Some of the best, most insightful and useful answers have been chatty, open-ended discussions on SE... While I get the need for moderation, as the parent pointed out, the answers and debate were very civilised and relatively fact-based.
And things are better understood with some context. Often, there is nothing better than the recollection of "those who were there" for understanding why something is the way it is.
And not infrequently, "those who were there" hold a diversity of opinions. Having access to these provides the reader with context.
At the end of the day, chatty, open-ended discussions are not what StackExchange is about. It's a really focused site designed around Q&A on specific, clearly answerable questions.
They may have made some bad decisions but closing this thread ain't one of them.
I agree with you, to a degree. StackOverflow is a good example of specific, clearly answerable questions. Many of the SE sites have topics which are, by their very nature, far less clear. Take "the workplace" for example - is anything on that site going to be fact based, and clearly answerable? I don't think so. When you move into topics dominated by softer, fuzzy areas, the applicability of that particular moderation rule also becomes fuzzy.
Agreed. For every foo.stackexchange.com there is already a meta.foo.stackexchange.com and a chat.foo.stackexchange.com. Why not add idle.foo.stackexchange.com to the mix?
