3
\$\begingroup\$

For some questions, when I try to flag for closing due to off-topicness, I get three options, one of them with one sub-option:

  • Questions about video games are off-topic here, but can be asked on Arqade.
  • Questions about the development of video games are off-topic here, but can be asked on the Game Development Stack Exchange.
  • This question belongs on another site in the Stack Exchange network
    • belongs on meta.rpg.stackexchange.com

(Unhate-able Villains, How do I adapt enemies to the current party's level?, What are the major innovations in Dungeon World compared to D&D 3.5/Pf/4e?, Call of Cthulhu 6th or 7th edition?, Legend of the Five Rings Jiujitsu Alternate Rules, What is "GM/DM Fiat?", What stops you attempting to cast minor and significant formula spells repeatedly until you succeed?, What adventures lie in Laketown from The Hobbit in The One Ring, )

For some questions I get only the first of these two options (One-sheet Savage Worlds adventures: do they only require the core rules?, How do I create a great fantasy villain that inspires the party to rally against them?, My friends and I are new to RPGs and need a system I can DM and they can pick up. Suggestions?, How do you help players not focus on the rules?, From D&D3.5 to GURPS)

An option to tell people with closing vote privileges some arbitrary new reason I (Option “Other (add a comment explaining what is wrong)” as third option) I only get on my own questions, where it counts as a close vote, and not just a flag.

Why is that, and is it supposed to be like that? What's the problem with letting people flag off-topic questions that are not video games questions?

\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

Off-topic decisions that don't fall into the "obvious" categories ("it should have been posted to meta", "it's about videogames") aren't entrusted to flag-privilege users, that's all. Erroneous flags are something the system aims to avoid, and it's judged that on a healthy SE there are always sufficient active close-privileged users to take care of any off-topic question that isn't in the really-obvious categories.

That said, there is always the general flagging option: "This requires moderator attention". You can use that for anything, so you're hands aren't completely tied just for the lack of close-privileges, and the "bothering the mods" aspect to that option (in theory) keeps it from generating too many erroneous flags.

The reason why some show migration options under "off topic" and some don't, is because there is a 60-day limit on migration. Questions older than 60 days are too old to migrate. There used to be a notice to this effect if you tried, but that notice appears to have been lost in the transition from the old set of close reasons to the new set.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Any idea on when the option to migrate to meta is present and when not? \$\endgroup\$ – Anaphory Jan 25 '14 at 0:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Anaphory Aha, figured it out. Edited. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jan 25 '14 at 3:13
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Cheers. I find it quite counter-intuitive as it currently is, with “Flag to mark off-topic: Arqade” being an entirely different type of thing from “Flag to mark for migration” and again from “Vote to close: Off-Topic (Type Reason Here)”, but I currently don't see what to suggest to improve that. \$\endgroup\$ – Anaphory Jan 25 '14 at 11:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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