This came up during the proposal phase on Area 51 -- and I felt at the time that unlike many other Stack Exchange sites, a site on RPGs will be largely subjective. Sure, there are definitive answers (rules, release dates, etc), but a good number of questions will be on style, flow, advice, etc.
Now we have a few choices when it comes to these kinds of questions:
- Leave them be. In the Stack Overflow world this would obviously never fly, but there's a huge difference between programming and RPGs. As Bryant said on my earlier Meta question, "Perl is a bit more defined than the process of roleplaying." The problem with this approach is that a line must be drawn somewhere -- so where does that line get drawn?
- Bring out the Community Wiki police. Personally, I'm against this on SO, too -- CW is not, in my mind, a shield for an inappropriate or subjective question. Either the question is appropriate, or it is not. If the question is not appropriate, the community should absolutely close it. If it is appropriate, then berating people into making it CW confuses the purpose of what CW actually is: Group editing and community ownership.
- Shut 'em down. Close them. They're subjective, possibly argumentative, and there is no defined "right" answer. They don't fit in a Q&A environment. On SO, this is (perhaps 90 - 99% of the time) the right answer.
I ask this today because of my most popular question -- currently sitting at 3 close votes, with an upvoted comment that perhaps Community Wiki would be a good idea. Whatever the community does, of course, I'll accept -- if it gets the other two votes it needs, I'll cast a reopen and see what happens. It's obviously a popular question, with 11 answers. However, even as I wrote it, I knew it would be controversial at best -- it was intended, not just to spark a discussion, but also to test the boundary conditions of this site.
So where are our boundary conditions? (And I should note that the Gaming SE site went through some similar growing pains, so this is nothing new.)