9
\$\begingroup\$

The above question was edited from this state to this one. This can also be looked at on the revisions page. I am wondering if this edit was an edit too far, that is, if it made a significant enough change to the question without the OP's say so that it should be undone.

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

4
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, this was an edit too far

The original form of the question asked the following:

Now, I was wondering what was the reasoning behind the choice of making a single initiative roll at the start of the fight, was it for the sake of simplicity or is there something else?

Furthermore, what else do you think we should absolutely change to keep the game balanced?

The current form of the question, however, asks this:

But just how broad of a change is this? What else can we expect this house rule to change about the game?

The question went from asking about designer intentions and what other houserules should be implemented alongside the one in question to asking about what the ramifications of the houserule are. These are completely and fundamentally different questions, and so the edit was too significant and should be undone.

\$\endgroup\$
14
  • \$\begingroup\$ ...and with 66k karma, you could have rolled back too! \$\endgroup\$
    – Trish
    Jan 4 at 19:22
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Trish I asked here because somebody else, with 8k karma made the edit. I also saw it brought up in the TTRPG chat room and saw Akix's comment about disagreeing with the edit alongside not reverting it. Basically, there were enough confusing actions, to me, that I felt it warranted a Meta before taking it into my own hands. Though you can certainly disagree, and have done so XD \$\endgroup\$ Jan 4 at 19:39
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I prefer affirmative action in these cases - because it prevents a faulty reopening \$\endgroup\$
    – Trish
    Jan 4 at 19:44
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ That was me, sorry. The rationale behind the edit was our meta on rule intent questions stating that they're usually not actually rule intent questions, and this looked like it had a perfectly stackable question if not for the specter of rule intent. But if we're in agreement that it's fine and answerable as is, then yeah, I agree it was unnecessary. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 4 at 20:52
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @StopBeingEvil is correct in that this edit is not too far—if it allows the question to be answered where it would otherwise be closed. We shouldn’t make such a large edit if the question was fine as-is, but I think this answer is misleading because it suggests that an edit of this sort is unacceptable—that’s not only not the case, but an edit like this is explicitly what consensus agrees should happen (when otherwise the question needs closing as designer-intent). \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jan 5 at 15:12
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan An edit of this sort is unacceptable. To put words in the OP's mouth and rewrite their entire question into a new one is not okay. Also, what consensus are you referring to? Furthermore, the question was not solely about rules intent, it was, in fact, two questions in one, neither of which suited the Stack. Though feel free to write your own answer here, since you seem to already have one \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5 at 15:59
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Exempt-Medic I appear to have been incorrect; the consensus was that these questions “should be edited” in this manner, but who was doing the editing was left unstated, or suggested that the querent themselves do it. That said, I will be advocating for exactly these kinds of edits as necessary if the designer-intent ban is to continue: we close far too many good questions that could be trivially saved with this kind of mechanical edit to a question that entirely captures its spirit because of that rule. Calling that “putting words in the OP’s mouth” is ridiculous. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jan 5 at 16:17
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I will just stand by what I said "The question went from asking about designer intentions and what other houserules should be implemented alongside the one in question to asking about what the ramifications of the houserule are. These are completely and fundamentally different questions" I cannot call such an edit "mechanical" or "trivial" nor would I say it captures the spirit of the question. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5 at 16:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I feel that last comment came across worse than I wanted. I will say, I can very much see how a design intent question can be changed into a rule ramifications question. I just think in this particular case those questions are more substantially different than most other cases. Additionally, the latter part of the original question (though probably off-topic) was entirely removed. I feel a comment suggesting such an edit would have been a better idea here. I'll also just say that should we revisit design-intent (which it seems we might), I will be in the camp of having them be on-topic \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5 at 16:29
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @Exempt-Medic Editing questions to remove extra questions, to conform with the one question per Question policy, is acceptable. And that’s true even if the extra questions are themselves valid questions, which the extra here was... probably not. The problem with commenting to explain matters is that it’s a lot to throw at a new user, and more importantly, it’s a lot to fit in the limited space of a comment. Much easier to just demonstrate what we’re looking for with an edit, than try to cajole the user into reading our minds. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jan 5 at 16:39
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @Exempt-Medic “We refuse to answer your question like this, but there’s a way you could reword it so we’ll answer it no problem and give you the information you were looking for—but we won’t tell you what that is, here, read this multi-page discussion to figure it out” is not a good policy. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jan 5 at 16:40
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Exempt-Medic One approach I have used in cases where I was concerned an edit was too much, was to make the edit and then immediately roll it back—and leave a comment with a link to the revision history, explaining how I thought that version could work and how they could choose to go with it if they liked. But I still don’t think that was necessary here. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Jan 5 at 17:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan I agree that what you said at first is a bad policy. Which is why I would instead do exactly what you suggested in that last comment (FWIW, I mentioned this exact process in the General Chat). Though I can certainly see that also being confusing to a new user, and can understand not thinking that was necessary here. I'll think over this some more when I can and would like to thank you for the insights \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5 at 17:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan Seeing words put words in your mouth is a very disconcerting user experience, and one I think we should avoid. It's one thing to edit out something that can't be asked (with an explanation that said question is offtopic here). But you have to be very careful with rewording the question that is left. It's small comfort that a Question remains open if the Answers don't apply to the question they were trying to ask. I'd definitely say it's better err on the side of caution. If you can, make a comment. If it's a bigger change, the edit then revert option makes sense. \$\endgroup\$
    – trlkly
    Jan 10 at 0:47
4
\$\begingroup\$

Sorry for causing so much trouble, i have accepted the edit as it is now.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 13
    \$\begingroup\$ You have caused no trouble! Sometimes we (meaning other users) disagree on how a question fits within our guidelines, and that isn't your fault. Take a look around our site FAQ if you want some more in depth look at some of our guidance and practices. I hope you stick around! \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5 at 13:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've rolled your question back to the revision that was made focusing your question down a bit. Just double check it and leave a comment confirming that it accurately captures what you're after. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5 at 13:51
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ Thank you for dropping by meta and making your voice heard, since you are for sure an interested party. 👍😊 \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5 at 21:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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