Post History

Here's the thing, and this is where I think there's a disconnect of understanding. On Stack Exchange, and to a similar extent here, question closure signals "this question is not suitable for this site in its current state". Blocking the ability to answer (which is what closing does) is therefore logical: if the _question_ is unsuitable in its current state, so will any answers be; to leave the question open for answering is to invite answers that ultimately, a site may not want. That's unfair both to the question's author (the answers might be deleted later), and to the answers' authors (their hard work might be deleted).

On the other side of that coin, it feels unnecessarily harsh - and simply unnecessary - to the question's author, and to other users who may want to answer it. From that point of view, closure becomes an unnecessary stumbling block, and can feel rude or come across as a put-down - even if the intention is just to say "unsuitable as written; needs work".

What Stack Exchange's closure mechanism has failed to do (and, by extension, ours, since we haven't really had a chance to look at it in depth) is to bridge those two points of view. Yes, blocking the ability to answer is necessary, but how can that be done in a way that says to the author "you can do [some things] and then this will be suitable here", instead of "this is unwelcome here, go away"? I don't have ideas there - as I said, this isn't something we've really had a chance to look into - but I'm more than open to suggestions.