I was reading this:
I was wondering what the stance on similar joke answers on Puzzling.SE?
One scenario I have in my mind, for example, would be riddles with cryptic clues that may have an outrageous, convoluted but obviously unintended solution.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
-
$\begingroup$ Not sure if it's a dupe, but related at least: meta.puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/1334/… and meta.puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/1302/… $\endgroup$– RohcanaSep 26, 2015 at 9:01
-
$\begingroup$ Most of those examples in your links were cliche and unhelpful, and clearly should be downvoted. With regards to the link I posted, the answer does not disregard the boundaries set by the question, but obviously is a joke answer nonetheless (it devoted most of its energy exaggerating the point for humor). Yet some people may still think this is rep-whoring: meta.stackexchange.com/a/17479 However, Puzzling.SE does not seem to be strictly an FAQ site, so I wonder if such boundaries still apply? $\endgroup$– HackiisanSep 26, 2015 at 9:29
-
1$\begingroup$ Do you have an example of such an answer? I'm not sure I've ever come across one that also counts as a well-explained answer. $\endgroup$– user20Sep 26, 2015 at 17:01
-
1$\begingroup$ Does this count? $\endgroup$– f''Sep 27, 2015 at 19:42
-
$\begingroup$ @f'' Yes, that does count in my book. Another example would be the original link I was reading: stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/… $\endgroup$– HackiisanSep 28, 2015 at 9:00
Add a comment
|