@MohamedAdel I thin babou gave you what you need.

@babou The system is regulated: it's self-regulated. It assumes that most users vote in good conscience, so that the result usually represents the will of the community. If it is hostile, voting will be hostile. If it's cuddly, voting will be cuddly.

It is up to you to regulate, by voting yourself. Go to the Close review queue (if you can) and vote to close what you think should be closed (ideally leaving an explanatory comment if there is not already one) but vote to leave open what you think should not be closed. Boycotting the feature won't change anything. (There's also a Reopen review queue.)

That said, writing questions is much like exam answers: you have about one paragraph to convince the reader your post is "worthy". Your question on Physics starts out with a title that hints for "subjective!" to come; how many of the close voters stopped reading there, or had their opinion already colored when they set out? Yes, one has to be very careful in crafting a good question.

But I think that's okay. You want the help of others, so you better demonstrate your involvement by giving it your best.

Oh, addendum: your current strategy of complaining in comments (and rarely in chat) all over the board, crossreferencing issues and being more meta than Computer Science Meta, won't solve your issue. SE is designed to work by community consensus (simplifying); as long as it works for those who use it (with all the moderation features), nothing will change.

Note that I am not happy with SE turns out behaving in every case; I'm telling you as I see it. Those concerned need to involve themselves, or live with what others do/decide. This core principle won't change, I'm afraid.

Neat new (I think) feature. Just now, I'd written seven words of an answer and the site popped up a notification that the question had been deleted. I've a vague feeling somebody had complained on meta about wasting time because they were only told the question was deleted when they hit the post button. Looks like that's been fixed. :-)

@Raphael New privileges appear in the "Achievements" section of the site's top bar (the same place you get notified of votes on your questions and answers).

@Raphael Thanks for the remark on title about my post, I always think of the text and forget the title. Still, my text was more carefully phrased (I think) than many. It is a very difficult question to ask given the ubiquitous role of computation as a tool in physics and other sciences. Then I tried to answer precisely all comments I had.

This opinion based closure is being abused all the time (I wonder how often by people who ignore the topic).

@Raphael I do use the reopen queue, and you may notice I do not vote to reopen systematically.. Regarding the Close queue, can one vote against with more effect than not voting?

BTW, I do not think I have been complaining in comments lately ... But the system takes time understanding where to do things ... for me at least.

I do give my best on what I do. I will simply not do some things.

Regarding vote, my belief in direct democracy is extremely limited. Even more so where science is concerned.

Do you know whether there are studies on how people use SE and vote.

fyi all "reopen" on this site (& many other se sites) is mostly a big waste of time. its extremely rare to occur. the dynamics of se reopen logic push strongly against it actually happening. it seems to have some kind of strict timer. & if se really cared about reopens the statistics on it wouldnt be so obscure/ invisible.

as for statistics/ trends, Stack Exchange Data Explorer has some really great info, but alas a lot of basic povs are missing. but could be written by someone in theory.

last looked, it seemed there were not so many related to general voting trends.

this is a very cool analysis, wish someone would generalize it across se.

this excellent app has a lot of stats relating to votes, although tag-centric

a taxing algorithm / hayes

@DavidRicherby Thank you for the information.