15:29
I think there are two issues here: (1) clarity of the rules in general and (2) the handling of this scenario. Regarding the second, I really think very good clarity has been provided to Canada explaining why his questions were off topic. That was what the questions sought. Maybe I should re-read the discussion, but I don't think he was asking about the rules in a more general way detached from his specific question.
I also think his 3rd Q is one of the clearest possible cases of opinion-based topics. Examples of on-topic history questions have been provided and patient explanations have been given.
The facts here suggest to me an unwillingness to try to understand. He didn't comment on or acknowledge the on topic sample question. After agreeing that a question was opinion-based, he said "But music can be opinion-based." This shows an unwillingness to follow the rules because he thinks they are wrong.
When Rory gives concrete examples showing why one Q is subjective, he refuses to think about the opinion-based rule and instead regresses to "But these are questions of music history then." After more back and forth, he refuses to accept the answer, saying "The on-topic page simply states 'music history' though? It doesn't delve into which questions of music history fit or not?"
This is crucial, because he appears to understand what they're saying but is trying to argue that they're wrong. This is completely backwards: he sought clarification. He asked multiple follow up questions, heard multiple examples, multiple explanations, etc. all tailored to the specific things he wasn't understanding. And upon reaching that understanding, he argued that it was wrong.
2
Someone who genuinely seeks clarification doesn't argue that it's wrong.
2
That's what someone does when he thinks he already understands.
Following the line of questioning, the position he appears to be defending is: (a) rules cannot exist on the site except for what is explicitly printed in the help center and (b) the letter of the rules printed on the help center is unclear because it allows music history questions but not opinion-based questions.
Canada isn't taking his newfound understanding and suggesting changes for the help center. He's taking his newfound understanding and using it to continue arguing his case.
I think you and Canada are in different camps: you want earnest clarification, but for Canada no amount of clarification will satiate his position. It will simply further entrench his feeling that the help center is an incomplete listing of every site rule.
For someone with that sort of position, clarification (whether in the chat or in meta) won't help.
The efforts from Rory and Dom have all been geared toward helping Canada understand. There's no effort here toward suppressing conversation or clarification. (The mere length of this chat illustrates that :) I think your issue is that this isn't happening on meta, but I think you would agree that I shouldn't be able to ask "can we discuss the opinion-based rules" on meta regardless of how productive the resulting conversation would be.
That's why I think the process has worked well in this case: a meta question was posed which was off-topic (maybe this was a borderline case, but the mods are using context to make a decision), it was placed on hold, a chat ensued, an edit was made, and the question was re-opened.
I strongly think we should remove or re-word:
Questions seeking recommendations for equipment are off-topic because
they tend to become obsolete quickly. Instead, describe your situation
and the specific problem you're trying to solve.
Where wooden instruments with no design changes for...
