This is intended to address an issue with new users that have no reputation. If they are inexperienced, they are very unlikely to gain any reputation very quickly. This results in them very quickly getting blocked from asking questions due to the fact that the questions are often poorly worded. The system of down voting is highly subjective and subject to abuse (originally said: often misused), thus contributing to the problem. Even worse, people with language barriers are likely to have this problem. Overall, the quick blocking of questions without warning seems extreme.
Possible solution options (i.e. choose none, 1 or more):
In order to conform with the automated nature of the routines there are a few alternatives:
Provide warnings on the account, (good.) Use the three strikes principle or something similar before the final block. Automated
Involve a human, (not so good.) Have a moderator review the down voting pattern before approving the block.
Kick the question back to the user (very good.) Hide the question until the users has addressed the deficiency. If user's rating continues to drop due to this pseudo deletion, then block them. Hiding would be based on down votes. Automated
Move the questions to a junk forum, (worse.) Similar to the meta site, set up a rejected questions site. It would be costly but informative.
5. The problem lies with different features of the site, make changes in those areas, not with the system of blocking.
I would not up vote for number five on this post, it move the issues somewhere else. In terms of my own user experience that is where I see the problem. This is mainly about SO, not meta.SO...
i. Exclude down votes of certain types. "Disagreeing with a change" for example is quite different from "the technical content is horrible".
ii. How can my post be a duplicate, I didn't find it anywhere?
iii. How can my post be a duplicate, the titles are only vaguely related?
iv. Being brief got down voted. Adding detail got complaints as well.
v. There are not links in the post to similar posts or references.
Item (i) is important to some, but a change that is unpopular and involves changes how votes work, also unpopular.
Item (iv) is sadly unavoidable and almost off topic except it can block new users.
Where down votes, duplicates and closing are concerned, it appears the correct approach is to request reopening and get more feed back by various means. Down votes can be mysterious but a person could ask in the comments for example. I.E. use the system as it exists.
Personally, items ii, iii, and iv as well the need for other change requests I have made really trace back to a problem in the search engine. Once I figured out the issue I released the duplicates would not have happened. This post would not have happened. I do think item 1 is good and item 4 already exists more or less. Regardless, the importance of my list of changes dropped, particularly in this post.
There are some issues on the site where post hi-jacking is concerned what I consider contradictions in the relationship between post subjects vs the requirement to be specific and detailed that is also at the core of items ii and iii.
I will post links to other (probably existing) threads as soon my content is in there. This is a real problem, but I think there are perhaps better more acceptable solutions to it. Thanks.