Stack Exchange is testing the use of 3-vote close-voting & reopen-voting. This is an important issue that everyone on this Stack should be aware of.

We ended up with five votes to close based on very specific feedback from the early days of closure and the very immature state of review, though it had previously been three. Five became the default network wide and, now that we have so many more sites with different amounts of participation, it's clear that it may not be the right number any more.

What I've come to realize more recently is that we've been relying on moderators - our "exception handlers" far more than we realized to actually close questions on many of our sites - and on some sites, when the moderators aren't doing the bulk of closures, large percentages of questions that end up in the close or reopen queues never get reviewed at all, aging out entirely after a while.

I doubt there's any Stack where users, especially new users, don't perceive close voting as a judgement at best, and an insult at worst. What close voting is, is a necessity. No stack is expected to allow (or should allow) any and every question. Stack Exchange wants to be specifically valuable to the world at large. From SE's perspective, the higher a question's quality, more focused, more relevant, and less duplicative the question, the better.

This is, of course, a bit of a problem on Worldbuilding because we're probably the most creative (aka "least objective") stack in the exchange. It's actually possible here to ask the same question with just enough differences in the base-rules of the querent's world that it justifies leaving the question open. But there is a reality that we need reviews to be processed quickly and with quality (an issue which motivated a request by L.Dutch to improve review quality last November). There is also a reality that questions that don't meet Help Center expectations or obviously meet VTC conditions should be closed quickly with, hopefully, a quick explanation to help the querent improve the question.

But what to do? We have a chance now to let our voices be heard before Stack Exchange makes their final decision. They're running a 45-day test on a dozen or so Stacks. During that time we can voice our opinions about what is right or wrong for our Stack (bearing in mind that, being owned by SE, it may not matter... but it's always better to voice an opinion).

Discussion: If you feel strongly pro-or-con about this, please post your beliefs below. It's a chance to let our moderators know how we feel as they participate at the moderator-level with Stack Exchange. It'd be good if the moderators could also post their observations about how we're doing here on Worldbuilding (a report card, if you will) so we can know if we users are holding up our end of the load. If you feel really strongly about the issue, you can always follow that first link above and post on the SE Meta discussion.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Just to be clear - this isn't a once-in-a-lifetime chance for a site; after the data's analyzed at the end of the 45-day period, it's still going to be possible to request a change to a three-vote threshold if need arises on a particular site and there's a consensus in favor of it. Bear in mind that they're only testing this on half of the sites that have requested it, so we don't have to rush anything. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 May 11 at 3:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Despite the imperfection of some questions, I have noticed a distinct chilling effect on free Q&A on other SE sites. Super-strict interpretations of rules stifles questions and creativity. That's fine for questions about logic circuits, where there IS only one true answer. But if you want to know why birds suddenly appear every time a fire spell is cast, you need to look at the world a little differently. Also, we get lots of newbie people who may never ask a second question if their first is crushed like a bug. I still don't go back to some SE's. $\endgroup$ – DWKraus May 11 at 23:58
  • $\begingroup$ @HDE 226868♦ I'm not so sure it would be a reversible decision. Once people who like loose, flexible rule interpretation are driven off the site, those who are left will naturally be those who like strict rules. So with strict rules and an enrichment of people who like strict rules, those who prefer more give will be absent from decision-making. It's the opinion-equivalent of ethnic cleansing. There are other sites out there, and people can feel a site's culture. We need people who enforce rules, but also people who are willing to be creative with them as well. $\endgroup$ – DWKraus May 12 at 0:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DWKraus I wasn't saying anything about reversing our decision; I was saying we don't have to rush making the decision. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 May 12 at 0:21
  • $\begingroup$ @HDE 226868♦ Ah. That makes more sense with what you said. Thx. $\endgroup$ – DWKraus May 12 at 0:23
  • $\begingroup$ "I doubt there's any Stack where users, especially new users, don't perceive close voting as a judgement at best, and an insult at worst. What close voting is, is a necessity." Are we presuming that people are happy in their failure at making a good question? Because I know some folks who would definitely presume their good question(s) will be happy here. And, you know, the higher the hopes are, the harder the fall is }i{... $\endgroup$ – Tortliena May 12 at 20:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Tortliena I don't understand your comment. I'm not happy when my questions get closed - but I do learn from the closure. The point SE is making is that their service is not meant to be a free-for-all. There are other services for that behavior. $\endgroup$ – JBH May 13 at 1:10

I think 3 closevotes is less suitable for this site than 5.

I think that, because we have more subjective rules, it is more important that there is a broader consensus that a question deserves closure.

Worldbuilding.SE is the most creative Stack site; and that makes the rules the most subjective, the most open to interpretation. That is an unwelcome but inevitable property of this system.

That means that there are going to be more dubious cases here than on other sites. I think that for dubious questions, where there's reasonable arguments for either side, it is important that there be a broader consensus on whatever the final resolution be (closing or not closing). A consensus makes the end result more consistent with the general site culture, and therefore the site experience more reliable. It is more fun to use this place when you have some idea what to expect.

I fear that moving to 3 close-votes will result in quick closing of dubious questions. Some may consider that a benefit, but the problem is that with fewer required close-votes you no longer need to follow the rules as most people understand them - you need to follow the rules so strictly that there are no three people who still disagree. Three people who understood the rules differently, and the question is closed.

Sure, strict adherence to rules is usually better than questionable adherence. But here the rules are by their nature more subjective than on other sites. Reasonable people can have differing interpretations, and it is a matter of chance who is active when. So summed up, moving to 3 close-votes increases the randomness in the site's emergent close-vote behaviour. Askers are more at the whim of how many people with a different interpretation are active at the same time.

Other notes:

  • Yes, 3 reopen votes would also allow for quick reopening after a dubious question was improved in edit. But the reopen queue is subject to the same issue of randomness. You only need to have 3 people active at once who agree that the newly edited question does fit the rules; regardless of whether a majority of people agree.
  • Yes, there is a possibility that a question sitting in the closing queue receives more answers, and becomes uneditable as a result. The same however is possible to happen when a question ping-pongs from closed to open and back depending on the whims of whoever's active. Therefore I am glad that the Stack Exchange folk have mentioned tracking this metric specifically, to see if my worries here are justified. And although off-topic for this question, I personally think that edits to change a question from close-worthy to open-worthy should be exempt from the rule "no edits that invalidate answers".
  • Another (predictable) concern with three close-votes is that it decreases the odds that one of the closers explains themselves in a comment, and may thus lead to more annoying meta questions. This too is a property of the creative nature Worldbuilding.SE: comments are more necessary here than on Stack Overflow, as Elementilas describes well.

Finally, I lack the knowledge of whether there is a need to close questions more quickly than is happening now. I never see more than half a dozen questions in the closing-queue at a time, so I personally do not get that impression, but obviously I cannot tell for sure. I will leave it to actual moderators to determine whether there is a physical need; for now I can only share my concerns. I have read the November post but it seems to be about the quality of reviewing, not the quantity or expediency of closing.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. $\endgroup$ – L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica May 13 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ As a frequenter of the magic tag, there is almost always one or two users who almost immediately prep their OB VTC. Dropping to 3 votes would definitely be a detriment to a lot of our more abstract tags. $\endgroup$ – IT Alex Jun 9 at 12:50

Good Idea

Short Short Version:
Close a questionable query fast, give the new OP some help on how to make it better, reopen the improved query fast. This is what "closing" a query is all about everywhere on SE.

Regular Version:
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.

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.

  • $\begingroup$ "Close a questionable query fast, give the new OP some help on how to make it better," - typical dillusion of a guy who does not ask questions on wb, try again to ask few more questions, then after u may have a better understanding how it works from perpective of one who asks question. People not jump in that easily in to meaningfull questions, comment section works. I did my testing, so it why I suggest it to u as well. $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg May 26 at 11:30
  • $\begingroup$ @MolbOrg -- What exactly is your point? My purpose in WB.SE is to answer questions. $\endgroup$ – elemtilas May 26 at 12:55
  • $\begingroup$ Until recently I had squicky clean records only answering questions as well, and my purpose in life is get butter and answer questions. As result it was too easy for me to spot a guy who has no expirience asking questions on wb and other se's as I can see. Recently I have done testings on wb specifically to have a taste of asker expirience, so lost my virginity, and now have life crisis as expectations do not met the reality. The point, I was quite clear, that statement is part of u fantasy, and has nothing to do with reality. It just about that statement, it not evaluation of whole answer. $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg May 26 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ Idk, I may missed the obivious meaning, the point is to help u to improve quality of statements used in the a, so shared some expirience. The other point I'm preoocupied in recent time is improve understanding of things on wb trough small things, agents rules in swarm intelligence context, and figure out problems swarm intelligence faces in case of wb - but not sure u asked about this one. $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg May 26 at 16:54
  • $\begingroup$ @MolbOrg -- What's an "u fantasy"? I've never heard of that. I guess if you're interested in improving the answer, then feel free to either address your points here or edit them into the answer itself. I read what you wrote and really don't understand what your issue is. You seem to be focused on me, so do you have a personal issue of some kind? Do you think that people who don't ask questions have no right to work on how to get better questions to answer? Just speak plainly! There's too much ooze and butter. $\endgroup$ – elemtilas May 27 at 1:34
  • $\begingroup$ Comment space is precious, "your fantasy". I can't have personal issues with u as I do not know u so as didn't heard about u, can't say anything about u. Not sure if I have any issues as well, just spoted an incorrect statement that all it is about. I have problems to express myself, so I guess it is just another of those days, lol. More booze for everyone, let's sing Kumbaya $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg May 27 at 1:47
  • $\begingroup$ @MolbOrg - You took the time to use that precious space! I can only assume you wish to say something to me and others. Use it sensibly! I'm interested in what you have to say, but I honestly can not make out what your points are. Just speak plainly. $\endgroup$ – elemtilas May 27 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ I tried man, I tried honestly, but it is my best, if u do not point specifically what's not clear it can't be helped, ask u question if something is not clear, I all help, open for anything really, was direct like laser beam, but maybe it space crooked, u know that subjective everything relativistic in nature, we need more gravity more gravity... $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg May 27 at 18:57
  • $\begingroup$ @MolbOrg -- It's the same question I asked you yesterday. With the way you respond, I don't think we can engage in useful discussion of any issue, so I'm going to leave it here. $\endgroup$ – elemtilas May 28 at 0:01
  • $\begingroup$ u won, I can't distinguish if u trolling or joking or what I wrote is indeed so cryptic. $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg May 28 at 6:35

5 for close, and mods are not participating in closure, only delete spam and pornograpfy

3 for open

What the point in discussing 3 or 5 if half(won't look for it atm) of q's solo closures of mod? We are ahead of the whole se network for average close votes. (All my subjective observations, not actual stat, which woukd be interesting to see)

I do agree that we subjective/vague place(not so much so if one thinks about it as a place helping people to create better scify using science etc as per tour), but have seen bad questions to be closed in a span of about 25 views, so q's are closed fast if they diserve that.

However 1300 questions with more than 5 answers are closed as of today, and it easy to find ones closed with 4 or more answers from high rep users, and assuming they are not just for free internet points and know how things are rolling, there is no reason for those questions to stay closed then. (And if assume they do not, then we have multiple problems, which we probably do, but it is a different topic)

Another of the reasons, for open votes to be less than close

  • and there is about 4+ reasons for that freshness, opinion dauning syndrome, no easy way to find closed q which one answered, ...

If a user is not competent enough to answer the question, then it is easy to misjudge the question, because of not understanding it. I did tests on myself, looking for topics I have little competence or interest and then looking answers later, yeah knowing does not mean be able to prevent such misjudgemts.

Soo we should close q's when most of us agree on general grounds they are trash, and experts in particular fields have to be able to open q's in their field of knowledge more easily, if those q's were misjudged by community due lack of knowledge.

Subjective proportion would be 8 for close, 2 for open, something like that.

But I would not count on that mechanical things/solutions will make a better situation or be a full auto solution for wb, because of enumerous directions and richeness of topics which we handle, or should handle but not doing so well, magic/fantasy fraction still has upper hand.

Closing q's faster is misconception which happens because of bad handling of questions and coping mechanism of mature users with that fast closing and freshbees which need some rep lift.

There is necessity for more decisive actions, smart ones, mods and community together, not like it is atm.


And thanks for the post, it nice to know and ripe fruits thay someone keeps an eye on things for ya.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Unfortunately (and it is unfortunate), my post is about the implementation Stack Exchange is currently testing - not about modifications to that implementation. This is a modification to that implementation. If I understand what SE is doing correctly, it's a simple transition from a 5-vote total to a 3-vote total on a per-stack basis. And that's it. Thus, I'm asking for discussion about the pros and cons of just those two implementations. $\endgroup$ – JBH Jun 2 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ "During that time we can voice our opinions about what is right or wrong for our Stack" "It's a chance to let our moderators know how we feel as they participate at the moderator-level" - U asked for it and I did provide. Not flexible enough, good.bad.neither in one bundle for WB situation. We have a saying - If u criticise something make a suggestiin as well - so I did suggestions as well. U welcome))) $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg Jun 2 at 15:09
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH sorry for second comment in a different place, but "You're welcome to debate that in Meta - but the reality is that we're bound to SE's basic format. It is, after all, their service, not ours" about that, the post U linked touches that topic as well, it is not how they(se) wish them to be percieved, community guided is important. But make meta, I'll be, probably, more versed with arguments than in comments, quite important moment of misunderstanding here $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg Jun 2 at 23:40

WB.SE needs to be 5 because we are such a multi-disciplinary stack

KeizerHarm already covers most of the reasons why 5 is good in his answer; so, I won't really go into repeating them, but for me the biggest reason why this is true of WB.SE is because WorldBuilding is multi-disciplinary: this makes bad close votes much more common here than in other SEs because we are more likely to vote to close when we do not understand the all of the fields of study that could be applied to a question.

I've personally seen it dozens of times: a question gets 3-4 downvotes really quickly because someone thinks it is opinion based until someone comments explaining why it is not. The it goes on to becoming a very active and well accepted answer without the question needing any revision at all.

For example, you may have a highly intelligent and reputable stack user who specializes in astrophysics and chemistry read a question and vote to close it as an opinion-based only because he is unaware of the mountains of research that someone with a background in anthropology and linguistics would be able to cite to give a definitively factual answer to the question well within the SE guide-lines.

And this is not a one way street either, a person coming from a soft-science background will just as often vote to close because they do not understand just how advanced modern science really is. So, hard-science questions about nanobots, laser weapons, and stun beams are very likely to get a couple of down-votes just because not everyone knows that these are real technologies that exist today.

By reducing to 3 votes, you make questions that are harder to answer much more likely to be closed as opinion based just because a couple of people do not understand the topic well enough to give an informed response.


Extending my comment :

"I doubt there's any Stack where users, especially new users, don't perceive close voting as a judgement at best, and an insult at worst. What close voting is, is a necessity."

Are we presuming that people are happy in their failure at making a good question? Because I know some folks who would definitely presume their good question(s) will be happy here. And, you know, the higher the hopes are, the harder the fall is }i{...

If blanks are as much a way of putting things as words are, any kind of action can -and will- be interpreted.

The issue then is how it is judged. I can hardly think of a closure as a good action. I mean, if people asked to close it, there must be an issue in it, right? An issue that "I" made. However, I thought that my question will be interesting, at least enough to write it down :'(. That leads to a good mental contradiction.

When people are facing their contradictions, they either have to face two choices :

  • They take the hit and accept the reality as it is. It will take some efforts, as the person's reality need to reform around this new concept and adapt.
  • They block themselves out. It's the easy path, since you don't need to wreck your world and rebuild it.

Truthfully, our intelligence is really diligent when it's about taking lazily the diligence rather than deal with a non-gentle walk, so unless their other goals and desire are more prominent (curiosity, diplomaty, craziness...), they'll take the first option. It might not show up, but it's something that may -and therefore will- pop up.

Note it's not a vote up or down. I actually don't care at all, things will happen with or without me. But I wanted to point that the initial premise makes me raise an eyebrow, which might break down the logic from the bottom up. Just wanted to say that.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't think that was JBH's meaning. It's more a matter of poor wording on SE's part, user perception, and emotional state. Otkin can probably speak to this better, but humans are pretty bad at taking criticism well, we tend to get defensive. The word "closure" itself has negative connotations (we're shutting you down!) and the concept is not well explained. And also, new users rarely delve too deeply into the instruction manual or the culture of the forum they're joining! All of these things lead to bad emotions and hurt feelings. And all of these things can be avoided if we... $\endgroup$ – elemtilas May 12 at 22:41
  • $\begingroup$ (cont)... help the (new) member understand what "closure" really means and how to turn that so-called "failure" into victory. I'd call it a blow for freedom if every new member just understood that "closure" does mean we don't like you, does not mean we hate you or your invented world, does not mean we don't like your question. We WANT you to be a member! We WANT you to ask questions! We'd LOVE to help you with your questions. We just need new members to learn how to do it in the right way for this forum, just like how all the rest of us learned. $\endgroup$ – elemtilas May 12 at 22:41
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas I know it's based on good intentions and a certain optimism in people, However from my game design experience, you can never expect people to learn the way to do things, nor to get further than the initial perception. As such, long term players and users are much rarer, especially if they are feeling blocked right at the start. That's a reason to be much more cautious on it than you might think at first. On the flip side, you might really well want do that in order to avoid cumulating nasty people in the community, ones who will never be truly invested. $\endgroup$ – Tortliena May 12 at 23:41
  • $\begingroup$ Still, I agree with you, "closed" isn't the best term, though rewording it might very well imply that you need to rework much more the system than going from a 5 to 3 votes change. More like going to a "question prep room", where they are closed for answers, but not considered as fully "abandoned". Tricky to make. 'Specially since from my point of view, closed is most of the time "abandoned", design-wise :/. $\endgroup$ – Tortliena May 12 at 23:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (1) I have made attempts to help new users better understand how the site works (a, b), but all the help in the world doesn't help if users don't take the time to read it. This goes for the help center. (2) Stack Exchange is not responsible for the emotional well being of anyone. Whenever we tell someone to avoid invective they whine "but we're all adults, right?" right up until their question gets closed, then suddenly we're harming their emotional well being. (*continued*) $\endgroup$ – JBH May 13 at 1:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (3) This isn't Worldbuilding's site, it's owned and managed by Stack Exchange and they set the fundamental rules. If you dislike closing questions or how anything is worded regarding the service, you need to address that on Meta Stack Exchange, not here. We have little control over what SE does, which is why this issue and the opportunity for comment is valuable. (4) But most importantly, you didn't address the purpose of the post, which is about the 3 vs 5 vote change. $\endgroup$ – JBH May 13 at 1:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Tortliena -- Reworking the system is pretty much out of the question. That's nothing any of us here can do. If you wanted, you could suggest changing the label. As for the idea of a question prep room, we do actually have that. It's called the Sandbox. But again, a new user won't hear about this if they don't look at the instruction manual first. And because SE isn't set up to really have a good instruction manual in the first place, it's not until after the query is "closed" and "feelings" get hurt and new user thinks everyone and their brother here is an ass that the learn about... $\endgroup$ – elemtilas May 13 at 12:30
  • $\begingroup$ (cont)... all the ways we want to help them. But by then, they're all in a tiff about why we didn't say that in the first place, and then we're back to the beginning with instruction manuals and hurt feelings and rampant emotions. Suffice to say: the System has its problems! $\endgroup$ – elemtilas May 13 at 12:32
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH On the contrary, if an information is presented as important to the matter, but may prove to not be as true as it is, the subsequent logic in the arguments might very well break apart. I mean, if people disliking closure was not an important part of the topic, why would you tell it as your first argument in favor of that? And if that's significant doesn't it mean we need to review it a lil' more carefully before taking a decision? $\endgroup$ – Tortliena May 13 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding the way the system is made, yep, it's a topic for the top garden the most invested people will get a look at, a group which I'm not part of. Hence, I only talk about it in the comment, as it has been raised by elemtilas $\endgroup$ – Tortliena May 13 at 15:06
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas I would say that there are some cultural differences when it comes to tolerance to critique, but the default assumption for WB.SE should be that closure is perceived negatively and lowers one's self-esteem. Considering technical limitations (no true hold or grace period and inability to implement them), only reviewers are capable of alleviating negative emotions resulting from closure. My emotional EQ is zero, so I am in no position to give specific advice on how to handle this. I can only say that words matter and it would be better to opt for neutral words e.g. not whine but say $\endgroup$ – Otkin May 13 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas It would probably be better if reviewers were very specific in their comments and avoid generic statements (copy-paste is even worse). I think that a clear explanation of specific problems in a given question and suggestions on how to resolve them would work better than anything else. This might not make new contributors feel better, but it would definitely help them to improve their questions. $\endgroup$ – Otkin May 13 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ There is a sister site(kinda) fantasy.se so wb does not accepts q and a(to lesser degree) which based purely on fantasy and can't be processed otherwise. We do not write stories and plots for OP's. We try to discoarge providing lists of handwaviums etc. There will be good questions which will fall in those categories, and even more of bad ones. That is why closing is part of process, with few goals. The process is far from any perfection and has it's problems to work on. I talk from a position of a guy who says there are too many closed q's for wrong or no reason, but many closed for good. $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg May 27 at 10:11
  • $\begingroup$ Wb has some problem wih selfidntifiation and purpose of life qnd way to achieve things, so it leds to permanentl ongoing discussions since inception, take look at ontopic offtopic and why closed posts on meta $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg May 27 at 10:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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