-7

A moderator closed this question under pretext that it is "off-topic". No one else had VTC so far, and the post is neither spam nor "egregious" so as to warrant mod intervention.

This moderator surely knows SE's functionality that a question is closed once enough users vote to close it, yet he rushed to close this one as he has done on several others. Few hours earlier the same moderator headlined his answer on Law Meta with "We are a democracy" (bold in original), which is ironic and at odds with his [ab-]use of this mod-privilege.

Being premised on some non-sequitur does not render a question "off-topic". Concluding otherwise would needlessly impose on the audience the requirement that users possess enough background in law to ensure that their intended post is "non-sequitur free". Furthermore, many questions involving a non-sequitur can be addressed from a legal standpoint. My answer there reflects how the post at issue is one such instance. Also a question can be on topic even if the scenario as described therein has no legal implications.

It is acceptable for users to miss legal aspects of a question and move to the next post. But suppressing posts merely because one such user happens to have mod-privileges is unacceptable.

1
  • @RyanM If you decide to post your comment as answer, I will mark it as Accepted. Your explanation that "A moderator cannot take a non-binding action" is on point; does not resort to using "religious belief" and "fantasy" interchangeably; is not pedantic toward the author of the closed post; and implicitly prompts a reflection of how a mod could be more judicious on posts that don't warrant drastic or unilateral suppression (in the scenario at issue, by waiting for 3 or 4 users to VTC before he does the same). – Iñaki Viggers Sep 19 '20 at 17:04
7

We are a democracy

We just don’t all have equally weighted votes.

The question in question was not based on a non-sequitur; it was based on an unprovable hypothesis that would not be accepted by the court. This is a site for legal issues that could actually exist.

The question could be on-topic at Wordlbuilding SE which is dedicated to answering questions about fantasy worlds. A world where reincarnation is objectively real and what legal consequences would flow from that is an interesting question. However, in its present form, it would not meet their requirements for detail.

“SE's functionality that a question is closed once enough users vote to close it” or a moderator or gold tag holder decides to close it. And mods do not have the choice to be 1 of the 5 - if we VTC, it’s closed. That is the full explanation.

I decided to close it. I understand you aren’t. I have considered your objections. I’m not going to reopen.

Feel free to vote to open - if 4 other users agree then it will be reopened.

2
  • The comment section on this response was getting a bit unwieldy; it can be found in chat. – Pat W. Sep 18 '20 at 18:04
  • Reincarnation is believed by more than 25% of the world's population and is one of the core beliefs of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddism, ect. Let's try to respect people and their religion instead of calling them "fantasies". – User37849012643 Oct 8 '20 at 21:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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