11

Titles should give a reasonable expectation for what the question is about. Drifting by, I could only deduce that the question was related to the international space station, which makes it a poor title. Unless, of course, most others immediately get what "tennis racket" has to do with the station, which I doubt. On a more general note, "The Right Thing to ...


9

By @uhoh: @AtmosphericPrisonEscape "unclear" is not an objective concept. It's quite clear to me You have used this subjective phrasing before to justify actions. While pointing out how other's phrasing or actions are not objective/somehow not understandable to you, you yourself commit to courses of action that are not objective and far from obvious. ...


8

Changing the markup without changing what the resulting post looks like, seems pointless to me.


6

I'm not fond of forming policy around a single piece of software. If this question is generalized to simulation software, I would say questions about said software should be on topic here insofar as it relates to industry usage of said software. In this case, KSP's primary industry usage is for outreach, so I'm inclined to agree with uhoh that asking about ...


5

The relevant bit here isn't whether it's a weapon or not. It's whether the question has any relevance to space exploration. The question on how long till the ICBM hits is entirely off topic. It's also not a good question anyway - it has a couple of flawed assumptions, the time given was a rough guide anyway, and simple maths gives you the answer (as does ...


5

I totally sympathize with you; I had a similar experience in the past week. Like your post, I self-answered my own question, and got a lot of downvotes for it. It seems that some people are downvoting because they don't like self-answers, even if the answer is useful and accurate. That's not what downvotes should be used for.


5

I was one of the close-voters. My motivation for closing was that the Cybertruck is a terrestrial vehicle. It is not designed for Mars and there is no way (currently or in the near future) to get such a large vehicle to Mars. That makes it, in my opinion, a purely hypothetical, speculative, and frivolous question no added value. Hence I voted to close.


4

Stack Exchange provides several ways to include links in a post. If an author chooses to use one of them, then that's the author's option, and intent. Coming in and rewriting their post and reversing their choice for no discernible reason beyond "I would have done this differently" is heavy-handed, and the action does not benefit the site. The editor was ...


4

The original comment and resulting discussion has been removed I was the moderator handling the flag. The offensiveness of mentioning the Dunning-Kruger effect varies greatly with usage and interpretation. You found this to mean a direct "this is what's wrong with you" attack, but that's not the popular usage of the effect. From my experience, it's a more ...


4

I believe KSP is on-topic. However, asking for predictions of future events (also including future spacecraft and missions) creates issues: Information might not be public at the time the question is asked, making the question unanswerable at that time. In this particular case, we were lucky that the needed information was publicly available. If the ...


4

Yes. A feeling of stewardship over a shared resource isn't a bad thing and is, to an extent, encouraged. Sometimes, if others disagree with you, you come to meta to denounce them.


4

Yes, you should flag things like this if you genuinely feel that's the case. You're probably over-reacting though, but don't worry, it's a moderators role to take a balanced and impartial view. You might find doing basic research before asking your questions results in fewer downvotes I also refer you to https://space.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1420/20636 ...


3

I would say no. Do not substantially alter the question in this way. While it is tempting to be accommodating in situations like this, creating circumstances in which the question might magically change while other people are trying to answer increases the likelihood of running into problems where moderators have to intervene to clean things up, resulting ...


3

The question is on topic. You might not get the best answer here, but planetary science is considered on topic, and has been from nearly the beginning of the site.


2

First, I'd say that the existence of a similar question on a different SE site is not a valid reason to close as a duplicate. Askers are expected to check this site for previous questions before asking their new question. However, to expect them to check all of the other SE sites is just absurd. If you see such a question posted on this site, you may ...


2

From "What can cause a question to be bumped?" on Meta Stack Exchange: †Questions with sufficiently low score will not show on the homepage when either they or their answers are edited, though they will still be shown on the Questions page. The "sufficiently low" threshold is -4 on main sites and -8 on meta sites


2

I am hesitant to answer this meta question. Please keep in mind that I am trying to help. However, recently you seem to argue with people trying to help you, such as the "may be better suited" commenter. Many of your recent questions (not all) are difficult (but not impossible) to understand. They are more complicated than they need to be, and require ...


2

As you state, there's absolutely nothing wrong with answering your own question. So if people are downvoting your answer solely for that reason, that's wrong. I don't watch Youtube videos so your question and answer mean nothing to me - I am not qualified to vote on either - but in general it can come across a bit condescending to explain what "someone is ...


2

The review started Mar 1 at 0:35:05, and completed March 2 at 13:03:57, with 3:2 vote in favour of reopening Your vote wasn't counted in that reopen decision apart from triggering it. I obtained the time the review was completed by hovering over the relevant part of the timeline, as shown in the above screen shot


2

While the question could be cut down to a sub-orbital trajectory question (and closed as a duplicate), that doesn't seem to be what the OP was be asking. The launch detection, threat assessment and response procedures needed to answer the question are really not on topic.


1

When you know an answer, write a proper answer. That's just good for everyone, and you will earn upvotes. We've all written questions that aren't as clear to others as we thought it would be. It's okay to ask for clarification on such questions. Questions that have the potential to be fixed should be clarified instead of closed. It is way too easy to ...


1

I agree, it is not off-topic. It is firmly within the scope of planetary science which we allow here. We get a lot of questions mistakenly asked here that belong at Astronomy, and this one happens to also be on topic there, so users sometimes err on the side of marking off topic too quickly. That said, there were some other points raised in the comments to ...


1

Because of the effort to try to close my question quickly, before anyone has a chance to post an answer, I've taken the extraordinary step of posting a first answer to my own question. In the answer I've mentioned that over time there will likely be need for further, updated answers. In contrast to @ManuH's comment @uhoh I won't retract my vote. This ...


1

JCRM is correct that in many cases it is possible to edit the information into the answer for the user, but in this case the user has engaged in a pattern of omitting critical information from the answer and then adding it to the comments section with multiple comments. This behavior is discouraged. If you see some one off instances of this, you can flag ...


1

I was one of the downvoters, but the downvote was for an earlier and substantially different revision of the answer, so I’ll retract.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible