user93: This question is written posed as a hypothetical that reads as opinion-based. They literally start by asking for the reader to imagine. On the other hand, it just happened that there was a canon answer to it, which seems to be more by chance than anything else. There are close votes for it being too opinion-based which, while being legitimate, would block off access to a good and decently upvoted answer. What should we do with questions like this? Should we have them rewrite the question so it's not hypothetical? Should we close the question for not meeting our standards?

user102: Let's start with defining some boundaries around questions that are hypothetical and go from there instead.  Then, we can see if the questions we want to answer which fit this mold are decent.
First, the question has to be based on canonical facts already known.  This means things like a character or environment's known abilities and limitations.  This excludes hypotheticals which ask open-ended questions based on no knowledge of canon.
Next, the question has to describe a scenario which could reasonably occur in canon.  Given the constraints of the above, this allows for a narrower scope in questions.  For argument's sake, this eliminates questions like, "What if Naruto could use the Sharingan?", since it is established in canon that he does not have access to the Sharingan, while also allowing a question like, "Could Boruto use the Byakugan?", given his direct parental lineage (and also his sister's ability to use it).
Third, any answers to the question must be supportable with source references from the original work, or an authority of the work, as necessary.  This means the venerable Is Ditto a Failed Mew Clone question could also be further bolstered with actual evidence from the creators of its intent, and any other hypotheticals that exist going forward may carry this forward.

Now, let's apply these concepts to the question at hand.

Is the question based on canonical facts already known?

The Devil Fruit curse does prohibit a consumer from being able to swim in water (or at least makes them powerless/weak when coming into direct contact with it).  This at least weakens the belief that a Devil Fruit could bestow one with the ability to swim in water, given that Devil Fruit's direct antithesis is water.  This doesn't cover other angles, such as through solid objects, or through land; however, the question isn't clearly specifying which of these is intended to be answered.  At best, I can interpret this particular question to be asking about "water-based swimming".

Does the question describe a scenario which could reasonably occur in canon?

No.  Given the limitations of Devil Fruit, it doesn't quite line up with expected reality.  This assertion discounts all loopholes in Devil Fruit's behavior - of note the ability to don a suit and avoid direct contact with the water - and the existence of artificial fruits.  The rationale in canon doesn't add up; no one would benefit from having a Devil Fruit that bestows upon them a superb ability to swim, when swimming in water would in all reality kill them.

Can an answer to this question be supported with references from the original work or an authority of the work?

An answer has been demonstrated on the question, with the obvious proviso that the user be on land.  However, that doesn't mean that the question actually meant that; swimming is an activity that goes with water, and that would be the angle that one who doesn't watch the show would presume.


With that said...I'm thinking that there is a reasonable way to answer this question, after the OP clarifies what they mean.  If they meant swimming on land, then that's clearly demonstrated and proven.  If they meant swimming in water, then assumptions and additional provisos must be made for the consumer.

user7579: Well, I'm in sort of a bind on this one. 
As I wrote in my answer to the question senshin linked (this one), I have a problem with the way we've handled hypothetical questions in the past. I feel like we've been too quick to stomp on them with the big spiked boots of "primarily opinion based". I feel like we've sometimes been too uptight about standards of evidence, in ways more fitting to a math or science site than to an anime site. I get why we've been that way, but I think we should stop interpreting everything so narrowly and allow a little wiggle room, a little space for judgment to take over, a little scope for creative and fun answers that use lateral thinking. I favor using the "Do you have any reason to think this aside from just pulling it out of your ass?" test: if a post can't pass that bar, close it, but if it's pretty much within the rules of the universe, give it a little latitude.
On the other hand, that question. If you take away the answer and just read the question itself, it doesn't come across as a question asked in good faith. It comes across as the user who asked it going "Tee hee, look at the loophole I came up with, aren't I clever?" 
Still, I think it's as much within the One Piece universe as questions like Could a blind person with a death note exchange half their life to see again? is within the Death Note universe, or Why was the world of SAO not dominated by good real-life fencers? (which, by the way, I really hated, since for me it was way too close to the border of the "ass pull" rule, but I did not vote to close it) is within the Sword Art Online universe. That is, in principle, there could be an answer to be found, either within canon, with some creative reapplication of principles found in canon, or in the last resort by going out of universe, and if we can't find such an answer, it's because we don't have enough information, which, as I argued on the other question, should be an acceptable answer for cases like this. (The Death Note question I linked is actually answered exactly in this way: there's not enough information, and the accepted answer says so.) But for this question, we don't even need to go that far, because we do have kaine's answer from within canon which strongly suggests that no such Devil Fruit can exist.
So, even though I think it's kind of an obnoxious question, and I'm not convinced the questioner meant it in good faith, I think we should ignore that and reopen it. Maybe some edits to the wording could make it less come off less "Look at me I'm so clever" and make it seem more on-topic.

