And that's pretty much how the majority of users' (or at least the ones who even dared coming back after dropping off their question) experiences turned out already. Just that now it's an official policy and the site tells them clearly that it's just not doing these things. The argument of attracting new users has already been adressed and is an illusion. As have the arguments of ignoring them.

@NapoleonWilson So why not ease up the policy, allow the ID-This questions, delete the useless ones and let the H8r's simply ignore them?

Not sure if you noticed, but that's what we already did and it didn't work. As said, this isn't about closing your eyes from the problem or people ignoring questions they don't like.

If you have reference to a clear demonstration that the arguments re: attracting new users and ignoring them are "an illusion" I'd appreciate you posting it, otherwise, it seems to me that this is really only a problem for what the OP refers to as the "curmudgeons" on the site - a small and vocal minority.

@NapoleonWilsonyou are contradicting yourself - either the policy has been eased up or it has not. Again - references would help you make your point. Thank you for demonstrating the ways in which these forums are used which are not helpful to the community: condescension and presenting opinion without reference.

I did, in my answer and answers to the various questions linked from here, from throughout this site's history. The problem is, noone spoke up at all. No matter if you like those questions or not, you can't not have noticed that they're at least controversial at best. And noone took the effort of telling the concerned community that their conerns are ungrounded.

@NapoleonWilson there's no time like the present. Not everyone who contributes to the community is here every single day, nor participating on Meta, so please calm down. If you don't have a link demonstrating the arguments as illusion that is fine, however, without any reference, this statement is simply your opinion.

It's not every single day, it's years of site development and an active discussion that went on for over a month. Want links, start here.

@NapoleonWilson Sorry, but you have not demonstrated in your answer above that the arguments for ignoring ID-This question and re: attracting new users are an illusion. You have simply begged the question.

@NapoleonWilson I am not sure what your problem is except that you disagree with my assessment. If you want this site's direction decided only by those folks who are here every day and have been so for years, then you will simply kill the community. If you can't engage in a reasoned discussion with someone not already privy to years of discussion, then you should really step away from the computer for awhile. Your tone is condescending and your attitude is not nice. Please review the site's terms and conditions for use.

I don't know why you think I'm not calm. I apologize if I came across as condescending. But I guess it's better we stop this for now then.

I don't why you make this personal here now. I would suggest you calm down too. It has been shown time and time again that this goes beyond a few people just not liking a few questions. But I'll drop this here before I actually have to validate a comment flag.

@NapoleonWilson it's not personal - I don't know why you would imagine it is so except that your argument is, again, begging the question. This seems to be a common problem in the moderation of this community.

Apparently.

Obviously the attempts to redress the complaints of the few have led to untenable policy decisions re: ID-This questions. We disagree and so far you've not supported your argument except by offering your sentiments about how much you dislike ID-This questions. If you have anything to add in support of your opinion (other than more opinion) feel free to do so. The data in the links you posted do not tell the story you purport them to.

If you are unclear on what begging the question is, I'll gladly educate you.

Otherwise, your commentary on my answer has added nothing to the conversation. Since you did not post the initial question, I really don't see how you are able to read your own input there and see it as helpful.

@Mr.Kennedy Don't bother.

@NapoleonWilson feel free to reach out anytime you'd like clarification on that issue - it will improve not only your writing, but your moderation as well.

@Mr.Kennedy Well, he's been a mod here for almost 3 years and been active user since private beta. I guess he doesn't need that.

@Valorum Nice to see you again in chat.

@AJ Longevity of term does in no way imply usefulness of service. Maybe it's just time for different moderation - when are the elections?

Of course. The moderators acted on a decision the community at large arrived at. Let's get rid of them moderators! ;-)

Anyway, I refer you to the SE contact form for dissatisfaction with the moderation team.

Judging by the voting on meta it seems the vocal minority are ones who want to keep them.

@NapoleonWilson Good thing I am not a moderator... I would have called consensus already and banned them!

@Skooba They might be now that the site's broader community stopped sitting around and looking at the misery of the status quo sobbingly. But the time of discussing was there, and it had a pretty clear outcome. Now's the doing part.

@NapoleonWilson, that is quite the misread. No one is suggesting getting rid of the moderators or moderation. Thank you, your over-reaction clearly demonstrates my point regarding the questionable usefulness of your service here, though.

Did "the community at large arrive at" this decision - I have seen no data which indicates this and again, it is apparent that a small vocal minority are the only ones who find ID-This questions problematic or controversial - even the OP characterized these folks as "curmudgeons". If you want to kill this community, by all means, leave policy decisions to a small group of curmudgeons.

Furthermore, please keep in mind that the question I responded to was a discussion thread. If your sole intent is to squash discussion and not listen to contrasting opinions, then feel free to ignore the discussion - but then again, apparently ignoring things you dislike is not a strong suit with the vocal minority that dislikes ID-This questions

@Mr.Kennedy I honestly wasn't attempting to be all too serious. I stopped engaging this discussion with a clear intention for a productive outcome some time ago.

@Mr.Kennedy And at the moment an even smaller group of curmudgeons protests against the former group. It's a vicious circle.

There will always be poeple dissatisfied with certain actions, that's the risk of actually doing something. Finding a broad consensus isn't always easy. Fortunately it was here, with the clear outcome of the discussion that has been held in connection with the development of the site.

@NapoleonWilson nonetheless, banning ID-This questions is a lazy and impoverished policy decision. You should be proud!

It's not, but I am indeed. Thank you.

Yes, it is. You merely agree with it. There is a vast epistemic difference.

Many things (not all, I agree) about the treatment ID questions got on this site over the last 5 years were anything but lazy. And finally accepting the decision this community has made and making it official isn't either.

@NapoleonWilson That may very well be the case, but from what I have read of yours today, all that came across was "I don't like it and neither should you."

Then I want to apologize I came across like this. That wasn't my intention.