Do we close plot-explanation questions if the answer is 'there is no explanation'?

Question

Following a discussion playing out on this question, I am a little confused as to where the community consensus sits in regards to plot explanations or 'lore questions', and how this applies to questions where the answer boils down to 'There is no explanation'.

I've read both this meta and this meta, where the community consensus is to Not VTC at all. However as Frank states:

Take a look at [this meta]. The most heavily upvoted answer is, "Don't VTC at all", but that's unworkable. Lore questions have always required domain knowledge to determine if they're on or off topic.

According to Frank, only people with Expert knowledge in this domain should vote to close this.

However I'm not asking who should VTC, I'm asking whether we as a community have decided to close these questions based on the answer being 'There is no explanation'. Is this the case?

Answer 1

I see no problem with answering these questions with "There is no explanation at this time". After all, you might ask something about the plot in game X which you find cannot be answered yet. Then when X-2 or DLC for X comes out, the answer pops up.

No answer is set in stone. The minecraft questions alone can easily show that. If there is no answer at the moment, we can either leave it open to be potentially answered later or we can offer that as an answer and update if more information is later revealed.

Answer 2

Re. 'the community consensus is to Not VTC' - I interpreted that as applying to lore questions in general. Certainly, if there is some in-universe or possibly other associated materials (books, games etc.) that can properly answer lore question, even if its trivia, then it should be allowed.

However, when the question boils down to 'what were the developers thinking?', then it is pure speculation and should be closed imho.

Sure, there will be the 0.0001% chance that its actually explained in a tiny footnote in the manual or when you get to the mountain and find God's message written on it - but in that case we can always reopen the question. I do not consider leaving open numerous speculative questions on the off-chance of an answer to be a good approach.

Answer 3

I just happened across this meta question in the sidebar, and I freely admit that I haven't followed all the past debates on lore questions in detail. With that disclaimer, let me offer my modest proposal for dealing with such questions. Feel free to shoot it down if you think it's a horrible idea:

1. If the question looks like an invitation for "speculation, rumors and other low-quality answers", edit it so that it becomes objectively answerable.

   Often, this can be done simply by restricting the scope of the question to official sources only. For example, to (selectively) quote the question that sparked this thread,

   "Why does Yuri not mind control the president during the Soviet invasion? Is there any reason why that anyone knows of?"

   is a pretty bad open-ended question, whereas, say,

   "Is there any official / in-game explanation why Yuri does not just mind control the president during the Soviet invasion?"

   is clear and objectively answerable.

2. Once the question is objectively answerable, answer it (if you can). Even if the answer is simply

   "No, there isn't. This is never explained in the game, or in any official supplementary material."

   Of course, if you happen to know one or more unofficial explanations (particularly ones that have gained notable acceptance among fans, or have been mentioned in third-party material), it's generally OK to supplement your answer by mentioning them. But, for a question calling for an official explanation, an answer consisting solely of unofficial speculation (or adding nothing to earlier answers but such speculation) should not be considered valid or useful.

3. If the question simply cannot be edited to be objectively answerable, vote to close it (and downvote it, while you're at it).

   Whether or not there is, or should be, a specific closing reason for such questions, I would claim that any question so vague, confusing or so fundamentally speculative that it simply cannot be fixed as described above will almost certainly fall under one or more of the generic close reasons (such as "too broad", "primarily opinion-based" or "unclear what you're asking") anyway. Just pick one that fits and use it.

Answer 4

This is one of the reasons I dislike lore questions so intensely. Lore has a incredibly large scope, much of which can be outside our expertise, especially when it takes into account canon in other forms, such as books or movies.

I agree, though, that having to know if the question is answerable is a horrible metric. I don't see any way around it, though; there is no other control we have on lore questions at all. Without that, any and all lore questions are fair game, no matter how inane or absurd.

But I will expand on my understanding of how we handle lore questions. They are a rather controversial topic, and what I understand our current stance as being is a muddle of compromise between those that want lore questions, and those that want them burned on sight (of which I most certainly am one of).

So, here's how I understand it: Someone asks a lore question. It could be a valid question, or it could be absurd, or whatever. If it's not actually answered in the lore, it's what we commonly refer to as, "Poke the plot hole". Face it; writers make mistakes, and don't always explain everything that happens. Diablo 3 is a mess of them. The point of this control is for those of us who have played the game can go, "Yep, that's not explained at all in the story. Plot hole." We close these questions because they inherently garner speculation, rumors, and other low quality answers, and cannot be definitively answered by playing the game. It's a defense mechanism to keep the site clean, and prevent attempting to prove a negative. The same reasons as we close developer intent questions. Is it ideal? No way. But it's what we got.

What I meant by domain knowledge is that it takes expertise in the game itself to determine if that question is or is not answered by the game. Which is why those that haven't played the game shouldn't vote to close (or reopen), since they don't have the necessary expertise in the domain. For the question being discussed, I am all for closing it. Based on the comments, what's being asked is a plot hole in every sense of the meaning. And I will wholeheartedly endorse it being closed. If there are other Red Alert players, I encourage them to make their own judgement as to the answerability of that question, and vote accordingly. For the record, I haven't voted one way or the other on it.

Lore's a controversial topic; I don't like our current compromise any more than those that want lore questions do. I'd be fine in trusting in the long tail, and allowing Community to delete them if they stick around unanswered, but to my knowledge, Community doesn't delete upvoted questions. So, keeping around questions that can't be answered is just accumulating speculation, rumors, and requires more work on our end to keep the site clean.

---

TL;DR: If you've played the game, and the question isn't answerable, VTC. If you haven't, leave it alone.