@Rob Moir - until and unless there is an obvious and well defined workflow for this, few people really know it. A closed question feels final to the asker - and to potential answerers or editors. Heck, I've been on SF since beginning of its beta, though not heavily involved in the various metas ... and I was completely unaware that 'edit closed question, then take it to meta' was the rule. I thought it was the exception.

@Rob Moir - where is it explained that the closure of a question is the question author's cue to 1) fix the question through editing and then 2) ask in meta to have the question reopened?

I agree that I very much like the, erm ... 'professional bias' of the site and community. However I worry that this can at times exclude those who are curious about how professionals do their work. For instance: aspiring sysadmins. I most fear us propagating a BOFH-like attitude (I read Simon Travaglia as a way not to do sysadmin, though I giggle as I do this.) I am often worried by the sarcasm and glee with which 'kill it with fire' powers are wielded or asked for; I do not see this as professionalism.

Note for the person who down-voted this. One thing I did not make clear enough is, I do not think the syndrome I described has its roots in bad intentions. No, I think it has most or all roots in good intentions. But we know what the road to hell is paved with.

I thought it was a good question, and hence upvoted. But my thoughts on 'rooms designed to cause voting' are below.

Let me simplify. A lot of The Comms Room regulars seem to be saying "let our local Sherriffs sort out our local issues, mods from other communities please butt out" ... while the moderator-at-large setup of all SE chatrooms suggests that all moderators are Feds who should go anywhere in the chatverse and enforce national standards as they see fit. There is a seeming conflict between 'local' and 'national' standards, and it would probably be very helpful to understand what if any provision is or should be made for 'local laws', especially if they conflict with 'national laws.'

Personally, I don't believe sense is all that common, or that everyone has the same internal definitions for the words "nice" or "respect." As for people taking offense ... in this post I'm taking no stance on whether that's right or wrong. I'm mostly noting that this rift seems to be centered around how different people have clearly different expectations from the chat rooms, and it isn't clear how to resolve them.