When reading @CareyGregory's comment

editing the question and having it reopened generally isn't an option because all that accomplishes is disguising the question.

Considering that people that know the community boundaries/policies can/know how to disguise a question prior to posting it [example], how is that any different from one person that asked for a medical advice and edits it, or asks another question, in a way that the medical advice stops being explicit from reading the question?

Will the new edit or the new question be approved?

Or do we want to measure intents of a specific user?

If we do want to measure intents, apart from the ones that can be explicitly get from the present question, which procedures should one follow?

  • 1
    We can't make a rule for every possible thing. At some point people have to use their judgement, and that's the very foundation of stackexchange. You keep saying you want a formal guideline, and you've created multiple questions on the subject, but you haven't proposed a guideline and neither has anyone else. So what I've got are two people complaining who have no solution to offer. Until I see a proposal for a guideline with upvotes, I see no point in continuing this. – Carey Gregory Feb 26 at 15:06
  • 1
    @CareyGregory I am not asking a rule for every possible thing, but for specific interactions in the community. And when I see that there's room for a guideline to help regulating actions, making the policy clearer, I will share a meta question on the topic. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to be more involved in the community, but so far I am happy with the contributions. I do see these questions as helpful, even though some people may have a different opinion and, as opposed to what you say, I have proposed one guideline. – Gonçalo Peres 龚燿禄 Feb 26 at 15:23
  • 1
    That's not a guideline. It's just a suggestion for users to use the wrong close reason when voting. That's probably why it has 2 downvotes and zero upvotes. – Carey Gregory Feb 26 at 16:11
  • Considering a guideline "a general rule, principle, or piece of advice.", I do see it as a guideline. But we agree to disagree on that. – Gonçalo Peres 龚燿禄 Feb 26 at 17:32

The ban against medical advice is meant to promote safety and medical ethics as best we can; to reduce the risk that someone misuses content here to their own detriment, or chooses not to seek the consult of a medical professional because they think they already got an answer.

There's a disclaimer that forbids people from using content here as medical advice, but in practical terms the disclaimer primarily protects Stack Exchange from legal liability. It's also a warning to users. However, you can expect that people participating here will do everything they can to avoid questions asked that are truly intended to get medical advice.

If that's your intent, don't try to circumvent it. Don't try to better understand the rules to do so. We're not basing it on some legal or official limit, we're basing it on human intuition as to what's best, and most importantly, for your own good.

For those here who are medical professionals, it would be a breach of medical ethics to help you circumvent the limit. For those of us who are not, I still think it's unethical to help with that.

  • 1
    Thank you for your input @BryanKrause. Basically, what you are saying is that if a person disguises the intent during the first time it is asking the question, it is allowed. And if one asks a clear medical advice and then edits to circumvent it, one is discouraged to answer? It was never my intent to do that. I am just seeking clarification on how to handle interactions. – Gonçalo Peres 龚燿禄 Feb 26 at 18:31
  • @GonçaloPeres龚燿禄 "Basically, what you are saying is " - No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying don't post questions when you want personal advice. That's all. – Bryan Krause Feb 26 at 19:03
  • Apologies for the way I expressed myself there. When reading it, one may get the feeling that I have came across as one that puts words in other people's mouths. That is not the case. Rather, I wanted to clarify, from your words, if you meant, or not, to answer, objectively, the questions referred in the body of the question. (Context: English is my second language). I understood more clearly your position from your last message, so I appreciate your comment. – Gonçalo Peres 龚燿禄 Feb 26 at 22:15

You must log in to answer this question.

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