-8

I can't help but wonder if there is substantial conflict of interest.

Can those who voted to close a post voluntarily avoid reviewing reopening the same post?

Or isn't it a cool and great idea to implement a new feature to stop those who closed a post and still desire to deny reopening the same post?

For example, On my local machine, what can Screen bring, which a terminal emulator or nohup/disown can't?

enter image description here

and https://unix.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/271025

enter image description here

| |
  • Would you claim that revision #4 after the post was closed was a substantial enough change to warrant reopening after being voted closed? – Jeff Schaller♦ Nov 30 '18 at 0:43
  • 2
    I admit a desire to close all your posts. Just kidding. I desire to close posts that aren't clear or answerable and to keep those same posts closed. I also desire to vote questions and answers up and down to indicate quality and usefulness. Sorry? – Jeff Schaller♦ Nov 30 '18 at 0:45
9

No.

And, again, no.

Neither are a good idea.



To clarify, and head off the inevitable complaints about the brevity of my answer, the people that originially voted to close are in fact the most qualified to review as they will be most familiar with the specific efforts made to improve the question—which is, of course, the only legitimate reason to vote to reopen.

| |
  • I would imagine it is okay for regular people without special obsession with such little power. – Tim Nov 29 '18 at 22:32
  • 2
    @Tim It has nothing to do with power, it is all about quality. – jasonwryan Nov 29 '18 at 22:35
  • It has more to do with democracy than quality – Tim Nov 29 '18 at 22:38
  • @Tim That's a quaint notion. – jasonwryan Nov 29 '18 at 22:44
  • I don't know what you mean by "quaint". But I imagine it is not hard for a person to understand my last comment, if they advocate democracy. – Tim Nov 29 '18 at 22:46
  • 7
    @Tim I don't see what democracy has to do with anything but, since you mention it, restricting the ability of people to vote is very much undemocratic. Those who voted to close are most certainly the ones who are best placed to decide if the edits have changed the question enough for them to change their minds. So no, they should not refrain from voting. I have often voted to reopen after an edit was made. That said, I have also reopened your question since it does seem clear enough. By the way, the main answer is: no, screen doesn't give you much on a local machine, why should it? – terdon♦ Nov 29 '18 at 23:53
2

Voluntarily? Sure. That's what the "skip" button is for. I'm under no obligation to review the reopening of a post I voted to close; then again, nor I am under any obligation to avoid reviewing those either.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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