1

Help identifying a platform game for UNIX from 1990s

There is nothing wrong with my question, and was nothing wrong from the beginning. What is wrong is the unjustified negative opinions to close it, and it's wrong that it was so close to getting rejected when it is 100% genuine, especially considering the successful outcome and the many + votes for the answer. There was no objective reason to close it, and it was wrong that it had to risk being closed just because it was somewhat vague in the description. After I wrote that, it reminded me of the game Green Beret, it was answered, but that is even more vague than the first vague description, so it's also wrong criticism that being vague makes a question worse. I added information that was very vague "grey steel platform" and "looks like the game Green Beret", those are very vague, but after that, the question was answered.

Now discouraged, I have another similar question about another unidentified game I don't want to risk getting a negative stream about just because readers don't know.

10
  • Do we have a meta consensus about game identification questions? I find it's useful to write a comment directing people to the relevant meta consensus (or to ask a new meta question about revising the policy) when they're voting-to-close incorrectly.
    – wizzwizz4 Mod
    Commented Jul 18, 2023 at 13:06
  • 3
    This seems like no more than a rant. That "there was nothing wrong with the question" is opinion, an opinion clearly at odds with those who voted to close. For the record, I was one of those. My reason was that it was too vague - originally little more than "I remember a game, it ran on a Sun, and it had some men in it" (ok, I exaggerate, but you get the point?). The close reason reflects that view: needs details.
    – dave
    Commented Jul 19, 2023 at 0:12
  • 1
    @another-dave You say that about all criticism you don't want. "Don't listen, it's only a rant" is very judgemental and arrogant, you're avoiding the real issue here about what should be done when equal questions are not treated equally
    – Niklas Rosencrantz
    Commented Jul 20, 2023 at 11:39
  • 1
    "Judgemental"? The point of meta, surely, is to put something up for discussion and resolution, which means making a judgement about the argument presented.
    – dave
    Commented Jul 20, 2023 at 12:10
  • 1
    @another-dave No. Read the original question. There is no objective reason to close it! You are off-topic.
    – Niklas Rosencrantz
    Commented Jul 20, 2023 at 15:54
  • Unfortunately, my experience also has been that SE is a judgmental, toxic environment. For example, please do look at my closed question.
    – Ritesh Singh
    Commented Jul 22, 2023 at 7:05
  • I think a large part of the problem is one simple little word, closed. It took me a while to understand what that means in the SE context. Outside the SE context, it typically means something like deleted. That is not what it means here. It means "we're not letting people provide answers until OP makes the question a better question" - through clarifying details, making the question more focused, changing it to be more appropriate for the site, etc. But despite the notification saying "needs clarity" (or whatever), I think a lot people see closed as (a) permanent (even though it
    – manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact
    Commented Aug 1, 2023 at 16:34
  • isn't meant to be), (b) a personal attack - i.e., "you don't know enough to even ask a question, what are you doing here" (even though it isn't meant to be) and/or (c) rude/unwelcoming - including for "closed as duplicate" because it looks like "blob of text saying we don't want you to bother asking" and which is often the fault of SE search not being very effective at finding existing answers, especially for new users who don't understand the nuances and/or may not have enough domain specific knowledge to come up with the right search terms.
    – manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact
    Commented Aug 1, 2023 at 16:39
  • TL;DR Simple changing "closed" to "paused" and making the explanatory box easier to understand would go a long way. But that is NOT specific to RC, it is an SE system-wide issue. And unless the AI overlords (yes, that can be taken to mean the "overlords enamored with AI" or "the AI that is running the world" - deliberately ambiguous...) decide that improving things like "close" are more important than some other "features", this isn't changing any time soon.
    – manassehkatz-Moving 2 Codidact
    Commented Aug 1, 2023 at 16:41
  • 1
    @manassehkatz-Moving2Codidact SE has implemented "on hold" for the first 5 days back in 2013, but it was abolished in 2019.
    – Andrew T.
    Commented Aug 20, 2023 at 10:37

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

TL;DR:

Closing is a normal step in a standard process of quality improvement for questions. It is neither final not 'risky' in any way. It is a way to give feedback and make room for improvement that helps to maintain the site in a cooperative way.

There is nothing wrong with my question, and was nothing wrong from the beginning.

That's your opinion. And with having that, you should as well know that others may have a different.

What is wrong is the unjustified negative opinions to close it, and it's wrong that it was so close to getting rejected when it is 100% genuine,

Sounds quite entitled to me. Instead of complaining it would have been a better idea to simply check up what the reasons are:

enter image description here

(Highlight mine)

So in this case it was a clear request to improve the question with clarification/additional information. Something quite understandable with an original descriptionas

Notable characters: Many men appearing on platform level.

Notable gameplay mechanics: It displayed a platform arcade style with many men who looked the same

Not exactly helpful in any way to distinguish from a zillion other plattformers.

There was no objective reason to close it,

I would call that a very objective one.

and it was wrong that it had to risk being closed just because it was somewhat vague in the description.

So you're aware of that and still complain? Putting a close vote is the intended process for quality improvement. There is no "risk". A question doesn't get deleted or whatsoever. Voting for close is about the community agreeing on the fact that it needs improvement. Collecting closes is a hint to star improvement. If multiple members agree, it gets closed

Being closes is meant to take it out of general visibility during the time the author (you) needs/uses to improve the content. After doing so it will be automatically considered for reopening.

A very basic process of quality control/improvement.

It's the way SE is build. there is no toxicity or evil spirit, but a very simple process of self improvement within a community.

I added information that was very vague "grey steel platform" and "looks like the game Green Beret", those are very vague, but after that, the question was answered.

So, where's the problem to your complain? Your improvements came and were good enough tpo produce a result long before going thru the closing phase.

Now discouraged, I have another similar question about another unidentified game I don't want to risk getting a negative stream about just because readers don't know.

Sorry to hear that. Still, if that question is again unclear, you will have to go thru the same process. Defintily an enjoyable one when done in cooperation

You must log in to answer this question.

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