I have accepted the fact we occasionally run into bad audits. I, myself, have already seen plenty, as well as others have reported to meta where the system is tricked by the amount of upvotes, etc.

While this question is completely off-topic (today's standards) my intentional close vote was rejected by the system so I stopped, looked, and listened(didn't hear nothing though :P)

This time I did not get banned from reviewing which makes me a bit unhappy but please raise my failure percentage up and ban me for good from reviewing so I don't screw up your website by my terrible moderational intentions ;)

  • 7
    In honor of Mehow The Failer of Audits, I have registered my close vote with this vile question. If I do not hear back by dawn tomorrow, then the question will be forever labeled a coward.
    – JDB
    Dec 9, 2013 at 18:34
  • 2
    What's so terrible about that question? It's a clear programming question involving the development of an application, the user lays out their thought process, and they ask a specific, answerable question. Dec 9, 2013 at 18:48
  • 1
    @BradLarson - Which could only be answered in an extended chat discussion. I think the quality of the answer, in this case, is evidence of the quality of the question. (I probably should have voted to close as "Too Broad"... ah well... too late now.)
    – JDB
    Dec 9, 2013 at 18:53
  • 1
    (I'll also add that even the author of the accepted answer thought this question wasn't a good fit for Stack Overflow.)
    – JDB
    Dec 9, 2013 at 18:55
  • 7
    "By todays standards..." Heh. The question you linked was asked three weeks ago. :)
    – user102937
    Dec 9, 2013 at 19:12
  • 1
    todays standards was a specific irony because in fact it was asked just recently...the question got closed so I guess both the diamonds were wrong - if not wrong against the community...
    – user221081
    Dec 10, 2013 at 1:07


You must log in to answer this question.