3

My question was closed.

I've responded by adding some additional detail (in this case a better definition of required definition of what I mean) Now what happens?

One reviewer complained that the question is pointless because, according to their point of view, the answer was "incontrovertibly Yes. All the androids are sentient as presented on film." but they didn't provide their definition of sentience.

Why should one person's view be enough to block a question?

5
  • 9
    It was closed by 5 users, not just 1 (and none of them are "moderators" in the sense this site uses).
    – Null Mod
    Jun 18 '21 at 18:30
  • 7
    People often vote without commenting precisely because other users then post angry comments attacking them (accusing them of a lack of politeness and such, for example)
    – Valorum
    Jun 18 '21 at 18:52
  • 4
    Just to note Lexible was the first close vote and left a comment that (at the time of this comment) has 7 upvotes. There seems to have been a consensus of what you meant by "sentient" was unclear. Also that comment seems to be polite and detailed in reasoning.
    – Skooba
    Jun 18 '21 at 18:56
  • 1
    I've edited out the snarky attack on Lexible for having the temerity to explain his close-vote.
    – Valorum
    Jun 18 '21 at 18:57
  • 5
    It looks like the question was closed on the 13th and you didn't edit your definition of "sentient" until the 15th, so the 5 close voters decided that you needed to define "sentient" in order for your question to be answerable. Your question was put in the re-open review queue automatically after you edited it, but the 3 reviewers voted unanimously to keep it closed.
    – Null Mod
    Jun 18 '21 at 18:59
9

Why was it closed in the first place?

In this instance, your question was originally closed as "needing details or clarity" because it was unclear what you were asking. People have been debating the meaning of sentience for centuries and asking us to unpick it is problematic at best, especially when it's ill-defined and related to androids that are clearly artificially intelligent (and sufficiently so to pass as human).

What happens now?

Since its original closure you've made an edit that improves the clarity, but in doing so you've pushed it into a different close reason ('opinion-based'), in that you're no longer asking for objective answers but rather wanting people to post their opinions about your theory. Unfortunately that means that it's still arguably off-topic, so even if it was reopened, it would just get closed straight away again.

Additionally, you're asking a whole bunch of different sub-questions (about the various androids) that makes it very difficult to envision what a good answer would look like.

Why should one person's view be enough to block a question?

It's not. Five users voted, one after another, to close your original question and at least two of them (Lexible and myself) are in lockstep agreement about why. Presumably the other three had similar misgivings.

After it was edited, a further three users (only one of whom originally voted to close) voted to leave it closed in the re-open queue.

0

You must log in to answer this question.

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