I have a particular issue with this question: https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/32832/difficult-to-locate-game-name-unknown

Based on the comments in https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/32652/a-css-style-surf-game-for-free, I'm leaning towards this user trolling us. This user insists that his game-rec question is actually an ITG question in the CS:S-surf question. Just now, he created another ITG question that mentions a game called "Moraff's World" repeatedly, comparing features to this "Moraff's World".

Based on his record in the CS:S-surf question, I would wager that this new question is really a game-rec disguised as an ITG, one of the many issues we've discussed based on ITG before.


  • 6
    Why not just nuke identify-the-game? Many birds, one stone. /end rant Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 16:48
  • @Raven Yes please. Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 16:55
  • Reads far more like a troll to me. I don't think he is looking for game-recs, he's just asking a pointless question in an allowable topic to make a point regarding his game-rec question that was closed.
    – au revoir
    Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 17:17
  • I agree that ITG questions shouldn't be allowed
    – juan
    Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 17:26
  • Hmmm, thank you for pointing this situation out. I completely ignored that surf question and was wondering why the other question was getting downvotes. It looked like it was a satisfactory ITG question (the second one). I wonder if someone could do a trivial edit on the question so I can revoke my upvote. :) Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 18:27
  • 6
    Are we really removing upvotes from a "satisfactory" question just because the user was involved in a disagreement on a different question? I find it a little disheartening how everyone seems to expect the worst from this user simply because of a disagreement/misinterpretation of our game-rec policy. As far as I can see, the user has given us no reason to expect malicious behavior. Yet we seem to be talking about punishing a perfectly legitimate question based on perceived intent. Let's be a helpful, welcoming community instead of continuing to punish a new user who started with a misstep.
    – sjohnston
    Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 21:02
  • @sjohnston He did more than "misstep" in the comments of the first question. I have not downvoted his newer question, but I also do see reason to be skeptical of his intent. Perhaps we should not "expect" malicious behavior, but we should be prepared for it. Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 21:21
  • I don't know but I would have liked to be able to take it back since seeing the downvotes on it played a huge influence on my voting in this case. At least I could then have a chance to reevaluate the question and apply my usual standards for voting. But at this point, there isn't anything more I could contribute to the request (valid or not) so I couldn't care either way. Commented Oct 20, 2011 at 2:40

1 Answer 1


I don't see a problem with this question.

The user provides numerous specific details:

  • Text graphics (with one exception)
  • Character options
  • Final boss - sorcerer
  • Limited time to finish
  • Magic carpet item that lets you return to the top
  • Jewel guarded by a statue that comes to life

You imply that the question is fishing for game-recs, but the quantity of specific detail here makes me think it would be a pretty bad fishing question. Typically someone looking for game recommendations has a couple broad features in mind. I find it unlikely that someone is desperately looking for a text-based game that satiates their need for magic carpets, jewels guarded by living statues, and sorcerer bosses.

I don't like ITG questions either, but based on our current policies, I think this one is perfectly legitimate. Our current policy is vague, but we generally judge ITG questions by how specific and detailed they are. In that regard, this question seems pretty good. The only thing it really lacks is a timeframe.

Game-recs masquerading as ITG are a potential problem, but I would be very hesitant to close a question based on suspicion or conjecture. Unless it's extremely obvious or there is some evidence of malicious intent, I believe we have to look at each question in good faith. If this really is a subtle trolling, then I think we just have to let ourselves be trolled. So long as we allow ITG, this sort of thing comes with the territory.

  • A compelling argument to disallow ITG at the end there. Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 18:55
  • @Strix Maybe so. I just don't want dislike of a policy to get in the way of enforcement of said policy as it currently stands.
    – sjohnston
    Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 19:19
  • 3
    Trolling can be done with any type of question, and obvious troll questions would be closed. ITG has some problems but that isn't one. Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 20:50
  • @MatthewRead Masking game-recs as ITGs certainly is a potential problem with ITGs, and can be construed as trolling since the only reason to do so is to know beforehand that an equivalent game-rec would be closed. I don't see how it's not a problem. Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 21:23
  • 1
    @Strix - has it happened yet? (It could have - I don't have the rep to see deleted questions.)
    – au revoir
    Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 22:04
  • @StrixVaria That's paranoid. One could go create a Wikipedia page and doctor screenshots for a non-existent game and then ask a question about it in order to troll, for example. Would you call that potential problem with all questions? I wouldn't. Nothing of import would happen; it would either be closed or largely ignored. Same with a fake ITG. Banning a type of question won't prevent abuse of questions, it's too easy to just use another type. Commented Oct 19, 2011 at 22:58
  • The screenshot he posted is taken directly from the Wikipedia page for Morraff's World. I would say he found his game before even asking. Commented Oct 20, 2011 at 22:23
  • @John - Note that he says the game was "like" the screenshot, not that it is a screenshot of the game he's seeking.
    – sjohnston
    Commented Oct 21, 2011 at 1:58
  • True, still worth pointing out, IMHO. Commented Oct 21, 2011 at 2:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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