Today I asked: Why did R2D2 not fly in Return of the Jedi? This question is similar to others I have asked about the internal consistency of Star Wars films, e.g.:
These two were considered legitimate (not closed) and both received a lot of votes (25 and 16 respectively - no down votes).
So when I asked today's question, I expected similar interaction with this community. Instead, the question was closed (on the votes of five separate people) within about an hour.
The comments, "Close, Argumentative", implied that I had done something wrong. I couldn't work it out until one person who closed it said, "It cannot simply be assumed that you are seeking an in-universe reason. The reason outside the universe is obvious, and bringing up the question at all can, and was, taken as a snipe against the prequels."
I modified the question to say I was looking for an in-universe explanation and it was re-opened an hour or so later.
I'm really puzzled here. I would have thought the community would, as with previous questions, assume good faith. Instead, it seemed to me more like a herd response: closing without thinking. (That is probably not the case, that is just how it came across to me.)
So - my question is, What can we learn from this?
- I have learnt that I need to explain I am looking for an in-universe explanation especially, given the comments, when discussing the Star Wars prequels. (But I did not know that before because it was not required for my previous questions.)
- Can the community learn something in this beta phase that it can use later in this site? For example, to assume good faith especially with an established contributor. As Jeff says, "assume good faith until the user has a documented history of not acting in good faith."
Footnote: I was hurt by this, because it implied that I am someone who would snipe, whereas my conduct up to now demonstrates the opposite.