Timeline for Can we affirm that RPG.SE embraces a plurality of playstyles?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://rpg.stackexchange.com/ with https://rpg.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/ with https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.rpg.stackexchange.com/ with https://rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Nov 27, 2014 at 23:03 | comment | added | Brian Ballsun-Stanton Mod | Ah, see, I don't view that as comment-as-dissent, so much as comment-as-rule-enforcement. The wording that I'm most likely to use is: "Aruging in comments is prohibited. If you have a better answer in a different way of playing, please provide it as an answer. For more details, see (this Q)" | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 17:48 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie | @BrianBallsun-Stanton The one place where comment-dissent might be useful is when an answer is egregiously engaging in One True Wayism... and votes are rallying around it. We have enough people on each side of the RAW/RAI/rulings tricotomy that a flame-provoking answer can get a lot of support. But! I am now quite happy with the response to this meta that I feel confident a gentle, "hey, this wording is unnecessarily divisive and could be improved while retaining its point, here's a meta about it," can be constructive, and not kick off a comment storm and get itself insta-deleted. | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 12:50 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 239 characters in body
|
| Nov 27, 2014 at 7:26 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @BrianBallsun-Stanton true enough. I'll do some editing when I get home. | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 7:25 | comment | added | Brian Ballsun-Stanton Mod | Yes. And we should channel all dissenting discourse into answers, since there aren't many other useful places where it's constructive. ... unless I'm missing something? | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 7:23 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @BrianBallsun-Stanton SevenSidedDie is trying to make this about site discourse rather than answers, hence the first paragraph. | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 6:35 | comment | added | Brian Ballsun-Stanton Mod | Perhaps "prove the quality of your play style by providing a better answer?" ... I dunno. I prefer "don't" instead of "take it to a chat room" | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 6:34 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 959 characters in body
|
| Nov 27, 2014 at 6:07 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @Brian I thought I was missing something - added. (I might still be missing a few somethings.) | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 6:07 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 314 characters in body
|
| Nov 27, 2014 at 5:48 | comment | added | Brian Ballsun-Stanton Mod | We probably want a bit in here that's "Just because we accept your view in an answer is no excuse for breaking site rules on arguing or discussion in comments." | |
| Nov 27, 2014 at 4:48 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 251 characters in body
|
| Nov 27, 2014 at 4:30 | history | undeleted | doppelgreener | ||
| Nov 27, 2014 at 4:30 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 859 characters in body
|
| Nov 26, 2014 at 0:14 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Nov 25, 2014 at 7:46 | history | deleted | doppelgreener | via Vote | |
| Nov 25, 2014 at 6:48 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 161 characters in body
|
| Nov 25, 2014 at 6:39 | history | answered | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |