Last week (reopen, I think), I came across this question, I think in the review queue, not sure. Either way, I didn't act on it, since I'm not really a Dota 2 person, and that Skip button is always a correct option. But one of the comments caught my attention.
What I found interesting - 4 of 5 users who voted for this dota-2 question as for opinion-based have no dota tags at all :)
From my reading of it, I thought it a bit rude. The commenter (also OP) sounds to me like they're saying that 80% of the people closing the question should butt out of tags they don't understand; they're chastising the people who closed it, basically. So, I flagged it as 'rude or offensive', because, well, it's rude. The flag was declined.
I'm okay with that; it's not really directly rude, mostly just passively so, if you read into it a certain way. And offensive flags do usually tend to be reserved for more severe stuff, since offensive flags on posts have some pretty sharp teeth. Fair enough.
But there's no way I can possibly read it as constructive. It doesn't add information to the post. It neither provides nor asks for clarification. It doesn't add anything useful at all. All it does is sit there, chastising four people for closing a question. It's a wart on the question, so I re-flagged as Not Constructive. That got declined, too.
I kinda want to flag it again (and both the other comments about the closure, too) as being 'obsolete', since that applies too; the question was re-opened successfully several hours after they were all posted. But, having some common sense (On a good day. I swear. No, really.), I instead figured I'd pop here on Meta and ask: what's so constructive about this comment that it was judged worth keeping?