you told us what your question is, we might be able to find it. Or you might register and ask it again, then we could look at it.
We don't deal in legal advice
It is quite likely that the questions fell victim to closure for asking for legal advice. We don't answer those, close them, and some do get downvotes.
The regular cleaning deletes
Eventually, the community-bot will remove questions with negative scores and no answers with upvotes.
How this played out later - analyzing the path & what was actually mean
[unregistered OP]'s questions reached Meta well before them
At least some regular users were questioning the validity of the questions before any of the querent's questions arrived here. This usually shows that real concern exists in the community about some pattern.
Const *iption is in no common dictionary
Without a definition of the word that is generally accepted, we can't evaluate if something is legal or illegal.
Not even Urban Dictionary - where anybody can suggest words and definitions - knows the word!
[unregistered OP] made it hard for us by not registering
Reputation is tracked on an account basis and it allows to see old questions for older members. This allows us to help more easily. By not registering you make it hard for us to help.
They ARE trollish
Because [unregistered OP] didn't register and the word isn't in a dictionary, the questions and the repeated follow-ups with multiple non-registered accounts trigger(and triggered) too many warning lamps for people to believe they are not a troll question.
After having been asked repeatedly to prove that the concept exists and them just asking more questions about it, it is clear that they are a troll and just want to see the world burn.
Because of this, any new questions about const *iption can be closed, duped to there, and then hit with the burninator or space colonies, whatever is more to the liking of the moderation team.
...and now there's a META about trying to get the un-word *Const iption BLACKLISTED
in the meantime...
The Charcoal HQ was so kind to add the word to the SmokeDetector
The user created the following questions:
Apparently, the user also created a bunch of Questions regarding "const *iption". These I could find by sifting through logs and my own page visitation history:
- Is const *iption a crime? [closed]
- Is const *iption illegal? [closed]
- Is const *iption a crime? [duplicate]
- Is it legal to send the President a letter demanding that he refuse to take a salary?
They then tried to const *ipt the Law SE community. Of course, even if const *iption was a real thing, this would make no sense, as we are not paid anyway.
A few days later, they asked how to send "notices of const *iption" (the title of the "question" where they tried to const *ipt us was "NOTICE OF CONST *IPTION"), specifically referring to our deletion of their notice. Apparently they expect us to help them const *ipt us.
They then tried to const *ipt us again, with the real-sounding but presumably fake name "Richard Phillips." (Previously, they used names like "Worried" and "CatLover123.")
On Open Source SE they appeared between 9/24 to 9/27. They answered a question about creating custom licenses with a threat to consti *ipt anyone who does, and asked whether const *iption is an effective way to enforce the GPL. A
And then they returned, still unregistered with this question asking if you could keep const *ipted money...
A little while later they returned with another question, and finally could be convinced to register their account:
What is wrong with my question? – [unregistered] Richard Phillips Oct 6 at 21:12
[2 upvotes] "Const *iption" isn't a word, at least Google translates the search into "const *ipation"... Do you mean conscription? Something else? Maybe provide an example in context... – Ron Beyer Oct 6 at 21:24
[4 upvotes] I’m voting to close this question because law.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1546/… – Jen Oct 6 at 21:27
@RonBeyer no, I mean const *iption, an alternative process to litigation where you send someone a letter demanding that they stop accepting payment for something, and if your claim is reasonable, a judge enforces the demand. – [unregistered] Richard Phillips Oct 6 at 21:27
@Jen how can I ask better const *iption questions? Is this the wrong site for them? – [unregistered] Richard Phillips Oct 6 at 21:28
[1 upvote] @RonBeyer law.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1573/35069 – Rick Oct 6 at 21:34
@RonBeyer some people think I just made const *iption up because they've never heard of it. I've been called a troll or spammer, but I'm just trying to learn about this procedure. – [unregistered] Richard Phillips Oct 6 at 21:37
[1 upvote] @Rick I see that, VTC, OP can respond to meta post. – Ron Beyer Oct 6 at 21:37
[2 upvotes] @[unregistered OP] You've been told multiple times that "const *iption" isn't a thing, we can't answer or speculate on imaginary legal proceedings. – Ron Beyer Oct 6 at 21:38
@RonBeyer only established users can participate in Meta. Const *iption isn't very well-known, but it is a real legal procedure; I'm hoping that if a question is left open, someone who knows about const *iption will find it and answer it. – [unregistered] Richard Phillips Oct 6 at 21:39
[2 upvotes] Then register an account, you've been asked to do that multiple times as well. – Ron Beyer Oct 6 at 21:39
[1 upvote] @RonBeyer okay, I'm registered now. – [now-registered] Richard Phillips Oct 6 at 21:48
At this point on the 6th October they personally asked a question directly on Meta themselves. The Question got duplicated to this one, and was later deleted. A notable exchange with the creator from the comments there:
@Trish const*iption is a legal concept. It just seems like nobody here knows about it, or those who don't know keep closing my questions before those who do know can answer them. – [now-registered OP] Oct 6 at 22:03
[4 upvotes] Then start by proving that it exists? We close it because we can't prove that it does, you don't give us anything to go by but a word that does not show up in any legal dictionary, which someone tried to add to Wiktionary and it got wiped immediately as not a thing because lacking source and for which google only finds it as the most common misspelling of const *ipation. Until you can prove to us that it exists, we will not engage with it. – Trish Oct 6 at 22:05
@Trish what would it hurt to leave a question about consti *iption open? If nobody answers it, it won't be a problem. – [now-registered OP] Oct 6 at 22:11
on 11th they promptly abandoned their account and asked another question from an unregistered one.
shortly after they suggested to const *ipt someone with a fresh sockpuppet
And then asked about const *iption via SMS via a new sockpuppet
And with a different they asked if they need an attorney
On 12th they used a new sockpuppet to ask about enforcement
Minutes later a fresh sockpuppet asked what would be needed in a notice of const *iption.
some more minutes later, they use a separate sockpuppet and want statistics
And moments later another sockpuppet, another question
14th: The (former) troll apologized for the spam from an old account which apparently wasn't blocked, and has not re-started vandalism. He has returned several times since to answer other users' questions about his activity, most recently on October 19th.