It seems like much of of the conflicts arising here revolve around people bringing different philosophies to the table, which they have worked with and have found successful (both of them).
There is nothing wrong with each of these distinct philosophies/approaches; however, I do feel that many of the emerging conflicts revolve around improperly reconciling these two approaches. The site is less than a day old, and I fear that confronting, acknowledging, and realizing this division is necessary to do before things become more muddled and we have an unrecognizable combination of both.
The worst-case scenario would be people completely ignoring the idea of reconciliation and simply re-tagging/closing/downvoting everything as they have been used to doing, while other people are doing the same but with opposite approaches.
Here are some issues I've noticed being influenced by this divison:
The most surface-level, the grammar of the tags to be placed. Some argue for a very specific (and possibly less newly-accessible) style while others argue for more vague (and possibly less helpful) style
What answers are "too simple"? Some argue that there are questions "below" the scope of this site, for the sake of preserving quality, and some argue that there are not, for the sake of including all (presumably) honest inquiry.
And some more, as they come in. There will be more.
Now, each of these issues deserve their own separate Meta topic. But I think the purpose of this question is:
- Should this site, as a general, feel more like SO, MO, or an even blend of both?
- If both, what essential philosophies should be sought to be borrowed from either?
Also, before anything accusatory occurs, I would like to urge both sides to consider the background and merits of the other.