I recently asked a question: [Did Hunter Biden launder 3 million dollars of Ukrainian money?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45010/did-hunter-biden-launder-3-million-dollars-of-ukrainian-money?noredirect=1#comment207875_45010) That question has [a comment that says,](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/45010/did-hunter-biden-launder-3-million-dollars-of-ukrainian-money?noredirect=1#comment207858_45010)

> 
> Voted to close since "questions about unresolved current events and issues currently under investigation by a court of law, government, or other similar investigative body are off-topic because there is insufficient data for a meaningful answer". For more information, see [Handling current news questions.](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2870) -- And I really don't get why something as blatantly off-topic is actually getting upvoted. – DevSolar 14 hours ago 
> 
> 
> 

It's not clear to me though how to read [Handling news questions about current events](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2868/handling-news-questions-about-current-events/2870#2870) though. For example, **the selected answer is +2** and concludes that questions like this are off-topic,

> 
> Questions about unresolved current events and issues currently under investigation by a court of law, government, or other similar investigative body are off-topic.
> 
> 
> 

But **a different answer which wasn't selected is +7** and says,

> 
> I think most of the ISIS questions are getting good-quality answers.
> 
> 
> 

Which seems to consent to asking these kinds of questions and concludes that the answers can still be valuable. Who decides the policy? The vote tally on the answers to the moderator's questions, or the moderator who just selects the answer that he agrees with? It would be my preference that moderators do not chose the answer when they solicit input from the community.

(And with all due respect to Sklivvz♦, he's one of the better mods on the site)