@benisuǝqbackwards I understand the point, but if we can't/won't answer a question, why we don't allow others to do?

@rene Well, it is offtopic a little bit, but I think the evolution votes you down.

@JasonBassford This environment is defined mainly by us, with our votes.

When it comes to SE, the effort you invest is the effort you receive. Expecting answerers to expend orders of magnitude more effort than the asker shows a lack of respect to the site and the community at large. When answerers expend that level of effort for questions that actually meet the quality standards is when you get incredibly valuable content. Not so much when the asker can't even be bothered to put any effort into it.

@fbueckert There is nothing in the post about 1) low quality posts 2) questions "Expecting answerers to expend orders of magnitude more effort than the asker". This post is about questions closed currently as too broad. Next time read it more carefully.

You are literally asking people to allow questions where the asker's provided zero effort to narrow their question ("Dad, why...?"), or respect the community and actually ask a question within the rules. That is both 1) Low quality, and 2) Expecting answers to expend more effort than the asker. I read your question, and the motive behind it. I very much disagree with it.

@fbueckert It is your interpretation. Might read the answers below - as you can see, although the community seems rejecting the idea, they've at least understood it.

@fbueckert I don't know your motive, because I never understood why should anybody harm others without a reason. Probably I won't ever understand it. I experience, some people has a strong internal urge to harm the weaker people. For example, on the SO/SE, to avoid the newbies to collect rep. I fighted years your arguments, but I still don't know, what is motivating you. I still have no idea, why is it so. But I strongly disagree it.

@fbueckert Btw, you have 237 rep on the SO, but you gave already 5000 downs to meta questions. Didn't you ever felt, that although it passes the written rules, it might at least a little bit violate their spirit?

I believe you have an incredibly wrong interpretation of the, "spirit", and are unwilling to even work with the community to help improve it. Therefore, what I do is oppose your viewpoint, while attempting to show you why it's so wrong. Not sure why I do, though; you never listen, nor even try. But my voting pattern has zero relevance to the topic at hand, nor am I beholden to you, or anyone else, to explain it. But nice try to sideways attack me. Have fun with that.

@fbueckert If you would have a clear, well-defensible argument, why you had to downvote nearly all the MSO questions, you had said that. Instead, you move into defense "I am not beholden to anyone to explain it"... it says everything.

Well, if attacking me instead of my argument makes you happy, go nuts. Personally, I just think it weakens your stance even more, so, honestly, all you seem to be doing is ensuring your position is never taken seriously. So, by all means, continue.

@fbueckert This "ensuring your positions", "weakening your stance" and the others might be important things for you, but they mean nothing for me. I am interested on, what is the right thing to do.

@peterh If, "doing the right thing" is the only thing that matters, you're going about it very wrongly.

I can almost guarantee how most of your proposals will end

1. You get heavily downvoted.

2. You refuse to acknowledge shortcoming in your stance.

3. You twist other's arguments to fit your needs and ignore everything else.

4. Your proposal never gets implemented.

And since I almost universally oppose you, I get what I want just by letting you be you.

You are, to be honest, your proposal's own worst enemy.

1. It doesn't matter what I do, and how do I communicate it, it will be downvoted.

2. If the collective entity of the "community" would have a proposal, I would have the option to follow it and be cooperative with it, or at least to find a mutually acceptable deal with it.

3. But there is no proposal. There is nothing to follow. There are only the downs.

4. Thus, if there is nothing to cooperate, only two options remain: a) let the system as it is b) doing what you can to fix it.

I've chosen (b).

You've chosen to militantly side with an oppressive system, and for what? For nothing.

Of course (b) also mean that I will be always disagreed, downvoted, flagged, and so on. I will be the "troll".

But, the sad truth is, that you gave 5000 downs to MSO questions with your 237 SO rep.

And not me. I have an above average mass of answers, not only on the SO, but also manywhere, with many hard science sites between them. And... I tried to move the SO/SE to a more friendly way.

With hard work.

And you?

Btw, why do you initiate a talk to me? Do you really have any intention to improve your morality?

If it would be so, we could talk on a quite different tone. But, honestly, I seriously doubt it.

@fbueckert Well... and ping.

There is no oppression. This is the core problem with your viewpoint.

We're all muddling towards making the site better.

Together.

What you're doing is alienating anyone who might agree with you.

All you see is you against everyone else.

It never occurs to you that, maybe, just maybe, someone might have a point that you don't agree with.

@peterh This is all due to how you present your arguments.

You make no allowance for maybe you're wrong.

You're right, and you attack everyone that disagrees.