8
\$\begingroup\$

In a recent meta question, we had a user bringing a fair point:

I have read the thread. But does a meta-discussion overshadow the official page I've cited? Isn't that illogical? How would a user know what's on-topic if they have to search the Meta site first?

While the page mentioned (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic) does not explicitly state that rule intent is on-topic, it also does not state otherwise. It is also not stated in the questions to avoid. However, we have deemed them off-topic for about two years already.

Should we include the information on the Tour, or in some of the help pages?

Note: This has been discussed in this question: Should we add 'designers intent' questions to the "don't ask" questions list on the tour? - but two out of the three reasons given by doppel seem to be dated by now, so I wanted to revisit such idea.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Following this discussion, there has (finally) come a declaration from the mods regarding designer-reasons questions being allowed – see the latest Meta post: Are questions about rule intent on-topic? [2022] \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast StaffMod
    Jul 28, 2022 at 17:39

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6
\$\begingroup\$

Do it in a similar way of Game recs.

In the section "Before you ask your question, though, consider the following:", we have the following statement about game recommendation:

If you're looking for a game mechanic or technique that does thing X, ask for how to do X, not for "games that have X". Asking for a game, or a list of games, is a game recommendation question, which are off-topic.

A similar bullet could be included for designer intent/rule intent, based on mxyzplk's answer. A draft suggestion of mine:

If you are trying to understand a rule, ask for how changing that rule in some way will impact the game, clearly stating what problem you want to solve by changing that rule or what problem that rule is causing you. Asking simply for the intent behind a rule is considered off-topic (link to the relevant meta).

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ I like your wording, but I’m concerned that the more we add there, the less likely it all is to be read. Are new users head-butting against this policy often enough to justify this? I’m not sure that they are... Like, game-rec is a huge topic and a thing a lot of people want to know, I get its special position. Is designer-intent the same? \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jul 3, 2020 at 21:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I agree with you in the sense I don't know the answer to that - which is one of the reasons to this discussion. I believe it's not often enough, but at the same time, I feel it is awkward to have policies buried in meta discussions. I'm personally inclined to explicitly state such policies somewhere on the main page, but it's not a super strong opinion. \$\endgroup\$
    – HellSaint
    Jul 3, 2020 at 21:32
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @HellSaint I wonder if the main page can somehow link to the incredibly helpful FaQ... \$\endgroup\$
    – Exempt-Medic
    Jul 5, 2020 at 6:06
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Medix2 There is a space on the /help main page that is diamond editable (and currently blank), though I'm not sure what we'd want there so that should probably be it's own meta discussion. Do you want to start it, or shall I? \$\endgroup\$
    – Someone_Evil Mod
    Jul 5, 2020 at 15:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ The related question: So there's this space on the main help center page. Should we put something on it? \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast StaffMod
    Jul 6, 2020 at 19:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .