Or this one: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2361853/int-x21-x41-dx Is anything more inexplicable than two votes to close that as "off topic"?

Given your comments and edit on the question in OP, I am puzzled why you would even disagree there is a need for additional details. On the Q in the comment, it's not inexplicable at all. A reason for vtc on such things even got recently discussed on meta. One may reasonably disagree (I even might do so), but the motivation is not unclear, and neither is the dissent of others unknown to those casting the votes. This is actually a pretty good example why your feature is undersirable. IMO, all it would achieve is to increase the likelihood for drama in the comments there.

@quid : You lost me on the part about a "pretty good example". What is that you think would happen as a result of notifications? You say the motivation for the close votes is not unclear, but you're only guessing about that.

"What is that you think would happen as a result of notifications?" Reiteration of discussions that had been had any number of times, and this under relatively unfavorable circumstances.

@quid : Why? Each case is different. Things would be said in each instance that do not apply to any other instance. I think what would happen is communication: Those disagreeing with proposals to close a question might find out there are reasons to close it that they were not aware of, and those proposing to close it might find out there are reasons not to close it that they were not aware of.

@quid : WHICH discussions are you referring to?

Discussions about reasons to close questions.

@quid : First we must face a fact: Nobody can be sure what will happen until this is tried. And as I said, each instance is different. Reasons to close questions in general are not the same as reasons to close or not to close a particular question, and the latter is what we're talking about. People who vote to close questions are probably never aware of any such discussion EXCEPT when they actually take place here on "meta", and those are unusual exceptions, and even then it seems unclear that they ever become aware of them.

You may disagree with me but I believe the main reason you are asking for this feature is to start arguments with people. If people opt to explain their close vote that's the ideal situation but if they don't then I don't believe dragging them by their ears back to the question is going to be productive.

@T.Gunn : I hate having arguments in which I disagree with someone about things like the kinds of things people talk about on "meta" when they're not just asking for information. That is one of the reasons why I dislike "meta". Why do you call it "dragging them by their ears"? Is that what you think of notifications in general? If you post a comment and someone uses the "at" symbol followed by your user name, you feel you're being dragged by your ear?

@T.Gunn : Discussing things when they are not yet of great moment avoids arguments.

I dislike acrimony and I try to avoid occasions for it, and that is a major reason for my suggesting this feature. I also think those who spend a lot of time trying to uphold standards often do not suspect that there are complexities and this would give them an opportunity to learn about those.

Perhaps "dragging people by their ears" is too strong. Maybe your intentions are not to cause conflict and in that case I am sorry to have judged you. Ultimately I feel that if a question is clear-cut off-topic then there is no point discussing the closure (except to let the poster know how to improve the question) and most of the in-between questions should be easy enough to improve or reopen if needed.

@T.Gunn : I don't understand why there is so much acrimony when I bring up things like this on "meta". It's happened before, and it seems to me there are several people here who do things to create acrimony. I've said that before. Can you explain why you would say that I want to cause conflict when I have so often deplored it on these pages?

Your "feature request" seems to be ill-defined, asking that Comments "like" the one you posted should cause the system to send "notifications" to certain people (and not to others?). Try to put yourself in the "shoes" of the programmer who would be tasked with an implementation, and I think the need for greater specificity will become evident.

@T.Gunn : Unfortunately experience has not borne out what you're saying. Once a question has been closed, it seems there are certain factions who feel it is their duty to be advocates for the closure, acting somewhat like prosecutors when they should be behaving more like judges. I don't understand why, but I've seen it here.

@hardmath : I get notifications when someone comments on a question or an answer that I've posted or when the reply to a comment I've posted. This would be like that; it would say someone commented on a question that you voted to close.

So, you are proposing that anyone who votes to close a Question will thereafter get a notification about any and all Comments subsequently posted there?

@hardmath : If that's what it takes, yes, but might it not be possible to write something like (at)(closers) if one wants to address them, just as I write (at)(T.Gunn)? Are you saying that would be hard to do?

I intensely dislike the sort of acrimony that's too often seen on "meta" and almost never seen on "main", and I have often said so, so I wonder why someone would accuse me of deliberately trying to incite it. Even if I had not been clear about this so many times, it it a very strange accusation.

@Michael "Can you explain why you would say that I want to cause conflict when I have so often deplored it on these pages?" When I think about how I might use this feature if someone voted to close one of my questions, I think I would be upset and take it personally. Maybe you are more cool-headed than I am, but I don't think I would react in a constructive way.

@T.Gunn : If someone expresses a view and then runs away, that's what upsets me. If they stay around to talk about it, I don't get upset unless it's something particularly upsetting.

Note that if a Question is closed as a result (say) of my vote, then my nym will be associated with the closure. So there seems little ground to accuse close voters of running away. I don't think you should focus on the reasons others may have to close a Question (the one you link above is closed/on-hold for lacking essential details), but rather on your positive regard for such Questions and efforts to rehabilitate them.

@hardmath : Does the association of your name with the closure cause you to see comments posted in a discussion of it?

If you don't want your question up any longer, just delete it. Replacing the text with some self-pitying rant isn't really the way to go.

