up vote 1 down vote favorite

This is in reference to What is the basis of purism in LEGO building?, recently closed by Dori.

I can see how this question might seem subjective, debatable, or even frivolous if one hasn't been a part of or observed Lego fan culture. But if you have, some serious answers are already probably springing to mind — or would, if you'd stop and think about the background. It's something I've discussed at length with other Lego fans, but I've never really put anything into writing. I thought some of the other experts and fans here might be able to articulate it well, and indeed we already have at least one answer that's a great start.

The culture of Lego fandom is a big part of why we have this site. If we can't ask questions about that without having the questions closed, we're missing the mark. And if you think that sociology in general is "bad subjective" or all "not real questions", well, I guess you can take up an argument on Skeptics or somewhere on whether sociology is a real science or not.

Can we please have this question re-opened?

share

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote

I would say that questions about the sociolgy of Lego is off topic here, but I'm not sure the question you are refering to falls into that category.

As it stands, the question asks about why people choose to build Lego in a certain way. The answers seem to suggest that this is as much a quality of the Lego bricks themselves as it is a question about the builders. Lego has unique qualities (reuse, quality of production, versatility, limitations that lead to challange etc.) that inspire some builders to take a purist approach to their building.

I would argue, therefore, that this is a question that can uniquely be asked about Lego, and that it leads to answers that meet the "good subjective" criteria listed in Dori's (helpful) answer.

share
I've tried to remove the parts of the question that are most likely to be "bad subjective" and leave the bits that are "good subjective", and voted to reopen. I realise that the question is a little different from the original, and that it still might not be to everyone's taste. Hopefully, however, @mattdm can still get what he needs from it. – Kramii Nov 4 '11 at 16:42
up vote -1 down vote

Stack Exchange is not a discussion forum. It is a question and answer site. The question you've asked is a discussion prompt, not one of the practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face.

If you are after the actual sociology of Lego building for research purposes, rather than informal discussion and navel-gazing from Lego fans, you can ask for things like peer-reviewed studies or academic papers covering the Lego fan community. That might be on-topic, if you word it carefully - on the other hand, this is not Modern Media Studies Stack Exchange, so it might not be.

share
1  
If you're going to downvote because you disagree with me that's fine, but I would like to see some justification put forward for why this SE and no other should be a discussion forum; and why existing Lego discussion forums are not acceptable places. – Joe Wreschnig Nov 4 '11 at 1:15
2  
A) I didn't ask for discussion in the question or here; B) the implication that a topic must either be a physical objective problem or is "modern media studies" is absurd. So the downvote isn't becaus I disagree but because you are literally not answering the meta question with this reply. – mattdm Nov 4 '11 at 1:42
If you think it would really help to ask for studies, fine. But I don't think those are good questions. SE isn't a human-powered search engine, and questions asking for resources are usually weak. It's better to ask for answers, as I did, and vote up the ones that provide solid evidence, including references to papers and studies if any exist. – mattdm Nov 4 '11 at 1:43
Maybe it would help me understand your position better if you could explain why you think the question is "a discussion prompt". To me, it's a straightforward question, even though I was hoping to get thoughtful, complete, and nuanced answers — as in the "Good Subjective" article Dori refers to and which I suggest you read if you haven't — although I don't think this is actually really particularly subjective in any case. – mattdm Nov 4 '11 at 2:47
1  
@mattdm: Dori pretty much hit the nail on the head for me when she said "It's not reasonable to ask LEGO experts to apply that filter to themselves." It doesn't matter if sociology is a science or not - we're not a sociology site. we're a Lego site. – Joe Wreschnig Nov 4 '11 at 9:25
I guess it comes down to how narrow a slice of the Lego fan community do you want around here. There are people within that community who can answer questions like this authoritatively, without "naval gazing" or "informal discussion". If you don't want them around, okay, but it makes for a less sophisticated Stack Exchange site. – mattdm Nov 4 '11 at 10:58
Stack Overflow rejects the kind of question you're asking. Programmers accepts it. Which of those is more sophisticated? (Hint: It's not the one where everyone writes passive-aggressive missives about their boss/client.) – Joe Wreschnig Nov 4 '11 at 12:54
I really don't understand. Are you suggesting that this is in some way like a "passive-aggressive missives about their boss/client"? I still think you're just missing the point of the question: as I said, it's not a discussion prompt question at all. Can you help me reformulate it so that's more clear? – mattdm Nov 4 '11 at 12:57
All reformulations I can think of are off-topic; such a question would be best directed at people researching the psychology of play, usually found in psychology or philosophy departments or game studies programs. My point is that inclusiveness and introspection does not breed sophistication; usually the opposite. – Joe Wreschnig Nov 4 '11 at 13:00
Okay, so your argument is that it's off topic, not that the question is, as it is closed as, "not constructive"? I can be convinced as to that — but if so, can you please edit this answer to reflect that, rather than saying, as it does now, that the question is "a discussion prompt"? – mattdm Nov 4 '11 at 13:06
I suppose my argument is that either it's off-topic, or it's a discussion question. As posted, I read it as a discussion question. Reformulated, I see a real question, but it's off-topic. – Joe Wreschnig Nov 4 '11 at 13:09
@Joe: "The question you have asked is a discussion prompt" is a statement that sounds rather dismissive to those of us who see value in mattdm's question. Moreover, your comment that "everyone" who participates in Programmers "writes passive-aggressive missives" is both wildly inaccurate and - frankly - downright rude. – Kramii Nov 4 '11 at 16:31
@Kramii: Just because it has value doesn't make it not a discussion question. I see value in the question. That value won't be drawn out effectively here, and the question devalues the rest of the site. – Joe Wreschnig Nov 4 '11 at 18:36

You must log in to answer this question.

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