1

Could you please clarify whether this comment advice was bad, good, or so vague and open to interpretation that it shouldn't have been given in the first place?

I followed it at face value, but now I'm hearing feedback suggesting I did something wrong. Suddenly vague comments that advise seem unhelpful to me without more context or guidance related to the situation.

Original post closed as off-topic for SE.Politics

Comment Advice

enter image description here

More Context

Hours after posting my cross-posted Law question, I noticed an edit in the question body stating 'but closed and declined to migrate'. As a reader, I interpreted this as implying the OP chose not to take a more appropriate action, suggesting they were wrong for cross-posting—something the editor felt was important enough to phrase that way in the original question.

enter image description here

7
  • I think by "declined to migrate", they meant that the Politics.SE close-voters declined to migrate it, not that you personally did anything wrong. Why they declined to migrate, I can't say.
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Apr 15 at 21:16
  • @F1Krazy Why was my Law post edited to highlight the cross-post in the body of the question? Why didn’t I start receiving positive votes to counter the negative ones until after I made that edit? Is it standard practice to point out a compliant and correct cross-post in the question itself, instead of just leaving a comment? What’s the purpose of editing the question to call attention to this?
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Apr 15 at 21:32
  • 1
    Jen already explained in their answer why they made that edit - I'm not sure why you're asking me about it. I don't know why you didn't receive any upvotes until after it was made - I can't speak for the upvoters (or non-upvoters, as it were) on Law.SE, so again, I don't know why you're asking me. As far as I am aware, such edits are not standard practice, but I may be wrong.
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Apr 15 at 22:04
  • 1
    I wrote the comment, stating my opinion that it was a better fit for SE.Law ( mostly because it is asking on the basis of precise legal statutes). That comment, needless to say, engaged precisely no moderator to migrate the question: they don't have to listen me, you don't have to listen to me. I do think that, once you had decided to post on SE.Law, you ought to have deleted the question here - you (probably) know how allergic the various SE communities are to cross-posting. But I wouldn't sweat it, your question is being engaged with and responded to, on SE.Law.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Apr 15 at 23:13
  • 2
    @ItalianPhilosopher.... I welcome and appreciate your feedback good or bad actually—Politics post deleted—and I'd do it again at your recommendation. I don't think I've encountered a situation quite like this before, where everything unfolded the way it did (or as I noticed it timing wise). From the start, it felt like something was set up to work against me. I might have overanalyzed everything I was seeing, but it definitely gave me that impression. Still learning! Thank you!
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Apr 15 at 23:56
  • 1
    @F1Krazy... Haha, I totally get why you'd ask! I had a separate tab open with the web browser, and I didn't refresh the page. I wrote that comment (and a few others) before I saw the edit Jen made. Really great question, though. And seriously, thanks so much for collaborating with me, nudging me along, and helping to keep things moving forward!
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Apr 15 at 23:59
  • 2
    Glad you are taking this in stride. I VTCd but did not not DV. However, this question has been asked before, I think: "is the military expected to obey Trump's questionable orders?" and part of the bad reaction seems to have been that it was seen as putting down Trump or re-asking something answered before. see politics.stackexchange.com/q/61583/21531. To be honest it felt a bit like that to me, but not enough to DV and it did look like a better fit on Law. Note that my linked Q is a lot less legal-technical in nature.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Apr 16 at 0:07

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

Migrations can't be done by the community. It requires a moderator intervention to do so. At least here on Politics Stack Exchange. Some other sites on Stack Exchange have a few pre-determined other SE sites as migration targets which can be chosen by the community. But we don't have that on Politics Stack Exchange (maybe we should, but that's a topic for a different meta-question). So closing a question is all a "regular" community member can do with a question that belongs to a different Stack Exchange site.

If someone had flagged the question for "needs moderator attention" and then wrote that they think the question should be migrated to Law Stack Exchange, we moderators would have considered doing so.

Note that cross-posting is not desired on Stack Exchange. A question should only be on one site at a time. This includes closed questions, because closed questions can be reopened. The recommended way to "migrate" a question without moderator intervention is to delete the question and then repost it on a more appropriate Stack Exchange site.

1
  • 2
    I went ahead and accepted this as the answer, as this was the thing I should have done and did as per Italian Philosopher mentioning too. So if it's closed and I get feedback that it belongs to another post, delete and then repost on more appropriate site—or flag a mod and ask for it to be migrated. Thank you!
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Apr 16 at 12:50
4

I don't see anyone saying you did something wrong.

I edited the post at Law.SE to note that the community here had declined to migrate the question. I made this edit to avoid people in the comments unnecessarily pointing out the cross-post (one of which had already come in). After I incorporated that information into the question, the unnecessary comments were deleted.

No one ever said you did anything wrong. The edit was made to explain why this ended up over at Law.SE to keep that chatter out of the comments. A question that is open about why it was cross-posted is less likely to draw criticism on that ground.

5
  • I just added More Context section to clarify more specifically in case this is what you are asking. Additionally, after I posted on Law.SE and stepped away for hours, when I got back, I had -1 vote and saw that edit with that specific language. Perhaps I don't get the point of that, but my interpretation was --> point out this 1D10T did something wrong—check it out folks/readers that may interpret their way too.
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Apr 15 at 21:07
  • Now I’m getting a notification to remove the edit entirely that I made to the original editor’s edit, which I only edited to provide more context for clarity and better interpretation: law.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/66399. What I don’t understand is why I didn’t receive a suggested edit for the original vague wording edit, which I initially interpreted that way.
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Apr 15 at 21:13
  • I approved the edit to remove my clarifications on the Law SE Q, but I didn't start receiving positive votes until after I made that change. I believe the original edit by the non-OP played a big part in the negative votes it initially received. If I didn’t do anything wrong, then so be it. In the future, I’ll raise my concerns with clear and detailed evidence if similar issues come up. I was considering opening a second Law Meta on the other question, but I’ll let it go this time.
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Apr 15 at 21:29
  • I'll take it, I don't like that sort of edit for this sort of specific situation though. If that edit must've stayed, I needed to explain "why" with more clarification from my side as the OP. A vague comment like that with no context can be interpreted by others as it was by me that something was done wrong. Next time though, I should not need a meta follow up. Next time I can edit to add context if that must be there. This was a compliant/SE legal/ legit cross-post otherwise. I appreciate getting that clarity from this situation if nothing more. Thank you for your answer, the edit, & cleanup.
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Apr 15 at 21:37
  • Jen - So my original post on Politics was reviewed to be migrated to Law and users or moderators of Law declined to allow it to migrate over? Was this before of after my cross-post? Perhaps I did a compliant cross-post too soon, or perhaps I did it after the rejection of the migration. I'm not familiar with seeing this level of detail—enlighten me if you have a pointer of reference or learning about these aspects if any of that is correct.
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Apr 15 at 21:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.