Return to Question

There are a number of standard loopholes which experienced question-setters seek to explicitly close. However, inexperienced question-setters may unintentionally leave them open, or respondents may try to argue for contorted interpretations of the question in order to side-step attempts to close them.

The purpose of this question is to provide a repository of standard loopholes which may be assumed to be closed without the question-setter having to explicitly close them. The intention is that each answer shall contain one and only one loophole (to allow independent voting); and that the loophole described in any answer which is at +5 or above and has at least twice as many upvotes as downvotes may be taken to be deemed to be unacceptable to the community. A link to that answer may be provided in a comment to accompany a downvote and a low-quality flag.

Return to FAQ index

There are a number of standard loopholes which experienced question-setters seek to explicitly close. However, inexperienced question-setters may unintentionally leave them open, or respondents may try to argue for contorted interpretations of the question in order to side-step attempts to close them.

The purpose of this question is to provide a repository of standard loopholes which may be assumed to be closed without the question-setter having to explicitly close them. The intention is that each answer shall contain one and only one loophole (to allow independent voting); and that the loophole described in any answer which is at +5 or above and has at least twice as many upvotes as downvotes may be taken to be deemed to be unacceptable to the community. A link to that answer may be provided in a comment to accompany a downvote and a flag.

Return to FAQ index

There are a number of standard loopholes which experienced question-setters seek to explicitly close. However, inexperienced question-setters may unintentionally leave them open, or respondents may try to argue for contorted interpretations of the question in order to side-step attempts to close them.

The purpose of this question is to provide a repository of standard loopholes which may be assumed to be closed without the question-setter having to explicitly close them. The intention is that each answer shall contain one and only one loophole (to allow independent voting); and that the loophole described in any answer which is at +5 or above and has at least twice as many upvotes as downvotes may be taken to be deemed to be unacceptable to the community. A link to that answer may be provided in a comment to accompany a downvote and a low-quality flag).

Return to FAQ index

There are a number of standard loopholes which experienced question-setters seek to explicitly close. However, inexperienced question-setters may unintentionally leave them open, or respondents may try to argue for contorted interpretations of the question in order to side-step attempts to close them.

The purpose of this question is to provide a repository of standard loopholes which may be assumed to be closed without the question-setter having to explicitly close them. The intention is that each answer shall contain one and only one loophole (to allow independent voting); and that the loophole described in any answer which is at +5 or above and has at least twice as many upvotes as downvotes may be taken to be deemed to be unacceptable to the community. A link to that answer may be provided in a comment to accompany a downvote and a low-quality flag.

Return to FAQ index

I've been thinking for a while that this would be useful, and some recent discussions have strengthened that belief.

There are a number of standard loopholes which experienced question-setters seek to explicitly close. However, inexperienced question-setters may unintentionally leave them open, or respondents may try to argue for contorted interpretations of the question in order to side-step attempts to close them.

The purpose of this question is to provide a repository of standard loopholes which may be assumed to be closed without the question-setter having to explicitly close them. The intention is that each answer shall contain one and only one loophole (to allow independent voting); and that the loophole described in any answer which is at +5 or above and has at least twice as many upvotes as downvotes may be taken to be deemed to be unacceptable to the community. A link to that answer may be provided in a comment to accompany a downvote and a low-quality flag).

Return to FAQ index

There are a number of standard loopholes which experienced question-setters seek to explicitly close. However, inexperienced question-setters may unintentionally leave them open, or respondents may try to argue for contorted interpretations of the question in order to side-step attempts to close them.

The purpose of this question is to provide a repository of standard loopholes which may be assumed to be closed without the question-setter having to explicitly close them. The intention is that each answer shall contain one and only one loophole (to allow independent voting); and that the loophole described in any answer which is at +5 or above and has at least twice as many upvotes as downvotes may be taken to be deemed to be unacceptable to the community. A link to that answer may be provided in a comment to accompany a downvote and a low-quality flag).

Return to FAQ index