Timeline for How to improve "Is awakened intelligence hereditary?"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 2017 at 6:14 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie Mod | @Bloodcinder It's a useful record of deliberations, if nothing else. And besides, the site wouldn't let it be deleted anyway. :) | |
| Feb 5, 2017 at 4:17 | comment | added | Bloodcinder | Thanks for voting to reopen. So, @SevenSidedDie, last question... Do I delete this meta question now that it's obsolete and (as far as I can tell) doesn't have any value for perpetuity? | |
| Feb 4, 2017 at 19:45 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | I am voting to reopen. Previous comment removed. | |
| Feb 4, 2017 at 19:45 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie Mod | @Korvin Yes, that was my mistake and caught already. See the two previous comments. | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 23:55 | history | edited | SevenSidedDieMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
revise in light of comments — there was an editing error that wasn't the fault of the asker, obviating the biggest “problem” identified
|
| Feb 2, 2017 at 23:30 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie Mod | @Bloodcinder Oh dear! Yes, that is my fault apparently. Yes, that appears to be it (and the abandoned-ness). In which case, it's probably salvageable as-is. | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 22:45 | comment | added | Bloodcinder | (Thanks for that help.) One thing to point out is that problem 2 didn't originally exist. The original author didn't mention an edition or provide a link. Comments which are no longer there seemed to indicate 5e, so someone added the dnd-5e tag. The link to the d20/3e SRD was actually added by... you. So I think that might have been an accident? I did correct that problem with an edit. So are you suggesting that the only remaining problem with the question is the matter of DM/player perspective? | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 22:39 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie Mod | @Bloodcinder I was actually looking for the link that I just commented, which isn't actually attached to any of those! It's a useful answer about [self-answering], but not on a question really about self-answering. :) But those might help, yes, and meanwhile our tagging is just that little bit more useful… | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 22:37 | comment | added | SevenSidedDie Mod | @Bloodcinder It's possible to do, though it can be a bit of a minefield. The “Self-answering is hard to do well” section of this answer to an unrelated meta question is my standard advice for this kind of self-answered question plan. Basically, write the question, let it bake in the glare of the community (revising if necessary) to make sure it doesn't need telepathy to answer, and then self-answer after a day or so. It still potentially takes that rep from some future new user… but they might never exist, too. It's a judgement call. | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 22:35 | comment | added | Bloodcinder | Oh, it looks like you added a bunch of tags to help me find questions about SAQ's. I'm going to read through all those and see if I can glean the necessary insight without bothering you to walk me through it. Thanks! | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 22:21 | comment | added | Bloodcinder | Thanks for the clarifications. In the event that the question does not get reopened due to intractable problems (basically, if the emergent intelligence says "no" after waiting a reasonable duration), would you think think it appropriate for me to post a clarified SAQ addressing the issues you've mentioned? Under the presumption I'm passionate about the question (which I kind of am--like I said, I think it's interesting). | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 22:17 | vote | accept | Bloodcinder | ||
| Feb 2, 2017 at 21:30 | history | answered | SevenSidedDieMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |