partially agree with some parts of the post and present answer, but need to add some difference, not all of it but some.
reopening of questions is a harder process than closing them. seen successful cases of opening, but often is due to the fact of clashing of two different views on a question. when both views have sufficient support, it can even happen few times with the same question. the likelihood is higher as long a q is on the main page, after then the chance to be reopen is low and revq is not efficient.
- recommend using follow-link for some time and look at the development of the situation for some of those q's, to get a more broad picture of the current situation.
more or less they're all the same names for vtc'ers (one of which is mine, sometimes) which is just an indication of user activity, it was the case for a years, a group of 10-20(?) people affects this part of the processes.
pressing 'follow' under a question allows to efficiently monitor changes through notifications, which works well if there is such interest. And this feature can be used to take some further responsibility. I use it periodically with questions that I see are sinking and I think they should not it helps me to note when they are closed - so I can cast reopen vote.
So it not only those who close could do a little bit more, but those who lean to protect this or another q can do more.
As well as those who answer q's - it is quite funny to see a question closed, but has 7 answers and 5 of those are from 3k+ rep users.
- meaning high rep users found it good enough to spend the time on it, but it does not have even a single reopen vote even if it is fresh enough, so if it had some votes would not have time to expire
I'll be blunt, but honest, okay not that blunt - 1-3 won't do good as-is, and probably is not something which can be improved to do great good. Agree on some point with elements here, but not with everything.
At the same time, JBH started a good trend with VTC/VTO comments, and sure it a good thing to support it. it helps us to see what kind of objections we have to different q's, sync clocks on case by case basis, and think about what can be done.
Follow a question is also a tool, it hard to say how many and how people use it, it is less visible, but maybe it should be advertised as well.
Skipping questions also should be advertised - I absolutely won't touch questions marked with magic as it is not my cup of tee, and they are in ignore list on the main I do not see them, and that is all opinion based for me. And it sad situation, for me, to see technology space questions, if they are a bit no-standard, to be bashed by people who really have no business to judge those. So yeah, be humble and understand your own limit is a good thing to be advertised as well.
on the other hand, we should think about expanding or improving approaches and scope based on the main objective - 'is a question and answer site for writers, artists and others using science, geography, and culture to construct imaginary worlds and settings.'
in that sense that fermi paradox-like question is a good example. quite often op can't provide additional details, and variables even if omitted in a q are required for an answer and should be assumed by one who answers. often such q's are closed as opinion-based or need for details. it may be valid reasons and correct cause of closure - but another hand, some problems are quite typical and can be answered and if the user had the additional information or knowledge for a better question - he would not have the question. one asks the q exactly because he does not know something.
A goal is to help people do better fiction work using science. So what if the answer is half an opinion? if it is made by a knowledgeable person, whose assumptions and opinions may be worth more than a bunch of NASA pdf's - in such a case opinion maybe even better way to answer a q.
but here it needs to pay more attention to answers as well, downvote them, comment on them. (in that sense downvote is underpowered, ask for it as a feature).
all in all
what you propose does not solve the problems, but it is good that you thinking about improvements instead to move to a different place.
what to do:
- be more active on reopening q's
- use follow to monitor closed and to reopen q's
- advertise useful practices in the comment section
- understand which practices are useful
- understand that there is a need for some restrain as for q's so as for A's for wb did not become a trash bin for random noise out of q's so as A's.
- advertise this doctrine
at some point in time, it needs to become the next step, write down better practices.
all in all group of people who influence close reopen situation is not so big, finding some practically useful consensus is not impossible. which may include adding few new special tags - similar to science-based reality-check, poor poor hard-science which needs to be fixed, back hole of opinions magic - which reflect not subjects but which affect out voting and taking decisions.
As an example, we have plenty of technology bootstrapping questions that were slashed over the years, they are fundamentally broad and no possibility to define which high fidelity and have multiple correct answers (aka opinion-based by current standards) - but a problem people try to solve is understandable, it hard to have such expertise, it makes sense to add such details, and those details have educational value for consumers - it a good to have good answers on those.
Maybe even broader tag:opinion-based - those who do not like to participate in those can ignore and hide such q's, and we may not close them for reasons that they are opinion-based, just slap the tag - those who like to show their creativity can engage, why not, as sending them to fantasy.se is useless most of the time.
So yeah, there are things which can be done atm, and it is plenty of.
Freedom to technology questions!
Magic no passa run! ah yeah, I do ignore magic q's, then IDC