# Fallacy in my argument, reason for getting question closed? How to improve my (another) question? Why did I get half the bounty amount?

Atomic number of Ni is 28, $$\ce{Ni^{2+}}$$ has configuration $$\mathrm{[Ar]3d^8}$$. It can not form lower spin octahedral complex due to unavailability of 2 vacant d orbitals. Thus, will form $$\mathrm{sp^3d^2}$$ complex. Similar is the case for $$\ce{[Ni(NH3)6]^2+}$$...

I just wish to know, is my explanation wrong? It might be too narrow, but still, I feel it's right...

1. Also I earlier asked What exactly are frontier orbitals?, why was it closed? This question troubles me, thus asked... How shall I make it more clear?

2. I also didn't get answer for Reason behind more prioritising of normal spinels, is the question not at all good to be answered or even commented upon? Anything that I shall do for improving my question?

3. Also I got half the bounty amount for Is the number of tetrahedral voids always equal to double the number of octahedral voids in any crystal?, any particular reason?

My (very brief) analysis is as follows.

1. Anything that uses hybridisation for transition metal complexes is almost certainly wrong, see: Why is it wrong to use the concept of hybridization for transition metal complexes?

2. I don't think this one needed to be closed and would be happy to reopen if the community agrees.

3. Sometimes questions don't get answered. There is not much you can do about that, beyond the usual ways of promoting a question. It happens to everybody, myself included. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In this case, I have learnt spinels before, but it was a long time ago and I don't remember the structures anymore. So I am not qualified to comment. Similar considerations may or may not hold for other people (and even if they know the answer they may just not have the time or energy to answer).

4. See the last section at https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/help/bounty

• If I remove the line, "....thus will form sp3d2 complex", is my argument correct? I would be glad if you would vote for reopening the question. Few weeks back I bountied my question chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/131160/50406, I didn't get any answer, one still got full amount. This had made me reluctant to put bounty on any question, either way, I don't need reputations, I will put on few of my questions, if no one answers them... – Zenix May 2 '20 at 15:30
• Maybe it's better, but what would be even better would be to draw out the d-orbital splitting and showing how there will always be unpaired electrons for an octahedral d8 complex. I won't personally reopen the question right now. Moderator actions are unilateral. One vote is enough to close or reopen a question. We try not to use that power liberally. If there is community support, that is a different matter, which is why I said that. – orthocresol May 2 '20 at 15:42
• I'd second the reopening of HOMO/LUMO, but -obviously- I am in the same position. – Martin - マーチン May 2 '20 at 16:11