Good Idea

What I've often seen occurring in WB is a scenario like the following: a good query gets asked but is poorly written (usually "opinion based" or "lacking in sufficient details"); it's such a good topic that it gets upvotes and a couple early answers; one member comes along and sees that there are some problems and VsTC; while others are asking for clarifications in comments, the query gets several more answers (sadly, often by folks who should know better than to answer a query that's in the close queue! (and I know those folks are sometimes me!)); and by the time five close votes are cast, there are 20 upvotes, eight well received but radically different answers, and a green checkmark on one of them.

On the one hand, this demonstrates that we have a vibrant and engaged community in the WB forum. On the other hand, it also demonstrates that we're really not very good at conducting our business in a way consistent with SE. We're the most dysfunctional of all SE forums: simply because the art of geopoesy, the craft of worldbuilding, is ill suited to the SE model.

As JBH rightly points out, our forum is clearly the most creative and I've pointed out before that our query types are almost universally opinion based to a large degree. I think some of this has to do with our propensity to accept any and every question that comes our way regardless of how well or how poorly it's asked. I think the overall quality of our forum would rise not by answering questions any differently, but rather by improving the way we ask questions.

So: I hold that, excluding cases where L. Dutch, Lord of the Instrumentality, wields mighty Mjǫllnir of moderatorial muscle, a three-vote-to-close / three-vote-to-reopen scheme would be pretty ideal for WB.SE:

• we're active enough that three votes would serve to prevent the above scenario from happening too frequently: we can catch the questions that just need a little TLC before they become crazy active
• speeding up the review process will reduce the chances that a question become uneditable because doing so would invalidate a response: not a frequent occurrence, but a sad one
• sometimes good questions in need of alteration languish in the review queue when, to be quite honest, waiting for five VsTC is postponing the inevitable: three is quite a sufficient number for closing and reopening
• reducing the number from 5 to 3 ought to alleviate some of the fears and concerns that users have re real or imagined vindictive closure practices: reducing the required votes would at least appear to lessen the supposed powers that our forum's Illuminati wield
• the turn-around time-frame would also be improved: very frequently, it seems that querents, especially new ones, disappear or abandon their questions during the closure process: I think dragging it out might put a damper on their shinybright new user excitement.

CAVEANT IANITORES:
With a reduced requirement for closure & reopening, I think it will fall to the VTCers to be more clear -- in writing -- what's actually wrong with the question. I've seen the argument "why do I need to write a comment when there's already a rationale for closure" too often turn into an excuse for laziness. Yes, I've been in lazy in the past, too, in this regard! But I find that querents really do respond very positively to a quick note in comments as to what actually needs to be improved. A quick closure process could leave a querent stunned and when no (especially) senior or more knowledgeable users take the time to cushion the blow, that shock can often turn into irrational anger, which leads to snarky comments, insulting edits of the question and rage filled questions here on Meta.

I think we'd need to consider these things as potential sequellae of instituting a shortened closure process. On the positive side, it would also be helpful to remind a shocked querent that quickly editing the question so that it conforms to SE's rigorous rules and regulations will earn them a similarly quick and even less painful reopening process.