-2

Possible Duplicate:
Subjective but useful question, What should we do about?

I saw 5 questions on the front page today:
What counters a jungle Olaf?
How do you counter Vladimir?
What are some good counters to Cassiopeia?
Best way to counter Teemo top?
How can you counter Orianna?

I was thinking, arn't these questions suggestive?

Each answer could start a discussion and argue that "my answer is better than your answer because X, Y" for any one of these questions, rather than have one correct, accepted answer to any of them.

Am I correct in thinking so? Or is there something I am missing?

0
3

Sounds like we're in for another round of "Good Subjective / Bad Subjective!"

The short of it, is that, even though these questions are subjective, they are able to base their answers on objective facts.

Consider the first: There may be no "best" or "appropriate" means to counter a jungle olaf, but any given answer can be based on objective facts -- Olaf is melee; does mostly physical damage; is a badass viking.

On the contrary, a question of the form, "Is Jungle Olaf OP in the current meta" is Bad Subjective. The problem is that "Current Meta" is not something that can be explicitly defined (not to mention its potential for change). Whereas in the former question, every answer had to agree on several basic facts (E does True Damage, Olaf's ult makes him immune to CC), the latter makes no such stipulation, and you're equally likely to get conflicted answers, depending on the answerer, the exact situation they perceive the question to be about, and whether or not they just got stomped by a 13/1 Brolaf.

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