3 added 2 characters in body
source | link

If a question better matches a different site, why it can't be moved simply, easily there?

I am really sorry for hitting one of your hardest taboos, but note: I also risk a little bit with this post.

Actually, you simply don't answer this question in your whole post.

Can"Can we build a wall between sitessites"?

No, you shouldn't, but you do. It is one of the perfectly meaningless, irrational taboos of the SE network.

What is your real problem with the migrations?

Yes, I know they can be a source of territorial conflicts between the sites. We all know - although I am sure, you won't ever admit it - the only real reason to continuously avoiding, hardening, narrowing the question migrations is that they create territorial conflicts. There is simply no other rational reason. But you know, this reason should be handled in better ways (for example, letting vote the target site if they accept the question).

Even in your long post, you don't name a single reason why the migrations should be forbidden.

You say, "it would have a minimal impact", and yes, it is true. Because the question migrations are essentially forbidden already. On a healthy system, migrating questions would be so simple, so common as, for example, the closures.


In my opinion, having such a "Berlin Wall" between your sites only harms the quality of your site network. I think you know Adam Smith's inivisible hand theory very well, it is a base concept of the economical theory of your home country.

Well, you can destruct your own system if you wish - it is yours - but eventually the SE alternatives will take your place away.

If a question better matches a different site, why it can't be moved simply, easily there?

I am really sorry for hitting one of your hardest taboos, but note: I also risk a little bit with this post.

Actually, you simply don't answer this question in your whole post.

Can we build a wall between sites?

No, you shouldn't, but you do. It is one of the perfectly meaningless, irrational taboos of the SE network.

What is your real problem with the migrations?

Yes, I know they can be a source of territorial conflicts between the sites. We all know - although I am sure, you won't ever admit it - the only real reason to continuously avoiding, hardening, narrowing the question migrations is that they create territorial conflicts. There is simply no other rational reason. But you know, this reason should be handled in better ways (for example, letting vote the target site if they accept the question).

Even in your long post, you don't name a single reason why the migrations should be forbidden.

You say, "it would have a minimal impact", and yes, it is true. Because the question migrations are essentially forbidden already. On a healthy system, migrating questions would be so simple, so common as, for example, the closures.


In my opinion, having such a "Berlin Wall" between your sites only harms the quality of your site network. I think you know Adam Smith's inivisible hand theory very well, it is a base concept of the economical theory of your home country.

Well, you can destruct your own system if you wish - it is yours - but eventually the SE alternatives will take your place away.

If a question better matches a different site, why it can't be moved simply, easily there?

I am really sorry for hitting one of your hardest taboos, but note: I also risk a little bit with this post.

Actually, you simply don't answer this question in your whole post.

"Can we build a wall between sites"?

No, you shouldn't, but you do. It is one of the perfectly meaningless, irrational taboos of the SE network.

What is your real problem with the migrations?

Yes, I know they can be a source of territorial conflicts between the sites. We all know - although I am sure, you won't ever admit it - the only real reason to continuously avoiding, hardening, narrowing the question migrations is that they create territorial conflicts. There is simply no other rational reason. But you know, this reason should be handled in better ways (for example, letting vote the target site if they accept the question).

Even in your long post, you don't name a single reason why the migrations should be forbidden.

You say, "it would have a minimal impact", and yes, it is true. Because the question migrations are essentially forbidden already. On a healthy system, migrating questions would be so simple, so common as, for example, the closures.


In my opinion, having such a "Berlin Wall" between your sites only harms the quality of your site network. I think you know Adam Smith's inivisible hand theory very well, it is a base concept of the economical theory of your home country.

Well, you can destruct your own system if you wish - it is yours - but eventually the SE alternatives will take your place away.

2 Fixed up grammar a bit and corrected a couple typos to help make some sentences clearer.
source | link

If a question better matches besser a different site, why it can't be moved simply, easily there?

I am really sorry for hitting one of your hardest taboos, but note: also I also risk a little bit with my this post.

Actually, you simply don't answer this question in your whole post.

"CanCan we build a wall between sites?"

No, you shouldn't, but you do. It is one of the perfectly meaningless, irrational taboos of the SE network.

What is your real problem with the migrations?

Yes, I know they can be a source of territorial conflicts between the sites. We all know - although I am sure, you won't ever admit it - the only real reason to continuously avoiding, hardening, narrowing the question migrations is that they create territorial conflicts. There is simply no any other rational reason. But you know, this reason should be handled onin better ways (for example, letting vote the target site if they accept the question).

Even in your long post, you don't name even a single reason, why the migrations should be forbidden.

You say, "it would have a minimal impact", and yes, it is true. Because the question migrations are essentially forbidden already. On a healthy system, migrating questions would be so simple, so common as, for example, the closures.


In my opinion, having such a "Berlin Wall" between your sites only harms the quality of your site network. I think you know Adam Smith's inivisible hand theory very well, it is a base concept of the economical theory of your home country.

Well, you can destruct your own system if you wish - it is yours - but finallyeventually the SE alternatives will take your place away.

If a question matches besser a different site, why it can't be moved simply, easily there?

I am really sorry for hitting one of your hardest taboos, but note: also I risk a little bit with my this post.

Actually, you simply don't answer this question in your whole post.

"Can we build a wall between sites?"

No, you shouldn't, but you do. It is one of the perfectly meaningless, irrational taboos of the SE network.

What is your real problem with the migrations?

Yes, I know they can be a source of territorial conflicts between the sites. We all know - although I am sure, you won't ever admit it - the only real reason to continuously avoiding, hardening, narrowing the question migrations is that they create territorial conflicts. There is simply no any other rational reason. But you know, this reason should be handled on better ways (for example, letting vote the target site if they accept the question).

Even in your long post you don't name even a single reason, why the migrations should be forbidden.

You say, "it would have a minimal impact", and yes, it is true. Because the question migrations are essentially forbidden already. On a healthy system, migrating questions would be so simple, so common as, for example, the closures.


In my opinion, having such a "Berlin Wall" between your sites only harms the quality of your site network. I think you know Adam Smith's inivisible hand theory very well, it is a base concept of the economical theory of your home country.

Well, you can destruct your own system if you wish - it is yours - but finally the SE alternatives will take your place away.

If a question better matches a different site, why it can't be moved simply, easily there?

I am really sorry for hitting one of your hardest taboos, but note: I also risk a little bit with this post.

Actually, you simply don't answer this question in your whole post.

Can we build a wall between sites?

No, you shouldn't, but you do. It is one of the perfectly meaningless, irrational taboos of the SE network.

What is your real problem with the migrations?

Yes, I know they can be a source of territorial conflicts between the sites. We all know - although I am sure, you won't ever admit it - the only real reason to continuously avoiding, hardening, narrowing the question migrations is that they create territorial conflicts. There is simply no other rational reason. But you know, this reason should be handled in better ways (for example, letting vote the target site if they accept the question).

Even in your long post, you don't name a single reason why the migrations should be forbidden.

You say, "it would have a minimal impact", and yes, it is true. Because the question migrations are essentially forbidden already. On a healthy system, migrating questions would be so simple, so common as, for example, the closures.


In my opinion, having such a "Berlin Wall" between your sites only harms the quality of your site network. I think you know Adam Smith's inivisible hand theory very well, it is a base concept of the economical theory of your home country.

Well, you can destruct your own system if you wish - it is yours - but eventually the SE alternatives will take your place away.

1
source | link

If a question matches besser a different site, why it can't be moved simply, easily there?

I am really sorry for hitting one of your hardest taboos, but note: also I risk a little bit with my this post.

Actually, you simply don't answer this question in your whole post.

"Can we build a wall between sites?"

No, you shouldn't, but you do. It is one of the perfectly meaningless, irrational taboos of the SE network.

What is your real problem with the migrations?

Yes, I know they can be a source of territorial conflicts between the sites. We all know - although I am sure, you won't ever admit it - the only real reason to continuously avoiding, hardening, narrowing the question migrations is that they create territorial conflicts. There is simply no any other rational reason. But you know, this reason should be handled on better ways (for example, letting vote the target site if they accept the question).

Even in your long post you don't name even a single reason, why the migrations should be forbidden.

You say, "it would have a minimal impact", and yes, it is true. Because the question migrations are essentially forbidden already. On a healthy system, migrating questions would be so simple, so common as, for example, the closures.


In my opinion, having such a "Berlin Wall" between your sites only harms the quality of your site network. I think you know Adam Smith's inivisible hand theory very well, it is a base concept of the economical theory of your home country.

Well, you can destruct your own system if you wish - it is yours - but finally the SE alternatives will take your place away.