Thanks, and quite an extensive answer :). I am not sure everything you say relates to the question. "I need one more close vote here" is not really discussing a post, it's a simple non-anonymus call for a vote. When we have exams, a committee of five-seven highly educated, many times renowned musicians bring out their votes. It is strictly forbidden to discuss the playing before the voting is done. Thsi is for a good reason. I cannot believe you actually say you find it acceptable (or "less bad") that someone votes, trusting the call from someone else.

@ByteCommander it is not so much the speed in itself, but the fact that a call in chat is not an anonymous suggestion. I must say, I am guilty of voting as a result of such calls myself, but have both seen and experienced the side effects, apart from the fact that it isn't a correct procedure in itself.

@dessert really, this is meta, things are differently here. I state a question to make clear what I am suggesting.

@dessert The tradition on Meta is not (only) to really to ask questions, but can be an opinion as well.

...not by suggestion.

@Kulfy It was a Q on the procedure to get sofware into software center. It was closed as a dupe on a Q on packaging. Totally different, and in the Q was mentioned that packaging was not issue. Even after that, close votes rushed in, as we often see on questions once they are marked and mentioned as: "please vtc this". Please also see this one meta.askubuntu.com/questions/13964/dupe-but-no-dupe and even more: meta.askubuntu.com/questions/15313/…. Things simply easily go wrong. So I can only repeat: voting should be independant.

@Kulfy You are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. It is not the outcome I am discussing, but the procedure to get there. Also: OP can always edit his question make it to reopen queue <- right, but I can assure you, new users are not familiar with the site and do not easily appeal. In the case I mentioned further above:

What we need is independant voting from people who understand the Q and make an unprejudiced judgement.

@Kulfy exactly that is what I believe subject to discussion. Asking to vtc as a general rule isn' t the right thing to do imo. Only bring in chat in specific cases where you believe things go wrong. One of my first experiences here was exactly this. My Q was closed as a dupe in no time, utterly incorrect and similarly unpleasant for a new user. Later I found out it was as a result of a call in chat. If I run into a question that I am sure of is incorrectly closed as a dupe, I always mention that if I am around. I really think we shouldn't vote on someone' s call, no matter who.

@Kulfy yeah, I think I agree, indeed if even OP agrees it is a dupe... Off topic might be more sensitive and subject to opinion I believe. The thing is, if you know there are many people in chat, you can find a few votes for an opinion easily. I've seen perfectly unique questions vtc' d in no time after a call in chat. Not often, but if it happens, it is quite an issue.

No, it is a pain, and I cannot say I am innocent. What I would do is ask the commentor to convert to an answer if it is a "fresh" answer-comment. If not, or if the answerer does not within a reasonable amount of time (a day or so),you can. ^^^ answer in a comment :)

+1 I like the ability (and willingness) to reflect, that I taste in your answers.

Someone changing the accepted choice is (of course) no problem. insights and/or information can change. That is something completely different from suggesting someone to change the choice of the accepted answer. Bluntly said: the choice is no ones business but OP's

Oh wait. there is always the question: what are we voting on: the quality of the question, or the statement it might suggest. Many heavily downvoted questions on meta are good ones, but their suggestion is downvoted, despite the fact that it is actually a good question, and a contribution to the quality of the site because it makes people think.