My understanding of not allowing design reasoning questions is that we are unable to provide definitive or authoritative answers to those types of questions. The only ones who can are the developers themselves, and any answer provided not coming from official sources would be speculation at best.

Questions that are worded as "Has it been explained why this is so?" is just routing around the off-topic ban. They suffer from the exact same problems as design questions:

• They will attract speculation and rumors, without sources.
• It's incredibly hard to prove that it has not been addressed. The best you can do is say that you, personally, are unable to find the reasoning. Unless you have an AI that can troll the entire Internet, anyways, in which case, I want to talk to you.
• It doesn't play to our expertise, which is playing games. It leverages Google-fu, which is itself a fantastic ability, but is not our core skill.
• There's still no problem being solved. At best, this is a rant. In the event that there's a problem within the question that CAN be solved, we should be editing the question to remove the design aspects, and bring the real problem to light.

These problems are not addressed by re-wording the question into an "acceptable" format. My vote is to close them with the same criteria as design questions, because that's exactly what they are.

Look at the revision history on the example question. It was closed as a design developer type question, and the edit literally words around that to get it re-opened. We're taking it at face value that what he says exists actually DOES exist. The motivation for finding that information is to learn the developer intent, I think everyone can agree. Apparently this re-wording was acceptable, as the motivation was abstracted enough to hide it, and finding things on the internet can't be equated to reading developer's minds.

We try to boil questions down to their basic essence in order to help users, and try to re-word them to bring those problems to the forefront for solving. This loophole is no different; the problem is he's looking for developer intent, and can't find it.

My understanding of not allowing design reasoning questions is that we are unable to provide definitive or authoritative answers to those types of questions. The only ones who can are the developers themselves, and any answer provided not coming from official sources would be speculation at best.

Questions that are worded as "Has it been explained why this is so?" is just routing around the off-topic ban. They suffer from the exact same problems as design questions:

• They will attract speculation and rumors, without sources.
• It's incredibly hard to prove that it has not been addressed. The best you can do is say that you, personally, are unable to find the reasoning. Unless you have an AI that can troll the entire Internet, anyways, in which case, I want to talk to you.
• It doesn't play to our expertise, which is playing games. It leverages Google-fu, which is itself a fantastic ability, but is not our core skill.
• There's still no problem being solved. At best, this is a rant. In the event that there's a problem within the question that CAN be solved, we should be editing the question to remove the design aspects, and bring the real problem to light.

These problems are not addressed by re-wording the question into an "acceptable" format. My vote is to close them with the same criteria as design questions, because that's exactly what they are.

Look at the revision history on the example question. It was closed as a design developer type question, and the edit literally words around that to get it re-opened. We're taking it at face value that what he says exists actually DOES exist. The motivation for finding that information is to learn the developer intent, I think everyone can agree. Apparently this re-wording was acceptable, as the motivation was abstracted enough to hide it, and finding things on the internet can't be equated to reading developer's minds.

We try to boil questions down to their basic essence in order to help users, and try to re-word them to bring those problems to the forefront for solving. This loophole is no different; the problem is he's looking for developer intent, and can't find it.

My understanding of not allowing design reasoning questions is that we are unable to provide definitive or authoritative answers to those types of questions. The only ones who can are the developers themselves, and any answer provided not coming from official sources would be speculation at best.

Questions that are worded as "Has it been explained why this is so?" is just routing around the off-topic ban. They suffer from the exact same problems as design questions:

• They will attract speculation and rumors, without sources.
• It's incredibly hard to prove that it has not been addressed. The best you can do is say that you, personally, are unable to find the reasoning. Unless you have an AI that can troll the entire Internet, anyways, in which case, I want to talk to you.
• It doesn't play to our expertise, which is playing games. It leverages Google-fu, which is itself a fantastic ability, but is not our core skill.
• There's still no problem being solved. At best, this is a rant. In the event that there's a problem within the question that CAN be solved, we should be editing the question to remove the design aspects, and bring the real problem to light.

These problems are not addressed by re-wording the question into an "acceptable" format. My vote is to close them with the same criteria as design questions, because that's exactly what they are.

My understanding of not allowing design reasoning questions is that we are unable to provide definitive or authoritative answers to those types of questions. The only ones who can are the developers themselves, and any answer provided not coming from official sources would be speculation at best.

Questions that are worded as "Has it been explained why this is so?" is just routing around the off-topic ban. They suffer from the exact same problems as design questions:

• They will attract speculation and rumors, without sources.
• It's incredibly hard to prove that it has not been addressed. The best you can do is say that you, personally, are unable to find the reasoning. Unless you have an AI that can troll the entire Internet, anyways, in which case, I want to talk to you.
• It doesn't play to our expertise, which is playing games. It leverages Google-fu, which is itself a fantastic ability, but is not our core skill.
• There's still no problem being solved. At best, this is a rant. In the event that there's a problem within the question that CAN be solved, we should be editing the question to remove the design aspects, and bring the real problem to light.

These problems are not addressed by re-wording the question into an "acceptable" format. My vote is to close them with the same criteria as design questions, because that's exactly what they are.

Look at the revision history on the example question. It was closed as a design developer type question, and the edit literally words around that to get it re-opened. We're taking it at face value that what he says exists actually DOES exist. The motivation for finding that information is to learn the developer intent, I think everyone can agree. Apparently this re-wording was acceptable, as the motivation was abstracted enough to hide it, and finding things on the internet can't be equated to reading developer's minds.

We try to boil questions down to their basic essence in order to help users, and try to re-word them to bring those problems to the forefront for solving. This loophole is no different; the problem is he's looking for developer intent, and can't find it.