2
$\begingroup$

How would the police/military prepare and fight magicians? was closed as story-based and subsequently edited. It looks to me like the OP is asking about tactics and capabilities, not character actions. Can it be reopened now? If it should stay closed, what further changes are needed?

| |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Most of the edits have just been appended to the end of the text. The original question is still there.

How could the police and later the military prepare to find and, more importantly, fight these two?

This is asking how would people respond to a scenario. This is why I voted to close the question.

The edit added two additional questions.

Are there rules/standard tactics for dealing with unknown threats? What kind of gear/weaponry do police/military forces have access to and which of these would be appropriate/useful against the described enemies?

There are multiple questions being asked at once. Asking what gear would be useful feels like a mixture of too broad and too opinion based to me. Asking are there tactics to deal with the unknown is a question wrongly asked. You can't really have rules or equipment for dealing with the unknown. The same way you can't expect the unexpected.

None of these questions are good questions for the site and the one that is most acceptable (Are there tactics?) isn't supported by the rest of the text. If this is the question they want answered they would need to reedit their entire question to focus on this and not the magicians.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The only change in the original question is from a "how would" to a "how could". Tacking another question onto that one doesn't really help. $\endgroup$ – user Aug 20 '17 at 12:49
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelKjörling Read that as a clarification of the original question not another one. Monica Cellio is right. It's basically about tactics and strategy $\endgroup$ – a4android Aug 20 '17 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ The question was closed as story-based. If it's not story-based, then it should be opened. Arguing that because in your opinion it's a mixture of too broad and too opinion based is wrong and does not justify keeping it closed. This position is based on an understanding of proper legal practice and procedure. $\endgroup$ – a4android Aug 20 '17 at 12:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @a4android The edit added two other questions to the post. As a whole it is now definitely too broad. In it's current form I would VTC as too broad. Stack exchange isn't well equipped to handle questions being closed for multiple reasons. It seems wrong to vote to open a flawed question that I would vote to close if it came up in the review queue. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Aug 20 '17 at 15:13
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings See my comment to Michael Kjorling.The additional questions clarify the first question not add to it. No it's the right thing to do to reopen a question closed for the wrong criteria, then close it again with the right criteria. Precisely as expected, most people don't understand proper procedure. $\endgroup$ – a4android Aug 21 '17 at 2:24
  • $\begingroup$ @a4android If a question is to broad and POB and closed as POB if I fix the POB should it be opened? I say No. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Aug 21 '17 at 2:27
  • $\begingroup$ That's not what I said. This question was closed as STORY BASED if it's NOT story based it should be reopened. Because the wrong criteria was applied. If it was too broad & POB after being reopened it should be VTCed. Pity because your views are primary opinion based and in terms of proper procedure judicially wrong. $\endgroup$ – a4android Aug 21 '17 at 4:38
  • $\begingroup$ @a4android I still think the first of the three questions asked is too story based. Adding one sentence telling me that it's not without editing the question does not change this fact. For me the question I've always asked myself when looking at questions in the reopen queue is Is this question a good fit for the site? Does it meet any of the existing reasons to close a question? It seems that you look only at the voted close reason. If you can cite a text that clarifies what to do I'm interested in what it says. Perhaps we should ask a question on meta about this and ask the community. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Aug 21 '17 at 5:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see three questions there: How could police fight my two guys? = story-based; What are tactics for fighting unknown threats? = good question; What gear do police forces have access to? = pretty broad question. I think removing the first one or editing it to "My goal is to find out how police could find them so I am starting a series" and then stating the first question and in a later post the second one would be the best way to go with this question. I can see the point in @a4android's process, but this means everyone involved needs to be aware of perfect formal procedure. $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Aug 21 '17 at 8:00
  • $\begingroup$ No. I don't only look at the close reason. I evaluate the close reason to see if it's valid taking into account the criteria for closure for questions in the review queue. First, to check if it's reasonable to close the question. However, I apply similar logic to yours about questions and whether they should be put on closed or improved. In the case of this question the closure criteria weren't met so the closure reason isn't valid. @MonicaCellio's discussion in this meta question demolished the story-based case. $\endgroup$ – a4android Aug 21 '17 at 12:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Secespitus I see the questions are linked and can be folded into one. Aspects of the question are not well focused. Not unusual for questions on WB. Thanks for understanding the process. No, it doesn't require everybody to know "perfect formal procedure" but simply know what they're doing. Often comments display an unawareness of the criteria to make unsuitable here. This will flow on into VTCing. One reason why I scrutinize close reasons carefully. $\endgroup$ – a4android Aug 21 '17 at 12:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @a4android Regarding the voting mechanisms I found something on RPG.SE How to deal with tug-of-war close reopens? Bottom line: you can vote once on each question. So yeah, better make sure your close reason is good. And remember that you won't be able to VTC with the correct reason if you vote to reopen. And you can't make sure everyone later sees that there was a reason for voting to reopen other than "This question is okay now". I think the question should be edited further until it's fine and then reopened completely. No tug-of-war. $\endgroup$ – Secespitus Aug 21 '17 at 13:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Secespitus Much appreciated. That makes sense. Definitely getting it right in the first place is important. Having reflected on this issue, the sensible approach is if the close reason is wrong and there is another reason to close it instead of voting to reopen, skip reviewing it, then if the question is not on hold vote to close it with the correct reason. This is a bit messy, but it arises from the mechanics of the SE review system. A tad Heath Robinson. $\endgroup$ – a4android Aug 22 '17 at 8:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As far as I know it isn't a duplicate. It's about worldbuilding. It's not too story based. It's clear what their asking. It's not too broad. It's probably not too opinion based. Looks good to me. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Aug 22 '17 at 21:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Secespitus I'm in agreement with sphennings. This looks good and makes clear what the OP wants in his answers. $\endgroup$ – a4android Aug 23 '17 at 11:29
2
$\begingroup$

I think this question can be reopened, but I would like it to be reworded a bit to put the actual question content higher. To make this a good question, the focus needs to be on "how do police deal with threats they've never seen?" That is actually I think a really valid world building question. The majority of the post should come later, for it's simply context describing just how unusual these two individuals actually are. I shouldn't have to read through three paragraphs of flavor which has minimal impact on the question before finally arriving at the question in the last sentence. It's just presentation changes.

If phrased this way, I think this question is not a duplicate of the military one. The military and police have very different approaches. I might even be tempted to say that if I saw a question that asked for both military and police responses, I'd close it as "too broad." In particular, the military is typically in a position where a response is required because you must change the world around you. The police get more opportunities to instead regroup and simply hold the status quo until the correct time to strike.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know if you saw the conversation under my answer. There already was a minor push to get the question reopened I voted to reopen it and 2 others did as well I think. I still have reservations about the question and judging by the Asker's comments on the duplicate question they may need to edit their question to clarify what they are asking anyway. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Aug 31 '17 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings When I hit the vote-to-reopen button, there was only my own vote. I don't know if that's a database issue with StackExchange, or if somehow your reopen votes vanished. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Aug 31 '17 at 18:38
  • $\begingroup$ Reopen votes time out after a period of time. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Aug 31 '17 at 18:39
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings The value I see in the question is that, if tailored properly, it asks a very important question: How do police behave in the presence of the unknown. I see this being very useful for other world builders, even those that don't have jedi-like characters in their story. We don't often think about the unknown the police face every day. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon Aug 31 '17 at 18:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Two reopen votes have aged away. I just made the edit suggested in this answer; thanks. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Aug 31 '17 at 18:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "How would the police respond to a criminal wizard?" feels dangerously close to being too story based. $\endgroup$ – sphennings Aug 31 '17 at 18:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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