Mr. Kennedy

@DForck42 sorry, no. I am not part of the problem. That attitude, however, is very problematic and quite the false dichotomy.

"Time and time again" between .07% of the community is hardly a discussion which renders unanimity amongst the community. If it is too much trouble for you too address questions and concerns from members of the community then you really ought step down as moderator.

ID questions aren't a problem. The questions fit within the SE model. People who don't like them can simply ignore them - that they apparently can not ignore what they dislike - THAT is the problem. Also, if, as a moderator, your "month long advertisements" aren't engaging the community, then the problem is how you're moderating, not the community.

@NapoleonWilson If you sincerely believe this: "It's not like the signs on the main site weren't pointing to at least something being wrong." Then you are simply out of touch with how the majority of humans interact with the internet. People come here and look at the questions being asked, or search for info or ask questions - they aren't looking at Meta & ignore the rest.

@NapoleonWilson Like userTLK, this also came as news to me today. Do you seriously imagine that every member of SE is also regularly engaging with Meta? Or is it that you only consider the opinions of those who participate in Meta when you claim unanimity? This process is seriously flawed and the decision to ban ID-This questions is a poor policy choice.

@AJ these are not problems.

@Memor-X your metaphor doesn't make ID questions the problem. I for one enjoy answering them. I enjoy seeing them answered. If they are really poorly written, I'm happy to edit them but that is an aesthetic concern and basing policy on aesthetics as compared to pragmatics (i.e. the ID questions are useful to the community) is a poor policy choice.

@NapoleonWilson like I said, not my responsibility to figure out for you how to do your job, but as Johnny Bones points out, a .07% representation of the community is not an accurate guage of use. Admit it, the users who hang out on Meta the most and are here every single day do not care about anything other than advancing their own agenda. ID questions are NOT a problem - it is that simple.

@AJ drama queen much? Sorry, no - ID questions are not a fire. Furthermore, as Johnny Bones points out, you have the option to ignore them. That you do not is the problem, not the ID questions.

It's not my responsibility to figure out how to do your job as moderator. There are lots of ways to engage with a community and you are relying on one which is merely symbolic such that you can say, "if you don't like what was changed it is your fault for not seeing the tiny little sign I posted about it". Again, the solution to the problem of a small group of people being annoyed by ID ?s is for them to ignore what they dislike, not to remove the function of the site altogether. Simple.

You should have expected that the majority of users wouldn't find out about the change of policy until after the option was gone. Again, if you really think users are hanging on your every post in Meta, then you are simply out of touch with how this site (and the internet in general) gets used.

@NapoleonWilson No one is saying it can't be discussed. But if that is your take on this discussion, the problem is your lack of engagement with the community. Please note the difference between engaging a community and pushing your agenda

@NapoleonWilson you keep saying "the community" but Johnny Bones' point is that what you consider "the community having spoken" amounts to such a low percentage of registered and even regular users that it raises the question of how the policy decisions get made and specifically, by whom. Yes, lots of people don't like the ID questions. Thing is, those people can just ignore them. Banning them altogether is a bad policy decision.

Also, while your assessment "I feel one can not begin appreciate what The Last Jedi offers without seeing either the Original Trilogy and The Prequels" is certainly valid, again, the OP states they have seen the ep.4-6 and nowhere do you clearly state how watching ep.1-3 is necessary . E.g. nothing in your spoilers list is necessary to enjoying nd understanding TLJ/TFA having seen ep.4-6.

Good point. As a point of grammar, since the release of TLJ, sentences like this one remain awkward: "With that being said I feel fairly certain that the prequels will be much more relevant to The Last Jedi, as most likley(sic) the mythology is going to be expanded on." The movie is out, seems like you could state your case more strongly.

Saw your edit... Still think like 90% of the answer is not pertinent to answering the question, "is it necessary to watch ep1-3 to enjoy and understand TFA & TLJ". For example, that there are "Main Characters riding on large beasts" in any of the prior films has nothing to do with enjoying and understanding TFA & TLJ. Reading it again, it seems like you are more interested in justifying "ring" theory than answering a focused question with a focused answer.

Cool - and I get it re: why your answer is the way it is, especially in lieu of the mods suggestion. When/if I have the time, if it's okay w/ you, I might edit your question (you would be free to rollback the edit) to show you what I mean, i.e. how the readability of your position could be improved by an economical approach to wording.

Yes, you are correct that the OP did not give criteria. I just think you can state your case much more concisely. No disrespect intended.

To be clear, I down voted your answer. If you were to edit it, I would have the option to change my vote. You are of course free to ignore my comment.

My comment is motivated by epistemic considerations, I am not challenging you personally or contesting your knowledge of Star Wars. I just think the answer could be worded much more economically and it would greatly improve it.

@DarthLocke Yes, and as your answer pertains to the OP's question, the last sentence of your latest post (20:07) addresses it adequately. A succinct explanation is warranted for sure, but your answer goes on at length and is supported by little else than your interpretation, opinion and speculation.

If you think the question and answer rely on opinion, you can always vote to close it as primarily opinion based. I disagree, tho, and have given reference to criteria by which any movie can be assessed for a successful narrative (i.e. enjoyable and understandable per the OP's question which asks if it is "necessary" to watch the prequels in order to "enjoy & understand" TFA & TLJ). At the very least, in lieu of TLJ having been released, you could tighten up the answer where you speculate about TLJ.

My comment is not contesting your knowledge of the Star Wars. I am commenting on the significant portions of this answer not pertaining to the question.

Quite a lot of speculation and opinion offered in this answer. I'm not sure if you are answering the question or justifying "ring" theory. This answer could be pared down a lot: the pictures don't really add much and take up a lot of space, the speculation about TLJ section should just be removed & combined with the "Update", and the spoiler section is not useful. The OP was not asking for an exhaustive account of (largely opinion) which parts of Ep. 1-3 relate to TLJ & TFA.

Apology accepted.

@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."

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

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

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

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.

@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.

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

@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.

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.

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

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.

@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.

@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.

@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 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.

@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.

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.

@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?

It is apparent that you simply can not abide the casting of a downvote on one of your questions, but I can only hope that this discussion encourages you to write better ones.

@jdjazz as for your "final thought" - you are simply misguided in your characterization of total votes as deciding any kind of "consensus". You will understand this if you accrue enough reputation to display both the positive and negative votes cast. The issue is participation with the community and more importantly, in generating a knowledge base which has value not found elsewhere and for posterity.

If you sincerely feel that the use of LMGTFY links "make people feel" insulted I suggest you 1) get a sense of humor, or 2) take it up with SE and have LMGTFY links banned.

"Some possible explanations I can come up with are: ..."

Also, please note the differences between "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and the Star Wars franchise: the former rom com does not have the extensively loyal fanbase as the latter which has vast online resources dedicated to explaining plot trivia. Again tho, whatever research you may or may not have done on SE sites or elsewhere, NONE was reflected in your question. Lastly, your claim to have researched is contradicted by what was actually stated in the question:

Oh my, you really aren't getting this at all. Despite your insistence to the contrary, it's not a personal contest. Your original post simply showed a lack of research. As Gnemlock pointed out, "something as simple as "My research led me to some questions on SciFi SE, and I concluded X Y Z" would have been fine. Something to note that it came from said research."

If you sincerely feel that the use of LMGTFY links are inherently insulting I suggest you take it up with SE and have them banned. For the record, as stated previously, my intent was to show you the magnitude of resources available to research information regarding a multi-billion dollar franchise which has been distributed world-wide.