I would like a post reopened I had put on hold for "unclear what you're asking" here:How do the Injury and Death mechanics work (Flow Chart)

I fear I will get the same response here as I assume it will be the same select few that make the decision sadly. However its worth a few minutes to try.

My argument:

1)First of all even if it was unclear of what I was asking(it's not), the community as a whole supported the posts that alone should be enough for it to remain open, as up voting is an indication of people finding the post helpful and in essence that being what we are trying to achieve.

2) As the majority of individuals that put the post on hold are very often in the same chat run on a regular basis, it could have been the pressense of a comrade mentality that drove some if not all to put the post on hold, we can't say for sure that was the case we also cannot rule it out.

3) The posts question was "How do the Injury and Death mechanics work (Flow Chart)" The result was a flowchart detailing the Injury and Death mechanics. The question was how do the mechanics of a particular system work.

4) To what end will putting the post on hold achieve, Imo its stopping others in the community from better the post with input and potential improvements to the answer.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Working on the assumption that your question and answer make sense, how are they not a duplicate of the original question? \$\endgroup\$
    – Miniman
    Dec 15, 2014 at 13:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ The original question was a request for flaws in the design of my graph, after waiting for a lengthy amount of time I had gone away integrated the responses and suggestion to the question. The second post is a self answering question that stated a much more complete guide with additional content. If you would like to make a comparison the initial post was a request for input and validation. The second post was not a request for outside validation it was a self answering question that I had a complete answer for its intention was to give knowledge to the community as a whole not take knowledge. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 13:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ As a reflection of the nature of the individuals that put the post on hold(Some of the individuals atleast), I have noted many down votes have been made since I made this post. I implore any individual with the ability to see whom is up voting and down-voting to view this and it am almost sure you will see downvotes from the same individuals in correlation with the time this was posted. These are displays of power not moderation \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 13:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ Are there actual staff one can go to, people above the community elected individuals? \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 13:59
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @bennyboy Yes, there are the owners of the site. If you feel that there's actual abuse, they'll take your concerns seriously. However, you're kinda jumping the gun. If I were to give a reasoned step-by-step discussion of the issue, would you disregard it because my name is on the "On Hold" banner? 'cause I'd be happy to walk you through the site's experience-based policies (despite not being an elected moderator; I'm just an enthusiastic Stack citizen), but I don't want to waste your time and mine. \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Dec 15, 2014 at 14:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ I would not disregard it at all. I can't guarantee I would see it as satisfactory however that would completely depend on the counter argument. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 14:04
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Please read this, this, and maybe this for some context on how Stack Exchange approaches this kind of thing. It's based on years of hard-won experience in what makes for quality site content, and the Stack's Q&A format is very different from a forum's. These are living guidelines from years of community experience, not the invention of individuals on RPG.SE. \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Dec 15, 2014 at 15:18
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Your claim that “the community as a whole supported the posts” is inaccurate. Your question is currently rated -1, with six downvotes – that is a lot for a question, particularly by a new user. That is very much the opposite of community support. And the votes on the answer are irrelevant, as the question is what was closed. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Dec 15, 2014 at 15:22
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I've learned on other Stack sites that self-answered questions need more work than you've provided. We aren't a site for posting RP references: You should word the question as if you don't know the answer, provide full context and explain what and why you need the answer. The question needs to stand as a quality question without an answer. Then answer the question as if you are not the asker - don't fill in gaps of detail that are not obvious in the question. Your answer provides a lot more detail than I (and I assume others) would respond with to what little you have provided as a question. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 21:31

3 Answers 3


The presence of an answer should not “save” a question.

If you had asked your question with no answer, it would have been closed for being far too broad. This site exists (in part) for clarifying the rules, not trying to replace the PFSRD. Questions about the injury and death mechanics are perfectly valid; questions about the entirety of it is too broad, and too much trying to do the PFSRD’s job. It’s just not what this site is designed for. Just like English Language & Usage is not trying to be a dictionary (and questions like “what does ‘X’ mean?” get closed there on a regular basis), we are not trying to be a game manual. The correct response to “In detail how do the Injury and Death mechanics work?” is “Go read the PFSRD, and come back here with specific questions if you still have them.”

And the fact that you supplied an answer is not supposed to inform the closing process: the question is still far too broad.

  • \$\begingroup\$ The sheer nature of some people on this site, rather happy to continually use buzz words like too broad not a good fit is insane. The zealot behaviour of some of the members boggles my mind and makes me wonder if I should bother replying, its all just subject to an opinion in this case the majority's opinion. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 15:09
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @bennyboy So by “some members” you mean... everyone? Everyone who has bothered to respond to you? You have literally zero community support, that I can see. Because you do not understand the community or what this site is about. Which is OK, but insulting people who try to explain to you what’s going on and why is not an appropriate response. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Dec 15, 2014 at 15:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ The community is anyone who uses the site, not the regulars alone, I am sorry but they are just buzz words without substance opinion based. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 15:12
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @bennyboy You've been directed to the help center specifically, in addition to having it and the tour easily available through the interface. That includes helpful pages like this one! There is no inaccessible jargon being used, just the language common to all Stack Exchange citizens. If it confuses you, ask for assistance rather than attacking us and assuming there's some conspiracy. \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Dec 15, 2014 at 15:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @bennyboy You just said many people are using the same words. Is it possible the reason they are doing so is because it is true? \$\endgroup\$
    – Aaron
    Dec 15, 2014 at 15:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ I am aware of the help centre and I have been directed to it, its still just opinion based buzz words. "if a post can have multiple answers its probably to broad" many posts can have many answers many that are not closed based on x members opinions. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 15:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Could be or it could not be the popular opinions not necessarily the correct one. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 15:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ In addition whom is to say its the popular one it can just be the pinion of the regular members of x time \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 15:19
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @bennyboy It’s really not “opinion-based buzzwords,” those are literally the norms and rules of the Stack Exchange network as a whole and of this site in particular. Your question broke the rules for an appropriate question, and it was closed as a result. You can argue that it didn’t break those rules (but this question doesn’t do that) or you can argue against those rules (but this question doesn’t do that, either, it just insults the community members here for having them), but you cannot just attack the people who enforced the rules in good faith and expect favorable results. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Dec 15, 2014 at 15:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ We are not going to get anywhere hear.... So I am going to go... If nothing else thanks for your time :) \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 15:21

Looking at your question and self answer it is a little too broad.

While it is very useful to have all of the information you compiled in one place instead of in multiple pages all over the place, it doesn't really fit the Q&A format of this specific site. This would make an incredibly well received post on forums as it is very well put together.

Asking for an explanation on an entire core rule is too broad because there are many sub questions such as "How does CON effect how far in the negative your HP can go" "What is HP?" There are also many answers. Taking a look at the help for closed questions the too broad says.

too broad - if your question could be answered by an entire book, or has many valid answers, it's probably too broad for our format

There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow down the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I would have to disagree, the question asked for a structured answer and one was given, there wasn't multiple valid answers.There can be one answer as a cohesive whole, one answer I have given. Perhaps I have missed something out perhaps, that is the same for any post \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 14:10
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ +1. Whether you have an answer ready or not, if someone asked "explain how the whole pathfinder damage system works to me" I'd close it. It's not a real, scoped question. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Dec 15, 2014 at 14:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ That's a shame as one single answer can answer that in the form of a flow char or diagram if someone tried hard enough. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 14:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ Its also a reflection of the level of detail put in to an answer, many questions can be answered as from a whole book or from a few sentences. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 14:13
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Add that answer as an answer to your previous question, then, instead of polluting with a duplicate. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Dec 15, 2014 at 14:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ Any way thanks for your time, I can see this was indeed a waste as its primarily the same people whom have one opinion deciding. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 14:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ I will however be following up on harassment as I do feel some "Moderators" have abused there power in some forms. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 14:16
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @bennyboy What moderator action has taken place? mxyzplk voted to close your question, but since he was the fifth person to do so, his vote carried exactly zero extra rate as a result of his moderator status (it takes five votes to close for non-moderators); has he even commented on anything else? The other people who voted were not moderators, just users who found the question problematic. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Dec 15, 2014 at 14:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ Hi KRyan, my post was put on hold, I must admit I was unsure whom was a moderator and whom wasn't I see now mxyzplk is as he/she has a diamond. The responses from mxyzplk are just the ones given above as comments. his/her second post was in regards to duplicates as such its not a question of "unclear what you're asking" It seems \$\endgroup\$ Dec 15, 2014 at 15:02
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ @bennyboy There is a problem here in that your question was problematic for many reasons, but it only displays the reason that got the most votes. It’s kind of a duplicate, definitely rather broad, kind of unclear, and also rather off-topic. Any of those could have been valid reasons to vote-to-close. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Dec 15, 2014 at 15:09

It would make more sense to self-answer your existing question with the corrected flowchart than to start a new question solely for the purpose of self-answering.

The virtue of your original question is that its problem — "is this right?" — is fairly narrow. It's also very to-the-point and understandable.

If you really want to fix this question (not just demand it be reopened without having to do anything), then you have to address the reasons why this question was closed and the other wasn't.

The virtue of your first question — narrowness and clarity —  is a virtue that your new question doesn't share. It's a borderline question, yes, and maybe if it was borderline in only one way it would be OK to leave open, but it's borderline in several different ways that add up to one big "too many problems to keep open" judgement:

  1. It's broad, but on the borderline: some people will think it's not too broad, other will think it is.

    (This is largely what's tripping you up, I think. You don't think it's too broad, and are perplexed why it should be closed just because some people do think it is. If this was the only problem the question had, maybe you'd be right, but there's more.)

  2. It's very, very similar to the last question you asked. A question that's so similar to the last question someone asked is a red flag to vote-to-hold-privilege users that there is a problem. Holding is often the solution for when there's a problem with a question, because that gives the question time to be fixed (before answers start getting submitted and add to the confusion). And in the case that it can't be fixed, then the hold stays.

    I realise you object that the hold prevents people from increasing knowledge by answering the question... but there is no reason to make that objection. If they have an answer that is good for this question, the same answer is good for your last question. Because your original question is still open, there is nothing stopping people from adding their knowledge on this subject.

  3. It's unclear what your exact problem is. It sounds like you have a good understanding of the death and injury rules (if you didn't, you wouldn't be able to create the flowchart), so when you post a question asking for an explanation of everything about death and injury it's very obvious that the real problem behind posting the question is not being revealed to us.

    You are perhaps having trouble with certain corner cases, but you're not asking about those corner cases you're having trouble with. You're perhaps having trouble with when certain rules should be invoked, or in what order of precedence, but you're not asking about the exact things you're unsure of.

    This is why some people have said your problem is unclear. Maybe it's borderline, and not actually unclear enough to put it on hold, but enough people think it is.

Any one of these borderline problems with the question would be enough for some people to vote to hold the question. And you're right, if there was only one of these, it might be unreasonable to put it on hold and then keep it on hold. But all of these borderline problems, taken together, add up to needing to put it on hold. The hold period is necessary to figure out what this question is about and whether it really needs to exist, or whether it can exist in another form.

That process of figuring out what to do with a question is required by the community in order to keep our questions and answers to a high quality, and isn't something we compromise on. That may be frustrating. And yes, you're right — it's based on people's opinions. But that's our job: voting up, down, or close based on our subjective judgement. People being of the opinion that the question should be closed is the system working — it would be impossible for a voting system to function without those opinions.

So, unfortunately, it's not our job to reopen questions without having our opinions changed. It's your job to convince the community why the question fits our standards. To do that, you need to accept that our standards are not really negotiable, and then work with us to improve everyone's understanding of the question. Only once the question is cleared up can it be re-judged and it might be reopened. And that process of understanding can't start until you're willing to stop complaining that it was closed, and start helping us understand what value the question has in being a question. To do that, you have to solve at least one of the three problems above (which may incidentally solve one or both of the others):

  1. Tell us why this question isn't too broad. Yes, you've answered it already with a long but not-too-long answer, but that doesn't prove that the best answer is actually short enough to fit on our site. Since we care about getting the best answer, the question must be not-broad enough so that the best answer is not a book or just repeating a reorganised version of the SRD.

  2. Tell us why this question is useful, when the other question seems to do the job already.

  3. Tell us exactly what part you're having trouble with. Our format does much better with questions about very specific problems, and because our format does poorly otherwise, it's become part of our requirements for open questions that they be specific and clear about that specific problem.


You must log in to answer this question.

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