I've got a monster draft of an answer to this question about the Steam security question. It's seriously huge. But there's one thing about it that's missing, and it's ultimately part of the goal that Strix is seeking.
As has been stated here and there on Meta, it is key to distinguish that this website is about gaming. In our last venture into revising our FAQ, I made sure that all of our stated elements are about Gaming. I have also stated that, contrary as it might sound, this site is not about catering to gaming experts.
In less confusing words - we handle specifically questions about gaming, not about problems that gaming experts may run into that are not about gaming. The video encoding question is useful to gaming experts, especially those in this community, because its answers could be used to help provide stronger answers for the site. But that isn't gaming, and that simple notion is what led to the strong opposition to that question. And, ultimately, the security question itself.
Let's cut to the chase. There is a gray area we have when it comes to problems that people will run into because they are gamers. And we currently have a lot of people viewing this from conflicting perspectives, which makes it difficult to moderate. We need to try and work on dispelling this gray area, because it's only going to cause more conflict as time passes. Much more than I want to see this site avoid getting plagued by horrible off-topic questions, I don't want to see us engaging in continued in-fighting because of gray areas. And the further we try to go while putting off the analysis of something this big, the more we just try to strenously weakly justify the connection of questions to gaming, the more often and harder we'll get hit by future questions that challenge our notions.
There are two elements we have to consider when it comes to gamer problems - when the question isn't actually about gaming itself, and when it is about gaming but it isn't restricted to it. Both of these suffer from the ability to be abstracted into a question that is quite outside of our scope.
Rather than pile on the other two examples, let's take a new example relating to protection of devices.
How can I protect my games from getting damaged by lightning storms?
We can see this from a variety of perspectives. It's definitely something that gamers care about; I still miss my SNES, which was ruined by a storm less than a week after I finally bought Lufia 2. It's definitely something that gamers will want to know about. It's something we will most likely know the answer to. And it is definitely about the gaming elements, it's pretty much about consoles (and probably gaming PCs, if you have those). From a sympathetic standpoint, you really don't want to just reject it.
This however isn't a gaming-specific problem. It's a problem about things that get plugged into the wall, which affects everything from brave little toasters to rocket lawnchairs. Is that enough of a deterrent? Well, consider the following course of events.
How can I protect my games from getting damaged by earthquakes?
Common sense tells every one of us that this is really not about gaming, and should be outside our scope. We really can't find it reasonable to classify this, can we?
But earthquakes can knock out powerlines, just like blizzards can. Blizzards can cause water damage, just like floods can. And floods have special pertinence with regards to electronics, just like lightning storms do. It's a very specific example, but the point is, why would one disaster prevention question be allowed, but not the others?
With this example, let us then expand to the overarching point of this thread. What is the goal point that we should look for when we run into borderline questions and want to revise them to be reopened? What are the qualities or attributes that make a gamer problem acceptable versus unacceptable? What is the dividing line?