8

So, before this gets started lets get something out of the way: Pornographic or nude content on this site should not be allowed as per this.

However we have had several questions that are similar to: Do Costumes Affect Breast Physics? Which has stirred quite a controversy. (admittedly probably intentionally)

On the one hand this question is valid by the rules established for the site. It is a question, that will have an answer, that is about a game. It does not contain, link to, or anyway draw the reader twards anything that is pornographic, only suggestive. These kind of games have adverts on main time broadcasting that demonstrates these... properties.

On the other hand this is a professional site, and I am not sure how professional "bewb talk" is.

And while we are on the topic, people are being flagged and suspended for posting pictures in chat that are popular adverts that can be seen on family oriented gaming sites such as wowhead. Do we have a standard as to what someone can rightfully be offended by? Where is that line?

  • 1
    What's a second open question like it? – badp Feb 29 '12 at 22:16
  • I think the point is they get closed, but there is a lot of controversy around it. They are closed as off topic, which is not strictly speaking true. – Ashterothi Feb 29 '12 at 22:17
  • Related (but not duplicate): meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/607/adult-themed-gaming. In essence, even if a question about an adult-oriented game is on-topic, actually linking to a site which could be considered as an adult site isn't okay. – Oak Feb 29 '12 at 22:19
  • That is why I clarified that we are discussing mature and sugestive themes but not pornography – Ashterothi Feb 29 '12 at 22:20
  • Glad someone posted about this after GnomeSlice refused to!:) – James Feb 29 '12 at 22:31
16

Should they be closed? No, I don't think so. They are valid questions that have real answers.

They also happen to be terrible questions, (at least, every incidence of this partcular... ahem, 'category' of questions has been), and I have downvoted every one.

There is plenty of content and there are plenty of questions that are on topic and should not be deleted or migrated elsewhere, but which are of low quality or interest.

This is what downvotes are for. I suspect a lot of people prefer to flag or cast close votes because those don't cost reputation. I happen to think these people are cowards and I would like to take this moment to call them out for that fact. The point of a downvote is to express that you feel a contribution is of low quality. Questions about breast physics are, to me, of low quality. So are questions about in-game prostitution, or the amount of skin shown in the costumes of the latest JRPG. But they're also on-topic, answerable questions, which someone might google for and find helpful.

Good for them. Let the questions exist and be answered. They don't deserve closure or deletion. Those actions should be reserved for content that is actively off topic or harmful in some way to our site. I don't think these questions are harmful. I just think they're bad. So I'll be downvoting them. Because that's what my downvotes are for.

tl;dr: Downvotes are your friend.

  • 11
    Downvotes on questions are free! – Resorath Feb 29 '12 at 22:31
  • 2
    This is true. Lots of people don't realize this however, and I figured it was bad enough to call people cowards without calling them stupid cowards. – LessPop_MoreFizz Feb 29 '12 at 22:32
  • 2
    @LessPop_MoreFizz I'm finding that the problem with downvoting is that unless the question is universally recognized as bad and has no "upvote for the lulz" potential, it leads to even more upvotes just to cancel out of the downvotes, ending in a massive reputation win for the user. The only time it really seems safe to downvote is if you won't drop the score to 0 or less. That said, I agree with you. I just wish it actually worked. – Sterno Feb 29 '12 at 22:32
  • 1
    @Sterno I think that has something to do with users deciding what the "minimum score" of a question should be and upvoting if it has not reached that threshold yet. But at the end of the day, users simply think it is a good question, but your right, it does end up in a massive reputation gain. But that is a different problem – Resorath Feb 29 '12 at 22:40
  • This is my concern with this concept. As people downvote, others will be tempted to sympathetically upvote. This results in a net gain for the questioner. In the example given, Gnome received more rep then if he had asked a really good question. Controversy beats quality and that seems somewhat wrong to me. – Ashterothi Feb 29 '12 at 22:54
  • Yeah, I'd suggest simply ignoring these questions for that reason unless they're bad to the point of universal agreement (as in actually phrased terribly, zero effort ect). Anything controversial with a downvote is almost certainly going to get an upvote or two. – Ben Brocka Feb 29 '12 at 23:48
  • 5
    Cowards all of you. Sympathy upvotes are a problem, but the solution is not to stop downvoting. The solution is more downvotes. Reputation is a secondary impact of voting. The point of voting is that it acts as a filter. And for the purposes of filtering, it only takes one downvote to cancel out one upvote. Stop worrying about the net rep change. – LessPop_MoreFizz Feb 29 '12 at 23:57
  • @LessPop_MoreFizz For the record, I still downvote. But if I can wait an hour until it won't make the total go negative, I do it. Why create a sympathy upvote situation if I don't have to? It's hard to deny that people will upvote a negative score they otherwise wouldn't have bothered on. But we DO need to worry about net rep change, because the rep generated from stuff like this can be an incentive for people to continue with bad questions. Sure, if we can get EVERYONE on board with downvoting (or at least not upvoting), then it's not an issue. But that isn't the reality of the situation. – Sterno Mar 1 '12 at 2:21
  • 1
    @LessPop_MoreFizz Put another way, I regret that I have but one downvote to give a question. I try to put it in there when I think it will do the most damage. – Sterno Mar 1 '12 at 2:24
  • 1
    So taking an action that automatically attaches one's name to said action and records one's belief for all time that the question is out of scope on Gaming.SE is cowardly, but down-voting—which is completely anonymous (even to moderators) and effects no change other than the poster losing 2 rep for no explained reason—isn't? – user3389 Mar 1 '12 at 19:31
3

