My question Are Terrans objectively better than Protoss at Aggression/Harass? received three downvotes, so I'm guessing there is some problem with it. However, no one left a comment to explain why. So my question is, whats wrong with my question?

I read the tour, and I believe my question fits into the "Gameplay strategies and tactics" and "Game mechanics and terminology" category. I am asking whether a certain race (Protoss) has the mechanics necessary to perform a certain tactic (Aggression/Harassment).

My question is definitely about gaming, since I am asking for strategies, tactics, and mechanics of a specific game (StarCraft 2).

I am not making a request for game identification or recommendation. I already know that the game I want to play is StarCraft 2. I am not asking what race I should play, I am asking how well a race (Protoss) performs.

My question is not primarily opinion-based, speculative, or gossipy, because I am asking for objective facts, with pro league player replays to back it up if possible. Perhaps a timing calculation to show Terran will always have more units than Protoss at game time xx:xx, for example.

I bought StarCraft 2 legally, so I am not asking about pirated games.

I don't think my question has too many possible answers, because I'm asking about a specific aspect of the game. (I'm asking whether Protoss is as good as Terran at Aggression and Harassment in particular. I am not asking about which race is better overall.)

As for whether the answer would be too long, I'm not sure how I am supposed to know that? I am quite satisfied with a something like "No, player xxx did it just fine in tournament yyy against player vs zzz".

So can someone explain why my question is so terrible that it has 3 downvotes, even though I followed the tour? Thanks.

  • 3
    Why is this post downvoted? The FAQ says that I'm supposed to ask on meta if I want to know why a post is downvoted/close voted. Nov 7, 2015 at 7:02
  • 11
    Stackexchange isn't Reddit. While Reddits suggested standards of etiquette indicate that downvotes ought to be used for posts which are not appropriate or off topic, here on SE, downvotes are, first and foremost, indicators of quality. People are down voting your posts because they don't agree with them or don't think they are very good. Being on topic has little to do with that. Nov 7, 2015 at 7:10
  • 1
    At the end of the day, it is considered acceptable to ask "why" on meta. But if many people disagree with you, t.hey are in their right to do so. Asking anything that follows "this team > that team" is going to recieve negative feedback from players favouring the race your downplaying. Accept that its likely to receive mixed feedback, before you post. If you can not hack it, do not post.
    – user106385
    Nov 7, 2015 at 13:27
  • @Timelord64 Thank you for explaining. I did not realize that this was a sensitive topic, since I thought recognizing weakness of a race is just as important as recognizing strength. Could the downvotes indicate that my suspicion regarding the two races are possibly correct? Nov 7, 2015 at 23:16
  • 2
    "Objectively better" sounds like you're trying to rile people up. Nov 11, 2015 at 4:33
  • Like @user2357112 said - The "Is ____ objectively better?" question is almost always flamebait or really opinion seeking. It's similar to how most of the time people misuse "literally". Your question looks like the rare example that is using it in it's actual meaning, to ask a good question about a very specific aspect.
    – Bobson
    Nov 18, 2015 at 2:28
  • @Bobson I did not realize such implications. Thanks for clearing it up. I wonder if I would do better to just remove that word from the title? Nov 18, 2015 at 18:52
  • @WeirdestQuestions - At this point, I'm not sure it's worth it, now that you're past the gut-check closing. If you do want to reword it, I'd go for something along the lines of "Do Terrans have specific advantages for executing an aggression/harass tactic?" or something like that.
    – Bobson
    Nov 18, 2015 at 21:15

1 Answer 1


This is not an opinion-based question. There is such a thing as a good subjective question, but I don't even think this is that. This is just an objective question about the state of balance of a video game. However, it "feels" less objective than other things because it's not directly about mechanics of how things work.

Let me be clear yet again. Strategy questions, and analysis questions, that may require quite a bit of work and a lot of expertise on the part of the answerer, are some of the best questions on the site when someone does take the time to put in a good answer. We are not just a resource that should teach you how, mechanically, games work. We are also a resource that should teach you how to play games well, if that's what you want, because that's just as pertinent to gamers as the mechanical side. And aside from practicing a game and getting experience yourself, there's no better way to learn to play a game well than to hear the thought process of an expert.

So I reopened your question. I can't take away downvotes, because those are people's to spend as they wish, but I really hope that people will take the time to understand the merits of these kinds of questions.

  • 3
    Thank you. Being able to hear the thought process of experts was the main reason I asked here, as the StackExchange network has a good reputation in that regards. Nov 7, 2015 at 23:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .