In the comments to this question, a user mentions that he feels duty-bound to downvote.
If I understand the arguments correctly, he basically feels that questions that might encourage a neologism (or a “pseudoword hitherto unrecognised in the English lexicon” if you dislike neologisms) should be pre-emptively downvoted.
Obviously English has acquired many words in its lexicon, apart from simple borrowing, use of its productive linguistic aspect. Every word that was thus formed went through a stage of being a “pseudoword” for some, a neologism for others and “just the word I needed” for yet others.
I do accept it is a valid point of discussion whether ELU should in any way assist, play a role or provide a platform for this process. Rather than calling questions that invoke this process dangerous, though, I would like to have an open discussion on that point.
For good measure, it seems that answering those kind of potentially dangerous(!) questions should also be discouraged by means of a similar principle-based downvote.
It is interesting to notice that apart from the very first comment, no fully fledged "made-up" words have been suggested, in comments nor in answers. And even the one in the first comment was deemed acceptable by the user that rejected the making up of words.
Still, question and answer have to be downvoted.
If it is acceptable to "punish" certain types of questions with (for now one, but maybe later more) "principle"-downvotes, isn't it better to not allow these kind of questions at all, and make this very clear? If the community does not want (potentially) linguistic productive questions, it would not harm to make this very clear.
The situation seems to be that if the word or phrase that is requested does not (yet) exist, you will be "punished" for it with downvotes. Of course, if you knew in advance, you would not have needed to ask the question in the first place. So you get downvoted without having been able to avoid it.
That gives me a strange feeling...