This question was closed because a user requested help in bypassing school security in order to play a game.

While the OP insinuated that the request is for finding alternative sites instead, such a request still seems problematic. It's not related enough to video games themselves, and it just encourages others to break rules using our help. Another user stated that this rule could be added to the FAQ. I originally stated that it should be a new close rule, or at least an extension of another one.

Seeing as the question is closed, it's obviously not well-received by the community. Could this support an addition to the FAQ and/or reasons for closing?

| |
  • 7
    Why is "not related to video games" not a good enough close reason? – au revoir Oct 3 '13 at 19:50
  • There's the general off-topic thing that Arqade has. I think most people are going to feel that, that is sufficient enough. Editing the FAQ to read questions about security bypassing are frowned upon is overkill. We are talking about gaming here. We just need to clarify to users like that, that we just don't do that here is all. Closing as "Not related" is the consensus, I'm sure. – Cole Busby Oct 3 '13 at 20:03
  • I agree with most of what you're saying; it certainly wasn't something we could even help with. I disagree with the need for a specific new close reason, though. What we have works quite well, I feel. – Frank Oct 3 '13 at 20:07
  • Once you get 3K, you'll get the close vote privilege. One of the things it gives you is a "custom off-topic" reason, where you fill in why you think it's off-topic. We have some customized off-topic reasons for our more common off-topic questions, like ITG, game design-type questions, or piracy. I think we only get three of them, though, so the custom box comes in handy for questions like this. – Frank Oct 3 '13 at 20:13

We do not support questions that ask to bypass a TOS or EULA. This goes hand in hand with our policy of not allowing question that deal with piracy. I'm sure this student and/or their parent signed an acceptable use policy for using school computers, and therefore, playing Minecraft on a school computer as described would violate that policy. Even if they didn't sign anything, and there is no formal AUP, there is an implied TOS that students will not try to access blocked sites.

Even if that's not the case, it still stands that the question doesn't deal directly with playing Minecraft. It's the exact same as asking "My school blocks Facebook. How can I get around that to play (insert popular Facebook game)?" We are not the group of people to ask that type of question.

| |
  • I had actually found that part in his schools TOS online and pointed that out to him in a comment. The comments from the question were purged, however. – Cole Busby Oct 3 '13 at 20:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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