There are questions that need to be answered
Let's remember the point of the site;
- To build a Q&A index
- To answer questions that people ask
The first part of the playtest has been released. There has been a lot of questions and debating arising from the rules. Questions I asked were made to answer real questions that real people are asking and debating.
"There's no canonical answer because it's just a playtest"
That doesn't matter for two massive reasons. Firstly, when the rule is released it will be canonical. We need to understand what the rule means now, during the playtest, instead of worry about it at launch. The second reason is because when designers receive feedback they need to understand how players understood the wording of the rule, and how they played with it.
That's the whole point of a playtest.
"The answer is obvious"
These are real questions being debated by real people. High rep, highly experienced users are asking these questions. People in online communities like 4chan or reddit are debating them - there are multiple opinions and viewpoints. It's really jarring when someone says "ugh it's so obvious" then posts something incorrect or was confused about the answer before they read the posted answer!
"We don't know what the rules will look like on release"
That's fine, these are questions for the playtest, not the final release.
"There's only one possible answer"
Is there? At least 3 have been proposed;
- One D&D rules modify 5e rules wherever stated, but are otherwise the same.
- One D&D rules are completely standalone
- The playtest is incomplete and we fundamentally can't be answer questions about it
It only seems obvious in hindsight because you've read the answer and the reasoning behind it. This is something that people are confused about and are debating.
"The question is too simple"
We are fine with "Read Me The Book" kinds of questions elsewhere in the site, why are we only applying this to One D&D? There will be a lot of confusion around One D&D because it's new, it's exciting, it's unstable, it's less accessible than 5e. There will be more "simple" questions just because of that. Go back and look at any questions from a system a week old, they will be simple because people miss things and people misread and people get confused easily.
"You're just rep farming"
I have 1k rep, I'm happy to dump it as soon as I can. A mod can reset my rep. Downvoting everything I post because you don't want me to get rep is super lame. There are way easier ways to rep farm if that's what I cared about. I have tried to set my answers to community wiki to stop rep but this is an exploit apparently.
I will pledge now to dump my rep into bounties as soon as I can, ok? A mod can hold me accountable to that.
"I don't want to answer the question"
I don't agree with the concept of 'rep denial'. Sometimes you might feel as if you are competing with other people, but remember stacks are collaborative, not adversarial. If you leave a question you feel is too boring, too easy, not something interesting, or you don't have energy to answer, that's fine. Let someone else come and answer it. You can go answer a different question and get rep. Your 100k rep is no less impressive because someone else has 100k too.
We shouldn't moderate based on this doctrine of trying to prevent people earning rep. The focus should be building the archive and answering questions, rep was supposed to be a minigame, a side feature to show which users are active. It was not meant to be the primary goal of the site.
Back to basics
The point of the site is the Q&A index and to answer questions. Meta-site motivations like worrying about an answer becoming outdated within the next 2 years or the difficulty of the question or the rep of the asker are in direct contradiction to what our priorities should be.