Timeline for VirtualBox question
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 14, 2013 at 11:08 | comment | added | Rob Moir | would it not be better to give the benefit of the doubt in these borderline cases That would still leave a question of how much "doubt" should be given, or if you prefer, how large is the borderline? You're still going to end up with questions closed that people think would remain open, we'll still be here having this debate and you won't have solved anything. Trying to hold to a more rigid line might upset more people in the short term but arguably makes it clearer cut what does or does not belong here in the longer term. | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 16:35 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @Bryan No, it would not be. In my judgment this question does not meet our quality standards (I've given my reasons above, and they still hold). Questions that do not meet our quality standards get closed. If the question is professional sysadmin related it should be edited to show that. The point of placing questions on hold is so they can be fixed and reopened. At this point this meta question has 67 views and nobody has voted to reopen the question on the main site. | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 15:51 | comment | added | Kyle | @voretaq7 You agreed with Bryan's rebuttal yet you still hold the opposing opinion. That is... confusing. Here's my opinion. This is a Q&A site. We just spent more time debating whether something is allowed to be asked than we would have asking and answering it. In fact, you actually answered the question in the meta thread which is even more confusing, since it would be more helpful for everyone to see the answer in the original question thread. And there is some dissent on whether it's allowed. :( | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 7:48 | comment | added | user11604 | @voretaq7, hence the point I made in my original comment, would it not be better to give the benefit of the doubt in these borderline cases, and only close when we know for sure that they aren't sys admin related? | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 0:39 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @Bryan I can't be sure - the answer isn't a binary "yes or not", it's shades of gray, which is why I asked KyleM to bring this discussion to Meta. This question showed up in the close queue, and I made a judgment based on the content of the question: (is it related to "system administration in a professional capacity"? It is certainly professional, but not clearly sysadmin). As with most aspects of moderation where the line between "end user" and "admin" questions falls is a gray area, and that's why we have Meta - to hash out the not-glaringly-obvious decisions. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 23:18 | comment | added | user11604 | @voretaq7, I can't convince you, because I don't know if it's an end user question or administration question, I think it could be either, so let me turn that around as you think it's clearly out of scope. How can you be sure this an end user question and not a administration question? (and I don't think you're a big meanie BTW, apologies if that's what I seemed to imply). | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 23:03 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod | @Bryan In my opinion this question is clearly out of scope - it is an end user question, not an administration question per my reasoning above. I've still seen no convincing argument that refutes that. If you (or anyone) have such an argument to make please post an answer and make it. Like I said, I'm open to being convinced that this question is on topic, but simply saying "you're a big meanie for closing the question" is not a convincing argument. Off topic questions are supposed to be closed. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 22:36 | comment | added | user11604 | Sure, the question might be outside the scope of the site, but equally it might also be within scope. In these instances, where the context isn't clear, why not give the benefit of the doubt? Closing questions in this manner is not cool when it's turning new users away from the site as the OP here suggests. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 21:15 | comment | added | voretaq7 Mod |
@KyleM Server Fault's community standards expect that questions will be well-researched. In fact lack of research is one of the items called out in the downvote tooltip. (There's lots of discussion about this on Meta, including proposals for a specific close reason - search for research for a broad sampling). That was not my reason for closing your question however - as noted above I feel it has far more serious issues than the fact that you missed the importing/exporting virtual machines chapter in the manual.
|
|
| Nov 12, 2013 at 20:26 | comment | added | Kyle | Your opinion on whether or not I "read enough documentation" before posting my question isn't relevant. It may even suggest that your reason for closing the question was discriminatory (e.g. you didn't think the question was "hard" enough or you thought I didn't "try hard enough") rather than rules-based moderation. That being said, I respect your other reasons for closing the question but I still think it's just another case of being heavy handed. | |
| Nov 12, 2013 at 20:05 | history | answered | voretaq7Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |