0
\$\begingroup\$

I posted an answer based on an exact quote of a question asker's own clarifying comment.

Why was this deleted by a moderator?

The quote may or may not reflect reality. If the quoted comment is factually accurate, my answer is true and explains the situation. If the quoted information is false, my answer is inapplicable.

Either way, the responsibility for the accuracy of the asker's words and everything logically following from them rests with the asker, not with me.

If a question asker provides false information responses will naturally be inapplicable - but they have no one to blame but themselves.

To clarify the technical issue, the asker has explicitly stated that the regulator bypass path exists only as a result of injecting 5v into a header pin they refuse to identify which is allegedly actually a 3v3 pin mislabeled as a 5v pin, and that there is no bypass pass within the board itself. However, they have also accepted an answer claiming that the bypass path occurs as a result of a resistor on the board. It's worth noting that the schematic shows only a single 5v net appearing on header pins - if some of those are actually 3v3 nets, then the issue is a schematic error, not a resistor configuration as alleged. While if the issue is the resistor, then the claim that the bypass path only exists as a result of external connections to headers is false.

Thus at most one of these two conflicting statements can be true.

It seems to me that if anything should be deleted, it is the self-contradictory question, rather than answers based on taking the asker's words at face value.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ It would be nice for the sub 10k users to have a screenshot of that deleted answer to know what is being talked about. \$\endgroup\$ – PlasmaHH Oct 12 '18 at 7:39
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, a screenshot would be nice \$\endgroup\$ – MCG Oct 12 '18 at 8:38
4
\$\begingroup\$

The answer was deleted mainly because of the long drawn-out argument with the OP in the comments, that was based primarily on your inability to see details in the schematic. The answer itself was also based on this misunderstanding, so it had no value to the question overall, either.

To be specific, the OP was referring to Vin and Vout, which are the names of the pins on the 3.3V LDO regulator in the upper-left corner of the schematic. It turns out that these are separately connected to the pins labelled VDD5V on JL0 ("left") and JR0 ("right") — probably via R24 and R25 — none of which is shown on the out-of-date schematic.

All of this was established before you wrote your answer, making the answer and the argument that followed it completely pointless.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ The situation you describe is one in which the deleted answer is correct: the asker's problem arrises from injecting power into the output. It does not, as the accepted answer wrongly claims, arrise from the resistor, a fact we know because no bypass path was found to exist on the board itself. The pins on the header cannot be the VDD5V net, they have to be something else, which in the quote the asker called "Vout". You leave out that instead of clarifying this, they repeatedly flung insults. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Stratton Oct 12 '18 at 14:00
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Whatever; the technical details don't matter. Even if the OP was misunderstanding the circuit because of its lousy documentation, it was clear that you were not understanding what the OP was saying. Two wrongs don't make a right. \$\endgroup\$ – Dave Tweed Oct 12 '18 at 14:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ How can you seriously claim that technical details do not matter? Engineering is precisely the application of logic to the relation between facts. So no, the facts do matter on EESE. The OP is multiply contradicting themselves - that is the wrong. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Stratton Oct 12 '18 at 14:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ I can confirm this is the reason (cc @ChrisStratton). It seemed like your first priority was shouting at the OP. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Oct 12 '18 at 15:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ No, my priority was the truth of the technical facts and the logic connecting them. Look back at the beginning; I was first to propose that a bypass path could exist, but the OP conducted measurements and found that not to be the case. Later they accepted an erroneous answer arguing for the very bypass path on the board itself which they had disproven. When I asked if there was a bypass path after all, they stated that it only existed outside the board and described the specific misconnection I quoted in my answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Stratton Oct 12 '18 at 15:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Chris If someone isn't understanding what you say, the solution isn't to shout louder. xkcd.com/386 \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Oct 12 '18 at 16:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ I didn't shout. I stated facts directly based on their own observations. They flung personal insults. This is supposed to be a place for facts, not insults. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Stratton Oct 12 '18 at 16:46
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisStratton If someone has insulted you, ratcheting up the intensity of your statements and being even more adamant about your point of view will not help anyone. Flag it and move on. \$\endgroup\$ – W5VO Oct 12 '18 at 17:51
2
\$\begingroup\$

In all fairness, if a question is unclear or confusing, it should be put on hold until the OP can straighten out the confusion by an edit to the question. We should not answer such questions but prompt for clarification. If no clarification is provided, the question will be closed and eventually deleted, along with all attempts to answer an unanswerable question.

If the OP does provide a clarification, but for some reason only in comments, we can help by editing in their comment as-is into the question. And if this makes the question answerable, we may then answer it.

I don't know the details here, but generally if a question is not answerable stand-alone, then it is strange for moderators to go in and delete various answers. The whole question should be closed, simple as that, and high rep users can handle it too.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

The question was confusing and information was mixed between question and comment.

My usual response to this sort of situation is to request the OP to put the information in the comment into the question on the grounds that, in terms of permanent questions as opposed to impermanent comments, information in a comment does not really exist.

If it is a simple and obvious point I will edit the question to put the information in.

Putting the information in one place makes it more obvious to everyone including hopefully the OP that there is some contradiction, and appropriate action can be taken from there.

Having said that I am very much opposed to heavy handed moderation. In this case if there was a problem with your answer it should have been left to the voting system and the community to resolve.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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