@Chris, @WYSIWYG, @MadScientist So as I can't flag I'll post here. This question cannot be for real and should closed.biology.stackexchange.com/questions/40829/… . They say they want to design a protein drug and they don't even know the answer to a basic cell biology question. This should be closed.

@AMR You can flag the post for closure if you want but matters like these should not be flagged for moderator attention. You can downvote too if you think the post shows no effort. BTW, it is possible to make proteins cross the membrane. Moreover, in-vivo electroporation is not as drastic as electrocution. Retinal electroporation has also been done with animals, with very little tissue damage.

@AMR Of course you can flag, but flags are reserved for specific cases. Bad questions should be downvoted, not flagged. Basically, you only flag for things the community can't do by itself. If you don't have the rep to close vote, you should indeed flag for closing as well, but other things should just be downvoted.

Close flags are dealt by the community and is similar to VTCing. Just that you just don't vote yourself (the question is queued for revision)

@terdon Maybe you do not realize this, but the system bans you from flagging when the moderators reject flags. So if you have seen my Meta post, that is why how they moderate is problematic. I do not raise flags spuriously, I put thought into them and try to give the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes a post just has to go. Mods reject, you get banned and detritus builds up. There really needs to be a serious discussion about curation and the flags currently available, as they aren't always

@AMR I agree... Sometimes, the are flags that are rejected for no reason

reflective of what is inherently wrong with the question or answer being flagged. So you try to fit it in, and people don't see the logic used and it gets rejected. I am not saying that every question needs to be PhD caliber, but when someone asks a question where they do not even know what Guanosine is, and it is left on, it takes away from the people who take the time to pose well thought out questions and provide meaningful answers.

Or as with the question I mention above says they are looking to design a drug, but don't know how to research as simple a laboratory technique of intracellular delivery of Biologics, it needs to be deleted to let them know that they need to do there own work. If the question had been something to the effect of , Which has more efficacy in a clinical environment, Nanoparticle delivery, lipid encapsulation, or electroporation in protein biologics delivery, that is a question I could respect

and understand asking, as many papers will advocate for the system they are using, so it is difficult to get a clear idea of which is better and what the benefits and draw backs are in comparison to the other methods. It appears that even though electroporation is starting to be used clinically, it requires invasive procedures, and that would not be practical for many applications of drug delivery.

We certainly need to talk about flags a bit. I'll respond to the meta post once I'm at a real computer again.

@AMR I do realize it, my point is that while I agree that some of your flags were rejected incorrectly, it is also true that others shouldn't have been raised as flags in the first place. Flags should only be raised for those cases where the community doesn't have the power to act. This is indeed more complex for users like yourself who are very active on the site but haven't reached the rep needed to close vote yet.

However, bear in mind that the mods are human as well. When you look at a flag, you often don't know who raised it (this doesn't apply to VTC flags, if I remember correctly) and in the cases where you do, all you have is a user name. I find it entirely plausible that the mods here saw your name, recognized it from your activity on the site and assumed you had the rep to close vote so didn't see why you would flag instead.

It is good to bring this up on meta and it does sound like the mod team here might not have a shared approach to dealing with flags. That can be very annoying to users, I know. But let's not get on a war footing, most of the mods are still relatively new and this site doesn't get much action so they might not be quite as used to the whole thing as you might expect.

As for the level of expertise required to post, there is now a clear(ish) consensus that novice level questions are welcome. Yes, we expect some research but even that is often very hard to do when you don't have the necessary vocabulary. I agree that the questions you mention are not very good but we can't expect people to have to know what nanoparticle delivery, lipid encapsulation, or electroporation are in order to post here.

Hell, I have a PhD and I don't really know how nanoparticle delivery works. Only the general idea.

@AMR After looking at the answer by WYSIWYG, I do partially agree with him. Some of those flags shouldn't have been declined, but first of all, you use the wrong type of flag. You need to stop flagging with the "in need of moderator intervention". The other flags work just as well. For example, the GTP question could be more accurately flagged as a homework question with no effort. Just flag questions for closure. By using the "in need for moderator" flag, this annoys them more.

Yes, what @TanMath said. When you are looking at the flags, we just get a simple summary. Choosing one the existing reasons makes our life easier. The "mod intervention" should only be used when nothing else fits. It makes more work for us.

@AMR I would also like to mention that I did not like your attitude towards this question. The OP is not a creationist and he told you several times. Just because you say "three-score years and ten" doesn't make you a creationist. There was really NO need to flag such a question. Clearly, the OP wanted a scientific answer.

It seems that you think if a person uses Biblical sort of writing, it makes him a creationist. If you really did not like the question, then simply downvote. But I would also find a downvote a little bit harsh towards the OP.

(anybody else who is reading, the comments were long since deleted, but the OP said "three-score years and ten" in his question, and AMR started claiming that the OP was a creationist and shouldn't be on this site, when the OP repeatedly said he is not a creationist. Then AMR went on to flag the post for mod intervention)

Hello @terdon!

Not to mention that some of us feel creationst questions are welcome here. Personally, I love them, bring them on! They are trivial to debunk and we might actually teach someone about science in the process. As long as they're good questions in the SE sense and are looking for a scientific answer, bring 'em on!

Hey @TanMath

@terdon true. Unless the creationist OP is very stubborn about disproving evolution and proving creationism.

Sure. Of course, in that case, they wouldn't be playing by SE rules anyway so the question is fair game.

@terdon But the fact is the OP of this question is clearly not a creationist. In his profile, he says "I'm a theistic evolutionist with a passion for reconciling sound science with sound Christian theology."

I just don't want some poor kid who grew up in the bible belt believing that crap and who's honestly trying to get his head around it to be laughed out of the room by pretentious scientists.

@TanMath And the question itself seems fine anyway. There's a misconception there, that's all.

The OP's views is similar to mine, to be honest.

@terdon Yes, but the problem is AMR doesn't seem to be willing to cooperate and fix this misconception.

I missed the comments, so I don't know the background and don't have an opinion on that.

I strongly feel that questions like this one should be allowed. Not in its current form, it was correctly closed as too broad, but had each point been asked separately, it should have been welcome. The OP is clearly confused and honestly trying to figure it out. We should help!

@terdon yes.. they were deleted some time ago I think... AMR started claiming that because the OP said "three-score years and ten", he is a creationist trying to disprove evolution. The OP (who was surprisingly kind and calm in his comments) said repeatedly that he supports evolution, not creationism. But AMR didn't want to understand, it seemed.

@terdon Yes, but it should be separated into different questions.

That's just silly. That's a set phrase after all.

@TanMath Oh yes, absolutely.

I've written my position on this here:

Ok.. I better leave... Nice talking to you! @terdon

See you