There are two reasons why you shouldn't worry about “breaking rules”.

One reason is that the assertion that the user wants to “break local rule” is an assumption on your part. You have no way to know whether this is true. There is quite a leap of faith between “I want to install Screen” and “I want to bypass the job scheduler to run my jobs ahead of other people”. Logging in, and using Screen, could also be useful to monitor jobs executed via the scheduler. You're assuming bad faith on the part of the asker. This is not nice, and being nice is not just a good idea, it's a rule!

Be welcoming, be patient, and assume good intentions.

(Not to mention “Don't be a jerk”. Calling someone “antisocial” because they want to install Screen?)

The other reason why you shouldn't worry about “breaking rules”, or at least not close or flag on this basis, is that answers are for everyone, not just for the original asker. Very occasionally we get a question where it is actually clear that the asker is up to no good. But this certainty comes from context, it is not intrinsic in the question. Someone else may have exactly the same question in a different context which has no moral implication.

Asking how to install Screen is certainly not an unreasonable question. All we need to know to answer this question is: the system is RHEL, the user is not root (and can't get the administrator to do it), and what happens when the user tried to install Screen manually (“I tried to install, but failed.” is not enough information, which is why the question in question should be closed). Why the administrator doesn't cooperate is irrelevant — they may be on vacation, or overworked, or incompetent — so you shouldn't judge the question on this basis.

Of course, nothing compels you to answer a question. If you don't like a question, just move on. If you think a question won't be useful to anyone, downvote. But please refrain from flinging accusations around.

See also circumvention of security or policy

There are two reasons why you shouldn't worry about “breaking rules”.

One reason is that the assertion that the user wants to “break local rule” is an assumption on your part. You have no way to know whether this is true. There is quite a leap of faith between “I want to install Screen” and “I want to bypass the job scheduler to run my jobs ahead of other people”. Logging in, and using Screen, could also be useful to monitor jobs executed via the scheduler. You're assuming bad faith on the part of the asker. This is not nice, and being nice is not just a good idea, it's a rule!

Be welcoming, be patient, and assume good intentions.

(Not to mention “Don't be a jerk”. Calling someone “antisocial” because they want to install Screen?)

The other reason why you shouldn't worry about “breaking rules”, or at least not close or flag on this basis, is that answers are for everyone, not just for the original asker. Very occasionally we get a question where it is actually clear that the asker is up to no good. But this certainty comes from context, it is not intrinsic in the question. Someone else may have exactly the same question in a different context which has no moral implication.

Asking how to install Screen is certainly not an unreasonable question. All we need to know to answer this question is: the system is RHEL, the user is not root (and can't get the administrator to do it), and what happens when the user tried to install Screen manually (“I tried to install, but failed.” is not enough information, which is why the question in question should be closed). Why the administrator doesn't cooperate is irrelevant — they may be on vacation, or overworked, or incompetent — so you shouldn't judge the question on this basis.

Of course, nothing compels you to answer a question. If you don't like a question, just move on. If you think a question won't be useful to anyone, downvote. But please refrain from flinging accusations around.

See also circumvention of security or policy

There are two reasons why you shouldn't worry about “breaking rules”.

One reason is that the assertion that the user wants to “break local rule” is an assumption on your part. You have no way to know whether this is true. There is quite a leap of faith between “I want to install Screen” and “I want to bypass the job scheduler to run my jobs ahead of other people”. Logging in, and using Screen, could also be useful to monitor jobs executed via the scheduler. You're assuming bad faith on the part of the asker. This is not nice, and being nice is not just a good idea, it's a rule!

Be welcoming, be patient, and assume good intentions.

(Not to mention “Don't be a jerk”. Calling someone “antisocial” because they want to install Screen?)

The other reason why you shouldn't worry about “breaking rules”, or at least not close or flag on this basis, is that answers are for everyone, not just for the original asker. Very occasionally we get a question where it is actually clear that the asker is up to no good. But this certainty comes from context, it is not intrinsic in the question. Someone else may have exactly the same question in a different context which has no moral implication.

Asking how to install Screen is certainly not an unreasonable question. All we need to know to answer this question is: the system is RHEL, the user is not root (and can't get the administrator to do it), and what happens when the user tried to install Screen manually (“I tried to install, but failed.” is not enough information, which is why the question in question should be closed). Why the administrator doesn't cooperate is irrelevant — they may be on vacation, or overworked, or incompetent — so you shouldn't judge the question on this basis.

Of course, nothing compels you to answer a question. If you don't like a question, just move on. If you think a question won't be useful to anyone, downvote. But please refrain from flinging accusations around.

See also http://meta.unix.stackexchange.com/questions/1278/circumvention-of-security-or-policy

There are two reasons why you shouldn't worry about “breaking rules”.

One reason is that the assertion that the user wants to “break local rule” is an assumption on your part. You have no way to know whether this is true. There is quite a leap of faith between “I want to install Screen” and “I want to bypass the job scheduler to run my jobs ahead of other people”. Logging in, and using Screen, could also be useful to monitor jobs executed via the scheduler. You're assuming bad faith on the part of the asker. This is not nice, and being nice is not just a good idea, it's a rule!

Be welcoming, be patient, and assume good intentions.

(Not to mention “Don't be a jerk”. Calling someone “antisocial” because they want to install Screen?)

The other reason why you shouldn't worry about “breaking rules”, or at least not close or flag on this basis, is that answers are for everyone, not just for the original asker. Very occasionally we get a question where it is actually clear that the asker is up to no good. But this certainty comes from context, it is not intrinsic in the question. Someone else may have exactly the same question in a different context which has no moral implication.

Asking how to install Screen is certainly not an unreasonable question. All we need to know to answer this question is: the system is RHEL, the user is not root (and can't get the administrator to do it), and what happens when the user tried to install Screen manually (“I tried to install, but failed.” is not enough information, which is why the question in question should be closed). Why the administrator doesn't cooperate is irrelevant — they may be on vacation, or overworked, or incompetent — so you shouldn't judge the question on this basis.

Of course, nothing compels you to answer a question. If you don't like a question, just move on. If you think a question won't be useful to anyone, downvote. But please refrain from flinging accusations around.

See also circumvention of security or policy