@Canada-Area51Proposal, I think the issue is that you're placing all of the burden on the mods to do the explaining. In your meta questions, you make no effort to provide evidence that your posts are on topic. This is why you continue to hear that you should read the rules and digest them.

The only question I can see is: "can Xenakis be enjoyed without understanding the math behind the music?" This is opinion-based because you're asking about what someone personally enjoys. Personal enjoyment = opinion.

The fact that you're soliciting opinions about an historical musical figure doesn't qualify the question as on-topic. You're still asking for people to share their personal opinion about what they do/don't enjoy.

If you want to try and build your case, you need to offer some evidence/justification supporting your position. Saying that the rules are unclear and asking for clarification is insufficient. You need to show the mods the rationale you're using to conclude that these questions are on topic. Only then can they steer you in the right direction.

For example, consider how you would answer the following questions. If someone were to answer your question about Xenakis, what they cite facts about music history to support their position? Would they cite theory to support their position? Would their position be groudned in concrete, objective facts?

If not, then the question is opinion-based and off topic.

Answers to your question might include responses like: "I don't understand the math and I enjoy Xenakis" or "I understand the math and I enjoyed Xenakis more as a result" or "I learned some of the math and it made me enjoy Xenakis less." These answers are opinion-based because we can't point to one of them and say "that answer is objectively correct while the others are objectively wrong." There's no objective criteria for evaluating the correctness of the answers your question is soliciting.

I hope this helps explain it to you.

Hi Dom! I found what you said about the site evolving extremely helpful.

@jdpatent Meta questions don't necessarily have to contain a lot of argument one way or the other - straight questions are allowed too, as long as it's clear what they're about. In fact it's probably better if questions are as plain as possible, and any extended reasoning is in answers to the meta question.

And I rather think that the mods are placing a burden on themselves by closing the meta questions. If they left them open, they'd allow other users to give answers that might explain the things that they themselves are struggling to explain.

@jdpatent Hi

@topomorto They can be light, but the reasons these questions were closed has been addressed over and over again. The OP was told the issues first in the comments of the questions, secondly on meta, thirdly here in chat. Asking another meta questions after all this isn't very fruitful epically when none of the advice or points brought up by others is included.

@topomorto And what are we struggling to explain?

@Dom just looking in this chat, @Canada-Area51Proposal has asked you about where the line is on questions that involve opinion, and also why his questions don't count as history questions. However, you've struggled to actually come up with a clear answer.

You've said yourself that 'opinion based is [tricky] to describe.'

That's one example where it might be helpful for the relevant meta question to be open so we can describe better what this site considers 'good objective' and 'bad objective'.

And I say 'this site' because, although @RoryAlsop refers to the SE model, SE is actually not all that prescriptive about exactly where these lines are. It's mostly for the community of each site to decide for themselves.

Of course this is a mature site and the community has narrowed down somewhat where the line is - but it's still reasonable for someone to ask.

@RoryAlsop says to @Canada-Area51Proposal "there seems to be a disconnect here in what we keep saying, and what you keep trying to read into things".

But I actually think the disconnect is in how clear you may think you're being, and how those explanations, given in good faith though I'm sure they are, are actually lacking the reasonable level of detail that @Canada-Area51Proposal is asking for.

I know that it's not easy to explain everything, and it's not the mods' job to explain everything either. That's why having questions relating to the topic in meta and allowing the community to share the burden is A Good Thing.

@topomorto The site explains option based fine as "Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. " and in the don't ask section. I and others have also explained why each question closed was option based.

Compare 20 different questions on a range of different topics and come up with a fool proof explanation of primary option based is extremely difficult, if not impossible especially with the community growing and shifting over its existence.

The difficulty comes in we can't list every way a question can be option based, but we can give the general idea.

If every answer is equally valid, the question is primarily option based.

If the question is about your option of something, the question is primarily option based.

If you're trying to find the best ,greatest, worst, ect, the question is primarily option based.

If you are ask how hard or easy something is, the question is primarily option based.