This is about the question How can I politely get my friends to pay their share when I invite them to dinner?
In short: The OP migrated to France and whenever he "invites" friends to go out for a drink, they let him pay the bill.
The original question contained four different questions, including the title:
- How to handle friends who never invite? (title)
- What should I do?
- Am I being taken advantage of (which will disappoint me)?
- Am I overreacting?
The question was closed for the reason unclear what you're asking.
The question was edited and finally reopened. It contains now only one question:
- How can I politely get my friends to pay their share when I invite them to dinner? (title)
- How can I get them to pay their share?
I agree that the curent version fits IPS.SE much better than before. However, I'm still curious as to how to deal with this question. The reason is that the OP seemingly didn't log in again after asking the question. Consequently, none of the questions asking for clarification in comments were answered. Details are still lacking, e. g. that's why I used the scare quotes above around invites.
This also means that the OP didn't edit the question to fit the site. From their orginal post, it's not clear to me what their actual question, what their actual goal is. So I'm not sure that the question as it is now, asks what the the OP wants to be answered.
- Are they not sure about whether these are friends, at all? In this case, just making them pay their share may fall too short.
- Are they just asking about the general culture, in this case in France? We would need to know how the OP invited them, how they communicated these invitations, to answer that question.
How do we handle this question?
Some things I wonder about: Should we edit questions this way? Is the question now suitable for IPS, or is the lack of detail still too grave?
Here is a link to a relevant meta post: Should we edit to make a question on-topic if we believe the author won't care/won't come back?