-10

Consider the below question:-

Power of Infinity Stones in the Avengers Infinity War movie

Any lay person can also understand what I am asking here and that is:

Was the power of infinity stones really downplayed in the movie and if yes, then is there any genuine reason for it?

But still, my question is put on hold. I think this is really too much of a bureaucracy. Is this level of moderation and regulation, even desirable?

| | | | | |
  • 3
    The question wasn't put on hold by "admins" (moderators, in local parlance), but by 5 ordinary users. I don't necessarily agree with the reason they used to vote to close (the question is indeed clear), but I'd vote to put it on hold nonetheless because I think it's a bit too speculative. – Gallifreyan Jul 29 '18 at 9:21
  • 3
    @Gallifreyan - It's clear(er) now than when it was originally put on hold – Valorum Jul 29 '18 at 11:25
  • 13
    I would strongly advise you to change the tone and title of this (meta) question. Asking whether a particular question should be closed or reopened is usually well-received on meta, unless it comes with a confrontational attitude as suggested by things like "why's it so hard to please the admins here". – Rand al'Thor Jul 29 '18 at 19:02
  • 3
    It might be worth noting that of the two questions you've posted on SF&F so far, the other one has a current score of 40, which is really good. So overall, you have actually done as well or better at pleasing the other users of this site than many people have. – Todd Wilcox Jul 31 '18 at 16:46
13

The question wasn't put on hold by any admins (they're called moderators on Stack Exchange) — it was voted so by regular users.

How

The Stack Exchange Theory of Moderation is that the users moderate. The moderators (who can be appointed or elected) only are called upon for issues users can't handle.

Based on what I saw of your account, you're still relatively new to Stack Exchange. I see you've taken the tour, so may I advise you to read through the help centre? It explains a lot of this, especially in the section "Reputation & Moderation".

The most important thing to remember is that a question being put on hold is not rejection or punishment — it just means we don't think the question is answerable as it is. It gives you the opportunity to edit it to make it answerable.

Why

I didn't vote, so I can only speculate here, but I do think the question could be refined a bit. When it was closed, the title read "Power of Infinity Stones in Avengers Infinity War movie", which isn't even a question.

I see you've gotten advice on how to improve your question, most importantly on splitting it into two separate ones. I think your best course of action is starting there, asking about Dr. Strange first, then focusing the current one on Thanos' use of the Infinity Stones.

| | | | | |
  • 2
    For the record, I'm pretty sure both elements are answerable; why Thanos didn't just kill the Avengers and why Strange didn't use the Time Stone's capabilities. – Valorum Jul 29 '18 at 16:31
  • @Valorum And I'm sure, at least, the Strange question has been asked before. – TheLethalCarrot Jul 30 '18 at 8:07
4

I cast the final close vote when the score was tied 2-2 and so had the casting vote on what the close reason would be. To be clear this is the revision of the post at the time it was closed.

Power of Infinity Stones in the Avengers Infinity War movie

Is it just me or the power of Infinity Stones was really drastically downplayed in the Avengers Infinity War movie?

I mean, just take the example of the Soul Stone. As far as my understanding goes, Thanos could have easily defeated all of Avengers, in just a click, by trapping all of their souls in the Soul dimension.

And this is just one stone, Thanos had four of them and with that power, we see a long drawn out battle between him and Avengers.

One more example of this might be the underutilization of the power of Time stone by Doctor Strange. He could have easily reversed Thanos's actions, by going back into a more suitable(to him) time, in order to defeat him. But he didn't.

Is their any logic/reason behind this, or should we just suffice with the assumption that some logic in this movie was just entertainment and more entertainment?!

The two close reasons people had chosen so far were "Unclear what you're asking" and "Too Broad". The post had been edited twice before it got closed so other users reasons would likely have been based off of those different revisions.

The two reasons are very similar in this case and it's because from different readings of the question you appear to have multiple questions.

  1. "Is it just me or the power of Infinity Stones was really drastically downplayed in the Avengers Infinity War movie?"
  2. Why didn't Thanos more easily defeat the Avengers? (Paragraphs 2 and 3)
  3. Why didn't Doctor Strange use the Time Stone more?
  4. Is their any logic/reason behind this, or should we just suffice with the assumption that some logic in this movie was just entertainment and more entertainment?!

Questions 1 and 4 appear to be asking the same thing: i.e. what is the out of universe reason the writers decided to "downplay" the Infinity Stones? However, question 1 could be interpreted for asking for in universe reasons. To me I read questions 2 and 3 as supplementary to the main question to back up your claims. As you can see though with the wording you've used it isn't exactly clear what you element you seem to want to know.

However, Too Broad was also chosen as a reason and this will be those who read the question as 3 or 4 distinct questions which is too broad because here we require one question per question.


Some general tips

Always try and find a clear and succinct title that covers the main question and is easy for people to read. There is an art to this and it is one of the hardest parts of writing a question. However, something so generic as "Power of Infinity Stones in the Avengers Infinity War movie" is not the way to go. What does this mean you're asking:

  • What are the powers of them?
  • How powerful are they?
  • etc.

I can't even tell from your title what the actual question is and even after reading the actual question the link isn't the best.

Try and avoid rant like statements, such as:

Is their any logic/reason behind this, or should we just suffice with the assumption that some logic in this movie was just entertainment and more entertainment?!

These generally put people on the back foot straight away and it could easily have been reworded, similar to the question at the top of your answer, to read well and still ask the same.

Also try and avoid statements that could read as questions, or read like you're actually asking about the reasoning when actually you want to know question. The parts about Thanos and Doctor Strange appear as if you actually want to know about them rather than the out of universe reasoning for the "under utilisation".

One last point is to think about tagging your question more clearly. For example, if you are really asking about the out of universe reasoning adding the tag just makes this harder to understand; you didn't need it. From reading the tag excerpts you could also have realised that you don't need the tag either and should have used the one.

A point I try to reiterate to everyone is read the tag wiki excerpts, a lot of long time users, myself included, get it wrong sometimes. Though helping yourself as much as possible by reading the usage guidance goes a long way to minimising that.

| | | | | |
4

This part of the question does not seem to have been answered already, and I think it's worth addressing:

Is this level of moderation and regulation, [sic] even desirable?

Stack Exchange sites are focused and limited, and the evidence of the focus and limitations is that questions get put on hold when they are not a good fit for the site in question. So there is a "level of moderation and regulation" on Stack Exchange sites that could be described as "higher" than most other sites on the Internet.

Is that desirable? The popularity of Stack Exchange and the general quality of the content strongly suggest that it is desirable. It probably can't be proved that the focus and restrictions implemented on Stack Exchange sites is even one of the reasons for the success of Stack Exchange, but it seems very likely.

So, if you like Stack Exchange, then you probably like it because the "level of moderation and regulation" here helps to make it the quality resource that it is, and therefore it is desirable to you, in a way.

Perhaps you don't like Stack Exchange. That is fair. There are enough users who do like it that looking to change such a fundamental component of the Stack Exchange model probably won't gain the popular support it would need to actually happen.

| | | | | |
  • @Valorum What's interesting in this case is that the asker has been a member for 10 months and posted a question back in September 17 that was quite well-received (score of 40 as of this time). So whatever term we came up with for your hypothetical user wouldn't even apply here. – Todd Wilcox Jul 31 '18 at 17:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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