Why are people voting to close the meta thread "which other comments?"?

In this thread I am trying to

  • ask about my own action on the site because it was said to be largely useless
  • learn from that to improve

and people are voting to close it, presumably out of a grudge. Rather than assume that please explain why it is not appropriate on meta.

Here is my argument for why it is appropriate on meta.

  • jericson told us not to continue discussing it on the main site so I moved it to meta.
  • It is an attempt to improve the community (yes at the micro scale since it only directly applies to one person, that does not mean other people would not also benefit from it).
  • There is no non-awkward facility to initiate conversation "behind the scenes" and it makes no sense to try and move to e.g. email because the other party may not want to and does not seem in the spirit of the site anyway.
  • If you are not allowed to use meta to discuss possible problems that come up on the site (such as this) then peoples behavior will most likely just get worse and worse until more people are banned.
  • This is what meta is for: That thread is definitely a meta-discussion and it does not cost anyone lots of money or waste 'space' or anything (since all this information is digital) so there can be no argument against it in that vein.

For these reasons I find it very odd that there are 3 votes to close it and I would very much appreciate the three people that took the time to decide to vote to close it to explain why. I also welcome any other input and discussion on this topic.

| |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The three votes so far have all ticked the "too localized" box which seems fair enough to me. As you say, it's on the "micro scale ". $\endgroup$ – Robin Chapman Oct 16 '10 at 13:30
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ This is a question for meta.meta.meta.math.stackexchange.com, which fortunately doesn't exist. $\endgroup$ – ShreevatsaR Oct 16 '10 at 20:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I raised this issue on meta.SO. To terminate the vicious meta-policy circle, the dictators (i.e. the SE Overlords) must determine a meta policy once and for all. It's similar to how legislative and deliberative bodies use a parliamentary procedure, which is agreed upon beforehand. $\endgroup$ – 97832123 Oct 17 '10 at 10:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @97832123: there is also a policy-free solution, of having at least one area -- most likely a secondary "junk" or "miscellaneous" unregulated meta -- where anything can be posted, to which anything can be migrated, and where no thread can be closed. Given a Hyde Park (soapbox corner) you don't need a meta-Hyde Park. $\endgroup$ – T.. Oct 17 '10 at 19:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @T..: Yes, I like that idea as well, but this still needs to be enforced by the administrators, who need to prevent moderator abuse. $\endgroup$ – 97832123 Oct 17 '10 at 21:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @97832123: longterm solution is to upgrade the rating, tagging, user-ranking etc capabilities, to reduce dependence on moderators. It should never be necessary to close any thread that doesn't endanger the existence or operation of the site (unfiltered spam, illegal material). Rather, threads or postings that acquire certain flags or other attributes should be invisible for reading/posting purposes to users who do not set the visibility threshold low enough in their site-reader (like search engine "safety" settings). Even in present setup, closings and lockings are usually unnecessary. $\endgroup$ – T.. Oct 17 '10 at 21:34
  • $\begingroup$ @978: by the way, from the data dumps, especially if they include the individual votes, one could perform third-party rankings of users and threads, using methods similar to Pagerank. So some things are not dependent on SE owners changing the site (once they deliver data). $\endgroup$ – T.. Oct 17 '10 at 21:44
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know what you expect. The question was addressed to a single user, yet showed up for the entire community. That single user already gave you an answer. Predictably, no one cared enough to upvote or downvote either the question or answer (and still hasn't, after nearly a week). Subsequently, the question was closed. What more do you think would be achieved by keeping it open? The question had already served its (too trivial) function. (…Unless you're treating closing questions as some sort of personal insult. In which case I can only say: stop doing that.) $\endgroup$ – ShreevatsaR Oct 21 '10 at 18:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ShreevatsaR, it makes no sense that we should be discussing this in a closed thread. Why not leave the thread open if we want to continue discussing this? $\endgroup$ – anon Oct 21 '10 at 19:15