-3

Why retain vocabulary when there are dictionaries?

I'm not complaining why my question is closed. Let's just say that some people think that it should be closed, and one of those people happens to be a mod. Since the mods don't need to vote to close on a question (because the "vote" will effect immediately), should they do this?

For obvious reasons to close a question like off-topic or too localize, I think the close from the mods is quick and agreed widely. However, the unclear reason might not be agreed on mass. Some will agree, some will disagree, and that's why we need to have the poll to see whether it is unclear or not. If they "vote" too soon, the good-will of the mechanism will be broken. When vote to close a question, the mod should represent themself as a user of a community, not... a mod. Therefore, if needed, the mods should wait after 4 users to vote before take it down.

| |
  • No one needs to VTC any question. I don't see why their being a mod should stop them from moderating. – M.A.R. Jun 23 '16 at 10:35
  • I don't understand your first sentence. Sure that they are a mod, they should moderate the site. If they feel that that question should be closed, they can vote to close as a user, not close it immediately. The problem is that the mechanism of SE doesn't allow them to only vote to close as a user. – Ooker Jun 23 '16 at 12:01
  • 2
    This is something that I've thought about for a while in the past. I'm perfectly fine with mods closing clearly off-topic questions, but in the future, I'd like to see mods not insta-closing the borderline questions, as these can spark some useful debate throughout the community. After all, it is the community that decides the scope of the site. – fi12 Jun 23 '16 at 13:40
  • That being said, if a post repeatedly cycles back between being closed and reopened, I'd suggest a mod permanently opens the post, and then locks it. – fi12 Jun 23 '16 at 14:20
  • @fi12 but this wasn't insta-closing. Two other users VTC'd before the mod, and none of the comments disagree with the closure. I don't see any "why we need to poll to see whether it's unclear or not". Furthermore, there is the reopen queue that the post will move in after edits, so I do not understand the point of this meta post. – M.A.R. Jun 23 '16 at 16:10
  • 1
    @TIPS I wasn't talking about that question in particular; in that case, I agree that the question should be closed. However, I do think that we should reach a community consensus about whether certain types of questions are on-topic before they are closed by mods, because the community runs this site (in conjunction with moderators). – fi12 Jun 23 '16 at 16:12
  • 2
    @TIPS Also, yes, the reopen queue exists, but it requires 5 reopen votes, which can take some time and thus reduce the amount of quality answers an on-topic question might receive. I'd say it's better to keep this questions open in the first place. – fi12 Jun 23 '16 at 16:13
  • @fi12 regarding the first comment, I think you're pushing it too much. A mod just VTC'd a question they faced most probably in a review queue. No extra scope will be determined with their leaving it to three other non-Mod people. Would you have said the same if Hatchet was the fifth close voter? And regarding the second one, I don't buy your argument. "This question should've been closed" then "we should've left it open."? Huh? The only guideline on these cases is that mods shouldn't go closing everything uncontrollably. One question isn't a big deal. – M.A.R. Jun 23 '16 at 16:20
  • 1
    @TIPS I completely agree that mods should close certain questions; that's precisely why mods are even given the ability to mod-hammer questions. But this is where I disagree with you: "No extra scope will be determined with their leaving it to three other non-Mod people." Incorrect. These "non-mod people" are other high-rep users who are helping to shape this site's scope in its early days; it's not just moderators who are setting the scope of the site. Also, regarding your last statement, I wasn't talking about this one question (I agree that this question should be closed). – fi12 Jun 23 '16 at 16:26
  • I was talking about several others. But that's just my opinion on this. – fi12 Jun 23 '16 at 16:26
  • @TIPS it doesn't matter if the mod is the fifth close voter, because anywho closes it the question will be closed anyway. But if they closed it too soon, there is a chance that the question will be clear after having a good answer. There are several examples on this site. Nevertheless, if you still hold your point, I suggest you to convert it to an answer, so we can see how people think about it. Only in answer form, your thought will be able to be measured. – Ooker Jun 23 '16 at 16:38
8

Yes, mods should close off topic questions. As it currently stands, this site had 13 users with 500+ reputation, which is when you can vote to close. Three of those users are mods. On a site with only 48 avid users and less than 700 total users, it is important that the mods handle some of the moderation tasks on their own.

Language Learners is a young, small site. Part of being a moderator on such a site is doing things the community can't do yet. Another part is

  • Lead by example, showing patience and respect for their fellow community members in everything they write.

A moderator that closes an off topic question is showing that such a question isn't the type of question this community wants. It should be encouraging the users that have the ability to follow the example and close similar questions. Over time, as the community grows the moderators will be able to step back. Language Learners isn't at that point yet.

| |
  • 2
    This answer is perfect – Ooker Jun 23 '16 at 14:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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