Timeline for Stance on using D&D Beyond for references?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:22 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 4, 2019 at 0:08 | comment | added | V2Blast Mod | Yep, I too agree with the answer in its current form (though I think it's already covered by existing guidelines recommending against answers that simply link to something without elaboration on how it answers the question). | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 23:56 | comment | added | linksassin Mod | I'm glad you came around. You turned my down into an upvote. Because yes, you raise a lot of really good points in this answer about making answers accessible/understandable to users who don't have access paywall content. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 15:01 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @linksassin You've convinced me. I went 100% your way on the third party content, which is not my fight. Quoting cited content enough that readers can follow along is what this answer is about. I am agnostic to how that's done. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 14:59 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Remove advice to seek third party sites, since it is highly controversial and not my point
|
| Oct 3, 2019 at 14:42 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @linksassin can we meet halfway, at the idea that official sources should be adequately quoted so people can follow the discussion? | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 13:15 | comment | added | NotArch | The answer regarding Vecna needed the official source cited. The Wikipedia wasn't relevant as the entry in that doesn't utilize 5e only material (and in fact, doesn't use it at all.) Even "well curated" sites, like Roll20, can have errors in their transcription. Language, capitalization, and punctuation all matter and even Roll20 has errors in that. Citing directly from the source is the standard, and not linking to sources that provide behind-paywall content is not something we should be doing. Recommending book only citations is absolutely fine, though! | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:40 | comment | added | linksassin Mod | Citing rulings from other questions or forums as support for your answer is fine. Citing the rule from them is not. What happens if they edit out their rule? Or how do I know they didn't paraphrase it? What if the cite gets a take-down notice from WotC? Official rules are available and we should be linking to them and citing the book if possible as per Rubik's answer. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:37 | comment | added | linksassin Mod | I'm sorry if my vote hurt you. That isn't my intention but I won't be changing it as long as you suggest 3rd party citations over official materials. The last thing I want to see is someone citing official rules off wikipedia or some well curated forum. This question is specifically about citing official rules and it is my firm belief that they should only be cited from the official sources. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:33 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | See, there's no "likely" here. Any particular site is, or it isn't properly curated. That link you gave didn't condemn all sites, just danddwiki. The last "better than dndbeyond" link I found was Wikipedia. I think we can trust the rpg.se community (not individually, but as a team working together via comments and editing) to police bad links. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:32 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @linksassin the reason I feel hurt by your downvote it relies on a statement that is a wild arm-wave generalization. "Any" site? "Likely to be"? Really, what about StackExchange? "oh, well, that's different". | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:22 | comment | added | linksassin Mod | 9/10 of your answer is good. The problem is that any site that you could reference for rules other than the official ones is likely untrustworthy or piracy. See this question on danddwiki for just one example. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:19 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:17 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @linksassin That's less than 1/10 of what I said. Nonetheless, I've revised the last pragraph which I hope will be to your satisfaction. That said, I think you're stretching to equate all third-party links to piracy, and please don't put that on me. Surely people are allowed to talk about D&D... | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:12 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 99 characters in body
|
| Oct 3, 2019 at 0:25 | comment | added | linksassin Mod | I have to downvote this as long as it is suggesting to cite 3rd party sources. These are unreliable at best and blatantly illegal at worst. A broken link to the official source is better than promoting pirated content. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 20:29 | comment | added | NotArch | You should flag those! Or put up a comment asking them to add the page citation (or cite it yourself if you can.) | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 20:29 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @NautArch Constantly. If something is referenced I'd say a 20-30% chance the reference will be dndbeyond, and broken, and I will have to go on a snipe hunt to see what they're talking about. If you logged into dndbeyond and they set a cookie, it would be impossible for you to notice that; it would seem like a normal link to you. That's back to, y'know, the "club members" thing. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 20:23 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 344 characters in body
|
| Oct 2, 2019 at 20:20 | comment | added | NotArch | Has anyone done that, though? | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 20:18 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | Oh, silly me, sorry. Yes, that's fine; I'm saying "don't cite the link then say "have fun reading it" | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 20:17 | comment | added | NotArch | I'm saying that a quote without a citation on where it's from is problematic. If you're quoting, you need to cite your source so that others can find it, use it, verify it, etc. Are you saying a quote without a citation is enough? | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 19:54 | comment | added | NotArch | I don't think there are any legitimate 3rd party sources of paywall content. That's not a great recommendation. Seems like you're advocating more for only cite the physical books. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 19:52 | comment | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | @NautArch Okay. Edited. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 19:52 | history | edited | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 422 characters in body
|
| Oct 2, 2019 at 19:28 | comment | added | NotArch | I'm still a little unclear as to what your actual answer is here. Are you saying don't link at all to the paywall content on dndbeyond? DOn't like to the free open access content? Only cite physical books and pages? Don't cite at all? | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 19:18 | comment | added | NotArch | It's also important to note that while links to dndbeyond may reside, the relevant text is almost always quoted when it's necessary to include. When not, the link (or book/page citation) is just there as supplemental to show the legitimacy. In the answer that may have started this for you, this is indeed the case. And your recommendation to link to wikipedia does not provide the information relevant to 5e, but older lore. It's the 5e rules that are important and why i quoted and linked (and V2 cited.) | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 18:25 | comment | added | Alex P | I really like your answer as an illustration that different users can have different relationships to the source texts even above and beyond modes of access. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 17:53 | history | answered | Harper - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 4.0 |