I asked this tariffs question. It was initially upvoted and got helpful comments. I thought that I constructively addressed the feedback that I received, but then close votes and eventually downvotes came. Are there any thoughts about how to improve this question?
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
At the time of this meta question there was at least one clarification that had not made its way into the question (i.e. that the purpose of the borrowing was to avoid a tariff; the question had only said that the purpose of returning the initial goods was to avoid a tariff). But in any case, I have since edited to make that clear. I do not know if that was why anyone had downvoted.
Some people do not like questions that ask whether something is legal without also presenting some reason to doubt its legality. I see no reason why a question author need to present such doubt. It is enough that they want to know whether circumstance X is legal. After all, question askers need not know the law.
Sometimes a question asks something that seems very simple. (E.g. "Is [some apparently legal thing] illegal?) This is okay. There might be many complications that could make the question more interesting to you, or that would result in a fact pattern that more clearly intersects with criminal prohibitions. But if the question asks about a simple scenario: answer about that simple scenario.
It is a valid answer to observe that the circumstances as presented, without more, do not make out the elements of a tort, or does not make out a crime, etc.
Also, your question has not been that negatively received. It has a single downvote and a few close votes from before the most recent edits.
-
Yes, I think the question is better with your recent edit: "Is it legal for me, with the purpose of avoiding a tariff, to borrow the Wang Zhang widget from Alice to make a few measurements?" As you say, we can't be sure that the previous wording was necessarily the reason for the close and downvotes. I appreciate your help nonetheless.personal_cloud– personal_cloud2025-10-07 17:26:43 +00:00Commented Oct 7 at 17:26
-
Your theory about the close votes makes sense to me. At this point, would you say that I have not given a reason to doubt the legality of the scheme? In my experience, tax avoidance questions are very tricky. For example we often need to look at obscure IRS bulletins as well as which aspects of these bulletins made it into administrative practice.personal_cloud– personal_cloud2025-10-07 17:39:14 +00:00Commented Oct 7 at 17:39
-
"Is it legal for me" renders the question a clear request for legal advice and it should be closed on that basis.Michael Hall– Michael Hall2025-10-07 17:46:14 +00:00Commented Oct 7 at 17:46
-
@Michael Re: "Is it legal for me" renders the question a clear request for legal advice. Ah I had not realized there was a site rule about that. That could indeed be the reason for the close votes. What is the proper wording for a question about the abstract legality of a hypothetical system?personal_cloud– personal_cloud2025-10-07 17:50:25 +00:00Commented Oct 7 at 17:50
-
1No. See The presence of these indicators [such as personal pronouns] is not absolute proof that the question specifically asks for legal advice. In my view, this is a rare circumstance where "I" and "me" are clearly used as the hypothetical subject. And no close votes have been cast on the basis of this being a request for legal advice.2025-10-07 17:51:15 +00:00Commented Oct 7 at 17:51
-
Re: In my view, this is a rare circumstance where "I" and "me" are clearly used as the hypothetical subject. I concur with your interpretation of the meta question you linked to. I've added an intro paragraph (to my underlying SE Law question) clarifying that "I" is hypothetical here. (Although I suppose I've done that merely as a measure of precaution, given that your data seems to refute Michael's theory that the close votes were based on the question being a request for legal advice.)personal_cloud– personal_cloud2025-10-07 18:20:26 +00:00Commented Oct 7 at 18:20
Nothing wrong with the question.
It's clear, decently concise and allright.
Your answers are bad.
Don't summarize answers by others or call it a discussion. Your earlier answer - the one you link to - was not an answer at all. The new answer you gave does summarize the other answers without giving anything extra, and contradicts itself.
It's also banned to use AI,. so stylistic changes to get away from what reads very close to AI content might help.
