-7

I'm not sure why the following were deleted?

https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/q/6672/2423 had 1 answer that someone else also upvoted, but I forgot to accept it and would now.

https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/q/6781/2423 had 1 comment that'd answer, but it was edited by someone else before it was closed and I could review it for accuracy.

6
  • 1
    Were you planning on improving those? If not, the fact that they have answers doesn't make them good enough to keep around....Especially if those answers are in comments. You also might want to get to your questions sooner if you would like to improve them, not post meta's weeks after the fact.
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Nov 30 '17 at 6:54
  • Were you planning on improving those? Yes, as long as I can be helped how?
    – NNOX Apps
    Nov 30 '17 at 6:58
  • 1
    Yes, as long as I can be helped how? ............................................
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Nov 30 '17 at 7:08
  • 3
    these were closed as unclear and too broad, respectively. Were you planning on improving those questions? Because you had days after they were closed to do so.
    – Magisch
    Nov 30 '17 at 7:27
  • @Tinkeringbell The difficulty is that they don't appear unclear/too broad to me? As I wrote above, I'm not certain why they appeared so? I can't see any comment that addresses this after my edit.
    – NNOX Apps
    Dec 1 '17 at 0:50
  • @Magisch Yes. But please see interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2199/….
    – NNOX Apps
    Dec 1 '17 at 0:50
7

Your first question was closed as "unclear". You say in your comment that you don't think it's unclear, so lets review:

My uncle called different law firms to compare. Every lawyer who spoke with him, asked if he were shopping around and had called other law firms. Assume malevolent nosy intent by lawyers, probably to decide how much help and time to spend on you. I ask not about benevolent intent because then answering 'yes' is the easy solution.

None of the 3 possible answers appear tactful:

  1. answering 'no' would be lying. Yet a lawyer who believes that you're not shopping around, may be less deceiving about true fees (thus averting distressing negotiation) or work harder to lower it (by asking her manager).

  2. answering 'yes' is truthful. But a yes' (even if lawyers expect shopping around) may estrange or repel lawyers and cause them to help you less, because why would a lawyer spend time with you if you haven't offered any commitment?

  3. refusing to answer appears brusque and suspicious, and shortsighted because a clever lawyer can divine from your silence that you're truly shopping around.

This is after your third edit, so I'm using the most up to date version possible of your question for comparison. This question doesn't contain a clear problem statement. You don't specify what you want an answer to address. There is something like a question in the title, but it's not reflected in the question body and pretty broad and general.

The answer it got is a good indication of this, as it doesn't really answer your question per say, it more challenges the frame of your question. That means it's not offering an interpersonal solution to your interpersonal problem, but giving you general life advice in the face of a vague problem that isn't specifically made interpersonal. (The answer is talking to you about sales tactics and market positions, not about how to socially interact with the people you're calling)

As for improving it, I suggest reforming your problem statement to have a specific clear interpersonal goal you want to achieve, and to trim down the details to necessities.

As for why it was deleted, I can only speak for myself (I was one of the three delete voters on that question).

The question was closed on November 12, 2017. That was more then 10 days before it was deleted, giving you plenty of time to fix issues with the question and get it reopened. If a question of yours is closed, it is generally a call for you to improve it to fix the issues the closure highlighted. You made one edit on November 17, 2017 that in my opinion didn't address the core issues with the question at all (there is no real problem statement and the one in the title is open ended and broad).

Ultimately, this isn't helpmewithanyproblemeverwithanysolutionyouwanttosuggest.SE, it's Interpersonal.SE. I thought it unlikely for this question to become on topic after several edits and a completed reopen review and 12 days of closure, I voted to delete it.

I didn't vote to delete your second question, so I'll leave the explaining of that one to the people who did.

2
  • Thanks for your answer. (1) Before I edit my post again, can you please help me how to edit my post to state the following more clearly? My question is as titled: How do you tactfully answer malintended questions on if you're shopping around, when you are? My difficulty is that none of the 3 possible answers are tactful; they'll all dissuade the lawyer from helping you.
    – NNOX Apps
    Dec 1 '17 at 19:15
  • (2) After the edit on Nov. 17 2017, I was awaiting reopening because I genuinely believed it to be much clearer. I never expected deletion of a question (with 1 upvoted answer) due to its quality: had someone threatened deletion, I might've acted more quickly.
    – NNOX Apps
    Dec 1 '17 at 19:19
3

I'm not the one who voted to delete your 2nd question, but I feel that it doesn't warrant deletion. However, that question is off-topic, phrase request is off topic, so it does warrant a closure.

'[P]rofessionals who wouldn't be needed in a perfect world', refer to those who needed only in adversity e.g. lawyers or surgeons.

  1. Is there a noun for such professions?

  2. Saying to such professionals

'I look forward to working with you/being helped by you/using your services again/seeing you again'

appears too grim and morbid. So what else can be said?* I wish to offer more than 'thank you very much' that appears too dull and hackneyed.

*Emphasize mine

With the current state of the question (net score of -4) and the off-topic question, I see there's no merit on undeleting that post. However, I believe that it can be edited to fit this site guidelines by changing the question to:

How to thank lawyer/surgeon without implying I'm wishing to get into trouble again?

(I think there's a better way to phrase that question, feel free to change it if anyone has better phrase)

If you are ready to work on that question, I'll help you undelete that post.

Note: I'm editing that question to remove fluffs. It will be up to you to change the question you are asking.

1
  • +1. Thanks for your rewrite that I'll preserve. I look forward to your help with undeletion!
    – NNOX Apps
    Dec 1 '17 at 19:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .