Timeline for Are campaign research questions on topic? [2012]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 27, 2012 at 19:27 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | One major point of agreement: we don't actually get many of these. It sounds like Writers and GameDev did, and had to aggressively respond. We can well afford to be unaggressive about these questions because they're few. To the contrary, I don't think we can afford to be aggressive, so we should add some "be gentle, these aren't really common and we don't need to push hard against them; if in doubt it can usually just be fixed with editing to reframe the question in a gaming context" to the FAQ guidance, if it gets added. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 19:22 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | I think the consensus isn't that we need a site rule, but that we've been, collectively, taking a muddled and unsatisfactory approach to certain questions. Clarifying our thinking on this is useful, in the same way that the good/bad-subjective and community wiki discussions gave a useful framework for evaluating questions (and then voting on them). We're educating ourselves again through discussion, this time on exactly why these questions do so poorly here. It'll result in a "hey, think about this while voting your conscience," I think. Good FAQ material. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 19:10 | comment | added | mxyzplk Mod | I will note that people should be voting their conscience regardless of "site rules" - site rules are for when the normal voting system breaks down for some reason. They should be the exception handlers, not what is driving action. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 19:07 | history | edited | mxyzplkMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 226 characters in body
|
| Jul 27, 2012 at 19:05 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | I think we do need a policy, but of the guidance sort rather than a hard rule like a ban. That's why I like the wording of the proposed FAQ amendment—it requires thoughtful judgement, which fits the voting system. And I think the river travel question would get much better answers on history.SE than it's gotten here—under the proposed FAQ "policy" I would've voted for migrating, and seen what others thought. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 19:01 | history | edited | mxyzplkMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 48 characters in body
|
| Jul 27, 2012 at 18:34 | comment | added | mxyzplk Mod | The sailing question wasn't the greatest, but the answers have sucked out of proportion. The bounty "clarification" makes it worse, I do agree. I think the consensus we're coming to here is you are free to suggest that better questions might be found for certain topics on e.g. history.se, but not to "demand" reasons why or have policy-backed close reasons. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 18:28 | history | edited | mxyzplkMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 188 characters in body
|
| Jul 27, 2012 at 17:47 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | I think general permission/policy to ask "could you clarify how your question need a gaming-specific answer that you can't get on history.SE?" (without being shouted down) is useful for framing requests for askers to clarify their historical gaming questions, if we get nothing else out of this discussion. All that said, no downvote from me because I thoroughly aggree with the stuff under Are There A Lot Of Them? and RPG.SE Is Not RPG Rules SE Or Fantasy SE. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 17:42 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | Disagree. The river travel question generated some terrible answers (still has no answer that's directly game-useful), and the question itself was of the form "give me the history—I'll figure out the gaming application myself." That's the poster child for a question that should go on history.SE. I'd say we should be lenient, but watch for the occasional slam-dunk migrate question. That said, yeah—close votes are all we need for this. Pragmatically, this meta question will just serve to avoid arguing in comments when people explain a close vote, since they can bring it here. | |
| Jul 27, 2012 at 16:11 | history | answered | mxyzplkMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |