Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-26845762-20170713190006

I couldn't help but notice a recent change to Tardis:Changing policy. "That said, consensus does not mean that the majority wins. If a majority says the moon is made of cheese — or that the conversation thus far has not taken into account various salient points — the closing administrator not only can disregard the majority, they should do so."

In my opinion, this change to the changing policy is a step too far. Surely if the majority can miss several salient points, so too can the closing admin. If an admin has a good point, what's the harm in allowing people to have a chance to counter it? I get it, the admin are doing this on a completely volunteer basis, but so are all the other editors. I do not believe an admin's time is any more important than the time of a regular editor.

Of course, a thread being closed based on factors not brought up before the final post in the thread is not something that has never happened here, but I don't think this should be kept in Tardis:Changing policy as a fall-back for future threads.

Also, I really don't think this falls under "Closing administrators are often participants", because if the admins were in the debate then they should have already brought up their "salient points". 