-4
\$\begingroup\$

I am closing this. It's clear your real question is not about expanding the scope of back it up! in general, but about its applicability in one certain case or class of cases that you are not really bothering to define. Just waving hands about the generalities will continue with epic argument comment threads and no possible meaningful resolution. Ask about the problem you have, instead.

mxyzplk closed my previous question with the reason stated above.

I asked my question because I want the scope of Back It Up to be extended, as explained in my post.

The non-constructive background that is insinuated (a shady 'real question' I don't want to address) is not there. It's an appeal to motive, a type of ad hominem attack, pure and simple. I'm not handwaving, and there are of course meaningful resolutions:

  • extending the scope
  • good answers explaining why not

Given that mxyplk has written his own answer in which disagrees with the suggestion while insinuating bad faith on my part makes the closing of my previous question seem at odds with diamond mod impartiality.

Should mods be allowed to close questions using their own ad hominem against the asker as reason?

\$\endgroup\$
11
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ I think the obvious answer is "no". You ought to ask the real question: "did a mod close a questions using their own ad hominem against the asker as reason?", rather than attempting to distract us with the question "should". I'm not a fallacy expert, but I can sense one here. What it's called I do not know. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 17 '16 at 19:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PremierBromanov You can find information on the appeal to motive here. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mala
    Jul 17 '16 at 21:06
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @PremierBromanov You may be thinking of the loaded question. \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Jul 17 '16 at 22:26
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ This is a call out, a personal attack on mxy, thinly disguised as an attempt to ask a general question. Bad form. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 18 '16 at 20:40
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "The non-constructive background that is insinuated (a shady 'real question' I don't want to address) is not there." Well it is; you appear to only be mentioning that Harry Potter question and your frustration with having been asked whether you've given it any testing or had comparable experience. Your adamant refusal to ask about that lead to an unfortunately very messy question and series of arguments that was not satisfying or very pleasant for anyone, least of all you. Next time, please take our suggestions to talk about the actual incident you're concerned about? \$\endgroup\$ Jul 18 '16 at 22:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KorvinStarmast Putting an attack, an appeal to motive into a close reason is not ok. Since he is a mod, what other options do I have instead of a opening a question here? \$\endgroup\$
    – Mala
    Jul 19 '16 at 6:35
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener 'you appear to only be mentioning that Harry Potter question and your frustration with having been asked whether you've given it any testing or had comparable experience'... no, just no. The frustration was that for a pure mechanics question, I had to limit my answer to Back It Up stuff, even when other mechanics could be proven to be a better fit by analysis. There is no 'real question', it's really just that Back It Up is lacking. Talking about a specific symptom (HP question) is pointless when there's a bug in the system. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mala
    Jul 19 '16 at 6:39
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ There seems to just be a bug in your interpretation of what's going on, which we could attempt clear up if you asked about it. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 19 '16 at 9:58
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It isn't the opening of a question that is bad form. Style counts. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 19 '16 at 11:41
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Mala "Talking about a specific symptom (HP question) is pointless when there's a bug in the system." 1. It seems from lots of comments that many others aren't seeing the bug you see. 2. There may be a bug in the system, and I, for one, would like to understand what it is. 3. The one example you've given--HP question--hasn't been sufficient to help me, for one, understand the broader bug you see. 4. I believe some more examples would help me understand the class of Q&A you think this bug creates problems for. 5...? \$\endgroup\$
    – nitsua60 Mod
    Jul 19 '16 at 12:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ I understand your frustration with having to deal with users who are also mods. I have had my share of frustrations in communicating with mxy, but part of that is his blunt prose style. (Contrast to SSD's more verbose and engaging style). That doesn't change the number of things wrong with your approach -- plenty of good-hearted and sincere third parties have tried to help you fix that and you seem to be refuffing their sincere and honest efforts. They are doing a better job than I could, so I apologize that I don't have better tools to be of any further assistance to you. \$\endgroup\$ Jul 21 '16 at 2:45
14
\$\begingroup\$

No, they should not. And it doesn't appear, to me, that that's what's happened in this case.

You asked a generally-phrased question about the scope of Back It Up!

In comments you mentioned that your concern was about questions like the Harry Potter one. Later comments from experienced users asked you to clarify what you're asking about. As one put it, we need to have something actionable to look at.

It's clear to me that a few things are true, or should be Assumed to be true in Good Faith:

  1. You see a problem with the application of Back It Up! to some questions
  2. Others would like to engage with, but don't quite see the "class" of questions you've got in mind
  3. At some points people are talking past each other
  4. There are many signs that not everyone involved in the discussion is even talking about the same thing
  5. Some of the above are signs that a question is unclear
  6. the mod in question believes that straightening out the points above before answers and votes stream in will improve, not stifle site-discussion.
\$\endgroup\$
0

You must log in to answer this question.

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