Here's a new question:

The name of an old 'tower defence' game

It was opened 4 hours ago.

And then it was closed less than an hour after it was opened.

And here's me, 4 hours later, and I'm 99% sure I know the answer to this question.

But I can't answer it. Because the question is closed.

Granted that such questions can end up with no answers due to lack of detail, do we have to be quite this quick on the draw?

Does it really serve the goal of this site to instantaneously close "bad questions" even if they could be answered?

  • 7
    Bad questions? No. Questions that are against the site rules? Yes.
    – SaintWacko
    May 26, 2021 at 19:16
  • "The community reached this decision with 34 vs 27 votes" And that was 9 years ago. So can that decision be revisited, especially given how controversial it clearly was, or is it set in stone for the next hundred years now?
    – Kyralessa
    May 26, 2021 at 19:23
  • 2
    Related: What comes first, rules or helpfulness?, specifically badp's answer and the resulting comments
    – Robotnik Mod
    May 26, 2021 at 21:00
  • should add also that even if this was an on-topic but low quality/unclear question and was closed as such, that doesn't mean that's the end. closed questions can be edited and reopened so if an unclear or low quality question is fixed up the community can vote to re-open. this also includes ID Requests if a game artifact is edited in before an answer is posted in some form
    – Memor-X
    May 27, 2021 at 0:01

2 Answers 2


The question was closed for a reason other than "being bad" or "lack of detail" it was closed because it is off topic.

As i'm sure you are aware, game identification questions without a screenshot are off topic, and that's exactly the question. Many off topic questions could be answered, but they are off topic, so it doesn't matter how good they are or how bad, they will be closed.


The question in... question, was closed because it is off-topic. Game Identification questions that rely solely on memory are off-topic because there is no reliable way for a voter to verify that an answer is correct. It has nothing to do with whether or not the question is "good", it's just that this sort of question doesn't work well with the format. The game-identification tag wiki has some more good info on the "why", and also some outside sources that do accept these sorts of questions.

  • 1
    "The community reached this decision with 34 vs 27 votes" So it wasn't exactly a landslide, was it?
    – Kyralessa
    May 26, 2021 at 19:24
  • 1
    @Kyralessa The decision was made after months of discussion almost 10 years ago now, and at this point, I don't think there is any interest in reversing it. See also How is consensus determined on Meta sites?
    – Unionhawk Mod
    May 26, 2021 at 21:10
  • How would you determine whether there were any interest in reversing it?
    – Kyralessa
    May 27, 2021 at 5:28
  • Landslide or not, the decision was made. How would you determine if there's any interest in reversing it, other than your own interest? May 27, 2021 at 15:08
  • 1
    @Kyralessa If you would like, you can certainly open a discussion to relitigate the topicality of game identification questions that rely solely on memory, but from what I've seen in my time with this community is that if anything the consensus that these sorts of questions should not be allowed has gotten much stronger.
    – Unionhawk Mod
    May 27, 2021 at 15:58
  • @kyralessa Is the fact that mods are constantly telling people that there's no interest not enough? ;) May 30, 2021 at 8:20
  • @Studoku Same goes for you, if you have a different interpretation of the consensus or would otherwise like to revisit the topic, you are certainly allowed to start a discussion about it.
    – Unionhawk Mod
    May 30, 2021 at 16:13
  • @Unionhawk Am I? I was under the impression that challenging a years-old decision would just get closed as a dupe. May 31, 2021 at 11:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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