2

This is an appeal thread for "Where to find a list of online games ordered by number of players?".

It is currently reopened, but forcefully so. I'll copy my comment from it, before this is now open for people to discuss.

I realize I may have been hasty in reopening the question due to its change of content - I can revert it back to being closed and subject it to the normal reopening process if there is a significant objection to that action.

Personally, I think that the new version is still a valid question, so that is why I would vote to reopen. But let us discuss!

  • Thank you Grace. I feel there is a current trend on gaming.se to discuss things in comments instead of on meta, and it makes discussions hard to track. SE is not good at discussions (regardless of the medium) and its frustrating to come by these questions with 18+ comments and try to contribute. – tzenes Sep 7 '10 at 21:12
  • 2
    Isn't forcefully reopening a question after it has been voted closed violating the trust the community places in you as a moderator? – user2974 Sep 7 '10 at 21:14
  • 4
    @Powerlord in the US we trust the Courts to act to prevent a Tyrany of the Majority. I think Grace's motivations here are quite the same. This person got bombarded very quickly without allowing for real discussion. Had this meta question been opened right away then maybe leaving it closed would be appropriate, but given what happened this seems like more of a "revert" than a violation of trust. – tzenes Sep 7 '10 at 21:18
  • 2
    @tzenes: First, this isn't a court. Second, as a court analogy, the judge just overruled the jury of peers. In the US court system, that's illegal. – user2974 Sep 7 '10 at 21:36
  • 4
    @Powerlord To answer your first comment: yes and no. Diamonds are very much entrusted to use forceful openings in the same vein as forceful closings. Even Jeff Atwood has forcibly opened questions. We're expected to be diligent and responsible with this ability - and I am understanding enough to take a hit as far as your perception of me is concerned. I am also willing to, again, revert my hasty reopening. So if you are really opposed to my action, I will close it again. – Grace Note Sep 7 '10 at 21:53
  • I will also admit that part of my haste was due to the equal haste in the immediate closure of its duplicate (2k users only). I considered the possibility that maybe a separate question was opened because the user wanted to address the question as posed in the title, yet retain the original question for the actual subjective intent (possibly arguing for appeal separately). Had it been another author, that second question may not have been closed so rapidly as a duplicate. – Grace Note Sep 7 '10 at 21:58
  • 2
    @Powerlord I'm not sure if you're familiar with US courts, but in the US a judge can set aside a Jury Verdict and issue a Directed Verdict. It is very legal; but then the point of my analogy wasn't that this is a court room, but rather that sometimes people in positions of power have to act to protect others from the effect of the "mob." This was such a case. – tzenes Sep 8 '10 at 3:53
4

The original question title of "good multiplayer experience" is definitely subjective and subject to closure. I recommended and still in favor of the question in its current form. Listing multiplayer games by members is not subjective, I am sure there are cold hard facts somewhere.

Subjective answers can creep in based on how one determines what is active and what is the user base. This is ok because it presents different perspectives on the answer, which is good.

I think an appropriate question would be something like this:

Multiplayer Games sorted by player base
I am looking for a list of multiplayer game sorted by the size of player base. I am looking to purchase some online games, but I don't want to be the only one playing the game.

I posted an answer to the question which references Major Nelson's LIVE Activity Report which determines player base by the number of unique users. I believe this source is an example of a "cold hard fact," and not subject to closure.

  • In order to not be subjective an answer could not take another form then "You can find a list of games sorted by the amount of players here." – user56 Sep 7 '10 at 21:14
  • @Ardi, I agree with that, but I think it is ok to be subjective on what constitutes a player. – Elpezmuerto Sep 7 '10 at 21:15
  • I think this was definitely a poorly written question. There potentially is a good question in here though. – tzenes Sep 7 '10 at 21:16
  • @Tzenes, does something like I posted jive with you? – Elpezmuerto Sep 7 '10 at 21:20
  • yeah, I could get behind something more like that. Maybe instead of "but I don't want to be only one playing" you could go with something more like: "one with a ton of people playing." Or maybe rephrase it to be "I want to know what the top 20 games with the largest multiplayer base" Something so he doesn't get an answer like "well X game has a bunch of people" – tzenes Sep 7 '10 at 21:25
2

The whole reason I voted to close in the first place (and didn't want it to be re-opened) is that while the title does change the direction of the question, its content still conveys the purpose of 'I dislike certain games and want games I like' which is horribly subjective. If it were rewritten to only contain the question "Where can I find a list of multiplayer games sorted by the amount of players" only, I think it would stay open.

  • The title and the question content do not match currently. The title is not subjective, however the content in his question is very subjective. The title and question content must match. – Elpezmuerto Sep 7 '10 at 21:14

You must log in to answer this question.

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