If the question were about how helmets affect the character's hair animation, I would've treated it just the same. The "controversial" nature of the question is irrelevant, it is just a smokescreen distracting from the fact that is is not a useful question.

  • Are you suggesting that aesthetic or technical questions about a game is not a real question? – Ashterothi Feb 29 '12 at 22:35
  • @Pyrodante There isn't anything technical involved (apart perhaps the off-topic implementation angle if you read that into it). – Matthew Read Feb 29 '12 at 22:37
  • @Pyrodante I wouldn't make a broad statement like that because I am sure someone would find an exception, but I think most questions about "How do the graphics look in this situation" are going to be not a real question. – bwarner Feb 29 '12 at 22:38
  • -1 "it is just a smokescreen distracting from the fact that is is not a useful question.", the question might have implications about what equipment to purchase, as oak said below it may not be trivial to obtain these items. The question was not structured that way however, so an edit that alters the meaning might be in order. It looks like it has already been improved with an edit. – Resorath Feb 29 '12 at 23:05
  • @Resorath You seem to be arguing that hypothetically this class of question could be valid. That's fine. I'm just saying that this particular question was not, and it had nothing to do with it being about breasts. – bwarner Feb 29 '12 at 23:17
  • +1 Because I agree the this question is not a useful question. It does not solve a problem. If it's a question about collision detection, then it belongs on game-dev. – KatieK Mar 1 '12 at 0:34
3

And while we are on the topic, people are being flagged and suspended for posting pictures in chat that are popular adverts that can be seen on family oriented gaming sites such as wowhead. Do we have a standard as to what someone can rightfully be offended by? Where is that line?

The line is drawn by six+ people that agree that the post should be removed and the user suspended for 30 minutes by clicking on the flag icon. Different people have different sensibility levels, and the point of "offensive" flags is that, avoiding people from feeling offended. We can't impose standard sensitivity levels to others.

LessPop says downvotes are your friend, and did you know? You can "downvote" flags too! For every two people choosing "no" from the popup, it takes one additional person for the flag to go through.

  • 2
    LessPop says downvotes are your friend, and did you know? You can "downvote" flags too! For every two people choosing "no" from the popup, it takes one additional person for the flag to go through. - The problem is that chat flags go through so goddamned fast as to make this impossible. I get to actually cast a vote on maybe one in five that I see pop up. – LessPop_MoreFizz Feb 29 '12 at 22:23
  • @LessPop_MoreFizz In a way that's actually good, if shit's obviously bad it needs to go fast. – badp Feb 29 '12 at 22:35
  • I agree, if things really are properly offensive, they do need to go, and fast. But since there's no real means of escalation or gradation of severity, the idea of counterflagging is fundamentally useless and laughable. – LessPop_MoreFizz Feb 29 '12 at 22:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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