2
\$\begingroup\$

This question on bludgeoning damage with a different stat went through a couple rounds of community closure and reopening.

But then it was closed again, and then reopened by a single user (mod) rather than our 5 vote process or bringing it to meta for discussion as there was obvious community disagreement on the status.

It still feels to me that the bounds are unclear and even the answers remain incomplete as seen by comments suggesting more and if a single powerful user made a decision that overrides the normal process, it would be helpful to understand why.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ Do you think this deserves the meta [list-questions] tag? It's not explicitly about them but I feel like that's a factor here given the fact that answers even can be incomplete \$\endgroup\$
    – Exempt-Medic
    Jul 23, 2020 at 12:25
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 I'm not sure as the question is less about should it be closed and more about why did a mod override community process without explanation. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Jul 23, 2020 at 12:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd like to apologize to linksassin for the initial tone of this. I think it was way too aggressive, and that was not my intent. The intent was really that the community was clearly at odds with this question and it felt like resolving it's status would have been better done in Meta. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Jul 23, 2020 at 13:26
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Apology acknowledge and accepted. There's no hard feelings. I'll endeavour to be clearer in my intent when taking actions in the future. \$\endgroup\$
    – linksassin Mod
    Jul 23, 2020 at 13:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ @linksassin And I'll try and be clearer in mine as well. That was an awful start to writing a question. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Jul 23, 2020 at 20:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ Related meta about the same mainsite question: Should this question on bludgeoning damage attacks with other stat scores be closed? \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Jul 23, 2020 at 23:36

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
12
\$\begingroup\$

I opened that question

Perhaps in retrospect I jumped the gun but I'm not about to undo it. I came across the question from the review queues. Typically I skip close/reopen reviews, I just check them to see if there is something I need to weigh in on.

What I saw was a question that IMO is completely answerable. There were a lot of comments asking for things that, while useful, shouldn't have dictated if the question was closed or not. This is neither a list-question nor idea-generation as the comments seemed to imply. I cleaned up the out of date comments then reassess the question.

The question already had 2 re-open votes at the time I came to it and, based on the quality of the question in the state I saw it, I deemed it was likely to get the other 3 at some point. Because it had been through a couple of round of open/close I thought that many of the users who were involved in the question might have already have used their votes. These factors combined to convince me that it was worth simply helping the process along and getting the question reopened.

Would you ask the same question if the post had 4 reopen votes before I got to it and I cast the last one? What about 3? Perhaps I should have left a comment but I can't think of what it would have been other than "I think this question is answerable" which is exactly what my reopen vote said anyway.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Given the answers that have come in (and as I've posted here and on the other meta I just posted), I disagree. And yes, if you were the final vote I don't think I"d have an issue. It would have been the normal process. You effectively became the voice of 3 votes (actually 4 with Medix2's statement that they regretted their reopen vote and couldn't undo it) without saying why you felt it was necessary to do that. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Jul 23, 2020 at 12:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ +1 you don't have to explain any more. There's always someone who will disagree with anyone else's actions on a site and they shouldn't feel free to hassle any site users, including mods, about their routine actions. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Jul 23, 2020 at 21:10
4
\$\begingroup\$

Because mods get a say too

Mods are allowed to be site participants like anyone else. When that comes to close and reopen voting, that means via their rep and election they get the equivalent of 5 votes. They don’t have to ask anyone’s permission to cast that vote.

When I was a mod it was customary to cast your close or open as you saw fit. Then if more site members vote the other way and close or reopen, ok, that’s the process.

If a mod locks something or repeatedly overrides the community on a question, then feel free and open a meta question to talk about it. But there is no reason to ask why ”a mod” opened or closed a question any more than any other user.

If you want to talk about the question and it’s merits ask about that, but this is framed in a much more ad hominem way than that.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ That's why I asked "why". I"m not quite sure how else to frame. In the past, when you and other mods have done that, there has usually been a comment explaining it. Given that mods can do things by their vote alone, when it's used I believe it should be explained. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Jul 23, 2020 at 12:36
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ And had it gone through the normal close/reopen process, we could have made a meta about the merits of the question. But this action bypassed that process without explanation and it's why I asked it here. It's not an ad hominem, it's a request for explanation. If you think there is no explanation necessary, that's fine. And it could even be right even though I personally dislike it. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Jul 23, 2020 at 12:39
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ To be clear, the mod's vote in this case only counted for 3 reopen votes, as two regular site users who are notable community members voted to reopen before the moderator. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Jul 23, 2020 at 12:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ But I agree that I should open a separate question about whether or not the question should be closed and I"ll do that now. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Jul 23, 2020 at 12:45
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov And I tried to retract my reopen vote after I cast it; something you cannot do \$\endgroup\$
    – Exempt-Medic
    Jul 23, 2020 at 12:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The plot thickens \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Jul 23, 2020 at 12:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ An aside: "ad hominem" means you are using something irrelevant about the person to justify an opinion: "they like cheese, so their opinion on xbox games can be ignored". That isn't being done in this case, so it may be best to remove the quip as it comes across as kind of rude. \$\endgroup\$
    – user-781943
    Jul 28, 2020 at 6:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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