93: <p><a href="https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/39501/what-if-someone-in-one-piece-eats-a-devil-fruit-that-makes-him-her-an-outstandin">This question</a> is written posed as a hypothetical that reads as opinion-based. They literally start by asking for the reader to imagine. On the other hand, it just happened that there was a canon answer to it, which seems to be more by chance than anything else. There are close votes for it being too opinion-based which, while being legitimate, would block off access to a good and decently upvoted answer. What should we do with questions like this? Should we have them rewrite the question so it's not hypothetical? Should we close the question for not meeting our standards?</p>
 102: <p>Let's start with defining some boundaries around questions that are hypothetical and go from there instead.  Then, we can see if the questions we want to answer which fit this mold are decent.</p>

<p>First, the question <strong>has to be based on canonical facts already known</strong>.  This means things like a character or environment's known abilities and limitations.  This excludes hypotheticals which ask open-ended questions based on <em>no</em> knowledge of canon.</p>

<p>Next, the question <strong>has to describe a scenario which could reasonably occur in canon</strong>.  Given the constraints of the above, this allows for a narrower scope in questions.  For argument's sake, this eliminates questions like, "What if Naruto could use the Sharingan?", since it is established in canon that he does not have access to the Sharingan, while also allowing a question like, "Could Boruto use the Byakugan?", given his direct parental lineage (and also his sister's ability to use it).</p>

<p>Third, any answers to the question <strong>must be supportable with source references from the original work, or an authority of the work, as necessary</strong>.  This means the venerable <a href="https://anime.stackexchange.com/q/2555/102">Is Ditto a Failed Mew Clone</a> question could also be further bolstered with actual evidence from the creators of its intent, and any other hypotheticals that exist going forward may carry this forward.</p>

<hr>

<p>Now, let's apply these concepts to <a href="https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/39501/what-if-someone-in-one-piece-eats-a-devil-fruit-that-makes-him-her-an-outstandin">the question at hand</a>.</p>

<ul>
<li><p><strong>Is the question based on canonical facts already known?</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>The Devil Fruit curse <a href="http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Devil_Fruit#Side_Effects_of_Devil_Fruits" rel="nofollow noreferrer">does prohibit a consumer from being able to swim in water</a> (or at least makes them powerless/weak when coming into direct contact with it).  This at least weakens the belief that a Devil Fruit could bestow one with the ability to swim in water, given that Devil Fruit's <em>direct</em> antithesis is water.  This <em>doesn't</em> cover other angles, such as through solid objects, or through land; however, the question isn't clearly specifying which of these is intended to be answered.  At best, I can interpret this particular question to be asking about "water-based swimming".</li>
</ul></li>
<li><p><strong>Does the question describe a scenario which could reasonably occur in canon?</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>No.  Given the limitations of Devil Fruit, it doesn't quite line up with expected reality.  This assertion discounts all loopholes in Devil Fruit's behavior - of note the ability to don a suit and avoid <em>direct</em> contact with the water - and <a href="http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Artificial_Devil_Fruit" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the existence of artificial fruits</a>.  The rationale in canon doesn't add up; no one would benefit from having a Devil Fruit that bestows upon them a superb ability to swim, when swimming in water would in all reality kill them.</li>
</ul></li>
<li><p><strong>Can an answer to this question be supported with references from the original work or an authority of the work?</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>An answer has been demonstrated on the question, with the obvious proviso that the user be on land.  However, that doesn't mean that the question actually <em>meant</em> that; swimming is an activity that goes with water, and that would be the angle that one who doesn't watch the show would presume.</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>

<p>With that said...I'm thinking that there is a reasonable way to answer this question, <strong><em>after</em></strong> the OP <strong>clarifies what they mean</strong>.  If they meant swimming on land, then that's clearly demonstrated and proven.  If they meant swimming in water, then assumptions and additional provisos must be made for the consumer.</p>
 7579: <p>Well, I'm in sort of a bind on this one. </p>

<p>As I wrote in my answer to the question senshin linked (<a href="https://anime.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3916/7579">this one</a>), I have a problem with the way we've handled hypothetical questions in the past. I feel like we've been too quick to stomp on them with the big spiked boots of "primarily opinion based". I feel like we've sometimes been too uptight about standards of evidence, in ways more fitting to a math or science site than to an anime site. I get why we've been that way, but I think we should stop interpreting everything so narrowly and allow a little wiggle room, a little space for judgment to take over, a little scope for creative and fun answers that use lateral thinking. I favor using the "Do you have any reason to think this aside from just pulling it out of your ass?" test: if a post can't pass that bar, close it, but if it's pretty much within the rules of the universe, give it a little latitude.</p>

<p>On the other hand, that question. If you take away the answer and just read the question itself, it doesn't come across as a question asked in good faith. It comes across as the user who asked it going "Tee hee, look at the loophole I came up with, aren't I clever?" </p>

<p>Still, I think it's as much within the <em>One Piece</em> universe as questions like <a href="https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/33621/could-a-blind-person-with-a-death-note-exchange-half-their-life-to-see-again">Could a blind person with a death note exchange half their life to see again?</a> is within the <em>Death Note</em> universe, or <a href="https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/38503/why-was-the-world-of-sao-not-dominated-by-good-real-life-fencers">Why was the world of SAO not dominated by good real-life fencers?</a> (which, by the way, I really hated, since for me it was way too close to the border of the "ass pull" rule, but I did not vote to close it) is within the <em>Sword Art Online</em> universe. That is, <strong>in principle</strong>, there could be an answer to be found, either within canon, with some creative reapplication of principles found in canon, or in the last resort by going out of universe, and if we can't find such an answer, it's because we don't have enough information, which, as I argued on the other question, should be an acceptable answer for cases like this. (The Death Note question I linked is actually answered exactly in this way: there's not enough information, and the accepted answer says so.) But for this question, we don't even need to go that far, because we <em>do</em> have kaine's answer from within canon which strongly suggests that no such Devil Fruit can exist.</p>

<p>So, even though I think it's kind of an obnoxious question, and I'm not convinced the questioner meant it in good faith, I think we should ignore that and reopen it. Maybe some edits to the wording could make it less come off less "Look at me I'm so clever" and make it seem more on-topic.</p>
