@Jerry, you're the one bringing the hostile attitude. I appreciate that you started by trying to help; but it's nothing more than disruptive now. We don't need that here.

+1 "and not really add a whole lot of extra information" = "This edit changes too much in the original post" (the reason given by Sam)

+1 The most frequent problem I see (haven't read newmanth's posts) is Questioners with Verbal Diarrhea. You're not writing a novel. Stick to the concise facts (and make sure they're there): What is broke, what is it [not] doing, expected resolution. Feelings, pleadings, salutations, closings/signatures, or thanks should not be a part of it.

Agreed; though a good compromise might be to allow 1K+ Rep Users to bypass the blacklist.

I don't see any closed Questions on your account. I see two migrated now, but none that were closed. Am I missing something?

At least they aren't from Stack Overflow.

@TechZilla If you want to get Jeff involved you can certainly try. I wont put words in his mouth, but he did put the moderation system in place as it stands now, and for a reason. Regardless, we aren't interested in legal technicalities. Laws change from one place to another. We aren't going to use any of them as a measuring stick. We've been through this discussion before regarding administrative password reset techniques. The community implemented policy stands. If it's a really light shade of gray discussion, the community will likely allow it. It's usually much more cut and dry however.

@TechZilla I'm not sure I follow. Discussion security vulnerabilities is not the same as telling someone how to break into a system. The former is a welcome aspect of system administration. The latter is the gray/black area we don't deal with. A good example is the Apache Range vulnerability; it's good to know what versions are vulnerable, and workaround to patch them. It's not acceptable to post a script (or even to describe how it would work) to exploit a vulnerable server.

Further, if you feel you have been victimized by a moderator you are free to e-mail contact the SE team (contact us link at the bottom of every page) for their review. I'll mention that some users have felt this site should be a free for all in the past; some of them have been blocked and the rest all left. Each SE site focuses on a specific group of people, not the public at large. The goal is not to be all inclusive...

@TechZilla, we're not concerned with the technicality that someone might consider breaking into someone else's system a profession. The vast majority would agree that such activities are not ethical and material describing how to do so is therefore not welcome on SF. Each SE site has it's own administrative/moderator teams, there might be some overlap, but it's not really intentional. You seem a bit confused, you start with "Personal opinions from the community .. are just opinions" then go on to "the site needs to define [the] benefit". So do you want the community's opinion or not?

The Question needs to be 48 hours old before you can Accept your own answer. An Answer must be 10 minutes old before you can Accept it.

On a side note it seems a good chunk of this "problem" is related to the isolated-island approach SE has been taking with sites, especially given the generally hierarchical nature of many of those sites' topics. I'd argue that modern data organization techniques would be more natural and intuitive.

You are correct that NARQ was a poor choice for the close reason, as Holo notes it should have been OT.