@arjafi : Why did two people in comments accuse me of deliberately trying to cause acrimony? "Main" somehow functions as if people were there for a purpose; "meta" appears to be run by bullies. It remains mysterious to me how and why that happens. Both of those who accused me acted surprised when I told them I intensely dislike the acrimonious nature of "meta", so it appears that they were honest, but they both seemed to start from that assumption. Honest people do that ONLY when they act on things they have heard about someone. I believe you know the following to be facts:$\,\ldots$

$\ldots\,$(1) There is a lot of extreme conservatism on "meta" and among those whose participation in stackexchange consists largely of attempting to uphold standards; i.e. hostility to proposals to do anything differently. (2) It is expressed not by arguing against such proposals, but rather by anger and by disrespect at a personal level. (3) I have often proposed changing some of the ways in which things are conventionally done here. $\qquad$ @arjafi

@arjafi : So I do not find it the least bit credible that dishonesty is not at work here, even if not at so superficial a level that it can be seen by those who are not following the situation.

@arjafi : My point (2) above is why I refer to "hostility" rather than to disagreement. People who disagree argue; people who are hostile attack.

@MichaelHardy Why did two people in comments accuse me of deliberately trying to cause acrimony? Some are probably remembering some of your previous belligerent verbiage on the same topic. That is not so much the problem here, but hey, you have earned the reputation. The problem here is that, as you have been told many times before, your posts which act as excuses for you to complain about bullying are unwelcome. Obviously it is not the topic in itself that is the problem, but rather the persistence in the face of feedback indicating the community has had enough of it.

@MichaelHardy If you want to propose a feature, fine. But the given example does not help. It is such a clear example of something that fits the letter and the intent of the closing guideline, proposing that there is some question about why the reason was used is simply obtuse. Propose the feature, fine! But find an example that won't be perceived as flame-bait. And don't bother following up with the whole persecution-complex/poor-me theatrics. If you don't, people will begin to suspect it is merely the attention you are after. I would much rather be discussing the utility of features.

@rschwieb : I've never created any "posts which act as excuses for [me] to complain about bullying". Here I posted a feature request and I got two gratuitous accusations.

@rschwieb : "Propose the feature, fine! But find an example that won't be perceived as flame-bait." How could the feature I requested be seen as flame bait? The feature is that one could write something like (at)(closers) and post a comment and have the people who have voted to close a question get an item among their notifications saying someone has commented on their vote to close. How can that be seen as flame bait? I hate the kind of acrimony that you see so much of on meta, but lots of people here love it, and you suggest I'm doing something to cause that when in fact I try to avoid it.

I strongly believe that @rschwieb by "example" meant the question that you chose to include in the post to illustrate the necessity of the feature. Note "It is such a clear example of something that fits the letter and the intent of the closing guideline, proposing that there is some question about why the reason was used is simply obtuse." That is, they did not say the request of the feature itself is flame bait.

@rschwieb : ok, You're saying the question I linked to is "a clear example of something that fits the letter and the intent of the closing guideline"? I'm having trouble seeing that. Could you explain why you view it that way? I would not have guessed that people would consider this a clear example of something to be closed, let alone that it could be considered flame-bait. I chose that example BECAUSE it is clearly NOT a clear example of something that fits either the letter or the intent of the closing guideline.

@quid : $\uparrow \qquad$

What would the point be? If they wanted to interact they would have added comments of what could be improved, and there is plenty to clarify in this question, enough to garner close votes. Plus I don't think close votes can be undid so there doesn't really seem to be much purpose. Also only two people voted to close (or at least that is what you said), it takes five to close, and you can vote to reopen after it is closed (and preferably improved).

@PaulPlummer : If they wanted to interact they would have added a comment, but others may have comments that they haven't thought of. Because those others may know things that they don't. Do you think they know everything? And if close-votes can't be undone, that has little relevance; this isn't just about ONE close-vote. New information acquired by a close-voter can inform hundreds of later decisions on whether to vote to close.

Your most recent edit was a bad idea; I say that only because you are further demonstrating, along with earlier versions of your post, that you are unable to discuss the issue rationally, @Michael. I'll no more, no less, but I'll be happy to delete this comment of mine when you roll-back to the prior version of the post.

Hm, it appears I hadn't, but I often leave constructive feedback on why I'll vote to close such questions.

@SimplyBeautifulArt : But you are not the only close-voter.

@MichaelHardy Of course not, but I'll do what I wish and leave what I think. You cannot force someone to speak their thoughts, nor can you tell them not to.

@SimplyBeautifulArt : Do you never ping anyone in a comment? Does no one ever ping you? That does not constitute forcing them to speak. It does give them a chance to see that there are other views than their own. If failure to see that is not a problem, then how can we explain rschwieb's comment about "flame-bait"? He said I had chosen an example that everyone would agree should be closed, when in fact I had chosen it because it was a clear case of one on which it's easy to disagree with the proposal to close it. He just wasn't aware that there could be other views one something like that.

@MichaelHardy You fail to understand my point. Being pinged on a post someone does not one to be pinged on is a problem for some here, but my point was that anyone who does not want to leave a comment when they vote to close something should not be forced to.