Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Your first edit was fine, quid. The second one I take some exception to. Part of it could be a language thing, but instead of "policy" (I don't think there are hard and fast policies which dictate when CW is to be applied), I would say there are general rules of thumb, and applications of such can be determined by authors. The whole bit about "hands" was also completely unnecessary, since I'm obviously not talking about removing control from moderators.
quid, you wear me out; I am being told now to avoid extended discussions, and I really don't have voluminous amounts of time to respond to each and every point you make (and many of which I take issue with). I will say however that I find your remarks on the specific question I linked to unwarrantedly speculative. If you would like to continue the discussion offline, presumably you would know how to contact me. But, basta.
Most people in that old meta discussion (all but possibly one, I believe) agreed that history questions should be considered on-topic. The specific question that spurred the discussion brought out IMO a more pressing meta-topic, on whether that question should be CW (heh! see another current discussion here). I and others said "yes it should", and you can see how right we were, because (hilariously) the better the answer, the fewer points it got, at least for the first three or four answers. Obviously such a comical scenario should not impinge on award of reputation points.
I might not have paid it much attention, quid, if I was not the one calling for CW. But I wonder if others feel, as you do, that the situation was calamitous?
I didn't propose any rep. As I said in another comment, the issue of rep is not a primary concern with me, but I know it is with some people. If pressed, I would propose the old 10 as fine by me, but some people who would seemingly prefer to place power in the hands of moderators might prefer 10000 (where moderator tools kick in).
@quid: I don't think it was the existence of CW per se that caused problems in the past, but rather the quality of the questions. I believe in any case that questions which solicit opinions or do not otherwise admit definitive answers ought to be CW, and that many on the old system had the good sense to know when that applied. What I really want is for users to be treated as adults, and not have to go running to momma and poppa (i.e., the moderators) to get permission to do something they know is right. The issue of rep is rather secondary in my view.
It's hard to evaluate your answer when you intentionally withhold arguments (for fear of taking the "debate off-track" -- what debate?). I also think you might be exaggerating the chaos that would ensue, and also perhaps whatever confusion did ensue under the old system. (It certainly escaped my attention.)
