What is the position of this community (and especially the moderators) on voting to close a question after posting an answer?

Although it cannot be prevented, many SE communities to frown at this practice as unsportsmenlike conduct, since it allows the posted answer to collect upvotes, while preventing other users from posting answers and getting them upvoted.

  • FWTW, the Q that prompted this politics.stackexchange.com/questions/86757/… All 3 users who answered it also voted to close it (admittedly myself included--although I've only done it after the Q was edited in a way that I saw as an attempt to invalidate my answer.) I'll grant that this meta-Q is of more general interest though. I myself had some of my own Qs closed by some users who posted frame challenge answer(s) at the same time as them VTC. So it happens even in cases of not "chameleon" questions. Apr 6 at 11:09
  • I voted to reopen your Q now, despite all its warts. But like with the closing, it takes 5 to dance here, unless diamond mods. (And if you think that collecting the two meager upvotes on my answer was the motivation...) Apr 10 at 4:28

2 Answers 2


It is going to depend on each question, it is very possible that the question can start out in an answerable but questionable state and later be edited in a way that indicates that it should be closed.

The same could be said in regards to comments on the question that could be added to clarify the intent of the question which could cause someone to vote to close the question.

In short there is no one answer and it just depends on each question and in this case I think it would have been closed even if they didn't vote on it.


Sorry about that. I should probably have picked one of the two. I didn't.

While there are no hard and fast rules, my reason for doing so was emotional, uncalculated, and arguably wrong: disgust that now, after the events of last week, we'd be served with a "blood libel" push question.

Besides Israelis themselves, and their really die-hard supporters, the COGAT spin just really isn't all that believed. The perception, and that includes mine, whether warranted or not, is that at least in the instance of the food supply, Israel is ignoring and denying the issue.

And since it is customary at this point to blame "colonizer Westerners who judge Jews", I thought I'd share a comment I made on October 9th on this answer to What is Israel's strategy in invading the Gaza strip? (it hasn't aged well):

A: The defense minister is the linked source says that they are literally implementing a siege, so it likely follows that the purpose is the same as any other siege

I am wiling to bet that their strategy is not to engage in a long term, starve-them-out siege. Modern cities can not, in fact, survive on years of stores and supplies if seriously blockaded. The only example thereof was Leningrad, which resulted in deaths by starvation and cannibalism and Gaza is considerably more fragile in its circumstances: winning by attrition in this sense would be a sure way to nuke Israel's reputation. They (note: Israel) may very start out with a - painful and damaging - blockade to "soften things up", but the rest of this answer is entirely your own opinion. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Oct 9, 2023 a


Again, apple and oranges. Lebanese-Israeli war was in 1982 when Israel hadn't yet had military dominance in its neighborhood for decades. Over the years since, their reputation has indeed degraded from the "plucky underdog" to the "regional bully", so they have more to lose by behaving as you suggest. Not to mention massively higher risks of exposure via social media and cellphones. And a lot more scrutiny. Just because you disapprove of them (note: Israel) doesn't make your answer any more insightful. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Oct 9, 2023

Basically, this site's coverage of this war is being hijacked to push narratives from both sides. Two wrongs (and Hamas' 10/7 was about as evilly wrong as things get) don't make a right.

But I do notice an asymmetry in how push contents gets treated, depending on whose side is pushing it. For example, the ridiculous "Putin is being treated better than Bibi" is still up and has indeed been reopened, while two pro-Palestine "pushes" posted about the same time have been deleted (I voted to close and delete all 3).

Your question shouldn't have remained open long enough to be answered, or closed, by me.

  • On that last Q, I rolled back an attempt by the OP there to change the Q after it was answered as well. The OP of this meta-Q though has shown heightened sensitivity in the past to anyone else editing their Qs, so I'm much more reluctant to make any edits to theirs, because we'll likely end up here (on meta) anyway. Also, the rollback on the Bibi-Putin was somewhat more clear cut, because that Q was less multi-pronged when it was first stated. Had one Q-mark in the body, not 3 like this one. The blood libel angle was not part of any of the sub-Qs initially, even if it was thrown around... Apr 7 at 0:52
  • But then it was claimed via a note in bold that the 'deliberate' part was the emphasis even if didn't appear as such in any of the sub-Qs... Yeah, these are tactics I've seen from this user before. I probably should have known better and just VTC from the get go, but I made the mistake of engaging with the more reasonable parts of the Q. Their rhetoric however matches how JNS, Lindsay Graham etc. have been recently dealing with this issue though, on a quick search. Apr 7 at 0:57
  • Actually, to be truly accurate there was as 2nd Q on the Bibi-Putin one "Or were there?", but that's more like an explicit invitation to be frame-challenged on the facts when one is not 100% sure of them, which is always a possibility in answers even when the Q asker doesn't entertain it explicitly. Apr 7 at 2:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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