Reopen the question for new answers and input.

It's obviously not a specific legal advice question. It relates to a wide diversity of workplace situations.

And in no way is the question specific to "company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies... Questions that address only a specific company or position"

How can a subcontractor or temporary agency comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?, closed as off-topic Reason #1, 2015.

How can a subcontractor or temporary agency comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

| |

From my reading, even if it isn't company-specific, it is still too broad (there are many types of disabilities and many types of work that subcontractors may do at home). As we explain in the help center, "You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page."

You're going to have to be more specific if you want a chance to have the question reopened.

| |
  • The questions has a very specific answer. See my answer. How is it too broad? The answer is a bit surprising, but good answers tend to be. Saying it is too broad because there are a wide variety of disabilities, is, yes going to either make the question too narrow or too broad. But as it is, the question, and answer have both a uniquely wide-audience, and a very specific focused answer, the details of which are expanded on in the discovered document. It's a perfect question, and I can't understand how it is closed. – Andyz Smith Jun 12 '15 at 11:28

How this question, of obvious interest to 'navigating the workplace', as the charter intends, and clearly not relating to "company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies... Questions that address only a specific company or position" and not: a narrow, individual request for legal advice, can be closed - is beyond me.

Really the only explanation is that I pissed someone off, someone who didn't KNOW the answer, and posted some random musings about contracts and stipulations and whom then got pissed, wanted to sooth his/her image and decide to close the question, irregardless of it's applicability. This is a problem I see here on stack, over and over: if those in the position(s) don't KNOW the answer, then the question is closed. That is exactly the kind of question that you want to answer here on stack.

| |
  • 2
    Andyz, I can tell you are frustrated - but the right approach to frustration is not lashing out and attacking people who are trying to help and/or answer your questions. Your comments on that question were very confrontational. This meta question (and your answer/comments here) are also that way and come across as very much "I am demanding that you listen to me. I also am the authority on Workplace.SE and am dictating to you how your site works." This really isn't helpful and makes it more difficult to have a meaningful discussion. – enderland Jun 18 '15 at 13:46
  • @enderland Who have I attacked/lashed, personally? Just answer the question. If your answer is wrong, I may mention it, and help you improve it. – Andyz Smith Jun 18 '15 at 14:45
  • 4
    I edited this post to remove the insults that were targeting the entire community. That diminishes any point you were trying to make. It is possible your question was closed by at least one irate user, but I encourage you to step back and ask if using a little more tact in commenting may have yielded different results. Part of maintaining a healthy workplace, and a healthy online community, is for everyone to follow the be nice policy. Treat everyone with the same respect that you expect to be given, and people will respond equivalently. – jmort253 Jun 19 '15 at 18:55
  • 2
    With that said, it still takes 5 users to vote to close a question, and 4 other people also agreed the post was off-topic or too broad. I encourage you to edit the post to add more details. Editing the post will bump it back to the top of the page and put it in the review queue where it can be reviewed by people with the reopen votes privilege. Hope this helps. – jmort253 Jun 19 '15 at 18:58
  • @jmort253 The close reason was that the question was either about company specific policies or a legal advice question. Is that your understanding? – Andyz Smith Jun 19 '15 at 23:35
  • 1
    @AndyzSmith Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. The post definitely rides the line of being a legal question, which oftentimes get closed here, but I made an edit to focus more on obtaining official documentation and sources, which may help clarify that this is something that could be definitively answered since it's now asking for the actual law text instead of people thinking they must interpret the law. I'll drop a link in our The Workplace Chat and see what people think. Hope the edits help. – jmort253 Jun 21 '15 at 9:50
  • @jmort253 I have edited the question. Thanks for your input, but I think your modifications made the questions merely a request for documentation, which is not what I intended. See my answer. Thanks again. – Andyz Smith Jun 21 '15 at 14:44
  • @AndyzSmith - My hope was to indicate that you wanted an answer explicitly backed by some documentation or sources. If you think this now makes it only about documentation, you're welcome to make further modifications to put in your own words or clear up any more confusion. Good luck! – jmort253 Jun 21 '15 at 15:34
  • 2
    Looks like your edits bring this post in line with what we're looking for. I went ahead and reopened this post. – jmort253 Jun 21 '15 at 15:45
  • @jmort253 ... ... – Andyz Smith Jun 21 '15 at 22:57
  • If those edits are what is takes to allow the question to remain open and receive valuable input, that's great. If I knew that adding some phrasing would be helpful to clarify the intent of the question I would have added that much earlier, but unfortunately, I didn't receive any feedback to that effect. I just assumed that the original phrasing of the question made it clear that an answer would be broadly applicable ( i.e, I didn't ask about my self, and I didn't refer to my company/agency or industry/geographical region ), – Andyz Smith Jun 21 '15 at 22:57
  • 1
    That said, I do apologize for maligning the forum in general. I feel strongly about the previous, but it was wrong to say those things. Again, I apologize, I hope that you accept. At the end of the day, I just want to find the right answer to questions that are important to me. If someone or group prevents me from doing that, I'm going to do what I can to 'fight' back. – Andyz Smith Jun 21 '15 at 22:58
  • 2
    @andy It isn't a perfect system but I feel the people in this community care deeply about the site's mission to build high quality q&a. Sometimes subtle changes to the wording can have a huge impact on how a post is perceived. If you see a question put on hold, remember that the purpose of "on hold" is to give both asker and community time to create an amazing question that will attract amazing answers. Not only does that help the asker but also hundreds of future visitors with the same or similar problem. Hope this helps clarify. – jmort253 Jun 21 '15 at 23:05
  • 2
    @AndyzSmith a couple clarifications: (1) moderators are elected and needn't be among the top users reuptation-wise. (2) The question was put on hold by the community, not by the moderators. (3) "On hold" is meant to be temporary, so the question can be adjusted and reopened; there was never a bar to editing, but if you have answers coming in while that's happening, you end up with some answers answering different versions of the question and that's confusing for later readers. So if there's a problem, we want to put on hold quickly, address the problem, reopen, and get answers. – Monica Cellio Jun 22 '15 at 0:25
  • 1
    @jmort253 now that it's reopened, would it make sense to tag this question status-completed? – gnat Jun 22 '15 at 15:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .