The question Was the "open-ended interview" practice really legal? was closed by three users, one a moderator, as needing "details or clarity". The question seems quite clear to me, and the only relevant detail that I would add is the relevant jurisdiction. But we have a clear policy that lack of a jurisdiction is not a valid reason for closure, particularly one where the answer is probably similar in most jurisdictions.

The question currently has 2 votes to reopen. The OP is a new, unregistered user.

Should this question be closed? why or why not?

5 Answers 5


I cast the mod-vote that closed it after two other users did. There were several good comments prompting the OP for "details or clarity" and I agreed that the question did not seem amenable to a "good" answer as initially written.

In fact I thought it warranted closing without waiting for further votes because I imagined valid answers going in quite divergent directions, since any answer required speculating as to what the question was really asking about. (Broadcast rules? Advertising? Fraud? Infringement of rights of publicity? Why the law is the way it is?)

Note that it is easy to change such a close vote: Edit the question to add details or clarity. Or don't edit at all and just vote to reopen.

(I will also note that in the past I have reopened questions that were closed even without them being revised when another user has said – via comment, flag, or chat – that they have an answer they would like to post. Because a good answer is the best evidence that a question is amenable to a good answer. But in this case I don't see how one could determine that an answer was "on topic" because ... see the close reason, and the comments.)


I voted to close as personally I couldn't see what the law-related question was.

I thought l had made a comment (but either I didn't post it in error, or it's been deleted) about not viewing the 13+ minute video but I did read some of its comments adding that DJs, TV, movies, opera etc make things up and pretend to do all sorts of things purely for entertainment purposes and asked for clarity why such entertainment should be considered unlawful. Or words to that effect.


Questions should be self-contained

It happens all the time: Links break, videos are taken down. We want posts to be useful as long as the Stack Exchange network exists, regardless of what happens to the contents of various links elsewhere. This is why we require answers on Stack Exchange to consist of more than a link to a solution.

The same is true of questions: this one is quite difficult to understand (I could maybe guess what's in the video, but I'm far from certain enough to write an answer) without clicking the link. If the video is ever taken down, this question will make no sense.

If it had a description of what the video contained, such that the video supplemented the post but was not required to understand it, I would likely vote to reopen it.

  • I didn't feel that I had any trouble following the question without ever looking at the video. but perhaps I was mistaken. I will agree that a quetin, like an answer, should not depend on the contents of an external link to be understandable. Dec 14, 2021 at 2:42

I do not see what details are missing or what additional clarity is needed. The OP identifies a specific event in which the OP asserts that ma media outlet had publicly lied. The OP asks if such events are not illegal because of these lies, which, the OP asserts, mislead viewers/listeners.

That seems perfectly clear, and has sufficient details to give an objective answer. The OP does not specify a jurisdiction, and the answers might be different in different jurisdictions. But our policy is, i think clear that in such cases answers may be provided for any jurisdiction, and this is not a reason to close.

None of the users listed as making the close left any comment asking for any particular detail to be added, or for any point to be clarified. Indeed no one left any such message. While the site rules do not require such a comment, I think leaving one is good practice, particularly when the OP is a new contributor. How else is the OP supposed to know what needs clarification? A "needs details or clarity" close is supposed to invite the OP to improve the question, but in a case like this how is the OP supposed to do that without some guidance?

I here ask any or all of those who are listed as closers (or any other user) to indicate what additional details or clarity would be needed to make this a valid question, in each of their views.



I don't think it should be closed either but 3 people including a moderator thought it should. That's their right.

I realise that it can be frustrating when you see a question that you think is fine get closed without the voters telling us why, however, democracy.

  • Yes that is their right under SE rules, but IMO it is poor practice, particularly with a new contributor, and should be disfavored. It is also the right of any 5 users to reopen,and i for on am more inclined to vote to reopen when-- particularity for a "clarity" close-- the closers fail to explain what is unclear, and it is not obvious. I urge others to vote to reopen in this particular case. Dec 13, 2021 at 2:03
  • Yes that is their right under SE rules. But in this case, and simialr cases, I think it is poor practice. I for one am more inclined to vote to reopen when the closers fail to provide any reasons and the reasons are not obvious, particularly on a 'clarity" close with a new contributor OP. If you don't think it should be closed, why not vote to reopen it? Dec 13, 2021 at 2:07
  • @DavidSiegel I agree. That's the problem with democracy - while I will clearly use my vote wisely and with discretion, other people can't be trusted to do so.
    – Dale M Mod
    Dec 13, 2021 at 2:07
  • I am not saying I do not trust others to use their votes as wisely as they can, and the closers here are experienced users. I am urging them to reconsider their votes, or at least indicate their reasons. Also, others have the right to vot to reopen, which i am urging them to do, and giving reasons for my view. Dec 13, 2021 at 2:14
  • 30,000 users. 3 votes to close, 3 votes to reopen. Close. Democracy!
    – bdb484
    Dec 13, 2021 at 4:02
  • @bdb484 all democracies are flawed democracies.
    – Dale M Mod
    Dec 13, 2021 at 5:12
  • 2
    I disagree with this answer, in that if voters were using their close votes to close questions solely because the system gives them the ability to do so and not because the questions actually had anything wrong with them, that would be an abuse of privileges worthy of moderator/staff intervention to put a stop to it. I don't believe that's what happened here (and I've articulated my own reasons why I would have voted to close myself), but "people cast votes and it was closed" is not a reason for a question to remain closed.
    – Ryan M
    Dec 14, 2021 at 0:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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