I'm surprised, and a bit concerned, at the reaction given to two recent questions with the yu-gi-oh tag:
I find it unwelcoming, a bit heavy-handed, and not consistent with the stack's reaction to similar questions on other games.
The first was closed as duplicate to Halving points in Yu-Gi-Oh, but:
- That question asked how paying half your life when at an odd number worked. Yes, you can work out from there (as the comment from a closer did) that 1 - (1 / 2 = 0.5, rounded up to 1) = 0, but neither the question itself, nor the answer, considered specifically the 1-life case. [EDIT by OP: This paragraph is in fact wrong. It is 1LP - 1/2 = 0.5 rounded up to 1LP. Which does, in fact, change the case significantly. But note that a very experienced game player - world-known for his referee-skill in one game, suggested to train for Judge in another, plays (by himself, badly) YGO - read the "duplicate" answer three times - and the so-called "obvious answer" comment, and read it backwards. Interesting that. See conclusion.]
- Because it didn't consider that case, it didn't give an answer to "can you do this, even if you will then go to 0 LP?" Which I'm sure has an answer, is definitely relevant to the closed question, while being not relevant to the "duplicate" question. Which, to me, is sufficient difference to not be a duplicate. [EDIT: this is still an interesting question, but not relevant to the interaction, because of misreading above.]
- There are many questions on this stack and others that are "specific interactions of general cases previously asked" that are considered valid and useful questions.
- M:tG tag in particular has many questions that are much closer to being duplicates than this, that get kept open and given answers, because they are different enough that people might not automatically get from "here" to "there". One of recent note even claimed to be a duplicate in the question - it specifically stated "I've read the explanation and I don't get it [therefore please answer it again/here's what I didn't get]".
- I think this question could very easily, relevantly, and helpfully be answered with the comment DarkCygnus gave (and a small note about whether doing this is even legal, and whether there is a timeframe before one loses because of 0 LP that one can get out of it/cards that would allow you to win/keep playing at 0 LP). [EDIT: I still think this would be an excellent answer - not only "you can do this, but here's what actually happens, it ends up costing you no life at all! That's an interesting issue in the rules, and could also be used..."]
The second isn't closed, but was downvoted - and the comment is effectively "you don't know the rules. X is not Y." Which is totally true (if a bit brutal), but how many "a triggered ability is not an activated ability is not a spell is not a loyalty ability is not a creature is not a creature card" questions do we have on this stack? Many of which are considered good questions and are happily answered - again - perhaps with a link to a general/canonical question or the CR section.
Again, the comment could be straight up a valid, useful answer to the question (with some additional explanation, and perhaps quoting of some relevant rules). The question is definitely as valid as How does Clarion Spirit work? (yes, that's not the title, but it might as well be).
One could argue that we should come down as hard on M:tG "duplicates" and "don't understand the basic rules" as has happened with these YGO questions. I would prefer that we go the other way - especially if we want to encourage this stack to be more than "M:tG CR Q&A" and "Identify this game".
Therefore, I shall cast a vote to re-open the closed question, and have upvoted both questions (they may have not shown any research effort, but they are both clear and useful). I ask that the community consider where we wish to put the line on these, and watch to see if the line is different for some games than others. We certainly need to promote good questions and limit duplicates; but we also need to promote "questions", straight up - especially from "New contributors", with whom we are asked to "Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering."
To clarify my question, which seems to have been misread as "complaining about two specific cases, both of which were read wrong/had potentially flaggable comments" (note that my concern was with the reaction, not from the correctness of the questions or the responses thereto:
Do we want to be the "IOTTMCO with basic searching, close"/"RTFM" stack, or the "Yes, it works, and it's an interesting usecase of [this general question] why it works"/"Tribute Summons are not the same as Special Summons. So it doesn't work that way..." stack?