I have been a moderator on this site for quite a while and am pretty active on the site myself. So I think I have quite a lot of experience with how the community reacts to certain questions.
Let me tell you what would have happened if I had left that question open.
Phase 1: The big Trump roast
The mostly Anti-Trump audience of the community would have ...
I agree with SamIAm that your question is too meta, and because of that seems to promote a specific cause, which is off-topic (I would disagree with Philipp, that a potentially on-topic question can/should be closed because it could cause additional off-topic commentary).
I would remove all that irrelevant meta commentary (which would basically leave you ...
rather than having any chance to improve my question, it is closed.
Closing is a chance to improve your question before it is answered. Once a question is answered, your ability to change it goes down as edits can invalidate existing answers. So the proper procedure is to close the question first, to prevent answers. When edits ...
The most immediate problem with your post is that it violates some basic rules of Composition and Style. These aren't Stack Exchange rules per se, they're good practices for writing in general.
Get to the point. You spend too many words explaining this theory of yours before you get to the actual question. We don't need to know your theory in order to ...
I'm going to go ahead and post some of my thoughts on the question in question, specifically, where it might have problems.
The majority of your question is a meta-commentary about other questions. This meta-commentary is mostly dead weight, and should be drastically reduced if not outright removed from your question.
Your question cited a Professor and ...
A desire for revenge is not tolerated on this site, @guest271314. Instead of focusing oneself on hurting other users who voted to close posts, one should see if these posts can be improved.
Other than this, Use the Force, Luke:
A simple Stack Exchange API query returns a list of Closed Questions originated by a certain User. Further playing with the ...
Part of the problem has been people Sealioning (a type of bad-faith) the issue on multiple sites. In Charcoal (anti-spam project) we track mentions of the Holocaust. An excellent example happened here two weeks ago with this post asking a seriously incendiary question. As such, I've tended to err on the side of caution with regards to questions about anti-...
I haven't read the question, but FWIW -9 downvotes (and counting), and zero upvotes, is a sign that the question isn't controversial at all.
Only troll types of questions get that type of verdict. And just the very first line of the question is such a huge troll that it warrants a downvote and close vote then and there.
Controversial questions get positive ...
Frankly I don't think there's much to be gained by closing a question just because it questions a practice that people consider to be racist. As long as they're not maliciously disparaging anyone or any groups, the question should probably stand.
And in case you're wondering how you detect whether someone is being malicious or not, you can use context ...
There are two ways to cast close votes on a question (for users with sufficient privileges, of course):
via the review queue
by clicking on "close" below the question itself
The close-votes cast via these two methods are added. But only those cast via the review queue appear in the review history. Those cast on the question itself do not.
As I mentioned in a comment under the question, I think it's still too broad even when narrowed down to a single country:
@Matcha_boy98 it's still pretty broad. How a country makes policy is quite complex, too much for an answer here. Consider for example this Wikipedia article on the Government of Japan. I suggest reading such articles first and then ...
I'd just let the 'roller coaster' do its thing because that seems to be entirely by design. There are certain time limits to the close votes so the roller coaster won't go on infinitely (at least not in the short term).
All in all, it's not ideal that questions get closed and reopened repeatedly, but it's not the end of the world either.
Fewer close votes
There are two kinds of aspects to building a canal.
The engineering aspects. Is it possible to build a canal from A to B? What would it cost? How long would it take? What physical obstacles are there and how could they be circumvented?
The political aspects. Is there political will do it? Is there relevant political opposition? What are the geopolitical ...
The question had issues to begin with.
Note that putting a question on hold is not a rejection of that question. It means that the question still has issues which need to be resolved before constructive answers should be posted.
In this particular case, the question was about a hypothetical scenario which was quite far away from reality. Also, it has ...
The answers so far show some current models of moderation, but none of the moderators address the question of whether or not racism is a objective fact. That is, depending on the definition or standard, one might be racist:
by creed, membership, (in an avowedly racist group, like the KKK) or ideas.
In deeds and actions, or sometimes inactions.
The answer already posted by @Philipp confirms that macroeconomics is within scope here, but doesn't really explain how to resolve the situation when a question is legitimately on topic at two or more SEs. As such I'd argue it doesn't answer your question completely.
I did post a similar question to Meta.SE not long ago (Is "closer match to another SE&...
First one is easily explained by the fact that the original down-voting and closing pertained to original, bad, version of that question, whose title wasn't the objective-ish answerable "plausible outcomes" but instead a wholly subjective speculative "What is going to happen after the Catalan referendum?"
Please note that once a user fixed the question up ...
Yes, a question which is closed can be reopened. Just as with closing, this requires 5 votes by regular (>500 reputation) users or one vote by a moderator (user with a ♦ behind their username).
When a question you consider on-topic gets put on hold, I recommend to:
find out what's wrong with it by reading the comments on it (it is good etiquette, although ...
The key criteria for a question is not its binary nature, but rather its answerability. Ultimately, whenever you write a question, you should be able to articulate what an answer would contain, even if you don't know the right answer.
For example, I recently wrote this question: How high must a craft fly in order to not be in foreign airspace? I didn't ...
The basic problem with the question is that it is a discussion question. It proposes a particular way of looking at the abortion controversy and asks for comments. That's a great approach on social media or a discussion forum. Throw out a post and let others discuss it. But that doesn't fit at all here.
Stack Exchange is not a discussion site. The ...
If you are among the 5 that closed, can you elaborate on why you did so? Not making much sense, at least to me.
If I recall correctly, I voted to close for the following reason:
Questions asking for the internal motivations of people, how specific individuals would behave in hypothetical situations or predictions for future events are off-topic, because ...
You can find all your closed questions here. Alternatively, you can search on the main site for closed:yes
Deleted posts (10K+ users only)
You can find all your deleted posts here. Alternatively, you can search on the main site for deleted:yes.
only content you own is returned when searching for deleted content
One of the comment pointed out that the word progressive was not defined. That could be a problem. It is a progression toward what ?
Most progressive countries are often on the left political spectrum such as Sweden, Denmark and Finland. These countries have high tax rates, good wealth redistribution and offer good social security. They often labels ...
Well, for starters... Your question goes on and on about Valerie Jarret, and then ends with a question that has nothing whatsoever to do with Valerie Jarret. I gotta assume that you started out to write a question about Valerie Jarret and got sidetracked along the way, but it's not really clear how or where.
Ignoring that, the only question in your ...
A question can be closed for the following reasons
Reasons for all SE sites:
Duplicate: Someone else already asked it.
Off topic: It's not about politics.
Unclear: We can't figure out what you're asking for.
Too Broad: You're asking multiple questions, or your asking for general information about a large topic(Example: "Tell me something about the ...
From this answer:
Yes, I "shut down the conversation"
This is the largest problem with such a question. It's not a question with an objective answer; it's the start of a conversation. Stack Exchange is not the right venue for conversations. The closest would be chat.
So a question like this should either be posted elsewhere (not on Stack Exchange)...
I think that the unclear part is whether the question is
Can a group be despotic?
How would a despotic group based on the Sanhedrin work?
Also, it is unclear what
a type of government that is "not just republican or democrat".
If it's the former question, we could answer it easily with historical examples. You might discuss how the ...
I'm voting to re-open this as a viable political theory question.
My experience has been that questions like this are often quickly closed as either "unclear" or "opinion-based". Although it raises an interesting theoretical question the community reacts negatively because it sounds like a solicitation for opinion.
In most cases, the solution is to clearly ...