Certainly some questions are destined to (and *need* to) be closed, no doubt. But what you are suggesting we add back is the concept of the *author* being dismissed out of hand. Period. End of discussion.

At least that's the perception exasperated by the old close system. It's that *"no one is interested in helping me"* ethos that the new close system is designed to address:

[**War of the Closes**](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2013/06/the-war-of-the-closes/)

The problem with the ***original*** close system was that it was laid out primarily to provide a clear course of action for *experienced* users like yourself:

> You don't get it so this needs to be closed. Buh-bye.

In contrast, the ***new close system*** was written with the the author (and majority of less-experienced users looking on) in mind — part peer review… part educational.

> This question is not usable because of the following problems. If you feel you can address these problems, here's what needs to be done… or at least how you can have a more productive experience next time around. Thanks.

Of course we recognize that some posts may simply be unsalvageable. But that's no reason to stamp a question: "sorry, we are no longer talking about this." It's inherently community hostile and the leading reason users found Stack Exchange increasingly elitist and unwelcoming to all but the most experience users who have been here since the earliest days.