How did my answer in the question about politicians being required to release tax returns not qualify as an answer?
4
-
2-1 on this question for failing to even provide a link to the question or answer you're talking about. With this attitude, where you leave more work for other people than you do yourself, I'm not surprised both your questions and one-liner answers get downvoted! (If you're too busy to write a full answer, the correct way is to make a comment, which is a practice often followed on the main StackOverflow site, for example.)– cnstCommented Apr 16, 2019 at 14:34
-
I have written several more than one liner answers, but to say that a one liner is just wrong is crazy.– PutviCommented Apr 16, 2019 at 16:02
-
Yeah, and you're doing it again now by posting empty generic statements that cannot be verified either way.– cnstCommented Apr 16, 2019 at 20:08
-
Empty statements? I got chewed out in the post and in meta for Owh whatever his name is liying in an answer law.stackexchange.com/questions/30349/… @cnst– PutviCommented Apr 16, 2019 at 20:27
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
Your answer was deleted by a moderator, after multiple users flagged for or recommended or voted for deletion, because it is extremely low quality.
It consisted of a single sentence, in which only two words were even attempting to answer, and the rest was commentary on perception.
-
What do you want me to add other than opinion? There arent established rules on the subject.– PutviCommented Apr 5, 2019 at 21:44
-
4If you're going to add opinion, it should be at least supported by professional analysis, like the other answers did. If such analysis isn't possible, the question should be closed anyway, so don't answer at all.– user4657Commented Apr 5, 2019 at 21:52
We have been struggling with answers like this.
To clarify this meta question: Your answer to Can a State in the U.S. require candidates to release taxes to be on the ballot for national office? was:
They could, but it would be seen as an attempt to keep certain people from running.
It had 3 downvotes, and I thought this was sufficiently over the line to agree with another user who flagged it for deletion. I deleted it because it contains no elements of law nor even allusion to legal principles.
We could have left it alone and let the downvotes keep it out of view. But as noted in other recent meta discussions: we are trying to remind users that this is Law.SE. It is a Stack Exchange, not an open discussion forum. Answers that have nothing to do with law are as off-topic as questions that have nothing to do with law.
-
-
3@Putvi: Asserting a negative is very ambitious. Look at the other answers to that question to see how other laws can inform an answer even if there is in fact no directly applicable law.– feetwet ModCommented Apr 5, 2019 at 21:51
-
I get what you mean about them citing cases, but the cases don't apply and no laws allowing it or not allowing it exist. There case law is just assertion.– PutviCommented Apr 5, 2019 at 21:54
-
1@Putvi: If you can offer proof that no law exists, that would be a phenomenal answer. Meanwhile: the other answers have been voted "helpful" – I believe because they provide both legal information and reasoning within the context of referenced laws.– feetwet ModCommented Apr 5, 2019 at 21:58