2
\$\begingroup\$

The question Is my interpretation of Vampire The Masquerade 5th ed combat correct? focuses on a single combat sequence — and the rulings related to it. This suggested edit by another user substantially restructures the question from a more experienced player's standpoint.

One other user and I thought it substantially improved the question and accepted the suggested edit (though differing in whether it should remain closed).

Later, a different user rolled the edit back.

Was this suggested edit appropriate? Or should it have been rejected?

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
\$\begingroup\$

I think it goes too far.

I don't disagree with Rose's edit reason at all:

I've tried to simplify it down a bit while maintaining relevancy - all questions and examples are relevant to combat in a Vampire: the Masquerade setting and deserve an answer.

But this simplification needs to come from the OP, because the extent of re-wording borders on (in my opinion) 'putting words in the OPs mouth'.

There is a balance between the OP getting what they want out of a question and making something for the community to benefit from as well.

But I err on the side of the OP, and preserving their wording, letting them decide on the rewording. And if they can re-word it themselves it will be closer to their core issue and helps train users to ask more focused questions themselves.

Teach a user to edit...

I also feel like sticking to the old adage about teaching people to fish over giving free fish away (I mean, sometimes that's ok but it's the exception not the rule).

If the question was answerable in it's previous state, and Rose's edit's were just polishing it then there's no harm. But if the OP won't be getting an (acceptably good) answer (closed or not), then jumping ahead and making the edit for them isn't that helpful.

If the OP wants to go and re-use Rose's wording, great it's still there in the revision history. At the same time they can pick one core issue (whether it's multiple questions or not), and move the rest to another answer even better.

But for now, we can wait for it to be edited by the user. There's no time limit on when a question can be re-opened. Lets wait and see what happens.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't see how rolling back or preventing the edit helps guide the user — they seem to now neither have fish, nor an understanding of how good fishing looks like. On the intent of wording, that is difficult - I was also worried about it, so I carefully read it and came to the conclusion that Rose pointed out exactly the points of confusion where clear and preserved the wording where the intent was unclear. \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Jan 5, 2022 at 16:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Akixkisu If the user is unclear after reading [asking] and taking the tour, then we need to work things out in the comments. They don't have fish yet, yes true. But learning this takes time and a community that works through mistakes. I wish SE had a way of annotating edits but alas that's not possible. \$\endgroup\$
    – AncientSwordRage
    Jan 5, 2022 at 17:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, but showing someone how to do it when we can do it, in particular with edits like this one is much more effective than telling them how to do it. I think there is room for both approaches and in this situation, I believe it to be the approach that is more likely to have conducive results :) \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Jan 5, 2022 at 21:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Akixkisu I may have to agree to disagree. There's too much going on in this question. The best end result is for this post to ask only one question. Tidying up/drastically rewording it only could send a mixed message about what was ok and what was not \$\endgroup\$
    – AncientSwordRage
    Jan 5, 2022 at 21:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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