I've read [this](https://cs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/109/how-to-deal-with-questions-about-crank-heavy-topics), and also run into the unpleasant situation of having my proof that I wanted to get checked closed as "not constructive."

I realize that a lot of people consider P vs. NP a "crank subject." In my own mind, at least, I am not a crank, in the sense that I have some training in mathematics and am aware of what the difference between a correct and incorrect proof is. (See some of my old posts under my other [profile](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/users/1338/phil) if you need evidence that I'm not totally incompetent.)

My question is: Given that there are other proofs, including [NP = coNP proofs](https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/10485/flaw-in-my-np-conp-proof) that are trivially wrong (but good questions nonetheless), and that when CStheory.se was just getting started, they said that they *might* have CS.SE be a proof-checking site for proofs like the ones I seem generate...

***What does the site consider to be the difference between an "acceptable" check-my-proof question and an unacceptable such question?*** *(note, they even have a tag for check-my-proof)*

Of course you know, my interest is in (finally!) having a venue other than comp.theory to try to get my P vs. NP proofs checked. I don't belong to any elite cliques TCS cliques, and no friends or colleagues that I know know a thing about any of this stuff. So although I realize that some people find P vs. NP attempts annoying, I am quite serious about suggesting that CS.SE should be a venue for proofs--even "crank-friendly" proofs.

Thanks for reading. Yes, this was part question and part my own opinion--I hope that is okay. I hope that moderators and others will decide to make CS.SE a home for a broader class of proof checks. Maybe there should be some sort of upper bound on the length of the proof? Or other constraints to prevent abuse of the system (e.g., 1 proof a month, maximum)?

(And for anyone who cares, I already realized that the [proof I posted before](https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/10601/proof-that-p-np-proof-check) was wrong or at least incomplete/inadequate.)