-2

A (somewhat common?) point that is made by Primarily-Opinion-Based close-voters is that we can close questions that we think have never been addressed, and simply reopen them when someone does come up with something. For example, this comment:

I'm reasonably sure there's no canon answer. If I'm wrong, you can always ping me and the question can be reopened with trivial ease

As such I would like to request that the question Would it have been possible to trap Lord Voldemort in Professor Quirrell's body? be reopened, as I would like to post a non-opinion-based answer.

A recent Reopen Review failed to reopen the question, but if the above is true then the question should be reopened in response to someone stating that he/she has an answer to post.

(Disclaimer: I make no claims that my answer is the correct answer, nor even that it entirely answers the question. However, it is solely based on facts from the books, and provides relevant information, which qualify it as an "answer". Moreover, there are two existing answers which do not contain this information, which may therefore give readers a skewed view of the subject.)

| |
  • 2
    I haven’t read the question (in a while) but if you have a canon answer and want it opening why have you not left a comment stating as such? People won’t know there’s a canon answer if you don’t tell them. – TheLethalCarrot Jun 23 '19 at 6:45
  • 1
  • 1
    I know 99% of the time I click through and in a case like this where it has been sent multiple times and is years old check for new activity that could answer why it’s been brought up again. In either case “hidden” information is a lot better than no information. – TheLethalCarrot Jun 23 '19 at 6:56
  • @TheLethalCarrot In any case it’s too late, as the review has already been completed. Going forward the information is not hidden - it’s right here in a Meta post. – Alex Jun 23 '19 at 6:57
  • I know it’s “too late” now but that’s the point I’m making. If you have this information that clearly others don’t, letting others know on the post itself is the best thing to do to get the favourable outcome. I’m letting you know for future reference. – TheLethalCarrot Jun 23 '19 at 7:00
  • @TheLethalCarrot Thanks for letting me know. As an aside, I did leave a comment months ago containing links to several relevant Meta posts, which didn’t seem to have much effect. – Alex Jun 23 '19 at 7:04
  • 1
    A cryptic links only (4!) comment is entirely meaningless without explanation of the links and how they relate to the post. A quick see these pots for why this should be reopened which whilst completely ambiguous and broad would have been a lot better. – TheLethalCarrot Jun 23 '19 at 7:06
  • On another note when people ask in meta if their question would be on topic it is advised to post the whole question. I’m not saying post your whole answer cos you’d run out of characters but maybe give a brief overview of the answer and that would help your case for why it shouldn’t be closed. At the moment you appear to be the only one with this knowledge. – TheLethalCarrot Jun 23 '19 at 7:07
  • @TheLethalCarrot Not entirely meaningless. After all, if we’re already expecting someone to click through to the question, it’s not that much more effort to also click through to one of the links. – Alex Jun 23 '19 at 7:12
  • 1
    Click through to 4 links with no context... that’s too much to expect the average volunteer to do. I might click through if the commenter has given me context and meaning to how it applies and what I should look for. However, solely dumping 4 of them and that being it... nah. – TheLethalCarrot Jun 23 '19 at 7:14
  • @TheLethalCarrot I wouldn’t quite call it “no context”. After all, a new comment after four years of no activity, right when the question was sent to the review queue, with links that are clearly to Meta posts for this site, does kind of narrow it down a bit. – Alex Jun 23 '19 at 7:19
  • 2
    That’s all guesswork by the reviewer though. The comment clearly has no context in itself and I don’t see how you can argue otherwise. However, my point in all this was simply to help you but you seem to just argue at every point and as this discussion is somewhat irrelevant to the main question here I’ll leave it here. – TheLethalCarrot Jun 23 '19 at 7:22
  • @TheLethalCarrot I completely agree with your points that my comments could have been better. I’m only arguing about the extent of their use[full/less]ness. – Alex Jun 23 '19 at 7:25
  • 1
    Chats only useful to the few that use it and even then you have to be around at the time. I’d argue in some ways that’s even less helpful than the 4 links you dumped on the post. And I’m not saying the links aren't useful (haven’t checked to see what they are) just than on their own as base links they aren’t useful. – TheLethalCarrot Jun 23 '19 at 7:50
  • 1
    @Alex Cf. the comments from Slytherincess and phantom42, which are much more useful than a list of links with no context. Sly points out that "a speculative answer grounded in canon" can be "okay at SE", while phantom mentions with a link that "Lack of a canon answer is not a valid close reason". (Not that either of those comments were sufficient to get the question reopened either, of course, but they're certainly more directly informative than yours.) – Rand al'Thor Jun 23 '19 at 21:16
0

After carefully considering all of the following points:

  • Answers don't make questions on-topic.
  • Comments don't make questions on-topic.
  • The lack of an answer does not make a question off-topic.
  • "We don't know" is a valid answer, which can be supported by canon evidence.
  • Closing or reopening a question should not require extensive subject-matter expertise.

...I have voted to reopen. The question is specific, closely related to canon events and characters, and appears to have a well-defined answer (which might or might not be "we don't know"). It is a hypothetical question, but those are not automatically off-topic.

The question of which comments reopen reviewers may or may not have looked at, and whether those comments were useful or convincing enough, is entirely irrelevant. The question should be not have been closed in the first place.

| |
  • It's been closed again. I voted to re-open based on logic similar to outlined in this answer. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Sep 29 '19 at 18:35

You must log in to answer this question.

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