What is the reasoning for making bountied questions immune to close votes?
I've recently encountered a couple of questions which were a bit mediocre to start with and successive edits over a few days have made them gradually worse. The questions actually became more vague and opinion based with edits apparently contradicting the points which earlier appeared clear / fact based.
I would have ultimately voted to close them, but the OP had by that time put a bounty on them.
I'm curious to know why an OP is allowed to make their question immune to close votes?
I recognise that the bounty system does require users giving up their rep, so they must at least have some to give up and generally more experienced users write better questions. But this link is far from guaranteed.
I think my specific issue here is the way a bounty is set by the OP, close votes are administered by the community.
- Close votes usually supersede the views of the OP. The OP clearly thought their question was fine when they asked it, the community did not.
- But the OP's bounty supersedes the views of the community.
It seems an odd way around.
I just want to cite this one as an example on Unix SE: How to search OpenStreetMap for tags?
The original question somehow evaded close votes. Perhaps because no-one was interested enough to understand it was asking about how to use a specific website and not anything Linux/Unix specific.
It was rapidly edited and then bountied to ask a bunch of stuff that's much further off topic than the original.